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.
"Thank you for proving my point that the Tancradeo battalion are a bunch of hate filled bigots who have no actual ideas about how to solve the illegal immigration problem and have exactly ZERO chance of getting elected to any national office."
T.T. knows he's unelectable. He's doing it because he knows that illegal immigration is killing this nation. He wants to bring the debate to the forefront and force the issue. God bless him for this. If you can not figure that out, you need to do a bit more reading on the subject.
Mr Losertarian.
There are a few of us that have been slammed perpetually by Cultural Jihad, Bayourod, Dane, and have given thoughtful responses to their (and your) neandertal rants.
This thread was about Tancredo's "what if" statements, which you decided to inject or overlay your opinion of immigration policies.
You cannot point to responses on a consnservative website as being policy, although in your dull normal world you may think it's policy.
Please stick to the subject and not spin this post into an immigration thread.
Those of us that think and experience life have a different spin and valid opinions, and (gasp) may actually support statements by (gasp) Tancredo, who support securing the CONUS from the islamotarian death cult.
Crying bigot brings no thought to the table on your behalf.
they might riot in the detention centers. or we could drop in some frag vests and let them send themselves to allah.
They believe, sincerely, that if the USA launched rockets at Mecca, Allah would swat them away like flies, or turn them around to hit New York or Washington.
But you post does raise fascinating questions. The conventional wisdom is that if we destroyed Mecca 10 billion Muslims would turn into an avenging army. But would they? Or would, as you suggest, they take it as proof that Mohammad was a fraud?
Horrible to have to ask questions like this but that's where we're at.
Typical. Speak for yourself.
It's funny how the Lib GOPers, Libertarians, and "Independents" (LLI) always claim that the MAJORITY GOP is not in fact a majority, but that they, who by the definition are the leftward fringe of the GOP, are the "true" representatives of the American people.
Then, of course, the discussion degenerates into Ad Hominum rants, because the LLI never had an intelligent argument to begin with, that didn't originate somewhere in the DNC.
You played up to your sterotype.. your kind always does.
SFS
"I am not interested in the usual sloganeering and cheer-leading of the pro-Tancradeo battalion. I don't want to hear the mindless nonsense about "fortifying our borders", what I want is some real solid specific ideas on what Tancradeo and his crowd think is the solution to illegal immigration"
Thank you for failing, in three attempts, to answer this question. You are proving my point that the anti-immigrantion crowd has no grasp what so ever on reality.
And I am glad I'm not part of your foo foo reality.
When you "come down" and regain your senses and actually read articles and responses, you might see this thread is not about immigration.
Why do we have to do your job for you and create policy?
Enforce laws on the books. < That's my specific solution to immigration policy.
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no Vice.
He said nothing he needs to back down from!
more mere al-taqiyah, methinks
As for the poll you have a link to, it is obviously false. You are the one not showing any ideas. You tell us to come up with plans, where is your plan? What do you propose to do about terrorists coming across our borders? Or are you a terrorists yourself? Sounds like you might be.
being literally tied to a temporal location and object is the death-cult's achilles heel, and we have no reason to avoid reminding them that we KNOW this.
"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?"
I would modestly suggest that we start with the Denver mosque - No apology for That either.
I don't think Tancredo provoked Anybody...and if Anybody is offended...So Be it!!
"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?"
I modestly suggest that we begin with the Denver mosque.
No need to apologize further...and, if they are offended...well So Be it!!!
Well I don't think NumbersUSA does its own polling. It simply compiles those favorable to its stated goals.
I agree that taking anti-mass immigration stands is not a surefire vote winner for Republicans, but that is mainly because immigration simply does not rank as a top-tier, vote-deciding issue for most people. People are much more likely to base their vote on national security, the economy, education, healthcare, values, etc. I've never had any illusions about this. Bush's Guest Worker proposal wasn't very popular with anyone (it went too far for conservatives, but not far enough for the Left), yet the specter of President Kerry easily swept aside such reservations (and others) for his conservative base. And Buchanan obviously failed to get much out of the issue when he ran in 2000. But I do think that taking a more traditionally conservative stance on immigration would be a net winner for the GOP, though obviously it alone could not guarantee victory.
There is unfortunately too much emotional baggage attached to this debate. And for the record, I don't deny that there are some genuine racists or xenophobes who support the conservative positions on immigration, but I do take offense when their share is claimed to be anything more that the almost certain fringe element it actually represents. I know from personal and anecdotal (I know..such evidence is mostly worthless) experience that this simply is not so. And when I look at polls showing at least 40%, and often majority support for such things then I know it to be true because I simply don't believe that there are that many genuine xenophobes. And finally, I can look at how it cuts across racial, political and ideological lines. Large percentages of blacks, for example, also express conservative views on immigration, and even Hispanics themselves often register support for reducing immigration in levels that at least equals the GOP's share of the latino vote.
And it is a shame that much of the fighting is between those of us who generally agree on most other issues. While I don't doubt that some on my side of this issue put forth some reckless rhetoric at time, it is my perception that those most eager and willing to slap-down and attack fellow conservatives are those represented by the Wall Street Journal way of thinking. That paper never misses an opportunity to throw around the 'nativist' charge.
You are probably right about most of the trite responses you list, but one does have merit in my opinion -- I do fear that it will take another major terrorist attack before we can finally let go of some of the PC contraints on this debate.
As to solutions; you hit on one of them with strict interior enforcement of immigration laws. To stop illegal immigration you have to remove the incentives for aliens by making employers unwilling to hire them. I think that as long as we have the laws on the books, then we should enforce them. Otherwise, change the laws.
If such action really is not in the best interests of our nation, then I wish that the politicians would at least lead us into an honest debate about it. Tell us that the laws are unworkable. Tell us we need more immigration. But just be honest about it, and don't try and cloak it with euphemisms. Call an amnesty and amnesty for example, and then be prepared to face the possible consequences at the ballot box. As long as both parties implicity agree, then there isn't much threat to most politicians anyway.
Inside of that silver vulva looking thing is the actual 7" tall black stone Muslims worship as the god-head.
Believe it or not.
It's attached at shoulder height to one corner of the cubical Kaaba, which is an empty building Muslims trace back to Adam.
"Bad Day At Black Rock"
What's your point?
All the telltale signs of a Liberal or Other-Than-American.
And you're just repeatedly proving his/her point.
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.