The lesser of two evils - what will the West choose ?

[aneeshm]

An interesting question I was mulling over recently .

It is only a matter of time before Muslim radicals obtain nuclear weapons .

When the Western world is faced with a stark choice - either they deport their Muslims to some Muslim country , or they risk nuclear strikes on their cities - what will it choose ? If these are the ultimate choices offered to you , what would you choose ? What is the lesser of two evils - sending Muslims packing or having your cities nuked ?

[SlowwHand]

Indians have nukes.

[aneeshm]

I'm talking about terrorist outfits getting nukes . They are going to get them in some time , you know .

And there the problem arises .

Of course , both of these options are quite horrible , but you'll have to choose one of them .

[SlowwHand]

The USA is based on giving refuge to immigrants. There is no choice.

[Barnabas]

The USA should just nuke mecca and medina if a western city is nuked

[SlowwHand]

A western city? Not just a U.S. city? I can hear the outcry over that already.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
The USA should just nuke mecca and medina if a western city is nuked

That's actually a viable threat . But Mecca is not enough - Medina has to be threatened , too , if the deterrent is to be effective .

[Nubclear]

I know a couple Indians who used to be knee-jerk anti-Muslim. They were the ones seriously espousing "lol all muslims are bad people LOL", just like you.

While travelling in India, one in their group was killed by a Hindu fanatic for "colluding" with the Muslims by leaving India.

They aren't so anti-Muslim now as they are anti-Religion.

[Lul Thyme]

Re: The lesser of two evils - what will the West choose ?

Originally posted by aneeshm
An interesting question I was mulling over recently .

It is only a matter of time before Muslim radicals obtain nuclear weapons .

When the Western world is faced with a stark choice - either they deport their Muslims to some Muslim country , or they risk nuclear strikes on their cities - what will it choose ? If these are the ultimate choices offered to you , what would you choose ? What is the lesser of two evils - sending Muslims packing or having your cities nuked ?

I have no idea why the choice would be to deport or get nuclear striken...
Why would deporting Muslims prevent the risk of nuclear strike?

But even besides that, you have a fixation.
Seriously.

[SlowwHand]

aneeshm is the Indian equivalent of Mobius. Can't clean up his own house for criticizing other's.

[Nubclear]

Yes, well, it's annoying. I know many Muslims who are good people, and many Hindus who are perhaps not. Saying, even underhandedly, that all Muslims are terrorists is quite offensive.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
The USA should just nuke mecca and medina if a western city is nuked

Originally posted by aneeshm
That's actually a viable threat . But Mecca is not enough - Medina has to be threatened , too , if the deterrent is to be effective .

How about we just nuke Mecca, Medina, Jerusalem, the Vatican, and the Ganges River and just be done with it all before it gets out of hand?

[Jon Miller]

As long as we don't nuke America!

JM

[bipolarbear]

nuking the vatican

while we're at it we might as well pull a secret 00P5 maneuver on all of Israel so we won't have to deal with that fiasco anymore.

[Barnabas]

But catholics can just pick another pope and move him to another city, vatican ainst really that important