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.
It's our Sword of Damocles for the Islamic extremists.
Given their suicidal nature...it's all we have against them, I believe.
However, I suspect that the Muslims like al-Qaeda and their supporters are working at a kind of strike that would so grind America to a hault emotionally and concretely that a policy to eliminate Mecca would be impossible to carry out.
We must stop thinking of the Muslim terrorists as acting alone. They are easy dupes for the ChiComs, the leftover Russian Communists, and others who want America face down in the dirt. The Wall falling and trade opening did not put an end to these forces that work, think, and plan night and day for our demise.
The Russins and the Chi-Coms are both concerned with the radical islamics also. The Russians have also had attacks...Remember the theater massacre?
This seems like a Waaaay Over The Top comment:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1445782/replies?c=51
Please...
"Funny how you sound just like the posters on Democratic Underground who say the same thing about all conservatives and the Iraq war. Why aren't you over in Iraq if you support the war effort?"
You say we're at war with Islam. You don't have to go to Iraq to find Islam, it's right here.
So why aren't you doing your part to fight the war you say we're in?
What if Muslims nuke the Vatican? An Algerian attempted to assassinate Pope John Paul II. (Historical footnote, but true, nonetheless.) Where is the line in the sand? Washington DC? Boston, NYC? LA, Denver, Chicago? Or six or seven at once? There has to be some outrage we won't put up with. No?
Not only politically foolish, but tactically and strategically foolish as well.
Right now, some Muslim countries (like Turkey) are more-or-less on our side, and many other Muslim nations, from North Africa to Southeast Asia, are at least not actively fighting against us. If we were to explicitly frame this as a U.S. vs. Islam war, we would be in a heap more of trouble than we are now.
All Jews face towards the Temple Mount in Jerusalem when they pray, and Jewish prayers are in Hebrew. (I am NOT comparing Judaism to islam [God forbid!], but I am pointing out that your examples do not prove that Muslims are pagans.)
Why aren't you doing your part in the Iraq war if you support it?
"Why aren't you doing your part in the Iraq war if you support it?"
Because I'm 30 years too old to enlist and go to Iraq. Besides, been there, done that, back in Vietnam.
So, why aren't you actually fighting the war that you're saying is right here in your city, chickenhawk?
You could go over as a private contractor. Guess you're just not trying hard enough. I'm doing my part here to educate fools like you about the true Islam. I know you wish I were out somewhere breaking laws and killing people, but that wouldn't serve the cause. It would only give ammo for propaganda spread by morons like you.
"You could go over as a private contractor."
Actually, I can't. (I applied to several firms and was turned down--they don't want people with heavy-duty hypertension and diabetes.)
"Guess you're just not trying hard enough."
Neither are you. There are followers of Islam close to hand to carry the war to--and you refuse to do it.
"I'm doing my part here to educate fools like you about the true Islam."
If it's a war, then you are either actually fighting it, or you are a useless blowhard chickenhawk.
Lead by example, please.
"I know you wish I were out somewhere breaking laws and killing people, but that wouldn't serve the cause."
You're a complete coward--unwilling to do anything to fight the war you preach about.
"It would only give ammo for propaganda spread by morons like you."
Either we're at war with the entire religion of Islam, and you're a coward fleeing from the fight, or you simply engaged your mouth prior to engaging your brain, which merely makes you Tom Tancredo.
I'm fighting it, just not in the way you would like so you would have some more propaganda to spew. Yawn.
It's also a shame that Vietnam turned you into a raving lunatic. May your last days in the asylum be peaceful.
I did not know that, thanks for the enlightenment.
I googled this after reading your post:
http://christianactionforisrael.org/whosecity.html
"Jews at prayers all over the world face towards the Temple Mount. Muslims, even those praying on the Mount, face away from it, towards Mecca. In the Old Testament, Jerusalem is mentioned on 656 occasions; the city's well-being is central to Jewish prayer.
In the New Testament, the city is the scene of the climacteric events of the Christian faith. In the Koran, Jerusalem is not mentioned by name at all."
YESSSSSSSSSSSS!
Sorry, only room for one bombardier.
Given the huge crowds at Mecca, especially during Ramadan, a nuke would take out around two million Muslims at prayer. If two million Americans are eliminated by a terrorist suitcase nuke, what would be an "appropriate PC response?" It's a legitimate question, guys.
Contact CAIR with advance sympathies?
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.