Talk:U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo clarifies 'nuke Mecca' comments
How do I clean up the title? -- Nyarlathotep 10:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- The title mispelling (responces should be responses) can be fixed using ´rename´ but I not sure if that affects the main news page placement.
if he didn't say "nuke mecca" then why is it in the title? if he did, it should be in the article.
Tancredo did not himself actually say "nuke Mecca", but he did in so many words make threats to that effect to galvanize the issue of a US response. The Northeast Intelligence Network focused the news issue around the sound bite. And I believe the double quotation marks usage is a perfect application of it in this particular headline. -Edbrown05 12:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Based on my reading of the transcript, it doesn't appear Tancredo advocates nuking anything... He simply said "bombing"... Would a headline such as U.S. Rep Tom Tancredo clarifies statement on bombing of Muslim holy sites work? --Chiacomo (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- You absolutely correct Chiacomo, I missed that--> was focusing on the Northeast Intelligence Network coverage. -Edbrown05 18:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- He said "take out their holy sites" and affirmed that a holy site in question was a city. His later comments have clarified that he was thinking allong the lines of Cold War style M.A.D., which is why he has not appologized. But your obviously correct that the article should quote the M.A.D. comments to justify it title, I'll do it tonight if no one gets to it first. Alternatively, using 'bomb Mecca' would allow us to avoid improving the article without creating ambiguity. I prefer 'nuke Mecca' since it was the subtext all the right wing groups lached onto, and they are a big part of the story. Anyway, the article is quite fair to Tancredo since it mentions that the comment was made in the limited context of Ferah's christian rapture dreamword.
This title is clearly misleading, it should be "destroy mecca" not NUKE. Funny how you people dont complain about Ted Kennedy's ramblings, only those of conservatives. Wikinews has far to many young liberals, and it makes me sick
President Bush referred to our invasion as a "crusade" years ago. I always said he is a brilliant man with great analytical foresight; plus he majored in history. He is a great and powerful Oz and only now is the direction of his leadership beginning to come into focus(with this story). Paulrevere2005 14:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Uh, Paul, George W. Bush failed out of college with a C- average, and can't even pronounce the word "nuclear". -- NGerda 04:17, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Uhh, he did not fail out of college, he graduated, with a slightly higher GPA than John Kerry. And his job is not to be a public speaking professional, its to be a professional manager. By looking at your picture I assume you are a young liberal fool with no understanding of politics, and probably voted for Ralph Nader?
- Karl Rove & co.'s intentional packaging of W as being dumb is just another lie,pretense, Nick.[]. People forgive "mistakes" (WMD); and by pretending to be dumb, he gets away with premeditated crimes that people would not forgive if they thought he actually knew in advance how the dominoes would fall (Iraq invasion). Bush graduated from Yale with a 77 average ( a B+ by Yale standards)and an 88 in anthropology and philosophy.[], plus he even went on to get an MBA at Harvard[]. He's one smart cookie. His English language garble(in public) is just part of the disguise; plus, it gives him more appeal to the redneck voting block... a "down home" regular kind of fella' package.
Paulrevere2005 12:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Nuke them nowEdit
Why wait? The wahabbist in Saudi Arabia have done so much already, that we are justified in turning that entire country into a sheet of glass. Most of you have no understanding of Islam, or you would realize that it is NOT a tolerant religion. How many of you know anything about prophet mohhamed? He was a violent mudering raping illiterate tyrant. -- Anonymous
- If you use those standards, Christianity is NOT a tolerant religion. Just read the Bible! A third of the Bible is about God telling the Israelite to slaughter whole civilizations in his name. -- NGerda 03:19, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
- P.S. "Nuke them now" is not very tolerant. -- NGerda 03:21, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
I never claimed to be a fan of Christianity either. Personally I despise most religions. I am also not a very tolerant person when it comes to dealing with those who wish to kill me, because they think god says they should. In those situations, I want to kill them first, because I think I should.
- "War supporting Christians" is an oxymoron..since Jesus taught "love your enemy", "turn the other cheek" and "violence begets violence". So these folks who call themselves Christian and want to go to war or stay in a war..you know..the "finish the mission" types.. are about as Christian as Judas was. Paulrevere2005 12:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Just as militant Muslims are a minority. So punishing all Muslims for any attacks on the USA (or wherever) by other Muslims isn't fair to put it mildly. Remember when Muhammed Ali was asked at the ruins of the WTC how it felt to have the same religion as those who did that, his reply was "How does it feel to have the same religion as Hitler?" Was WW II a reason to bomb the Vatican? Let me refrase that. NUKE THE VATICAN! How does that sound? DirkvdM 13:33:56, 2005-07-25 (UTC)
- Well, your nuke the vatican comment is quite dumb considering that they don't preach hatred the way Saudi Arabai does, and Roman Catholics are not terrorists. Saudi Arabia is a wahhabist only fundamental islamic state, they export hatred. Since we won't be nukeing them anytime soon, the least we can do is declare wahhabist islam a terrorist orgaization, then destroy all the madrasas in many countries. We should hunt down and kill all those Islamic "preachers" who preach hatred to us. Why not plant bombs in their mosques and give them a taste of their own medicine? Ultimately if it comes down to us vs. them, we can wipe them out. Of course, we need to hurry up and become much less dependent on oil first, so SUPPORT FUSION RESEARCH, SO WE CAN LATER NUKE SAUDI ARABIA!! (by the way DirkvdM, be sure to go there beforehand to be a human shield)
Separate user with suggestion of banning all children from editing this article (those who have chosen to only contribute pejoratives and partisanship over the stated functions of of wiki media in their abuse of this talk page as a message board to spread vitriol and to ensure that the article is not then defaced in retaliation. -NO ACCOUNT
"Christianity is NOT a tolerant religion. Just read the Bible! A third of the Bible is about God telling the Israelite to slaughter whole civilizations in his name." Yes, the Israelites, namely the Jews. Old Testament = Judaism. New Testament = Christianity (unless you are one of those so-called "fundamentalist Christians" from America or Northern Ireland who find that an intellectually challenging distinction).
As for Hitler being a Catholic...True but then most Nazis were lower middle class Protestants and the Nazis' main conservative opposition from the start was the Catholic Centre Party, so again a little bit of truth thrown into an argument is being used to draw a false conclusion.
The Catholic church does indeed have a great many faults. I don't think that one can really say though that Hitler reflects it's doctrines on social justice. Nor can one compare the "do good to those that hate you" of Jesus to the psychopathic rantings of the Arabian desert preacher. Nor is Christianity confined to one ethnic group. There's no Law of Return to "Christian" states.
184.108.40.206 14:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)