Listen to the Tom Tancredo Tape About Bombing Mecca

WFLA ^ | 07/18/2005

[Balding_Eagle]

There has been much speculation about what Tom Tancredo said on the now famous interview last Friday on WFLA-AM in Orlando, Fla.

From what I am reading here on FR, much of that speculation is wrong.

Tancredo was, in fact, suggesting that we consider (not implement, just consider implementing) a strategy similar to the strategy that Reagan used to win the Cold War.

Listen for yourself. HERE

If you think Tancredo is a nut case, and you don't want to change your thinking, move along, this clip isn't for you. Just post your thoughts without listening.

[iThinkBig]

"What gets me is the Muslims that live here, where are the protests about the bombings in London,Spain? And even more troubling are they on our side or not?"

My opinion:

1) They are afraid to get killed by their fellow muslim "brothers" (the terrorists)

2) In a wierd, sick way they believe the propoganda that we are the worthless allies of the "zionists" so it's OK if we die.

3) They have gotten too comfortable here in America to understand that freedom is worth dying for.

[arnoldpalmerfan]

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 ( U.S. cities.

If such an attack upon the United States seemed imminent, I would not have a problem with a warning 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. Bombing Mecca after mass genocide is committed against Americans by Islamic terrorists would be appropriate. If people were told to stay away from Mecca because it is going to be bombed, it would not be necessary for anyone to lose their life during such a bombing.

[arnoldpalmerfan]

On April 20, 2005, why did Sen. Allen vote against S. Amdt. 516 to H.R. 1268? The amendment provided $390 million to hire 650 more border patrol agents, 250 new immigration investigators, and 168 new immigration enforcement agents and deportation officers. The amendment provided funds for 2,000 additional detention beds as well as funding to train the new personnel. The amendment passed by a vote of 65 to 34. The Repbulican senators that voted for the amendment included Senators Coburn, Cornyn, Craig, Crapo, Domenici, Grassley, Gregg, Inhofe, Isakson, Kyl, Roberts, Santorum, Sessions, Snowe, Sununu, Talent, Thune and Vitter.

[agincourt1415]

Thanks, Political Junkie, I knew I had seen the info one of the news sites.

"Here's a column that was published in WorldNetDaily back on Jan 7, 2005, Has U.S Threatened to Vaporize Mecca?, over six months ago."

[arnoldpalmerfan]

The majority of Americans are turned off by President Bush's support of rewarding illegal aliens with legal status.

[Auntie Dem]

Only to build luxury townhouses that pay more taxes.

Now there's a motive that will fly!

[DuckFan4ever]

I don't claim to know everything about all subjects, but I do like the judicial nominees, the easing of regulations(enviromental in particular), taking the fight to the terrorists, tax cuts, commitment to free trade, tort reform, and more that has come from this administration.

I figure a Bush protege who continues these positive things that have led to economic recovery would be great. If I don't agree with 100% of the initiatives, well I guess that's the way it is.

[FreeReign]

Let me be blunt: There is no strategic value to bombing Mecca even after a devastating attack on the U.S. In fact, such an action would be a strategic blunder without historical parallel, except perhaps Hitler's attack on Stalin. Anyone defending Tancredo's remarks has got to make a case for why such a bombing would be effective. Take down the Syrian regime? You bet. Replace the House of Saud? Fine. Bomb every nuclear facility in Tehran? Absolutely. The US would respond to a savage attack with fury --but purposeful fury. Bombing Mecca would be the opposite of purposeful fury.

Well said.

[Cultural Jihad]

If such an attack upon the United States seemed imminent, I would not have a problem with a warning being made by the president to use conventional weapons against Mecca if that attack occurred.

You are falsely assuming these are rational terrorists and devout people. They would hope we destroyed the holy sites of Islam in order to inflame the Muslim world against the West. I for one am not interested in living in a new Dark Age, as there is a lot more at stake than your ego.

[arnoldpalmerfan]

Do you support giving legal status to illegal aliens?

[arnoldpalmerfan]

Illegal aliens should be deported. Several of the Islamic terrorists that murdered over 3,000 Americans were illegal aliens by virtue of having overstayed their visas. Why were those illegal aliens still in this country on September 11, 2001? Why hand't those illegal aliens been deported from this country before September 11, 2001?

[arnoldpalmerfan]

Commenting upon my "ego" is simply absurd. My ego has nothing to do with a discussion about the response to Islamic terrorists in the country murdering millions of Americans by exploding nuclear devices in six (6), seven (7) or eight (8) U.S. cities.

There is a lot at stake. That is a reason this nation's borders should be secured and enforced. Our border security is a joke. That is also a reason why illegal aliens should be deported. That is a reason illegal aliens should not be given legal status.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Just because the Democrats are crazy and stupid to one extreme, doesn't mean the Republicans have to follow their lead on the other end of the scale. This is why the extremists will never win an election, nor speak for the majority of the population.

[BigSkyFreeper]

The lame stream media would never consider telling Americans that Islamonzais would nuke us if they could.

They don't have to, most Americans know this to be true. The reason they won't is because it will put an end to the Democrat party, because the media and the Democrat party are on the wrong side of the war on terror.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Are these the same pros that are in charge of our borders??

Go diss the military over at DU.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Tancredo is Not a Nutcase: If we are attacked by Nuclear Weapons, we respond with Nuclear Weapons.

If we are attacked, Congress (including Tancredo) along with the White House didn't do squat to stop it. Al-Qaeda has no nukes, or they wouldn't be wasting everyones time trying to oneupmanship McGyver with backpack bombs triggered with Nokia cellphones.

[USMale]

Tom Tancredo, finally a leader with some Harry
Truman / Dwight Eisenhower in his genes.

I'll trade Bush for Tancredo any day.

[Black Tooth]

If America is attacked again, this time with nukes, biological/toxin weapons, radiation (dirty) bombs etc, contaminating our cities for years, killing thousands, possibly millions, sending our economy into the dark ages, what would be your suggested response?

[BigSkyFreeper]

They have to be in possession of the stuff first. You can spew hyperbole all you want, the fact remains, George W. Bush and the military he is in control of have made it all the more difficult for the terrorists to be in possession of the materiale to pull off something you hope and dream about. Like I said, go back to DU, they worship the enemy of this country.

[agincourt1415]

Big Sky,

Ya, need to lay off the Captain Morgan Spiced Rum this late at night.