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.
As stated on other threads, the weather over Kyoto was not suitable to drop "Little Boy" The weather over Hiroshima was.
As far as ignoring those 'treaties' goes it seems to me that they've been abrogated by the government of Saudi Arabia already. Therefore, we have no obligation to abide by them.
So, in a word as a response to your question; yes under the conditions described above.
L
"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"
Yep, and they rotate.
Last week was "Tancredo stabbed DeLay in the back"
This week is "Tancredo, it's just all about him!"
repeated over and over... Too bad for him that no one other than one feller falls for his schtick.
Hope that clears things up for ya.
Much love,
L
"And what will you be paying (if you can find any) after nuking a fifth of the world's oil supply?"
1/5 of the oil supply is in Mecca?
That is unlike Bush and 99% of Congress. Bush never had visited a mosque as President, and only after Muslims murder 3,000 Americans does he go barefoot at the D.C. mosque to proclaim--to the wretching vomit of millions of Americans--how Islam is the "religion of peace". Do you remember that awful day? I do. And after Tancredo's rational--and unoriginal--remarks regarding Mecca, even some so-called conservatives slammed him, unaware of how saturated by political correctness they are. Hugh Hewitt totally disgraced himself with his absurd over-the-top attack on Tancredo.
Tancredo is practically the only representative I take seriously. He is certainly the only one who takes both a deservedly harsh tone towards our Muslim foes, and a deservedly friendly tone towards our Minutemen friends.
See the below passage.
Without question, my(tancredo's) 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.
What is this crap? Someone uses the word "my" in a sentence and suddenly "it's all about him?" They were his comments, for cryin' out loud.
Who emails you your talking point du jour?
9: It's all about him.
35: Uh no the point I am making is that in his(tancredo's) mind it's about him.
80: tancredo rows up the islamofascists and gives them propaganda points agianst the US
84: Whos said mad? I said propaganda points to use in their home base of the mid-east, but you already knew that and for lack of an answer changed the subject.
87: All tancredo had to say when asked the question was that a US response would be quick and overwhekming, but no he pops off his mouth and give the islamofascists propaganda points to use against 1 billion muslims.
96: 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.
119: 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.
134: tancredo doesn't care since it's all about him.
134: Uh the others aren't giving the islamofascists propaganda points.
138: And you shouldn't feed the crocodile propaganda points, making him stronger.
172: Anyway, anyway you look at it tancredo gave the islamofascists propaganda points to use in the muslim world.
Wow, no mention of stabbing DeLay in the back, this thread. You must have gotten the new talking point fax!
"What is this crap? Someone uses the word "my" in a sentence and suddenly "it's all about him?" They were his comments, for cryin' out loud."
It's all about Dane!
Dane and his weekly propaganda talking points, striaght from the country club set.
Agreed. It was an embarrassing, silly, and insubstantial attempt to smear Tancredo. Hewitt twisted the context in which Tancredo framed his responses and made it appear that Tancredo was a nuke-happy pinhead cowboy ready to obliterate Mecca for any reason or no reason at all.
I won't bother to read Hewitt anymore if this is representative of the kind of thirteenth-rate politically correct thought he intends to give such issues.
The two of you are simply full of ripe horse manure and should be ignored by subsequent posters.
Saudi Arabia is the cancer's primary site..
"What is best in life?" To crush the jihadists, to drive their collaborators before you, and to hear the lamentations of their mullahs! Allahu fubar!
Maybe you should take your hand off the joystick and think..
I guess you forgot that the islamists shot and almost killed the Pope.
I suspect that in your case it is
"Sticks and stones
May break my bones
But whips and chains
Excite me!"
IMHO, you are a political masochist.
Indeed! There is the stink of it there.
I'm not afraid to bring the hammer down -- I just want to hit the right nail.
And (if you have one), I'd like to hear reasons other than the claim that the destruction of Mecca would end islam. I've already discussed that one once, and have no desire to do so again. But I am curious as to the other "practical" reasons to make Mecca the preferred target over the capitals.
The Sauds are wahabi fundamentalists.
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.