Tancredo won't back down

The Denver Post ^ | 7/19/2005 | Mike Soraghan and Anne C. Mulkern

[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.

[XJarhead]

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

You seem a remarkably unjovial cad to me. Uh, "sir".

[XJarhead]

That's what happens when people are unable to separate the validity of an expressed opinion from the peron who expressed it. Tancredo may (or may not) be right on immigration. But even if he is right, it doesn't mean he shouldn't be criticized if he's wrong on another issue.

The whole "nuke Mecca" thing just looks completely mindless to me. If he'd have said something about nuking the capital of a cuontry found to have supported the terrorists who nuked us, I'd see the logic at least. It's a threat to governments to crack down. Okay, I'm with that.

But Mecca is just a place in the middle of the desert, and within the control of only one ME government. Not much of a deterrent to the rest of them.

[Black Tooth]

Obviously. Your point?

The point is, nearly 100 percent of the time, people that set off the bombs called terrorist. Like you say, this is pretty obvious. But if we know who the enemy is, why not call identify them by name? If they are all Muslims, or directly associated with the Muslim religion, why not call them Muslim terrorist?

[Bush2000]

... how to solve the illegal immigration problem...

The U.S. has a coastline of 12,383 miles. The U.S.-Canada border is 3,145 miles. The U.S.-Mexico border is 1,951 miles. So, enlighten us: You actually think it's logistically practical to prevent illegals from penetrating our borders?

[Bush2000]

But Mecca is just a place in the middle of the desert, and within the control of only one ME government. Not much of a deterrent to the rest of them.

The commonality is the Muslim religion. Mecca is a holy place considered sacred by most of the world's Muslims. Bomb it -- and you're basically offending all Muslims; even the ones who have no affiliation with terrorism.

[XJarhead]

So the question remains what do we do when Islamic terrorist set off one or more nukes or bio weapons in major U.S. cities.

Uh, that depends what we find out about the attacks. If it turns out it was from a group that has been given safe haven in Iran, why would you bomb Mecca? Why not Teheran? Or if its a Saudi group, why not Riyadh? Or Damascas if its Syria?

OH thats right its our fault and we just need to understand their anger.

Oh, that's right. Anyone who doesn't see the logic in bombing Mecca obviously is soft on terrorism and thinks its all our fault. Even though I suggested that nuking the capital of a responsible country might be an appropriate response....

Please explain -- if you can -- exactly what you expect to accomplish by bombing Mecca. What do you expect the result of that to be?

The problem is that some of you people are thinking like liberals on this. Because its usually liberals who respond to problems with solutions that make them feel better, regardless of whether they actually solve the problem or even make it worse. Hey, people need money? No problem, the government will give them welfare because that makes us feel like we're compassionate people. Whether that solves poverty or actually makes it worse isn't really relevant. We feel better, and that's all that matters.

The only way to ever win this war on terror is to force moslem governments to crack down on terrorists themselves. I'm completly in favor of bringing whatever force we need to "encourage" them to do that. But bombing Mecca, or threatening to bomb Mecca, doesn't do that. Why would Assad care if Mecca gets bombed?

Like I said, bombing Mecca is the equivalent of kicking your dog because your wife ticked you off.

[Bush2000]

The only way to ever win this war on terror is to force moslem governments to crack down on terrorists themselves. I'm completly in favor of bringing whatever force we need to "encourage" them to do that. But bombing Mecca, or threatening to bomb Mecca, doesn't do that. Why would Assad care if Mecca gets bombed?

That's a very good point. Assad is only interested in retaining his power. He'll use terrorism and harbor terrorists in order to destablize other governments. The only way to bring him to heel is to threaten his hold on power.

[Valin]

"why not call them Muslim terrorist?"

I can''t speak for others but I do. Actually I call them Islamic terrorists.

" directly associated with the Muslim religion"

In there minds yes. Something I read a while ago pops up in my (so called :-)) mind. I can't remember where (Benard Lewis(?) That what we are seeing is a civil war inside Islam. The radicals (starting with the Muslim Brotherhood) against the secularists (pan-Arabists) and we (the west, because of our support in times past for these governments, and our support for Israel) and the average Muslim are caught in the crossfire.

I don't know how much I buy this but it is a way of looking at it.

[XJarhead]

Assad is only interested in retaining his power.

That's exactly why us bombing Mecca is like this guy hitting the jackpot. His country is completely unaffected. But now he's got a whole bunch of citizens who are really pissed at the U.S, and therefore more united behind him. Nuking Mecca makes a guy like him stronger.

Nuking Damascas, on the other hand....

I believe there's a fair chance that even some of the governments over there that give some level of tacit support to terrorists do not want them to do something like explode a nuke. They fear our response may be to nuke them, and they don't want to take that risk. Nuking Mecca likely would generate a "phew, lucky it wasn't me" from those type of despots.

And a threat to nuke Mecca isn't helpful either, because it supports the idea advanced by the islamo-fascists that we just want to get all moslems. If the entire moslem world ever believes that we are motivated not be a desire to stop terrorism, but a desire to eliminate islam, then whatever cooperation we've been getting -- and its been substantial from some -- will evaporate.

[XJarhead]

Its more like kicking the dog because he bit you....

No, its not. Because in your scenario, the dog is Mecca, but Mecca didn't bite you.

If these governments are not doing everything possible ie; closing these schools that teach the hate that breeds the terrorist,then they are responsible for what these people do in America.

I agree completely. But shouldn't that mean you strike at the governments responsible rather than some Mecca? That's my point. If Iran is sheltering supporting a group that nukes us, shouldn't we retaliate against Teheran rather than Mecca?

[incredulous joe]

"Or are you a terrorists yourself? Sounds like you might be"

Well, I won't go so far as to speculate that our friendly poster is a terrorist, but I would say that I consider appeasers, terrorist sympathizers and terrorists to be one in the same.

I don't think that it's unreasonable to connect the dots.

[Publius6961]

If the entire moslem world ever believes that we are motivated not be [by] a desire to stop terrorism, but a desire to eliminate islam, then whatever cooperation we've been getting -- and its been substantial from some -- will evaporate.

There's a large dollop of naivete here. At this point in the process everything points to a distinction without a difference. Our real enemy is islam.

As for cooperation being "substantial", I have failed to notice any. Just pro forma busy work to be able to claim to be doing something.
To be blunt, can I challenge you to name any country which has begun closing madrassas? One? Any?

If all the cooperation we have been getting of late were to disappear, it would make no difference whatsoever in the larger scheme of things.

[XJarhead]

There's a large dollop of naivete here. At this point in the process everything points to a distinction without a difference.

So no difference between the jihadi who blows himself up to kill women and children, and the Iraqi soldier who risks his life to prevent it? No difference between OBL, and a guy like Musharaff who has survived 8 assassination attempts because he's cracked down? Unlike you, I see a difference there.

As for cooperation being "substantial", I have failed to notice any. Just pro forma busy work to be able to claim to be doing something.

If you haven't read about gun battles in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, cooperation from Yemen, etc., I'm not going to waste my time googling.

To be blunt, can I challenge you to name any country which has begun closing madrassas? One? Any?

Pakistan has raided madrasses and arrested those preaching violence. I found these in about one minute:

http://fullcoverage.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050720/wl_asia_afp/britainattackspakistan_050720060631&printer=1

http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/jan/12parl3.htm

Here's an old FR thread going back to 2004 that discusses it. Enjoy.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1207600/posts

If all the cooperation we have been getting of late were to disappear, it would make no difference whatsoever in the larger scheme of things.

Really? And you're privy to all the classified assistance we're getting from those governments that can't be publicized? Because Bush has said that we've gotten cooperation that can't be publicized.