• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should U.S. Bomb Mosques?

Not as easy to besiege when you are in hostile territory, it requires far more resources....;)

ok, say the terrorists in the washington monument were super robot terrorist that ran off their own programmed hypocrisy and the thought of however many robot virgins if they died, would you blow it up?
 
Couldn't be dislodged without massive loss of life? No. To prevent massive loss of life? Yes. If it comes down to a choice between lives and buildings, the lives win, especially if they're American.



I'd support sending in a SWAT team, since Washington is not in a war zone and one would be available.

ok, bugger the semantics of it, would you blow up a culturally significant building to kill terrorist if there was no other way?
 
ok, say the terrorists in the washington monument were super robot terrorist that ran off their own programmed hypocrisy and the thought of however many robot virgins if they died, would you blow it up?

No, I would probably employ something that created electro magnetic pulse & fry their circuitry.....;)
 
ok, bugger the semantics of it, would you blow up a culturally significant building to kill terrorist if there was no other way?

There's always another way, but why waste time if you don't have to?....;)
 
Last edited:
ok, bugger the semantics of it, would you blow up a culturally significant building to kill terrorist if there was no other way?

Probably, if it meant saving innocents from certain death. I have a hard time reconciling the value of a building--any building--against the value of innocent human life.
 
Probably, if it meant saving innocents from certain death. I have a hard time reconciling the value of a building--any building--against the value of innocent human life.

There are no innocent terrorists.....;)
 
As long as we can bomb churches too then....
I don't think Islamic extremists hang out in churches, but if you insist we'll keep an eye on it.
 
There are no innocent terrorists.....;)

:doh Well, duh. What I'm saying is the best defense is a strong offense. If it's a choice of "us" or "them and the building," I'm going for us. I can't see, for example, risking the life of one American soldier to save a mosque. If someone's sniping from a minaret, blow the ****er up.
 
If the enemy takes refuge in a mosque, temple, church, shrine, nemed (holy oak grove), ashram, buddhamataram, monastery, or other religious structure, and it serves our strategic purposes to bomb them while they are in it, then bomb away. If the "defiling a holy place" issues comes up, note that the enemy defiled it already by using it as a way to hide from the consequences of their violence.

I agree with Goshin.
It would be foolish for the Army to rule out and make any buildings 'untouchable' in a war.
Besides, the second the terrorists use it as a base for protection then it stops being 'holy' and becomes a target.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Laila. I also think that any place of worship be it a church, synagogue, mosque, or temple used by any group as a safe location to plan attacks, store weapons, or as a base of insurgent operations must be considered a target.
 
Last edited:
If terrorist assholes are hiding in them, ABSOLUTELY!!!
 
Back
Top Bottom