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.
That's just silly.
There is no parallel between Kyoto and the islamic "holy" cities.
Kyoto is NOT now, and never has been, "holy" to the Japanese.
Kyoto was the capital of Japan for many years and the Japanese still say, "do not say splendid until you see Kyoto".
"Holy" didn't have a darned thing to do with it.
Please answer reply #91.
You have nothing but emotion to back up your words. You operate like a liberal with your attacks on a Republican member of Congress and unappeasable appeals to emotion. Give us the facts to back up your charges.
Hmm, lets see, bomb mecca, and send a 1 billion muslims to the chicomms.
Real smart strategery there.
INTIMIDATION is one aspect of WAR.
We are busy moving on to CRUSHING. Acutal physical real CRUSHING.
What would have been the justification for bombing Kyoto?
" The point remains that Japan's most holy city, Kyoto, was spared in World War II."
Kyoto was initially on the target list for the second atomic bomb.
Kokura was the primary target, but it was saved by weather.
Yes, Kyoto was saved because of Japanese religious considerations... also because it was a great storehouse of cultural and historical artifacts. Mecca is not quite such an ancient city, and rather than resentment, destroying it is more likely to totally demoralize the Islamic insurgency. After all, after the destruction of Jerusalem, you didn't see Jews turn into mass murderers for a 1400 year stretch. There's precedent both ways.
"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."
It is apples and oranges.
One more time, Dane...
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.
It's like asking, what would I do if they nuked the Antarctica base? It's just as irrelevent.
"That means no fighting back, either."
>"I never said that and you know it, "
How can you distinguish the 2?
They cite us fighting back as the reason they have a holy obligation to slaughter us.
I see. You only don't like to give them propaganda points that come from Tancredo's mouth - all others are OK with you.
"Fish in a barrel".
Works for me.
Please, this is FR, not playstation.
And what would China do with a billion Muslims? They're kind of busy right now killing off their own internal Muslim problem (not that I have a dog in that fight).
The nuking of Japan sent an unmistakable warning to the Soviets. The nuking of "Dar al-Islam" would serve as a valuable warning to Red China.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last."
Uh the others aren't giving the islamofascists propaganda points.
tancredo doesn't care since it's all about him.
Another fine avoidance of the topic.
Well done.
Please continue, this is quite entertaining.
Yep it would send 1 billion muslims into the arms of the chicomms.
LMAO...everyone's catching on to you dane, you leftist troll
And you shouldn't feed the crocodile propaganda points, making him stronger.
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names from the #1 troll will never hurt me.
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.