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.
And what will you be paying (if you can find any) after nuking a fifth of the world's oil supply?
The ChiComs are our biggest enemies after islam.
This is not a game. It's a WAR for survival.
Spare me your "moral high ground" act.
The only real morality in WAR, is VICTORY.
NO MATTER WHAT.
NO MATTER WHAT.
Modok, Dane is one of FR's trolls
I've tried to get him to answer these questions so many times:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1447104/posts?page=178#178
I'm still trying to understand his logic that tancredo is a puppet of Buchanan. Yet buchanan wants to placate the terrorists, as he says. However, Tancredo would respond to an attack with nukes. How is that placating?
Dane also stated that Buchanan hates israel, yet, if Tancredo is a puppet of Buchanan like he said, then why did he support israel?
Please see:
http://www.issues2000.org/House/Tom_Tancredo_War_+_Peace.htm
Huh, you really shouldn't spread untruths.
Go over my posts and you will find every one of them criticizng turban durban, but you already knew that.
You appeasement people are all alike. You find fault and naysay but never come up with any solutions except "Oh, we must wring our hands and wait for something to change!".
If someone hits you the way to get them to stop hitting you is to hit back or to prevent being hit you get a big stick and tell the person you are going to use it! This has a sobering effect on the person wanting to hit you.
Give us your solution to a nuclear attack on US cities: What would be your response?
Of course you won't give me a solution or outline a response, you will call me names and find fault but will not give a proper response. Appeasement does not work and never has!
See Dane.
See Dane troll.
See Dane troll FR.
this is a proxy war.
islamofascism is a tool of the communists
You're mistaken if you think Dane is actually advocating appeasement as a viable option. His is a much deeper purpose: to test the rhetoric of internal dissention. If you've spent much time on the Net or in debates, the pattern is very easy to detect.
It's all about criticism, re-direction and dismissal. Armed with a handful of stock responses, it takes very little energy but produces wonderful results - if the targets co-operate. I suggest you and others engaged in this petty banter educate yourself as to the technique.
First and foremost, don't allow yourself to be put on the defensive. Challenge him to present his own set of assumptions and prescriptions. You'll soon see that either he won't directly repond; much less likely, he'll actually be flushed out and expose his hand.
So you agree that Dick Durban gave the islamofascists propaganda points.....right?
So now the question is how is Tancredo giving the jihadists propaganda points by issuing a warning labelled: Don't tread on me
yes, see post #144. he wont answer these questions.
he has other allies that troll on FR threads, im sure you would recognize their names. no point in calling them out until they get involved in the thread....they show up in droves to tancredo/savage/immigration threads
Got it
" Uh the others aren't giving the islamofascists propaganda points."
FIGHTING BACK gives them propaganda points.
You're sounding like Buchanan now! lol.
Troll, Dane, Troll...
Troll Troll Troll!
He reminds me of 2 particular guys that troll the Linux/MS threads, all rolled up in one.
Do you happen to know why it was pulled?
"The friend of my enemy...."
He's quite entertaining though.....it's always a laugh when dane shows up. he must have a text file that he just cuts and pastes his favorite phrases...."propaganda points to the enemy" and so on
You just short-circuited this clown's two active brain cells, and also his cute knight thingie...
You have many friends.
Trust me on this one.
I was just wondering about that very point earlier today. Perhaps you can help further.
How many Hindus are there in Pakistan?
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.