"Does anyone have any backing to the claim that Islamic terrorism will simply fold up and go home after the nuke gets dropped?"
Yes.
General 'Black Jack' Pershing.
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.
The West has the heirs of Red Adair...
That's not a propaganda point, that's the text that you claim will CAUSE propaganda points.
So, once again, what propaganda points are you talking about?
And please, remember cause and effect. The cause (Tancredo's remarks) cannot be the effect (propaganda points).
I said that on September 12, 2001.
"Does anyone have any backing to the claim that Islamic terrorism will simply fold up and go home after the nuke gets dropped?"
Yes.
General 'Black Jack' Pershing.
He's wrong.
Beauseant!
Well, if we use our neutron bombs on all the Saudi population centers...
We'd send in our oil company's workmen and pump all the oil we want, as the infrastructure would remain and could easily (and quickly) be decontaminated.
And we wouldn't have to worry about Saudi counterattacks, as all the Saudi's would be dead.
All in all, not a bad deal. Cheaper oil and dead Islamofascists.
Nope, can't see a down side whatsoever.
:-)
your assessment is correct on S. A.
We cannot have the Sauds over thrown. Where I disagree is the invasion option.
Keeping a Nuke option available is essential in fight facistislam. We need the moderate Muslums to lead the fight or they risk total destruction.
Pure conjecture. No one knows what ultimate effect it would have. We can only offer conjectures.
Some things do seem self-evident. Would it anger the Muslim world? Of course it would. It might also break their spirit completely and utterly. And even if it angered them would that mean they would rise to crush the west? That's very doubtful. They don't have the means to pull off a vigorous response on a grand scale. They are not superhuman. They just believe Allah has given them world-conquering destiny. We ought to disabuse them of that vain notion, the sooner the better. If we can do it without detonating a single bomb, that would be the best result of all. We pulled if off with the Soviet Union in no small part because they knew we had the greatest and grandest of Russian history and culture on our target lists.
Any conflict that escalated to the point of our using nuclear weapons in response would be to-the-death; hurt feelings and our reputation with the French would be the last things we would be worrying about.
You and Dane are quite similar in that you unfairly minimize and cynically discount the extreme conditions that were propounded to Tancredo. He wasn't flippantly suggesting that we bomb Mecca just because we can. He was addressing the question in terms of a response for a grievously wounded America unsure if Islamists still had other nukes hidden away for followup.
If you want to appear balanced and fair, you owe it to Tancredo not to twist his words out of context.
That's an impossible task for Dane. It remains to be seen whether you are more capable.
Bwa ha ha ha ha!
That's gooooood!
I think I'll print it out to show my lovebird.
:-)
As an aside, I imagine that we will maintain a large presence in Iraq until the time that either the House of Saud defeats the Wahabbi insurgency, or vice-versa. In the case of the Wahabbis bringing down the Royal family, I think we might see a rapid response invasion of Saudi Arabia under the pretense of securing the oil fields, forcing the Wahabbi insurgents to battle US troops in full battle armor in the streets of the al-Suwaydi suburb of Riyadh.
Personally, I don't see good things in the future for the House of Saud, and its fall may have nearly as monumental consequences as the fall of the House of Romanov.
The one positive part of this whole thing is that Wahabbis hate everyone that's not a Wahabbi...including non-Wahabbi Muslims, and non-Wahabbi Muslims know that.
Beauseant!
You want propaganda?
If (when) the House of Saud falls, we invade S.A., take on the Wahabbis, and protect Mecca from them, and for all non-Wahabbis.
Here are a couple of interesting reads:
The Saudi Civil War - Who is fighting? Who will win?
Beauseant!
===========================
"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."
OooRaaah !!!! Well said direct & to the point more of this mindset is needed.
Not this time, thankfully.
Yep, Tancredo for President, 2008 !!!!
"If the foo shi'ites, wear it.."
LOL! I sure do hope. I loved the pat buchanan phone booth campaign rallys. It's always good to have some comic relief during a real campaign season.
The Saudis are quite fiendly, judging by their actions..
Was? please excogitate..
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.