Posted on 07/20/2005 3:27:23 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
KUWAIT CITY - Muslims from Indonesia to the Middle East on Wednesday labeled as aggressive and irresponsible a U.S. congressman's suggestion that the United States could "take out" Islamic holy sites if Muslim attackers targeted America in a nuclear strike.
Some demanded an apology. Many said the comments fuel Islamic extremism and leave Muslims feeling Americans equate terrorists with all of Islam.
"American mentality imagines that a religion is attacking another religion, and here lies the danger," said Syrian political analyst Ahmed al-Haj Ali. He called it "frightening" to "retaliate against the birthplace of Islam for individual criminal acts or acts committed by groups that are condemned by Islam."
Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Colorado Republican, was asked on a radio talk show Friday how the United States should respond if terrorists struck several of its cities with nuclear weapons.
"Well, 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 know, you could take out their holy sites," Tancredo answered.
When host Pat Campbell of WFLA-AM in Orlando, Fla. asked if he meant "bombing Mecca," the congressman responded: "Yeah."
Mecca and Medina, in Saudi Arabia, are Islam's holiest cities. All able-bodied Muslims are required to make a pilgrimage there at least once in their lives. Mecca is the birthplace of Islam's prophet Muhammad and home to the Kaaba, Islam's most sacred site, which Muslims around the world face when they perform daily prayers.
"I find it strange that such a comment comes from someone who represents a civilized people," said Hamed al-Abdullah, a Kuwait University political science teacher. The comment should be rejected by civic societies, the Congress and President Bush, he said.
U.S. State Department spokesman Adam Ereli called the congressman's statement "insulting and offensive." He said Americans "respect the dignity and sanctity of other religions."
In Egypt, the liberal al-Ghad Party condemned Tancredo's comments and demanded "an official apology to all Muslim nations, who love peace and reject arrogance and violence."
"It's aggressive and it is exceeding all limits and doesn't serve anything but extremism and terrorism," al-Ghad said in statement published in its mouthpiece newspaper by the same name.
Tancredo has refused to apologize, telling The Associated Press his comments had been taken out of context. He said he never said he wanted to bomb Mecca or Medina and added that it would be better to think of ways to prevent a terrorist attack, noting that he didn't want to "inflame this issue."
But some Muslims still felt Tancredo's remarks reflected a broader American opinion. "America is trying to market the idea of striking at Mecca in order to fight fundamentalism. This is crazy talk devoid of logic," said Sheik Hisham Hassani, a Syrian expert on fundamentalist groups. He accused Washington of sowing "sectarian discord that always begins with such utterances."
The leader of Indonesia's most influential group of Islamic clerics criticized the remarks as "irresponsible" and called on Americans to protest them. "How can an American congressman say something like that?" said Amidhan, who goes by one name. "It just reflects his inability as a politician."
"Does he understand anything about human rights? At least when the United States attacks Iraq, Muslims blame the government not the American people," Amidhan said.
Al-Abdullah, the Kuwaiti political scientist, put some blame on the way the question was put to the congressman. "These imaginary 'what if' questions are endless," he said.
Oh baby, I love it when you talk nukes!
I do hope the talking points of six months ago were more imaginative and cogent, however.
I heard you post about the propaganda points that Tancredo gave the Islamofascists.
But I've yet to see what you think those points ARE.
Is it that the Islamofascists can now claim to the 'moderate' Muslims that America is a crazy, Islam-hating country that is willing to destroy the most sacred of Muslim holy sites if the Islamofascists attack? And that they will attack America, knowing full-well what the response will be?
Boy, now THAT'S a great propaganda point. I'm sure that 'moderate' Muslims would be ever-so-greatful to the Islamofascists for endangering their most sacred city with destruction.
Or is there another propaganda point that I've missed?
Glad you enjoyed it.
:)
Everybody knew it and politicians didn't try to get cheap political headlines by stating so.
Ain't nothing like nookie-lear in Mecca!
Why not just kill Muslims at a rate triple that of their birthrate?
And let them know that the killing will continue until all Muslim attacks on the West stop completely.
Eventually, the Muslims will have to police themselves. And if not, well, very shortly there would not BE any Muslims to attack us.
It's slow enough to allow the Muslims to change their attitude and behavior, but quick enough to end the problem if they don't.
And it still leaves the Muslim world with a choice. Peace and Life, or War and Death.
It'd would also shut the liberals up a bit, once the Muslims make that choice.
I haven't changed anything. Look over my replies, I have stated both that tancredo gave the islamofascists propaganda points and that he said it to get cheap political headlines.
Tancredo's office should issue a statement to the Egyptian al-Ghad Party stating,
"When an Islamic country that loves peace and rejects arrogance and violence is found, an apology will be made... to that country. Unfortunately, as of yet, we have not been able to find an Islamic country that fits your definition. Have a nice day!"
Wow, so you DO think that Stalin got propaganda points from the US policy of MAD...
Amazing.
I think that MAD stopped Stalin's ambitions on Western Europe, and weakened his position in the world.
And I think that having a policy to nuke (MOAB, neutron bomb, whatever) Mecca will have the same effect on Islamofascists.
It will weaken their influence in Islam.
good one. who was it that said from 1980-2000 South Korea had applied for something like 20,000 patents. In all of the arab/muslim world in that same time-frame there were less than a thousand? We are truly wasting a LOT of time and energy on such a waste of humanity. A couple of quick and PAINFUL shots across the bow and this nonsense would cease immediately!!!
Saying blowing up mecca doesn't help and only give ammunition to al-jezeera and the islamofascists.
There is a saying of don't give your enemies the hammer to beat you with, which tancredo did.
He could have said any response would be forceful and overpowering, which would have gotten the message out, instead of giving the islamofascists a hammer with saying of blowing up mecca.
I have stated I don't like tancredo. IMO, he is a self-serving egotist and opprotunist who appeals to the worst in people, such as when he backstabbed Tom Delay.
So, what did you think when Reagan made, what is now considered his brilliant "Evil Empire" remarks?
While I agree with Rep. Tancredo on this, I had to take the thought just a little further down the trail, as it were.
If we were attacked, and we retalited by vaporising Mecca, Medina, and few other muslim sites....who's to say that oh, Russia, or China, or India, or any other nuclear power (this includes Pakistan) might not like that very much and might instigate a global thermonuclear war?
That possibility does indeed exist, whether we want to believe it or not. If we nuke a major foreign city, even though other nations know beyond a shadow of a doubt that we could vaporize their entire country, they might take offense of us removing islamic holy sites from existence....even if, in the long run, it would benefit them.
That offense might take the form of a bunch of missles headed towards our shores.
Then what?
"Tancredo handed the Islamofascists valuable propaganda points?"
Did you borrow that talking point from Dane, or did you just cut-and-paste from his posts?
There is a differnce in making a policy speech and pointing out correctly that the soviet union was an evil empire. Reagan did not pepper his remarks with blowing up Moscow.
Tancredo could have done the same about islmofascism, but gave the islamofascists propaganda points with his pepering his remarks with blowing up mecca.
He only said what we all hope will happen if there is a big attack inside the US. The "Root Cause" of Muslim terrorism is a Muslim who reads the Koran and understands what it tells him/her to do.
I'm not hoping for a big attack in the US, are you insinuating tancredo is?
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.