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.
So you are now saying tancredo's comments were a joke?
BTW, I don't think you can compare Reagan with tancredo.
Reagan was an honest and decent man who happened to be a politician, tancredo with his remarks and his actions, such as backstabbing Tom Delay, has shown, IMO, that he is a self-serving opprotunist.
Tancredo now denies that he said that. (I know, I heard the audio and read the transcript also, but he still denies he said it)
" Tancredo now denies that he said that"
bayourod, haven't you learned your lesson by being banned once? you are a jihadist propagandist liar
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1445581/posts?page=236#236
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1447104/posts?page=58#58
How original.
Well I'll follow the Reagan legacy, which sought to bring out the best in people, you can follow the tancredo legacy, which, IMO, wishes to bring out the worst.
I can just imagine the Islam fatwa-issuance automated hotline operator: please hold while we validate your jihad request and issue you your unique fatwa number. Have a pen ready.
The word "mutual" has very unpleasant smell in the time of war. If you agree to remove it, I'll fullheartedly agree with you: eradication of the death cult of Islam will certainly work.
make it appealing to the rest to moderate their religion...
LOL! Do you really believe this lame platitude? President Bush has diplomatic chores to attend to... unfortunately, not only at the international scene but at home too. A diplomat is someone who is paid to lie in his country's best interests. You don't need to do it at the freerepublic.com.
Well if the moslems hate him this much he must be doing something right.
I'd have to agree. BTW, we could have avoided this nonsense if we'd smashed the A**ahollah some 20 years or more ago. If we'd taken out Bin Laden way earlier. If the insane immigration and multi-culti policies had not been implaced. Still the Wall Street Journal supports an open immigration policy and admission of Turkey to the EU, something even Khaddafi has said would act as a Trojan Horse in Europe for the Islamists. All I can say is: The Fools. Enoch Powell could have saved Britain. Le Pen could have saved France. Now it's probably going to be bloody hell with almost unimaginable suffering, thanks to the 1965 Immigration Origins Act among other examples of left-wing madness that have infected our societies. (Mary Jo and we thank thee, Teddy.)
I would emphasize by capitals another word in your statement: SMALL. That's where you're mistaken: though good, holy Islamic people do exist, it is them who are a very small, almost negligent group among huge majority of evil Islamists.
And the latter include not only those who're actively involved in perpetrating or preparing of terrorist acts, or those who are the card holding members of Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad and such.
The so called "Arab street" and "moderate Muslims" - and there are millions of them out there - are the worst villains, they're not some suffering folks forcibly made to participate in atrocities. They are the breeding ground for the terrorists, they celebrate every mass murder of Westerners be it in London, New York or Haifa.
In one word, common Nazis are one bit no better than the stormtroopers.
So will all the people who said Durbin's idiotic remarks would stir up even more anti-American fervor in the Middle East condemn Tancredo as well? What Durbin said was disgusting and disrespectful, but if he is blamed for endangering our troops, Tancredo should be as well.
But they ARE arabs and musli... your "if" just isn't on.
Somehow I have a feeling Tancredo would never have said to nuke the Vatican if most terrorists were Catholics instead of Arab and/or Muslim.
All the terrorists are muslims. The people who teach their children to blow up themselves, other children and old people are muslims. They hate us because their RELIGION teaches them that they must hate us and THAT IS THE FACT OF THE MATTER. Islam dictates that it must control the government. Christianity makes no such claims. If the terrorists were catholics and not muslims, then I'd bet you in a heartbeat Tancredo would have advocated retaliating against the vatican, becasue that is what many of us would be thinking. But they are ALL muslims. Islam is designed to enslave men and free them through martyrdom. Some religion, it's a death cult.
Was it wrong to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
I must have missed the protests and mass murders that followed since Tancredo made his remarks. Again, it's a darn good thing he didn't flush a koran down the toilet while making these remarks, because that we know for sure would have led to mass mayhem in the islamic world.
As to not dropping the bomb on the emperor of Japan, I think Truman was wrong not to have done it. The first nuke dropped should have been on the emperor's house. If we dropped the first on the emperor, we may not have needed to drop the second. I think Truman felt that the Japanese would have fought on and never surrendered had we killed the emperor, their quasi-god, and that is why he didn't do it. My belief is killing him would have allowed them to more easily surrender to us after the first atomic bomb drop and saved us and them from having to drop a second bomb.
You're to tender to the idiot who has this idiotic idea that if he repeats his idiotic bleating enough times it becomes true.
Note my tag, they can come and get me, I got a present for them....
When the Spanish conquistadors came to the Americas, they conquered huge empires with small armies by using the old "divide and conquer" strategy. The conquistadors allied themselves with some tribes, while taking out other tribes. At the end, they subjugated all the tribes.
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.