EXCLUSIVE: US Representative Tom Tancredo in Response to U.S. Nuke Threat: We Could Nuke Mecca

540 WFLA Orlando, FL ^ | July 15, 2005 | Pat Campbell-AM 540 WFLA

[underwiredsupport]

Exclusive: US Representative Tom Tancredo in Response to U.S. Nuke Threat: We Could Nuke Mecca

15 July 2005: He is a no-nonsense House Representative from Colorado, a staunch critic of the federal government's lax immigration and border enforcement policies, and one who recognizes the clear and present threat posed by Islamic terrorists inside the United States. In an exclusive interview today with Pat Campbell, host of AM 540 WFLA said yesterday he would request a briefing from the Justice Department on information it has on plans revealed by WND this week for a nuclear attack on the U.S. by al-Qaeda. Responding to a question by Mr. Campbell about our possible response to such a threat, Representative Tancredo said that there are things that could be done to pre-empt a threat, and in response to an attack as well. One response would be to take out one of their holy cities with a nuclear bomb if it was clearly proven Islamic terrorists were behind such an attack.

Through the courtesy of AM 540 WFLA and Mr. Patrick Campbell, the Northeast Intelligence Network is offering the audio excerpt from this interview. Click on the link below to download the MP3 audio and listen from your computer. The Northeast Intelligence Network applauds Representative Tancredo for all of his anti-terrorism efforts to keep our country safe. We also applaud Mr. Campbell for asking the tough but necessary questions - AND getting the answers.

Here is the quote from Tancredo!    "What if you said, if something like this happened in the United States, (and it was the result of extremist Muslims) then we could take out their Holy Sites!"

To validate, listen here:

SOUND FILE

[Spiff]

Saying it and doing it are two entirely different things. Mutually Assured Destruction worked for decades. If the jihadist scum believe that we will wipe their holy sites off the face of the map if they pop a nuke here in the United States or among our allies, then might be a little less excited about doing it. But, how can we get them to believe that if we don't come right out and say it? We're not fighting a single country here that we can go to war with, we're fighting a mindset that has infected a number of people spread throughout the world. And you can't set off a nuke without killing some civilians. You can't fight a war without causing some civilian casualties. Are you all going to question our judgement when we dropped nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki!? How may more Americans have to die until people realize that we have to fight this war with everything we've got?

I, for one, agree with Tancredo's assessment of the situation. We must put the islamic world on notice that if any more attacks happen we will respond in a manner which will be quite final. This is not a game. This is about the survival of the United States and the preservation of our freedom and way of life. We can't keep the kid gloves on. There is no such thing as a successful politically correct war. We have to fight to win - for total victory - or we lose.

[Cinnamon]

I think Mecca should be nuked if there is another 9/11. especially if it involves a nuke attack on U.S.. Maybe such an action will knock some sense in the muslims sheep masses who do nothing as islamic militants channel hatred through all their holy sites. take out their holy sites

[Rutles4Ever]

The world would conceivably br laid to waste if we just up and nuke Mecca.

There IS a domino effect:

We nuke Mecca
Iran nukes Israel
Israel nukes Iran
We nuke Iran
Pakistan nukes India
India nukes Pakistan
China nukes both of them
We nuke China
N. Korea nukes Japan and S. Korea
We nuke N. Korea
Iran nukes Western Europe


And we all fall down...

[Graymatter]

If they had, if they did...
A, the threat of nuking a Muslim holy site wouldn't deter them, because they don't really care;
B, we wouldn't actually do it anyway, and they know it.

[Stellar Dendrite]

Some freepers just hate certain individuals and will misrepresent their words just to criticize.

[Aetius]

All was prefaced with an "If"

I'm not saying to respond disproportionately. You may be right about terrorist nuke potential. I certainly hope you are. All I'm saying is that if they were able to detonate a powerful nuke, then we should feel free to respond in kind.

As to deporting Muslims: Yeah right. To the elite, pro-mass immigration forces in this country, nuking every Muslim city on the planet would be less radical than actually deporting people.

[sheik yerbouty]

A neutron bomb of modest size would dothe job with less possible collateral consequences.

[rattrap]

That's NOT how we won WWII.

Your statement is correct but not the thought behind it. Killing civilians doesn't win wars. The US bombers braved the Luftwaffe in daylight raids and built the Norden Bombsite to attack strategic targets more effictively and limit the killing of civilians, the same purpose behind the development of our current precision weapons. The Germans lost the Battle of Britain because of Hitler's insitance on shifting the bombing raids from the RAFs airfields, command centers and radar posts to the civilian sectors of London which allowed the battered RAF to recover and eventually win the air war. Killing civilians only strengthend the resolve where it happened, so before making grand sweeping statements about how WWII was lost or won, do some research.

[NeoCaveman]

Perhaps...but he's SAYING what all of us are THINKING...

An interesting way to bring the concept of MAD (mutually assured desruction) to the War on Terror.

[sheik yerbouty]

I think not.

[underwiredsupport]

I, for one, agree with Tancredo's assessment of the situation. We must put the islamic world on notice that if any more attacks happen we will respond in a manner which will be quite final. This is not a game. This is about the survival of the United States and the preservation of our freedom and way of life. We can't keep the kid gloves on. There is no such thing as a successful politically correct war. We have to fight to win - for total victory - or we lose.

BUMP!!

I, for one, agree with Tancredo's assessment of the situation. We must put the islamic world on notice that if any more attacks happen we will respond in a manner which will be quite final. This is not a game. This is about the survival of the United States and the preservation of our freedom and way of life. We can't keep the kid gloves on. There is no such thing as a successful politically correct war. We have to fight to win - for total victory - or we lose.

[Rutles4Ever]

Cinnamon - the trump card here is that the jihadists WANT to die, and they want to take as many of us with them.

If it comes down to martyrdom or Mecca, they'll take martyrdom. That's why we can't approach this like a nation that we can conduct diplomacy with.

[G32]

You seem to hold a lot of value on mecca. Says a lot.

[DarthVader]

Unfotunately genocide of the fanactial Wahabbists is the way we spell victory in this war.

[alice_in_bubbaland]

I have to agree with you. My husband was saying last night, that if Bush could run again, he would NOT vote for him. The borders need to be closed NOW!!

[princess leah]

I will be honest and say that when my daughter was looking at some colleges, there were those with "muslim/islamic" groups listed as on campus student groups. Thankfully, she is going to Univ. Western Alabama that has no such group and I may be profiling for saying I am glad they don't have any groups, but I'll sure be able to sleep better with her so far away from home (we live in AZ).

[myself6]

This is the type of thing that the islamakazis need to hear. They MUST understand that there will be consequences to their actions. Statements like this do not further encourage their vile actions. If and when they have the capability to hit the US with WMD they will do it, regardless of what anyone says or doesn't say. The ONLY thing that may cause them to pause is the understanding that he things, places, and people dear to them will no longer exist if they proceed.

Just think about one million or more dead Americans in a single WMD attack on a single American city. The mothers, fathers, sons and daughters of all ages vaporized (in the case of a nuclear detonation) many many more left to die in agony or morn the loss of their loved ones.

Rage, an absolute, blindingly pure and perfect RAGE should be the response to any WMD attack on America. A rage so intense that it consumes all of islam in the splitting of an atom. Our response should be remorseless, without regret and swift. For the time it takes, we should become the monsters that they fear, the unstoppable, relentless, indiscriminate dealers of death. We will show them what it means to terrorize, we should show them the true meaning of terror and pain and loss. We should make them believe that every god ever imagined was cursing them. Make them scream out for death because it is to horrible to live.

They All should understand, THAT would be the response to any WMD attack here in the US.

[BluH2o]

Tancredo is racing to the edge of the lunatic fringe.

Really? Maybe if we don't piss them off they won't hurt us mindset (appeasement) buys you nothing with Islamic terrorists. They want to destroy western civilization ... and will go to any end to achieve that goal. They nuke U.S. territory and kill tens of thousands of Americans, perhaps millions, they have to know a dear price will be exacted ... Mecca will cease to exist ... it will be turned into a radioactive glob of glass ... immediately.

[Spiff]

If terrorist leaders or their aiders and abettors are hiding out in a holy site, it becomes a tough question, since we can't let them shield themselves with their religion, but bombing the shrine when it doesn't have any terrorists hiding there would be like the British bombing the Catholic shrines of Lourdes or Fatima as retaliation of an IRA bombing.

The Catholic Church did not condone, encourage, nor preach in support of the IRA bombings. Islam condones, encourages, and preaches in support of the jihadists. The mullahs regularly preach the destruction of America everywhere - even in Medina and Mecca. They've declared war on us already - why won't we respond properly? This mushy milquetoast moderation response is going to get more Americans killed. It is virtually guaranteeing a future terrorist attack on our soil. I wish that there was a way that those who desire moderation in our responses to terrorism and those behind it would put themselves and their families up as the targets of future terrorist attacks somehow and allow those of us who desire an appropriate response to terrorism and its sponsors to somehow excuse our families from such attacks that come as a result of your inaction.

[aShepard]

..."We can win without murdering millions of civilians.
"......

Well, what the hell, the Arabs are enjoying taking out themselves and their children anyway.

Let's stop fighting with one hand behind our back;
Win this war with enough force so that these savages understand that when we leave, "you guys better not screw around or we'll be back with some serious weapons!"