U.S., Turkey Condemn Congressman's Remarks (Tancredo)

The Washington Post ^ | 7/19/2005 | Benjamin Harvey

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

But not so secular that he doesn't have to worry, eh?

Of course if he's secular, he ought not be concerned about Medina and Mecca being nuked. I'd have expected the Saudi's to have said something more than the Turks.

[bozot]

...If America is going down we might as well take the Islam world with us and start from scratch...

You mean the world without Islam and the USA ?

Then see Bin Laden crawling out from his hole in Afghanistan, beating out the dust from his turban muttering :

Now.... where were we... ?

[Red6]

If fundamentalist Muslims blow things up, Richard Gere and other libs ask themselves, "What did we do to make these people hate us?"

When a US representative states that terrorism (London, Madrid, USS Cole, Kohbar Towers, US embassies, WTC 1993, WTC-2001, Chechnya, Russian train bombing, 2 hijacked planes flown into the ground, Indonesia, Van Gogh, Pearl, Moscow theater.......) is largely the result of MUSLIM radicals, some say he should apologize. How dare he state this!? How dare he state that we will do whatever it takes to rid ourselves of this problem?

In long standing liberal tradition, the victims become the culprits and the culprits the victims.

Red6

[Gator101]

So the criticism of Tancredo is that he would nuke Mecca following a lower yield nuclear attack on US cities than what you would be ready to nuke Mecca for?

Essentially yes, but your summing up of my position is a little oversimplified. Here is how I would rather state it:

My criticism is that he would nuke Mecca in the event there is an attack that still leaves us with a possibility of winning the war, and thus jeopardize that possibility. If the Islamist attack were to the level that America is, for all intents and purposes, destroyed…then yes, I can’t disagree with his suggestion that we nuke Mecca.

That said I really believe that the most likely attack is one that results in the former situation.

[Gator101]

Then see Bin Laden crawling out from his hole in Afghanistan, beating out the dust from his turban

I am afraid you didn’t read or understand my whole post. I have been arguing against Tancredo’s statement this whole thread and don’t think that we should nuke Mecca in retaliation for a terrorist’s nuclear strike on a US city.

However, In doing so, I made the concession that in the *extremely* unlikely event that the strike were so massive that the United States was destroyed…why not nuke the Islam world? Why leave all those Islamic nations with established militaries to fill the vacuum. As Bin Laden is dusting himself off so are some survivalists in Idaho and elsewhere. In the event of the USA’s destruction, I was suggesting we level the playing field for the next game. However, the terrorists are not the former Soviet Union and I don’t think it will ever be in their power to mount an attack like this.

Strangely enough, your image of Bin Laden dusting himself off helps me make my point to the “nuke Mecca” crowd. Let’s say retaliation against Mecca for a terrorist nuke keeps escalating to the point that we have a global nuclear war. The civilized world is left in ruins. That is certainly something the Bin Laden’s of the world wouldn’t mind seeing. Who doesn’t think Bin Laden wouldn’t trade Mecca and the cities of the Islamic world for a chance to start from scratch where it’s back to guns (and swords maybe) with no more Bunker Busters or Satellite imagery and the like. He could always rebuild Mecca once he or his relatives rule the World.