Yet Another 'Peaceful' Act (UPDATED)

In Egypt this time.

Forty-nine people have been killed and 136 wounded in two car bombs and another explosion in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, the governor says. [SNIP]

The casualties included people from Britain, the Netherlands, Qatar, Kuwait and Egypt, but police do not yet have a complete breakdown of the nationalities of the dead and wounded.

A rescue official said 17 of the dead had been burnt beyond recognition by the explosions.

According to police sources and witnesses, one of the deadliest bombs went off in a car park between the Ghazala and Moevenpick hotels in Sharm el-Sheikh's Naama Bay area. [SNIP]

The attacks came on the 53rd anniversary of the 1952 revolution and scores of Egyptians were also on an extended holiday weekend in Sharm el-Sheikh and other resorts.

According to police sources, there were up to seven almost simultaneous blasts, mainly in Sharm el-Sheikh's old market area.

What was I saying again?

(Thanks to LGF)

UPDATE: Death toll 88 and counting.

Reader teal marie says:

This recent tangent of attacks in [M]uslim countries leads me to wonder if Islamic terrorists will be the ones to nuke Mecca, while the West is still pondering the ethics of even mentioning it.

UPDATE: Not in their name: Muslims protest against terror.

(Thanks to Instapundit)

Comments

[Yogimus]

Damn you Bush, and your oil hungry ways!

[teal marie]

This recent tangent of attacks in muslim countries leads me to wonder if Islamic terrorists will be the ones to nuke Mecca, while the West is still pondering the ethics of even mentioning it.

[Tara]

Tom Tancredo mentioned bombing Mecca and he was ridiculed ...

http://www.stonescryout.org/archives/2005/07/if_desperate_bo.html

That's what you get for even thinking that we are at war with Islam.

[baldilocks]

Thanks, Tara.

[justin]

I'm not sure how bombing Mecca would stop that.

This is relevant to an earlier topic, but here's a good editorial about why the 9/11 and 7/7 type attacks have nothing to do with Iraq, Palestine etc. Bottom line, you don't really see Palestinians and Iraqis participating in this stuff, it's global type Saudi and westernized jihadists. Even though I was against the Iraq war, it irritates me to see lefties blaming the London bombings on our Iraqi presence. These guys would be bombing us even if we decided to send candy and roses to Saddam and made him our bff.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/22/opinion/edroy.php

[baldilocks]

Justin: nobody said that bombing Mecca was a *good* idea, not even Tom Tancredo.

I wish everyone, left, right and middle would stop drinking the third-hand he-said she-said kool-aid and go LISTEN to the words.

The link is in the "Get it Right" post. There's a reason that the post is titled in the manner that it is.

[Yogimus]

My theory on bombing mecca:

Gotta start somewhere...

[JLawson]

One of the things that kept the USSR and the US from tossing nukes over the pole was (IMHO) the certainty in the Kremlin that while they could take a good bite off us, they'd get their brains smashed out out in return. Mutual Assured Destruction may have been insane, but letting the USSR know that WE weren't going to use nukes first, but by god we'd use them last made them think twice. Self-preservation kicked in, and nobody started a nuclear war.

The Islamists, however, I don't think have that sort of restraint. They WANT to die, as long as by dying they can strike at their enemy... which is basically everyone who doesn't believe EXACTLY as they do.

And I haven't a clue what would dissuade them. Even a reformation movement within Islam to emphasize the non-violent aspects might be totally counteracted by the Islamic equivalent of the Fred Phelps/Westboro Baptist Church crowd - who in telling the nihilistic fringe within Islam what they want to hear would give them justification to continue their jihad.

I almost agree with Tancredo - we NEED to have an announcement about what we'll do if we get nuked. Our politicians having hysterical reactions over even the possibility of a mention of a nuclear response if a Western city gets nuked doesn't give me warm fuzzies about them having thought all this out.

The one encouraging thing in my poin of view is that they haven't apparently gotten hold of nukes YET. I don't think they'd have the self-restraint to avoid using them, or to use them strategically.

J.

[teal marie]

Thank you, Boldilocks!

[Don Surber]

This is what happens when you send troops to Iraq. (/sarcasm)

[Aaron's cc:]

Regarding Muslim protests against terror... you'll NEVER hear a reporter raise the question of Israel.

[Sissy Willis]

If Islamic terrorists DO nuke Mecca, it will be "Bush's fault." :)

[torchy]

Excellent point Miss Marie. While we dither over a shrine our enemy would gladly sacrifice 88 more innocents are dead and hundred injured. Our thoughts should be with them, not on our personal ethics about retaliation.

[teal marie]

Thanks, Torchy. ((((you))))

[torchy]

I owe you for the wakeup call, darling, sorry it took so long to sink in, guess it was hiding in plain view. The only way we're gonna survive the Orcs is by pulling together a solid front, outwitting and destroying more of them than they of us, not deluding ourself into a detente of a thousand cuts. We won't win by becoming numb to the death of a hundred with the cruel reassurance that millions will rest soundly in their beds.