Posted on 07/18/2005 10:58:49 PM PDT by Checkers
The Tancredo Blunder
Donald Sensing has all the links that really matter on the Tancredo blunder. (HT: StonesCryOut.) Pastor Sensing notes that I corrected the first post to specifically note that Congressman Tancredo talked of "bombing" Mecca, not "nuking" Mecca. The actual audio is available to anyone now at the website for WFLA 540 in Orlando. Note two things. First, Congressman Tancredo said that if we determined that "extremist fundamentalist Muslims" attacked the U.S. with nukes, then we should bomb Mecca. Why, he should be asked, if "extremist fundamentalist" Muslims are guilty would we declare war on all Muslims? Why make the distinction about "extremist, fundamentalist" Muslims if the distinction doesn't matter in our response. Second, the Congressman also said "the most draconian measures" should be on the table." He didn't say "nuke," but it is a fair inference.
Tancredo is no doubt being inundated with "Stand tall Tom!" calls and e-mails from the anti-Islam crowd. This is a fringe opinion, but its supporters are not afraid of voicing it, much like the pro-Durbin remarks crowd on the left fringe urged Durbin to stand tall when he compared the American military to Nazis and Pol Pot's killers. This creates a problem for Tancredo: He will offend this very loud portion of his support by regretting and retracting his remarks which he surely must do, and the sooner the better.
The remarks he made are a positive disservice to the United States, for all the reasons Durbin's were. He has to retract them. And he ought to apologize to every Muslim soldier, sailor, airman and Marine for suggesting that the way to respond to an attack on America is to attack their faith.
I have been hearing from people who urge that Tancredo is just voicing the updated version of the MAD doctrine which kept the USSR at bay through the long years of the Cold War. That's silly. Destroying Mecca wouldn't destroy Islam. It would enrage and unify Islam across every country in the world where Muslims lived.
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.
Those who support him have to explain what the strategic value of such a response would be. There is none.
UPDATE: More at CaptainsQuarters, RovingTheologian OneClearCall, OpaqueLucidity Brainster's Bogus Gold and Mark Daniels.
I want to be very clear on this. No responsible American can endorse the idea that the U.S. is in a war with Islam. That is repugnant and wrong, and bloggers and writers and would-be bloggers and writers have to chose sides on this, especially if you are a center-right blogger. The idea that all of Islam is the problem is a fringe opinion. It cannot be welcomed into mainstream thought because it is factually wrong. If Tancredo's blunder does not offend you, then you do not understand the GWOT. Yoni Tidi is a frequent and popular guest on my program, a deeply religious Jew and a retired major from the Israeli security services. On the program tonight he condemned the idea of attacking Mecca or any other target that is "Muslim" as opposed to "terrorist-supporting." We are not in a war with devout Muslims. We are in a war with Muslims who think that their faith compels them to kill non-believers and the nations that support those extremists.
A SCOTUS nomination will sweep Congressman Tancredo's remarks from the headlines, but I hope center-right bloggers will stand up and be counted on this issue. And I really hope that Congressman Tancredo, a fundamentally good man, will appear and regret his comments in unequivocal terms. Congressman Tancredo has seen the aftermath of Islamist terrorism up close when he visited Beslan. He knows the cost of encouraging such violence. I believe he will want to make clear that the vast majority of Muslims do not support that kind of butchery.
Good, so have I. You're trying to tell me that if Islam is perverse, so is Christianity. That in itself is disengenuous.
Huh? Not sure how you're getting that from any of my posts.
No it doesn't, but reading both (and I have a book that does a side-by-side word-for-word comparison of the Holy Bible and the Holy Koran) and you'd understand that the Koran is based on the Holy Bible, which it is.
From the way your posts are worded.
How come in all the outcry over the hypothetical nuking of mecca, there is no concern over the hypothetical nuking of American cities which precedes? America nuking mecca, that's outrageous, islam nuking America, well that's all in a day's allah akbar.
Center-right = Socialism-light.
It's called being a cheap imitation. Mohammed took cliff notes from the Bible to make his book sound holy. What exactly is your point?
So?
What exactly is your point?
Are you always this dense?
I don't have time to wade through this whole thread but before I go I want to say that I agree with Hewitt. We have a lot of keyboard Rambos on FR so just let them have their fun. They are safe knowing no one is going to follow their silly advice.
The outcry is coming from the same people who are notoriously not known for complex thinking skills.
From a Christian perspective or Jewish perspective the Koran picks pieces of Scriptures, using some, elaborating on some, perverting some. But most of the material in the Koran has no relationship to the Hebrew or Christian Scriptures as they are understood by most Jews or Christians. The Koran has its own mission to supplant and replace all religious texts and legal codes.
I have not seen Sir Gawain equate Islam with Christianity. You have accused him of your own deed. But please, don't let the truth get in your way.
Well, you're wrong.
The Muslims claim the Koran's origin is divine.
Not sure which Muslims you're talking about, but Muslims I've talked to believe Jesus to be Divine and that Koran to be the text from which they themselves follow.
That's because you're dense too.
When Hugh starts to talk about all the wonderful Muslims, and just a tiny minority are about terrorism I could scream. Either he is uninformed or deliberately lying.
Every active Muslim worldwide is knowingly giving money for murder in the vast monetary network that is funding terrorism.
I must not be as dense as you'd like me to be. I haven't been fooled by your lies.
Well, at least you admit it.
Back to the Divinity of Jesus, which is a tenet of orthodox Christianity: In Islam Jesus and Mary are sinless, but they are not divine. And for the average Muslim knowledge of Jesus and Mary in the Koran is extremely limited.
From a secular perspective, the Koran has a multi-source background but the most important nexus is Mohammed himself as redactor/editor/translator/presenter. Elements from Christian and Hebrew Scriptures are borrowed, but the structure of the Koran is not based on the Hebrew or Christian Bible. The linguistic conventions of the Koran are not consistent with the Hebrew or Christian Bible. The thematic content of the Koran is not consistent with the Hebrew or Christian Bible. The legal content is not consistent with the Hebrew of Christian Bible. Category by category the Koran presents a fascinating cohesive whole in Arabic, very beautiful Arabic I might add, and that is totally opposite from the various voices, genres, languages, and purposes in the various books of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures.
The Koran has its own mission to supplant and replace all religious texts and legal codes.
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.