Posted on 07/15/2005 4:51:12 PM PDT by Man50D
Clarifying remarks from a radio interview that drew praise from some supporters, Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., said he was not suggesting that the U.S. should nuke the Islamic holy site Mecca as a response to a nuclear homeland attack by al-Qaida.
The congressman's press secretary told WorldNetDaily the comments were an off-the-cuff response to a hypothetical situation.
"He doesn't believe that we should go out and threaten to bomb anybody's holy city," said spokesman Will Adams.
In the interview this morning with Pat Campbell of WFLA radio in Orlando, Tancredo discussed his request for 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-Qaida terrorists.
Campbell noted that just after the London bombings last week, former Israeli counterterrorism intelligence officer Juval Aviv predicted an attack in the U.S. within the next 90 days. Aviv believes the plan is to attack not one big city, like New York, but half-a-dozen smaller ones, including towns in the heartland.
The host asked Tancredo, "Worst case scenario, if they do have these nukes inside the border, what would our response be?"
The congressman replied: "There are things you could threaten to do before something like that happens, and then you have to do afterwards, that are quite draconian."
"Well," Tancredo continued, "what if you said something like, 'If this happens in the United States and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you could take out their holy sites.'"
Campbell: "You're talking about bombing Mecca?"
Tancredo: "Yeah. What if you said, we recognize that this is the ultimate threat to the United States, therefore this is the ultimate response."
The congressman quickly added, "I don't know, I'm just throwing out some ideas, because it seems that at that point in time you would be talking about taking the most draconian measures you could imagine. Because other than that, all you could do it tighten up internally."
The comments heartened some readers of Free Republic, the conservative online news forum, including one who said, "Rep. Tancredo is taking off the gloves on the Islamofacists! Yee ha!"
Others, however, reflected the sentiment of another poster, who said, "Tancredo is racing to the edge of the lunatic fringe."
The Northeast Intelligence Network, which posted a soundbite from the congressman's interview on its website, praised the remarks, saying the group "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."
But Adams insisted the comments were made in the context of an interview that led Tancredo down a hypothetical path and asked, "In the wake of a nuclear holocaust, what sort of things would be said?"
"In the past several weeks, we've had a lot of staff discussions triggered by [WND's] al-Qaida nuclear weapons article," he said. "We are reserving judgment about the merits of it. But one of the questions that has bothered [Tancredo] is how do you prevent terrorist attacks short of searching everybody? Even then, you wouldn't get it right 100 percent of the time."
The difficulty for the U.S., Adams said, is, "How do you evolve from a cold war paradigm – mutually assured destruction – to one where al-Qaida mingles in the public and emerges only as an attack is taking place?"
The Soviet Union's pressure point was the fear that one of their cities would be destroyed, Adams said, "But what are the pressure points of terrorists, of people who only look to the next world – short of a police state?"
Adams said the remarks also need to be heard in the context of Tancredo's style.
"One of his vices and virtues is he is a free thinker and is willing to speak his mind," the spokesman said. "Sometimes he says things in not the most artful way; but if you take him as, unfortunately, one of the few free thinkers on Capitol Hill, you'll get where he is coming from."
I think you are forgetting who started this war. muslims started this war, long ago, they have been fighting for 1300 years, it is all they know.
What response to muslims would you have? Tell them they are bad and we are angry. If they nuke a US city all bets are off. All muslims are free game and no limit.
Nukeing Mecca is not draconian..
Nukeing the primary city in EVERY country thats not our ally, for the first offense. For a second offense nukeing 10 citys in every country not our ally is draconian..
But quite doable.. and straight to the point.. They don't even have to be Hydrogen bombs.. Theater nukes would do.. to make the point..
I'd say we start with Arabia and move out from there as necessary.
I'd say we start with Arabia and move out from there as necessary.
We need to do at loss less "making friends" and a lot more "kicking A$$".
Others, however, reflected the sentiment of another poster, who said, "Tancredo is racing to the edge of the lunatic fringe."
I think it's a great idea. Perhaps the Muslims would understand that if they nuke one of our cities, we're going to nuke Mecca. There are consequences for everything we do, and they better think about it. I'm really going to work for Tancredo for President. At least he's not like Bush. He KNOWS they are NOT the "religion of peace!" He's strong on immigration, and he's got a pretty good rating from GOA on his voting record on gun issues.
Comparing the significance of the Vatican to the significance of the black moon-god Ka'aba rock shows that you are totally ignorant of both Islam and Christianity, beyond the fact they are both called religions by their adherents.
See post #38.
We need to do at loss less "making friends" and a lot more "kicking A$$".
We have to do both.
What response to muslims would you have?
Set up situations to effect change within. Like what has happened with Iraq. We moved the 'target' to the ME (vs NYC) and now we have terrorists masquerading behind the banner of Islam blowing up muslim babies. And we have set up an Iraqi gov't for the citizens to cop out the bad guys to.
The idea is to put 'getting a life' (control over one's own destiny) within the grasp of a people. Once they get ahold of the idea and make steps in that direction, a lot more is at stake. There is more to lose. And a lot more incentive to oppose the internal forces that would threaten them back into the stone age.
Threaten, no.
Do, yes.
I think that Tancredo just likes to be controversial and hard line. Fine by me, but he's got little political sense. You can't be President (maybe not even a Congressman) if you are going to make statements implying that we will nuke Mecca.
I'm glad Cong. Tancredo is serving in the United States House of Representatives.
The citizens of the United States of American have been stabbed in the back by both President Clinton and President Bush. President Clinton talked about his commitment to a secure United States. President Bush has also spoke about this. However, both presidents have allowed millions of illegal aliens to unlawfully enter into this country. Both presidents have allowed millions of foreign nationals to remain in this country after their visas expired without being deported. On September 11, 2001, several illegal alien Islamic terrorists particiapted in the murder over three thousand (3,000) Americans. Those illegal aliens should have been deported before they had an opportunity to mureder thousands of Americans.
President Bush supports a program to give legal status to millions of illegal aliens. Once accepted into the program, the former illegal aliens would be allowed to immediately, with an employer's sponsorship, begin applying for a U.S. green card, which allows permanent residency.
Instead of rewarding illegal aliens with legal status as President Bush seeks to do, this nation should be securing and enforcing its borders, prosecuting employers that hire illegal aliens and making a serious effort to deport the illegal aliens in this country.
Cong. Tancredo never advocated a nuclear attack on Mecca during the interview. He mentioned "tak[ing] out their holy sites." He said "[y]eah" to a follow-up question clarifying whether he was "talking about bombing Mecca."
You could bomb Mecca with conventional weapons. You could take out holy sites with conventional weapons. The host had given Cong. Tancredo a hypothetical situation of Islamic terrorists exploding nuclear devices in six (6), seven (7) or eight (8) U.S. cities. If such an attack upon the United States seemed imminent, I would not have a problem with a threat being made by the president to use conventional weapons against Mecca if that attack occurred.
Further, if that hypothetical did occur and millions upon millions of Americans were dead, I certainly would not have a problem with attacking Mecca with conventional weapons if such a warning had been given.
Voters outside of Columbine.
Buchanan Lite won't cut it nationally.
yeah...
it's ok though. He had to eventually have a meltdown and I think this was the beginning of such. He only really gets any press on WORLDNUTDAILY and FR.
I figured that his stances would make him a lot of money someday, like it has for Buchanan. However, if he continues to make stupid comments and insinuations like this that will sink him totally.
;^)
I've never seen anyone on FR advocate open borders or amnesty. And the only anti-war FReepers are the anti-illegals who oppose the war in Iraq.
A border guarded by 12,000 armed guards who arrest over one million illegal aliens annually, and routinely seize over 1 million pounds of marijuana and 15 - 20 tons of cocaine every year, is not an open border. We have not had an open border in almost a hundred years.
A guest worker program is not an amnesty. An amnesty is a pardon for criminal offenses. A guest worker program is an immigration program that grants temporary work visas to people who qualify for them.
The Antis cannot win an honest debate on substance so they have to change the meaning of words such a "open border","amnesty", "invasion", etc...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.