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.
OK, I can understand how a person who isn't very bright to begin with and is accustomed to speaking to people even less intelligent could slip up and say something he regretted under the pressure of a live radio interview.
But when I say Tancredo has declared war on ALL Muslims, I'm talking about his carefully worded press release issued a week later in which he tries to justify his call for retaliatory attacks on Mecca and other Muslim cities by arguing that ALL Muslims are as guilty as the actual terrorists. For example:
"the decision of "moderate" Muslims to acquiesce to these actions and even provide tacit justification for them is just as damaging to global safety and security as the attacks themselves. "
Do you think it's wise to declare war on ALL Muslims? Not since the Civil War has the United States declared war on its own citizens. Do you want to engage in a war with Muslims in your neighborhood? Put your family at risk?