No to potential Tancredo endorsement!

[LastoftheMohicans]

Tancredo supports threatening bombing Muslim holy sites as a deterrent.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/03/tancredo-bomb-muslim-holy-sites-first/

I hope Ron Paul not accept his endorsement if it comes or accept Bay Buchanan in his campaign staff.

[Joe Knows]

Tancredo supports threatening bombing Muslim holy sites as a deterrent.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/03/tancredo-bomb-muslim-holy-sites-first/

I hope Ron Paul not accept his endorsement if it comes or accept Bay Buchanan in his campaign staff.

Accepting an endorsement does not mean that Ron Paul is buying into the endorsers position. It means that the endorser has come around and is buying into Ron Paul's positions.

[LastoftheMohicans]

Accepting an endorsement does not mean that Ron Paul is buying into the endorsers position. It means that the endorser has come around and is buying into Ron Paul's positions.

True. But I'm sure you would agree that there are certain people that you would not want to endorse Dr. Paul

[Joe Knows]

True. But I'm sure you would agree that there are certain people that you would not want to endorse Dr. Paul

I agree that you probably would not want certain people to endorse you. I was just trying to make a generalization.

[ButchHowdy]

The second he dissed Ron at the debates like a tattle tale little brother, I knew he was a one of 'them'.

A short weasely whiny reptillian.

[Lord Xar]

Tancredo supports threatening bombing Muslim holy sites as a deterrent.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/03/tancredo-bomb-muslim-holy-sites-first/

I hope Ron Paul not accept his endorsement if it comes or accept Bay Buchanan in his campaign staff.

WHAT!! Tancredo is awesome.. .. so what, he has some "far out there ideas", you tell me that Ron Paul doesn't either?

If Tancredo gave his nod to Ron Paul, it would help IMMENSELY.. he would pick up hundreds of thousands of supporters who are VERY active for him.....

Trust me.. if Tancredo endorses Paul, it would be a VERY VERY GOOD THING...

[LibertyEagle]

Give me a break. Reptilian? :rolleyes:

[stevedasbach]

IMO, Ron should NEVER reject an endorsement. As soon as he does, he will be accused of endorsing the views of every endorser he HASN'T rejected. This will prompt a series of "why haven't you rejected the endorsement and/or returned the contribution of _________?" questions.

I understand the sentiment, but it is a bad idea in the long term.

[Hurricane Bruiser]

Endorsements are generally always a good thing. It doesn't mean that you agree 100%. It just means someone wishes to support you. I've endorsed Ron Paul and so have "truthers" and lots of people with varied ideas. It doesn't mean RP agrees with them.

[MozoVote]

There's a differenence between letting an endorsement stand, and meeting the person on stage shoulder-to-shoulder and offering joint statements.

I do think Tancredo has marginalized himself as a single issue candididate... and possibly as a "loose cannon" too. If there is a suprise lift in the final vote to one of the competing small campaigns, I think it will be Brownback, Huckabee, or Tommy Thompson.

[LastoftheMohicans]

I understand everyone's point. I'm inclined to change my mind. It may be a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. In general, maybe he should accept endorsements but I personally am repulsed at a supposed Catholic, Tancredo, advocating bombing holy sites.

[stevedasbach]

Perhaps it's better to say that he shouldn't reject any endorsements. Whether he chooses to publicise an endorsement is a different question entirely.

[Lord Xar]

are you kidding, its a disgrace, to say your willing to bomb a site which millions of people visit a year. honestly if tancredo endorses paul, and paul accepts it. itll be a huge slap in my face being a muslim.

First off, each candidate has good/bad... if you are gonna throw away an endorsement that could bring in hundreds of thousands of supporters, lend credence to the campaign.... what is the problem? Plus, how much of the muslim community is behind paul anyways? I am not saying we dont' need them, we do.. but to take every step worrying that someone is gonna get their feelings hurt is too much of an obstacle course.

PLUS, isn't it OBVIOUS that Ron Paul does NOT want to interfere in foreign politics... SO, you tell me how does one deduce that a NOD to PAUL from Tancredo would all of a sudden make DR. Paul a Muslim hater??? Where is the logic in that?

I mean, OBAMA supports going into IRAN and BOMBING>.. right? So what if he drops out and SUPPORTS HIllary or SUpports EDWARDS.. that would be a BIG NOD , right? Would then others say... "well, obama wants to bomb iran THEREFORE WHOMEVER he supports must also want to bomb iran!!"....

doesn't make sense..

[Lord Xar]

I understand everyone's point. I'm inclined to change my mind. It may be a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. In general, maybe he should accept endorsements but I personally am repulsed at a supposed Catholic, Tancredo, advocating bombing holy sites.

Tancredo has SURE GOTTEN A TON OF publicity on this, hasn't he? think about it.

[SeanEdwards]

are you kidding, its a disgrace, to say your willing to bomb a site which millions of people visit a year. honestly if tancredo endorses paul, and paul accepts it. itll be a huge slap in my face being a muslim.

It's stupid to articulate what our violent responses might be under any circumstances. Not knowing what we might do is much scarier than knowing in advance.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if the whole Muslim world legitmately believed that we just might nuke all 1.5 billion of them, including their stupid holy sites, in response to a terrorist attack. It's that fear and uncertainty that provides security. But we certainly shouldn't spell out what we might do, and we certainly shouldn't keep throwing our military around provoking people and revealing the limits of our will.

[Lord Xar]

I have a question.

Why are we even discussing this? Tancredo has been hitting it HARD in Iowa.. so I don't anticipate him bowing out - at this point, at least.

[NOLA]

Of course, being a Muslim..I'm repulsed by Trancredo's comment, but I don't think Ron Paul can do anything if someone endorses you. If I were Ron Paul's campaign I would immeadiately condemn Tancredo's statement as inflammatory. Isn't this the same thing Iran threatens Israel with???

[SeanEdwards]

Okay thanks for endorsing of bombing 6 million american citizens.

I didn't endorse bombing anyone. Read my post again and try to understand.

It's fear that prevents violence. I want people to fear the possible reactions of the U.S. I didn't say I wanted to the U.S. to bomb anyone. I said I wanted people to fear that we just might.

[Nefertiti]

Personally, I wouldn't mind if the whole Muslim world legitmately believed that we just might nuke all 1.5 billion of them, including their stupid holy sites, in response to a terrorist attack. It's that fear and uncertainty that provides security.

I'm Musilm, and I can tell you that no Muslim would be afraid of this. Why? Because if the US government were to actually carry out an attack, which I don't expect to happen, anyone who would die in the attack would be considered a martyr and anyone who sought revenge for it would be considered one too. Muslims would consider it an unavoidable duty and responsibility that they would take up gladly to seek revenge. The net result would be the death of millions of Americans.

In short, there would be serious blowback of the like that you can't imagine.

[Shatterhand]

Give me a break. Reptilian? :rolleyes:

Were you referring to me? :D

[SeanEdwards]

go vote for Rudy if you want fear bud. Cause your supprting the wrong candidate.

You're just being silly now.

Defense policy is about scaring potential enemies so that they are not tempted to attack, thus ensuring peace for all. That is best done by causing uncertainty in the minds of any potential enemy.

In case you didn't notice, we spent the better part of the 20th century implicitly threatening to destroy the whole world as a response to a Soviet nuclear attack. How's that for instilling fear?

[Kuldebar]

People who think endorsers represent the person endorsed are the same people who think supporters represent the person they support.

Ron Paul has already chimed in on this in the recent liveleak interview.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=de1_1185477767

We need to follow Ron"s lead and start treating people as individuals. Otherwise, we just feed out more of the same bullshit we see in the media and start adopting the policy of
Culling the Herd: A strategy suggestion to further our cause (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=9185)

[SeanEdwards]

I'm Musilm, and I can tell you that no Muslim would be afraid of this. Why? Because if the US government were to actually carry out an attack, which I don't expect to happen, anyone who would die in the attack would be considered a martyr and anyone who sought revenge for it would be considered one too. Muslims would consider it an unavoidable duty and responsibility that they would take up gladly to seek revenge. The net result would be the death of millions of Americans.

In short, there would be serious blowback of the like that you can't imagine.

Look, something like this would never happen. At least I hope not. The point was that defense policy should be designed to make potential enemies uncertain about our response to attack. It's that uncertainty that causes restraint, and paradoxically, peaceful relations.

[Kuldebar]

Look, something like this would never happen. At least I hope not. The point was that defense policy should be designed to make potential enemies uncertain about our response to attack. It's that uncertainty that causes restraint, and paradoxically, peaceful relations.


Easy then, we just elect a crazy mad man capable of doing mindless things as president, oh, wait, we already did!

[SeanEdwards]

Easy then, we just elect a crazy mad man capable of doing mindless things as president, oh, wait, we already did!

We should aim to have a defense policy like China. Quiet and scary.

[winston84]

The second he dissed Ron at the debates like a tattle tale little brother, I knew he was a one of 'them'.

A short weasely whiny reptillian.

lol, thats when I wrote him off too. I think its sad that the closest running Republican candidate to Ron Paul is freaken Tancredo, on the other hand I also see it as a boon for the campaign.

[winston84]

Look, something like this would never happen. At least I hope not. The point was that defense policy should be designed to make potential enemies uncertain about our response to attack. It's that uncertainty that causes restraint, and paradoxically, peaceful relations.

I think its hypocritical of you to support a candidate that resents the fear tactics used at home yet would use them abroad. Of course Ron Paul is better than this, and his appeal is due in part to his honesty and integrity; attributes fearmongers don't have. The point is, just making the suggestion to bomb such a site causes blowback in and of itself.

[SeanEdwards]

I think its hypocritical of you...

Yeah? Well I think you're deliberately misrepresenting my comments.

You also sound kind of clueless about defense policy.

[ButchHowdy]

Of course, being a Muslim..I'm repulsed by Trancredo's comment, but I don't think Ron Paul can do anything if someone endorses you. If I were Ron Paul's campaign I would immeadiately condemn Tancredo's statement as inflammatory. Isn't this the same thing Iran threatens Israel with???

Not at all. Tens of thousands of 'Hebrews' live in peace in Iran. Ahmidinijad once called for "Regime change of the current government occupying Jerusalem" but we all know how that was spun.

This WAS Tancredo's Dean moment. He deserves it and no one should deprive him of it.

Yes Liberty Eagle, he's a reptillian!

[PaleoForPaul]

Okay thanks for endorsing of bombing 6 million american citizens.

Nice victim complex. You know, Russian Americans didn't cry at the fact that America would retaliate if nukes were launched at us.

Tancredo looks better every day with the crowd that RP attracts. I seriously avoid coming here other than to see when RP is on TV or giving speeches. Some of you do that good of a job of turning off supporters, and this thread is a good example of it.

[LibertyEagle]

Folks, Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul are friends. Unless Tancredo does very well in Iowa, he likely will focus on getting back his House seat. It's not too smart to be reaming him out here, because his supporters might just be coming over to Ron Paul.

Tancredo's not Ron Paul, but he's much better than all the rest. At least he cares about our country.

[LibertyEagle]

Tancredo looks better every day with the crowd that RP attracts. I seriously avoid coming here other than to see when RP is on TV or giving speeches. Some of you do that good of a job of turning off supporters, and this thread is a good example of it.

I agree that if anyone but the most hardened Ron Paul fans came to this forum, they would likely run away screaming. I hope it is something we all will keep in mind as we go forward. At least a couple might drop out after the straw poll and they're going to be looking at where to go.

[jj111]

A politician never rejects an endorsement.

[jj111]

If the politician doesn't like the endorser, the politician can simply say, "We welcome everyone to support freedom."

[Wyurm]

Tancredo supports threatening bombing Muslim holy sites as a deterrent.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/03/tancredo-bomb-muslim-holy-sites-first/

I hope Ron Paul not accept his endorsement if it comes or accept Bay Buchanan in his campaign staff.

So?, I support anarchy and alot of other things that I'm sure RP doesnt agree with. Tancredo as I'm sure Lord Xar can tell you, has a huge following over at ALIPAC. Paul doesn't do as well there thanks to those stupid report card sites that rate him lower on immigration due to some bills that he voted no on because of un-constitutional clauses, etc... Having Tancredo endorse Paul would be a very powerful thing.

[LibertyEagle]

theres a difference, between bombing a NATION, and boming the soul of ISLAM, its like saying Al Quadea is going to bomb washington dc, and destroy the orginal constitution.have you forgot about blowback, that they forgot about BLOWBACK? theres blowback if you bomb muslim sites, theres blowback if the person whos endorsing you personaly said it.
Paul should never sell out his non interventionalist idea, to get a endorsment from a idiot like Tancrado.

Ok, I'm confused. From what I understand Tancredo to have said is that IF WE WERE ATTACKED, we would retaliate. I agree to that, frankly. Is it the fact that he said he would retaliate, or is it "what" he said he would bomb, that upsets you?

You talk about blowback. I don't agree with pre-emptive strikes. But, if we were attacked, it seems to me that retaliation IS blowback for us being attacked.

If you think Dr. Paul would just sit there and not go after those who attacked us, you're sorely mistaken. Non-interventionism means not entangling affairs/alliances. It does not mean that we will not protect our country.

[LibertyEagle]

Yes Liberty Eagle, he's a reptillian!

Please take it to Hot Topics.

[scrosnoe]

Folks, Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul are friends. Unless Tancredo does very well in Iowa, he likely will focus on getting back his House seat. It's not too smart to be reaming him out here, because his supporters might just be coming over to Ron Paul.

Tancredo's not Ron Paul, but he's much better than all the rest. At least he cares about our country.

Thanks LibertyEagle! We have been working hard to leave the door open to Tancredo supporters to come across to Ron Paul at the appropriate time here in my sphere of influence.

Must say that over the years because of Ron's tenacious presentation of truth and logic, that my position has changed on some issues. It is because he usually turns out to be 'right' and he has such a gracious humble style - it just wraps you in and gives you a chance to hear and learn and absorb a philisophy that most of us didn't get in school.

Let's give others the same oportunity to dwell among us and grow and learn together. We can certainly agree on the illegal immigration issue and that is a good start with the Tancredo supporters! We need the Huckabee and Hunter people too! We even need some of the Fred Heads who need to wake up fast!

Let's pull together a winning coalition of people who believe in limited constitutional government and debate the fine points as we go along the path together.

[specsaregood]

It's fear that prevents violence. I want people to fear the possible reactions of the U.S. I didn't say I wanted to the U.S. to bomb anyone. I said I wanted people to fear that we just might.

Your words sounds like the words of a terrorist. You are advocating spreading FEAR and THREATS OF VIOLENCE. How is that any different than what a terrorist does?

Tancredo's statement sickens me. I thought he was "ok"; he has dropped to the level of scumbag fearmonger on my list.

[jj111]

We should welcome the endorsement of ANY AND EVERY human being of Ron Paul's cause of supporting the Constitution and liberty.

[jj111]

What would Ron do?

He would argue for or against a political idea based on its merits and the Constitution, and he would not personalize the issue by attacking the opponent personally or resorting to name calling.

WWRD?

[jj111]

Friendship with all; entangling alliances with none.

[SeanEdwards]

Your words sounds like the words of a terrorist. You are advocating spreading FEAR and THREATS OF VIOLENCE. How is that any different than what a terrorist does?


What do you think a submarine armed with nuclear missiles is? Its very existence is a threat of massive inhuman terroristic violence. It exists to create fear and nothing else. Certainly the makers of these doomsday machines never wanted them to actually be used. They hoped that the threat alone would be enough to deter aggression.

Read some Machiavelli and then get back to me. At this point you are sadly deluded about human nature and politics. All defense policy is about inciting fear and making threats of violence. It's when the fear is lost that war breaks out. And mutual fear, and the respect that goes with it, is infinitely superior to war.

[james1906]

tancredo did say he would do this only if we were attacked. i don't think a heavy-handed ploy like nuking mecca would be smart. but tancredo did not say he would launch a preemptive strike.

self-defense is a right. if we were attacked again, by all means, go after them.

[specsaregood]

At this point you are sadly deluded about human nature and politics.

I am not deluded about anything. Your words were no different than the words of a terrorist. It is as simple as that.

[Shink]

Question: is there any sign at all that Tancredo may even do this anytime soon? If this is all hypothetical, that's fine, but I'd love to see a source showing that he might be considering it. I doubt it, though, after seeing how close behind RP he was in the Q2 FEC report.

As for Tancredo himself, he earned a little of my respect with his "never darken the doorstep of the White House" blurb about Karl Rove. Other than that, he's typical Republican. An endorsement would be fantastic, though. People who actually support the 'bomb Mecca' bullshit would take notice that someone so 'tough on trrrrr' is supporting Ron Paul.

[MozoVote]

Single issue candidates rarely succeed. He may have found a core base of supporters, but I doubt he's going to get a large lift from the undecideds.

[CJLauderdale4]

Bomb Mecca and Medina sites???
I must admit, I remember receiving satirical emails after 9/11 that showed a 747 diving into that meteor rock in Mecca with thousands walking around it.

But all joking aside, I am surprised that Tancredo is that diametrically opposite to Ron Paul's, and the entire CIA for that matter, perspective on the Middle East.

As the campaign goes on, we begin to see the true colors of the candidates.

GO RON!!

[SeanEdwards]

I am not deluded about anything. Your words were no different than the words of a terrorist. It is as simple as that.

Is that supposed to hurt my feelings? It doesn't.

The terrorists threaten to kill their enemies, and we threaten to kill people that mess with us. There is no difference. All war is terror, and it has always been that way.

What are all those ICBM siloes scattered across the U.S.? Symbols of peace and friendship? Hell no. They are a fatwa declared against anyone who considers attacking the U.S. They're functionally the same as a fatwa issued by some cave-dwelling muslim nut. They serve exactly the same purpose: to cause fear. All defense policy is about creating fear. It's irrelevant if you find that offensive. Reality doesn't care if you find it brutish and barbaric, it will just keep on being brutish and barbaric in spite of your indignation.

[tron paul]

Re-establish the Department of War.
If we need to break things and kill people, why mess around? Nuke Islam off the face of Earth if they come over here again. Don't humor or indulge their superstitions; millions for defense but not a penny for tribute.

Tancredo is all over the immigration issue and his endorsement would be a massive help for the doctor.




Tancredo supports threatening bombing Muslim holy sites as a deterrent.

[ThePieSwindler]

What do you think a submarine armed with nuclear missiles is? Its very existence is a threat of massive inhuman terroristic violence. It exists to create fear and nothing else. Certainly the makers of these doomsday machines never wanted them to actually be used. They hoped that the threat alone would be enough to deter aggression.

Read some Machiavelli and then get back to me. At this point you are sadly deluded about human nature and politics. All defense policy is about inciting fear and making threats of violence. It's when the fear is lost that war breaks out. And mutual fear, and the respect that goes with it, is infinitely superior to war.

You are right on the tactics of fear to avert conventional war between sovereign nations and defined states, but i fear that the consequences of threatening to attack a Muslim holy site , which is essentially a civilian target and has nothing to do with terrorism, would be so dire, dangerous, and unnecessarily brought about that to even suggest it is madness. The vast majority of muslims simply want to be left alone in peace, and that includes most extremists (who only become extreme because of US actions). Threatening Mecca would be declaring war on 1/6th of humanity, which is way out of proportion to a response that the Just War theory dictates. I highly doubt Bin laden would have ordered the 9/11 attacks had we a non-interventionist foreign policy. These people attack us for a specific reason, namely that we are over there in their holy sites and are interfering with their affairs. Talk about unintended consequences - threatening mecca would have the potential to radicalize much of the Muslim world. Do you really want to start a "jihad" with the entire muslim world? Actions such as these would be seen as brutish and belligerant by the ENTIRE WORLD, would be considered unspeakable atrocities(if we follow what tron paul advocates), and would severely harm our credibility with most sovereign nations abroad, isolating us even further diplomatically.

[SeanEdwards]

You are right on the tactics of fear to avert conventional war between sovereign nations and defined states, but i fear that the consequences of threatening to attack a Muslim holy site , which is essentially a civilian target and has nothing to do with terrorism, would be so dire, dangerous, and unnecessarily brought about that to even suggest it is madness.


That is a good point. I want to reiterate that I don't think Tancredo's threat was wise. We should not be spelling out exactly what we would do in response to some theoretical event. The uncertainty of what we might do creates fear, and that is the soul of deterrence. However, the certainty that we would commit some atrocity, like attacking a holy site, creates hate. Effective defense policy creates fear, but not hate.

[ThePieSwindler]

That is a good point. I want to reiterate that I don't think Tancredo's threat was wise. We should not be spelling out exactly what we would do in response to some theoretical event. The uncertainty of what we might do creates fear, and that is the soul of deterrence. However, the certainty that we would commit some atrocity, like attacking a holy site, creates hate. Effective defense policy creates fear, but not hate.

Agreed. No one can fault us if a sovereign entity threatens us and we respond with the spectre of a vaunted retaliation. But when the enemy is vaguely defined, it would be a terrible, terrible mistake to threaten a site that represents a billion, mostly very innocent people, that has nothing to do with the enemy we are attacking. Its result would be catastrophic. This is simply taking the principle of fighting a "war on terror" to the extreme.

[ctb619]

First off, 1.6 billion muslim s arent terrorist,l they attack us, we attack mecca medina, arent we essentialy doing the same thing but worse, killing civilians, plus holy sites, i cant endorse a candidate who will kill civilians, foreign or american.

I'm with you on this one Hamadeh. I think Ron Paul would approach this issue from the perspective of Just War theory. Just War theory not only analyzes the justification for a declaration of war, but also how a conflict should should be prosecuted - jus in bello. I don't want to get into too much detail here, but there are a number of topics encompassed by jus en bello. The two most often referred to are discrimination and proportionality - and both are pretty self-explanatory. While using a nuclear device to respond to a nuclear attack would be proportional (generally speaking), unless the attack was state-sponsored, it is unlikely a nuclear weapon could be used to bring the perpetrators and their cohorts to justice in a reasonably discriminatory manner. Just War is by no means a hard and fast theory, there are many ambiguities, but Tancredo's deterrent is well beyond the pale. The fact that we are even having to discuss the ethical merit of such a recommendation is a bit disturbing.

Of course the original point of the post was to determine whether or not the Paul campaign should accept or reject an endorsement from Tancredo. While I think an endorsement from him is highly unlikely (foreign policy differences), my guess is that Paul would quietly accept an endorsement. As many have said, an endorsement does not entail that both parties agree on all the issues.

[Sean]

Ron Paul should take a Tancredo endorsement. As President, Dr. Paul will be the leader of the country. He will need people like Tancredo to get our country back to the Constitution. People that are not Presidential material will sometimes make outlandish statements while campaigning. That just means they are not fit to be President. That doesn't mean that President Paul can't work with them on other issues like border security, getting rid of the IRS ect.

[Slugg]

Did I miss something? When did Tancredo start talking about possibly endorsing Dr. Paul?

[LibertyEagle]

He hasn't. People are just speculating.

[Slugg]

He hasn't. People are just speculating.

Seems like a pretty far fetched speculation. Don't get me wrong...it'd be great...to be honest...It would give him the mainstream legitimacy we've been waiting for...but I'm not holding my breath.

I'd love to see Hagel come out for him.......since we're speculating and all..

[Swmorgan77]

Accepting an endorsement does not mean that Ron Paul is buying into the endorsers position. It means that the endorser has come around and is buying into Ron Paul's positions.

Yes, agreed. There is no reason for Ron Paul to reject a Tancredo endorsement.

[LibertyEagle]

Tancredo's endorsement would do far more for him than Hagel. Conservatives don't like Hagel.

[Slugg]

Conservatives don't like Hagel.

Only for the same reason they don't like Paul. They speak truths.

[LibertyEagle]

Only for the same reason they don't like Paul. They speak truths.

Nope. I don't think much of him because he's not a true conservative. Hagel earned a 50% on The Freedom Index. Ron Paul earned a 100%. Tancredo earned a 67%.

Check it out:

http://www.jbs.org/files/fi-110-1.pdf

[LibertyEagle]

Calm down guys. We don't need to be nuking anyone.

[LibertyEagle]

Re-establish the Department of War.
If we need to break things and kill people, why mess around? Nuke Islam off the face of Earth if they come over here again. Don't humor or indulge their superstitions; millions for defense but not a penny for tribute.

That's called genocide and I hardly think Dr. Paul would endorse that. Do you, seriously?

I have a question for you. What if a small group of zealots claiming to be Christian, attacked a country. Would that give that country the justification to wipe Christianity off the face of the earth? If not, what's the difference between what you said above and this? Or quite frankly, what the Nazis did to the Jews.