Nonsense from the Idiot Department

The Buffalo News ^ | 7/23/2005 | LEONARD PITTS

[bayourod]

It is probably not a good idea in terms of job security to publicly call your boss a horse's ass. So have some sympathy for Will Adams, spokesman for Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo. He was asked by reporters to explain the asinine thing the congressman said last week. Adams told them Tancredo is just a "free thinker." By which standard Michael Jackson is just a tad eccentric. Or haven't you heard? Tancredo thinks maybe the United States should bomb Mecca. You know Mecca. City in Saudi Arabia. Birthplace of the prophet Muhammad. Holiest shrine of Islam, a religion practiced by one of every six people on Earth. That's the place a U.S. congressman thinks maybe we should lob some ordnance at.

Tancredo made this contribution to the national dialogue last week during a talk show on WFLA, a TV station in Orlando, Fla. Host Pat Campbell had asked how we should respond if U.S. cities are ever struck by terrorists using nuclear devices. "Well," said Tancredo, "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."

"You're talking about bombing Mecca," said Campbell.

"Yeah," said Tancredo.

Predictably, Tancredo's suggestion has been a little controversial. That is, if you can call statements of condemnation stretching from Moscow to the State Department to Ankara, Turkey, "a little controversial."

Tancredo has refused to apologize, but he did issue a written "clarification," which said in part, "I do not advocate this. Much more thought would need to be given to the potential ramifications of such a horrific response."

Actually, you don't need to give any thought to the ramifications of such an action, because they should be self-evident to anyone smarter than the average hamster. We would become an international pariah. Muslims would hate us with renewed fervor, and Osama bin Laden would thank us for writing his recruitment material.

In other words, the same situation we have now, except worse. Much, much, much worse.

And I wonder: Am I the only who feels that lately - lately being defined as since Sept. 11, 2001 - the nation seems overrun by yahoos?

Granted, the presence of yahoos in daily life is not a new torment. They have always been among us, the simplemindedness of their thinking exceeded only by the volume at which they express it. Think Cliff Clavin, the cogs of his brain lubricated by beer, holding forth from his stool at the end of the bar. Of course, the only thing you had to do to avoid Cliff was to stay out of Cheers.

But the 9/11 attacks have unleashed yahooism on an unprecedented scale. Cliff is no longer confined to his bar stool. Under the name Mona Charen, he once wrote a newspaper column advocating the expulsion of Muslims from America. Under the name Rush Limbaugh, he has a radio talk show on which he compared the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib to a fraternity prank. Under the name Ann Coulter, he calls for the racial profiling of travelers from the Middle East. And under the name Tom Tancredo, he is apparently a member of Congress.

What he doesn't get - what yahoos usually don't get - is that things that seem to make sense while you're hoisting a few rarely hold up in the sober light of day.

Tancredo has cast his refusal to apologize as a blow against political correctness. Which is silly. One can be plain-spoken without being reckless, blunt without being stupid, straight-forward without sounding like a fool.

Assuming, that is, you have something worthwhile to say. Tancredo evidently does not. Somebody tell him his beer is getting warm.

[Stellar Dendrite]

guys, don't bother with bayourod, he/she is a DU propagandist. bayourod purposefully mischaracterizes individuals arguments, and also in the past has stated that immigration/borders is an issue which the american people do not care about, only a small # on FR. when asked to post evidence, he/she is nowhere to be found



To: PRND21
"Tancredo and his followers are bumbling fools."

It's even worse than that. ****They are against the war in Iraq.******* It is part of their isolationist philosophy as enunciated by their prophet Buchanan.

****They opposed President Bush sending troops to Iraq in the beginning. *****They want the troops brought back now to guard the border and they want the money being spent on Iraq to be spent building a wall around our borders.

310 posted on 07/19/2005 1:29:44 PM CDT by bayourod


---

To: dennisw
The Secretary of Homeland Defense testified before two Congressional committees last week that in order for him to secure the border against terrorists it is necessary for Congress to enact certain legislation that would allow his border guards to work more effectively detecting smugglers and terrorists.

Tancredo immediately announced that he would oppose such legislation

If Tancredo and his followers manage to block the legislation necessary to keep terrorists from crossing the border, and as a result an American city is bombed, the blood will be on the hands of Tancredo and his followers.
321 posted on 07/19/2005 1:58:40 PM CDT by bayourod
----

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1445581/posts?page=236#236

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1447104/posts?page=58#58

[Stellar Dendrite]

See post #81 for bayourod's previous lies. don't bother with him/her

[Afronaut]

How some of these folks can keep a Microsoft operating system up and running for a week straight is a plain miracle.

[motorola7]

whatever Tancredo said about the Chinese General's nuke comments is inconsequential. What counts is how this filters into consciousness of the Executive Branch and the US military Chain of Command.
The same thing applies to the Islamists.
You waste your time and mine by raising irrelevant issues.

[cubram]

"It seems to me that if we were to actually bomb Mecca and Medina, it would prove Islam is a false religion."

How so?

[Petruchio]

Wouldn't need a small nuke really. A fuel-air bomb just to wipe out the big borg cube. That way we can savour the moment on camera.

During Rams-Dama-Ding-Dong?

[philetus]

Are you willing to persona;lly kill the Muslims in your neighborhood?"

When they nuke one of our cities, I'll make that decision.

[wolfpat]

Well, aren't they under Allah's protection? As infidels, we ought not be able to accomplish such a feat.

[TAquinas]

"Dane, trolling again?"

Yes.

[TAquinas]

"You ridicule our Commander In Chief and oppose our war in Iraq, yet have the audacity to call yourself a patriot?"

LOL!

From the mouth of the Enemy Within.

Hypocrite!

[TAquinas]

"All tancredo had to say was to say to the question of, God forbid, a nuclear attack on the US by islamofascists is that the reaction would be quick and overwhelming,"

Tancredo did better than that. He said we should nuke the barbaric, mutant islimemists.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Barf alert?

[TheCrusader]

"Well your praise of Tancredo is wasted because he has already retracted his statement and said he was misquoted"

You can't 'retract' that which was never said, you set the record straight.

The 'misquotes' were actually what he said being taken out of context. He was asked to contemplate an America that had been nuked in multiple cities by Islamic terrorists and then asked what he thinks a U.S. response to that might be. Given this unthinkable situation I thought he was being much to kind to the Muslim population by just bombing a couple of 'holy' sites.

[Chgogal]

"Do you really believe that a terrorist attack on our major cities would be that devastating, or are you just employing hyperbole for political reasons?"

Tancredo was asked specifically about nuclear attacks! Are you and Mr. Pitts complete idiots? Honestly.

Yes, I do believe if there are dirty bombs set off in NYC, Chicago, LA, Houston, San Fran, Atlanta and Miami there will be a devastating effect on the local economies, the national economy and then the world economy. You must be an complete fool. Look what the relatively minor 9/11 attacks (as compared to dirty bombs going off) did to the US and world economies. You and Mr. Pitts are fools.

We know that the US found videos showing MUSLIM TERRORISTS experimenting with WMD. The US government has found evidence that MUSLIM TERRORISTS are in pursuit of nuclear bomb material (dirty bombs). Remember Mr. Padilla was arrested at O'Hare coming back from an all expense paid holiday in Pakistan. He had instructions on him to blow up apartment buildings using dirty bomb material. We know that the Saudi, Syrian, Iranian and Pakistani governments support terrorism in one way or another.

I stand by my response. If MUSLIM TERRORISTS attack the US with nuclear bombs knowing the support the aforementioned governments give MUSLIM TERRORISTS, attacking Mecca, Median, Damascus, Tehran and any other target is acceptable.

I noticed that your went from nuclear attack to "terrorist attack". Also we are talking about the US response in case of a nuclear attack, not the immigration issue. I have lost all respect for your debating skills.

[bayourod]

..."attacking Mecca, Median, Damascus, Tehran and any other target is acceptable.... "

Just because most of the citizens in those countries are Muslims? There are many Christians in Lebanon and Iran as well as moderate Muslims who do not support the terrorists.

If you want to kill all Muslims if we are attacked with dirty bombs, are you willing to first personally kill Muslim women and children in your neighborhood before you demand that our young people in uniform kill innocent women and children overseas?

[Chgogal]

Who are these moderate Muslims? Do you see them voting? Do you see them kicking out their rabid Imams? Do you see a decline in their giving to "charitable" organizations?

In Southern Thailand, 740 Thais have perished at the hands of Muslims since January 2004.

"If you want to kill all Muslims if we are attacked with dirty bombs, are you willing to first personally kill Muslim women and children in your neighborhood before you demand that our young people in uniform kill innocent women and children overseas?"

If my family is attacked I will defend myself against the attackers. If those attacking my family are Muslim women and children they will be dealt with.

If the US is attacked by MUSLIM TERRORISTS, who by definition are attacking innocent American civilians in US cities, then civilian locals in Muslim countries that support MUSLIM TERRORISTS such as Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran and Pakistan should be targets for a response in kind if not greater.

There is a historical parallel. Fascist Germany attacked civilian London. The Allies returned their kindness with Dresden and Berlin. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. After hundreds of thousands of casualties we returned their kindness with Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

The same will hold true for MUSLIM TERRORISTS who have support through their governments and religious institutions, who attack innocent US civilians in their cities with dirty bombs. Period.

[bayourod]

"If my family is attacked I will defend myself against the attackers. If those attacking my family are Muslim women and children they will be dealt with."

You would certainly be righteous in defending your family against anyone who attacks them, regardless of their religion, sex or age.

But that isn't the question. The question is whether you would kill people who don't attack you simply because they share the same religion as the people who attack you.

Tancredo has already literally declared war on ALL Muslims because he claims that ALL Muslims are as guilty as the actual terrorists. Do you think that is a very wise thing for a member of The Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Congress of the United States of America to be doing? Especially when we have 160,000 young American men and womens stationed in Muslim countries?

If you agree with Tancredo in his declaration of war against ALL Muslims, would you concede that ALL Muslims have the right to defend themselves by killing your family? When does the insanity end? When either all Muslims or all Christians are dead?

[Chgogal]

"But that isn't the question. The question is whether you would kill people who don't attack you simply because they share the same religion as the people who attack you."

That is not the question. The question is the US response to a nuclear attack by MUSLIM TERRORISTS, supported by governmental and religious institutions, on US soil. That is the question. Not whether on not I would defend myself from personal attack. You have a twisted thought process. Are you an insane liberal?

"Tancredo has already literally declared war on ALL Muslims because he claims that ALL Muslims are as guilty as the actual terrorists. Do you think that is a very wise thing for a member of The Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Congress of the United States of America to be doing? Especially when we have 160,000 young American men and womens stationed in Muslim countries?"

Tancredo was asked a hypothetical question and responded hypothetically on a radio show. He was not in committee. He was not voting on a Declaration of War. He did not declare war on ALL Muslims. But TERRORIST MUSLIMS did declare war on the US in 1998.

I will go a step further. I demand from my government, that should Chicago, where I live and work be attacked with nuclear bombs by MUSLIM TERRORISTS, who are supported by governmental and religious institutions in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran and Pakistan, that those countries be targeted by the U.S. government and its military. Period. I want that policy stated loudly and clearly. The MUSLIM TERRORISTS and the governments that support these MUSLIM TERRORISTS through governmental and religious institutions will then have to make a decision whether to go forward with the attack(s).

I think it wise for the above stated countries that support MUSLIM TERRORISTS via their governmental and religious institutions to be targets of a response to a devastating nuclear attack and to be fully aware that they will be held accountable for the foot soldiers that they are letting loose on the world. NOTE: I said "response".

I will not feel safe if the likes of you are voted in to defend this country. I strongly disagree with your stated position. This is a terribly dangerous game the above stated countries are playing. If innocent US citizens are attacked at home and at work by nuclear bombs set off by MUSLIM TERRORISTS there will be hell to pay. PERIOD.

"If you agree with Tancredo in his declaration of war against ALL Muslims, would you concede that ALL Muslims have the right to defend themselves by killing your family? When does the insanity end? When either all Muslims or all Christians are dead?"

MUSLIM TERRORISTS supported by the above mentioned countries through governmental and religious institutions declared war on the US in 1998. After that announcement, two US Embassies, a US destroyer and the WTC, the Pentagon and were attacked resulting in 3,000 plus deaths, many of them civilian. We have just begun the fight against a declaration of war thrown upon us by MUSLIM TERRORISTS supported by the above stated countries. I will reiterate myself for the umpteenth time. If innocent US civilians are attacked on US soil by MUSLIM TERRORISTS with nuclear bombs, the above mentioned countries should be and will be targets of the US government and US military. PERIOD.

[arnoldpalmerfan]

The WFLA host, Mr. Campbell, asked asked Cong. Tancredo about a scenario in which Islamic terrorists exploded nuclear devices in six (6) seven (7) or eight (8) U.S. cities.

[Balding_Eagle]

Thanks for posting this.

The more exposure Tancredo gets, the more support he gets. Circumstances and history are on his side.