Posted on 07/24/2005 3:10:02 PM PDT by 4.1O dana super trac pak
By now, many people in America - and likely around the world - are familiar with my statements regarding a possible response to a nuclear attack on U.S. cities by fundamentalist Islamic terrorists.
Without question, my comments have prompted strong reactions from many quarters, but they have also served to start a national dialogue about what options we have to deter al-Qaeda and other would-be Islamic terrorists.
Many critics of my statements have characterized them as "offensive," and indeed they may have offended some. But in this battle against fundamentalist Islam, I am hardly preoccupied with political correctness, or who may or may not be offended. Indeed, al-Qaeda cares little if the Western world is "offended" by televised images of hostages beheaded in Iraq, subway bombings in London, train attacks in Madrid, or Americans jumping to their death from the Twin Towers as they collapsed.
Few can argue that our current approach to this war has deterred fundamentalists from killing Westerners - nor has it prompted "moderate" Muslims and leaders of Muslim countries to do what is necessary to crack down on the extremists in their midst who perpetuate these grisly crimes.
That being the case, perhaps the civilized world must intensify its approach.
Does that mean the United States should be re-targeting its entire missile arsenal on Mecca today? Does it mean we ought to be sending Stealth bombers on runs over Medina? Clearly not.
But should we take any option or target off the table, regardless of the circumstances? Absolutely not, particularly if the mere discussion of an option or target may dissuade a fundamentalist Muslim extremist from strapping on a bomb-filled backpack, or if it might encourage "moderate" Muslims to do a better job cracking down on extremism in their ranks.
People have accused me of creating more terrorism by making these statements. Indeed, we often hear that Western governments bring these attacks on themselves. Just days after the London subway attacks two weeks ago, for example, Tariq Ali, a prominent British Muslim activist, was quick to suggest that London residents "paid the price" for British support in the Iraq campaign.
A professor in Lebanon, Dr. George Hajjar, went even further, proclaiming, "I hope that every patriotic and Islamic Arab will participate in this war, and will shift the war not only to America, but to ... wherever America may be." Hajjar went on to say that "there are no innocent people," and referred to the victims of the attack as "collateral casualties."
These are fairly "offensive" statements, to be sure, but the sentiments expressed by Ali and Hajjar are sadly commonplace in the "mainstream" Muslim world, where justification for terrorist attacks like the ones that rocked London, New York and Washington is never in short supply.
Fundamentalist Muslims have advocated the destruction of the West since long before the attacks of Sept. 11, long before the Madrid, London and Bali attacks, long before the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, long before the attack on the USS Cole and the 1993 WTC bombing.
In many respects, 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.
Until "mainstream" Islam can bring itself to stop rationalizing terrorist attacks and start repudiating and purging people like Ali and Hajjar from its ranks who do, this war will continue. As long as this war goes on, being "offended" should be the least of anyone's worries.
Republican Tom Tancredo represents Colorado's 6th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Wrong!
The solution is for so-called moderate Muslims to PROVE to the world they condemn these barbaric attacks by bringing their own to swift justice.
The only people I hear publicly proclaiming Islam is a religion of peace are NON-MUSLIMS.
Actions have always spoken louder than words. When Muslims starting hanging their own barbarian "brethren" who conspire to commit atrocities against innocents, I'll believe there is a such a thing as a "moderate" Muslim.
Experts who have studied the teaching of Islam in the United States have concluded MOST U.S. mosques are teaching radical, dangerous and extreme Islam.
Do the Japanese pray 5 times a day facing Kyoto? Must all Japanese make a pilgrimage to Kyoto at least one in their lives? Mecca has far greater importance to Muslims than does Kyoto to the Japanese.
Mecca is central to Islam. It comprises 2 of the Five Pillars of Islam. I say, reduce it to 3.
Please answer reply #91 and stop the obfuscating.
Tommy Tancredo has promised us an easy, quick solution. Let us adore him.
The point remains that Japan's most holy city, Kyoto, was spared in World War II.
No.
In WAR you intimidate your enemy.
In WAR you CRUSH your enemy.
In WAR your ACTIONS count more than your words.
Can the hysterical hyperbole and lies.
Learn some history before you use examples that only prove your ignorance.
LOL!
I guess you can "Just Make This Stuff Up!"
In WAR you intimidate your enemy.
Uh in this war, the enemy is being intimidated, we just aren't seeing it since they are a covert group.
Please answer reply #91.
I have absolutely no problem with that. Nor do I have any problem obliterating the capital of any country that tolerated/sheltered/supported a group that detonates a nuclear bomb on U.S. soil. The point there is that the response is targeted at the particular group responsible. It's a focused deterrent, and therefore not only more just, but more effective.
Like I've said elsewhere, I see no gain to us in punishing the entire nation of Turkey by destroying the most holy shrine in their religion, simply because Iran sponsored a terrorist group that nuked us.
The analogy I see here is how our troops fought on the ground in Fallujah and elsewhere when the terrorists were still capable of open battle. For a while, we tried the nice policy of not shooting at mosques. We found out that approach didn't work. So, we properly changed the ROE to mean that we could return fire at anyone using a mosque to shoot at us. And for all the complaints about the policy, it seemed to generate remarkably little anger because, I think, most people recognized it was a reasonable response. To me, that's equivalent to nailing Damascas if Syria is responsible.
But nuking Mecca....that would be the equivalent of targeting every mosque in a city, even those we know are not being used illicitly, just to be mean. It's a terror tactic, pure and simple. We didn't do that then because I think think the commanders on the ground thought the cost would outweigh the benefit. I trust that same philosophy on a larger scale.
" Huh, what would happen if an iranian parliamentarian(someone akin to tancredo in the govt.) said let's nuke the Vatican."
Nice try, last time I checked, the Vatican wasn't the ideological center of a worldwide terrorist ideology, and no one in the Vatican is advocating the slaughter of all non-Catholics.
Keep trying!
"And in war you don't give your enemies(islamofascists) propaganda points to use against you to win the hearts and minds of the general populace."
That means no fighting back, either.
Gosh, YOU'RE the one who sounds like Buchanan - I sent you a link earlier to an article he wrote about how they attack us because we are there.
The Vatican is a holy site revered by over a billion people and if a govt. official in say iran said nuke it, what would your reaction be.
Please reply to my question if you can. You are the one making the emotional charges and not backing them up. I asked for facts to substantiat your attacks on a Republican and you don't deliver. Where is the proof. Show us the links, citations, that shows the propaganda points. You are the one making the charges so stop ducking and give us the proof or lay off the attack on Tancredo.
I never said that and you know it, what I said is that you don't give the enemey propaganda points as tancredo is want to do.
Henry Stimson, the Secretary of War, removed Kyoto as the #1 atomic bomb target because he thought that it's destruction would increase the likelihood that Japan would be driven into Russia's arms after the war. In other words, the decision not to vaporize Kyoto was realpolitik.
I have no such concerns regarding the Muslims.
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.