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.
Did I miss an email from Iran? Let me check.
When are you going to realize we're in a real no-kidding shooting war with these fanatics? This isn't a word war. You lose NO points for calling an enemy by its true name. On the contrary you gain clarity of vision and a sharpened understanding that, if acted on decisively and energetically, ultimately SAVES lives and preserves freedom.
Appeasement doesn't work Dane. Your vision leads to death for the west and the Islamic Ummah in control. Unless you yourself are Muslim, this ought to trouble you greatly.
LOL! you guys are a trip. But keep on posting the insults, just shows the mindset of tancredo fans(bots).
No duh, I have been saying that all along and you don't give the fanatics an advantage as tancredo did.
Excellent editorial. I've read that the Soviet Union thought every American had a gun and was afraid to try a land invasion. Why shouldn't the Muslim terrorists wonder about Mecca or any of their vast multitude of "holy" cities (all it takes is for one Mohammed relative to be born there and it's holy)? They have no problem with bombing people in Jerusalem, which is sacred to the three major religions, including theirs.
Nothing should be taken off the table, certainly not for the world to see.
I'm beginning to think that you don't even like cheese.
(I like cheese.)
Have you hugged YOUR Muslim today?
The hubris of this guy knows no bounds.
It's all about him.
He is right onthe money and precise!
Our enemy does not fear us,we can't continue to fight a PC war. We will loose.
But it IS a "western problem," for the specific reason that islamofascism has been a relentless global movement against the west, against Judeo-Christian civilization for the past 1,400 years. Their quest for a final "Caliphate" which will literally OWN the planet has never ceased.
Historically, they have chosen their times to move, and other times to remain quiescent. Now is one of the "forward" drives. They plan to win. They are attacking the west, western countries and primarily aiming at America. That is why it IS our problem - a western problem.
Islamofascism is as much our problem as Hitler's Nazism was our problem, and Imperial Japan was our problem. Same devil, dressed up in new clothes.
Whether the "moderates" conduct a reform within Islam or not, we can't sit around wondering if they will or not. Our very survival should not (and WILL NOT) depend upon some possible renaissance and reformation of a 1,400 year old blood-and-death cult.
Our survival in WWII didn't depend upon a possible scenario where Hitler's "moderates" would convince him that a "Third Reich lasting 1,000 years" was a bad idea.......or some Japanese "insiders" convincing Hirohito that he wasn't really a god, and that conquering the planet for the glory of "The Empire of the Sun" wasn't "do-able."
It is the same thing now.
We must defeat islamofascism totally, utterly and convincingly. We can't sit back and say, "Well, it's not our problem. The moderates will have to rein in the crazies." By the very nature of Islam, that will never EVER happen. It is therefore up to us to destroy this monster.
Char
Quoting Pat Buchanan? Why don't you also quote Charlie Gibson?
Nuking SA must be an option. Failure to do so,will put us in peril.
It's carried out of choice, and I saw no restrictions posted on the site which would disallow it.
Do my free choices upset you?
You have the freedom to either use a graphic, or not to use a graphic, you chose not to...do I now have the right to attack you as a result of your choice?
Does my knack for speaking my mind on the subject of what an elected member of Congress says bother you?
Do you feel exercising freedoms is a sign of arrogance?
Beauseant!
What I meant was that the moral responsibility for terrorism lies within Islam itself. The religion, its holy books, and its traditions are a bottomless well for terrorists to draw buckets of violence and innocent blood from.
Only Muslims can cap off that well at its source. The west can only deal with the effects.
You don't actually smell a thing.
I will not lower myself to base name-calling, so if that is your preferred debating method, we are done.
I'll exchange ideas and opinions with anyone, but I will not waste my time typing sophomoric insults on an Internet bulletin board directed at a supposed adult.
Your choice.
Militarily, nuking Mecca would bring about disastrous consequences as it would increase the size of the enemy a million fold.
Historically, it would stain America's name forever, and realistically, it would do little to dissuade the enemy, as it is exactly what they want us to do; engage in some futile symbolic act that could be used to rally the remaining 99% of the Muslims world wide who are not now engaged in this fight.
There are seven State/Nations who have been on the State Department list as sponsoring terrorism since 1993: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria.
Serve them notice: either take Libya's example, or suffer Iraq's fate.
Bush started us down the right path, we need to elect a President in 2008 who will continue down the same road.
Beauseant!
As well as Kyoto, the Cologne cathedral was off limits in WWII bombing, both by American decision. Bomber Harris wanted Dresden incinerated.
If Buchanan said it, it must be wrong.
"Militarily, nuking Mecca would bring about disastrous consequences as it would increase the size of the enemy a million fold."
Have you a reference for that stat?
Nuking any nation who attacks us must remain an option; nuking a nation in order to make some sort of statement can't be.
The Saud family is facing its own insurgency at home, led by Wahabbi fundamentalists; they are fighting over control of the Kingdom. Let's hope they win, if not, then add them to the list of countries we need to invade.
Beauseant!
Kyoto has cultural importance; Tokyo has political importance and was chosen to bomb for that reason. Eliminate the seats of power and the places of learning and indoctrination. The cubic stone at Mecca was worshiped before Mohammed established islam and might be *afterwards* as well - for some other reason.
Does anyone have any backing to the claim that Islamic terrorism will simply fold up and go home after the nuke gets dropped?
If nuking us would elicit a dramatic response, why would nuking them have the opposite effect?
Beauseant!
"But since when did the Buchanan/Tancredo crowd ever care about facts."
I guess you didn't read this:
"In the last century, America was threatened by a global communist revolution. Avoiding all-out war, we outlasted it. And we can outlast this Islamist revolution. What we must avoid is a war of faiths, a war of civilizations between Islam and America. And those who propagandize for such a war are the unwitting or willful collaborators of Osama bin Laden." -- Patrick J. Buchanan
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.