Posted on 07/23/2005 9:39:48 AM PDT by neverdem
No apology for discussing retaliation on Muslim holy sites
Washington - Rep. Tom Tancredo refused Monday to back down from his statement Friday suggesting that the United States might respond to a radical Islamic terrorist attack by bombing Muslim holy sites.
Muslim groups earlier Monday called on Tancredo to apologize and said they want to meet with the Colorado Republican.
"I'm not suggesting we do it. I have nothing to apologize for in that respect," Tancredo said. "I'm simply saying to have a good discussion on this issue, a thorough discussion on what is perhaps the most serious kind of possible situation we could face as a civilization, that you cannot simply take things off the table because they are uncomfortable to talk about."
Tancredo, a Littleton Republican, made the statement about bombing Muslim holy sites, including the Saudi Arabian city of Mecca, on a Florida talk-radio show.
Besieged by reporters for the first time Monday as he unveiled an anti-amnesty immigration bill, Tancredo said the terrorism issue was a very tough one to deal with and that "tough things were said." He said he stood by his remarks.
The reference to bombing holy sites, he said, came up in a discussion about possible ways the U.S. could respond to nuclear strikes against its cities by terrorists.
"I simply throw that out there as something to think about, although it is horrendous to think about, I understand that," Tancredo said. "So is having one or more cities destroyed in the United States. And that's all I did."
Muslim leaders disagreed.
"When he makes such a statement he should have the courage to go back and apologize," said Rafaat Ludin, president of the Colorado Muslim Society, an organization that includes a mosque and represents 15,000 Muslims in the Denver area. "He is trying to provoke these terrorists who are making our lives miserable, here and across the world. How can you in your right mind call for something like that?"
Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Washington, said, "People outside the United States will take this as representative of the United States. It makes the war on terror that much harder."
Asked Monday whether he was concerned about inflaming terrorists, Tancredo said, "You've got people telling us that they're going to bomb our cities and kill however many millions of people that they can. You're telling me there's something more hostile than that?"
Tancredo made the comments Friday in a conversation with talk-radio host Pat Campbell at WFLA in Orlando, Fla. They were discussing an article on the conservative Internet site WorldNetDaily that said Islamic terrorists have brought nuclear devices across the Mexican border, preparing for an attack on the interior U.S.
Asked how the United States might respond to such an attack, Tancredo said, "You could take out their holy sites."
Campbell said, "You're talking about bombing Mecca." Tancredo replied, "Yeah."
Tancredo is a member of the House International Relations Committee.
A fervent opponent of illegal immigration, he has begun an insurgent bid for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination that he says is designed to force a more serious candidate to take a hard-line stance on immigration.
Tancredo said he was not worried about the comments hurting his chance at the presidency.
"I'm not going to couch my words based upon some bizarre hope of, you know, running for president," he said.
Rafaat and Ludin said Colorado Muslims are seeking a meeting with Tancredo to discuss his comments. Tancredo spokesman Will Adams said he was not familiar with the request.
Staff writer Mike Soraghan can be reached at 202-662-8730 or msoraghan@denverpost.com.
Staff writer Anne C. Mulkern can be reached at 202-662-8907 or amulkern@denverpost.com.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is a transcript of a portion of U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo's conversation with talk-radio host Pat Campbell on Friday:
Campbell: Worst-case scenario - if they do have these nukes inside the borders and they were to use something like that, what would our response be?
Tancredo: What would be the response? (pause) Um, you know, there are things you could threaten to do before something like that happens and you may have to do afterwards (unintelligible) draconian.
Campbell: Such as?
Tancredo: 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 could take out their holy sites.
Campbell: You're talking about bombing Mecca?
Tancredo: Yeah. What if you said, "We recognize this is the ultimate threat to the United States, so this is the ultimate response." I'm just throwing out some ideas because you would be talking about taking the most draconian measures you could possibly imagine. Because other than that, all you could do is, once again, tighten up internally.
I never did. Only heard him and others repeatedly refer to the bad guys/enemy as "terrorist".
Isn't a terrorist someone who uses terror as a "method"?
Obviously. Your point?
I take it you are referring to FR's resident quisling contingent.
All he did was blurt out what tens of millions of Americans are thinking and saying to their friends, neighbors, and family members every time the subject comes up. And it had the added benefit of being true--we do need to be thinking along these lines in the event the (God forbid) unthinkable happens on American soil.
I never paid much attention to the Congressman before this kerfluffle, but I'm starting to become a real fan. He for sure has all the right enemies: the weepy, cowardly appeasers of Islamo-fascism.
What is the "anti-immigration side"? By "immigration" are you referring to all immigration, both legal and illegal? What is the "anti-migrant side"? By "migrant", are you referring to illegal aliens? A foreigner in the USA is either a legal immigrant or an illegal alien.
As far as who is going to these jobs if all of the illegal aliens are forced to leave, we could let in some of the millions of foreigners from around the world who are patiently waiting for their turn to come to the USA legally.
2) The "housing" areas seem to be handled pretty well by Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County for "normal" criminals. Start there.
3) The Feds would cough up some money they are currently spending on all sorts of stupid anti-terror PC airport screening.
4) I said, over and over (and you ignored, over and over) that much of this is handled by increased use of VOLUNTEERS. It's clear we have them. It's also clear that the government is trying its damndest not to work with them.
Don't even try to pull the old money trick. Money is the SMALLEST problem in a democracy, especially when it comes to national security. This is war.
You can't use that canard any more. I just gave you six or seven solid approaches that WOULD work, would cost minimal money, and would involve lots of VOLUNTEERS.
I like to give you some specifics, but apparently I'm one of the "full of mindless nonsense" folks. We are grateful to you intellectuals for coming along and setting us straight. When you're up to your a$# in terrorists, give us a call, we might bail you out.
Nothing personal, but the last time a cockroach went by and waved his tiny fists at me demanding stuff, he ended up making a nice crunching sound.
Who gives a rat's elbow what you want or don't want?
I am sorry that I said what I said because I couldn't think on my feet fast enough when I was ambushed by that as****e Campbell.
I am also sorry because there isn't another elected politician in the US of A who would not wet his pants when asked the same question... before running screaming from the room.
End of apology.
Why do you hate the guy so much when you dont seem to know anything about him? I dont know much about him but even I know hes introduced immigration reform legislation that is to the right of kyl/cornyn. Is that specific enough?
You may want to be careful how you label people who disagree with you. I've got a fair number of friends/family fighting against islamo-fascism in Afghanistan and Iraq right now who think Tancredo's statement was idiotic. Would you consider them "weepy, cowardly appeasors"?
Nuking Mecca may make some of us feel better, but doing things just because they make you feel better is the way liberals solve problems. Conservatives are the ones who are supposed to look at a proposed course of action and ask whether it will actually solve the problem at issue, or whether is just makes us feel better.
I've yet to have anyone in favor of nuking Mecca offer a good explanation for how that will help defeat islamo-fascism. All I ever hear is that if you're not in favor of it, you're soft on terrorism. It's the intellectual equivalent of giving the wino on the corner $5 because it makes you feel better, even though you know he's just going to spend it on booze.
Ummmm. OK.
Can you be nice now and take your senility medication?
You nailed it! LOL!
I calls 'em as I sees 'em, and certainly don't need you as a moral tutor.
I've got a fair number of friends/family fighting against islamo-fascism in Afghanistan and Iraq right now who think Tancredo's statement was idiotic
Well I have two nephews who just got back from Iraq and Afghanistan (respectively), one a soldier, one a Marine. Though I thank your "family/friends" for their service, I (1.) am not impressed by the attempt to put words I never said into my mouth (that's a scummy kind of smear I see employed frequently by the dim bulbs I encounter), and (2.) they are entitled to their opinions, as am I. That is part and parcel of what they're fighting for, as my nephews have done.
As to the rest: I've had my say on the matter, frequently, in this forum and am not going to regurgitate it once again for the likes of you.
Good day, sir.
The political Left is just doing one of their regular HIT pieces on you.
When it comes to the Tancredoites, name calling is their standard MO. If you don't agree with them then either you're pro-illegal immigration, pro-terrorists, or guilty of treason. Just look at most of Czar's posts. All he does is accuse people of being traitors simply because they don't agree with Tancredo or him.
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.