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.
Take up the Western burden
And stamp on the jihad breed
We'll bomb that cube
And pump the lube
And take just what we need!
Tancredo didn't say it was a "better response." He said it was a response that shouldn't be taken off the table.
Saudi Arabia: Keeping their friends close, but their enemies closer.
A politican willing to use everything we got to defend America... can someone say future President.
Holtz
JeffersonRepublic.com
It is a symbol, and the capital; the source of the plague. A neutron bomb in which the radiation will quickly dissipare will drice the message home.
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.
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.
I commend Tom Tancredo for NOT coming out and offering up an apology for recent remarks he made in reference to a hypothetical question. It's been intriguing to read the hysterical rhetoric and berserk behavior on display by so many FReepers. The overall strategy and tactics are reminiscent of the personal attacks that were aimed at Tom McClintock during the 2003 recall election. As with that political event, I doubt many of Tancredo's detractors fall into the conservative catagory of American politics.
As long as there is a "Super Sunday" in which all "business" with the jihad vermin will be settled.
Tancredo didn't say bombing Mecca was a "better response." He said it was a response that shouldn't be taken off the table. Do you agree with him now that you know what he actually said?
"until "mainstream" Islam can bring itself to stop rationalizing terrorist attacks and start repudiating and purging people...."
I heard Feinstein on some news show this morning (some Republican was there too). They both are on some defense committee or something. Please don't kick me off of FR, but I was REALLY liking what Feinstein was saying. She said she hasn't heard of one major immam condemning 9/11 or the other bombings. She said she wants to see all the immams condeming the terrorist activities, issuing Fatwahs against the terrorists - she said "they need to be rooted out from the mosques, just like the Catholic church will excommunicate someone". I guess what she was saying wasn't anything new. I WAS surprised by who was saying it.
She also was nodding her head in agreement with the republican when he answered the charge that the Iraq war was causing more terrorism. He brought up the first WTC bombing, the Khobar towers, the Cole, etc., and Feinstein was nodding her approval. She added to it saying "they use the Gulf war as an excuse, poverty, etc. But those are just excuses to cover there terrorism."
Anyway - if Feinstein is talking and thinking like this, then maybe there's hope. (There is only one women named Feinstein - right?!)
You're free to think whatever you please but you just may have reached the point of becoming a thorn in the thread. Please don't take this personally; it's just an observation.
Maybe she was off her meds. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
The simplest solution is to ignore Dane's opinions. That is, unless you can't resist the sport of "...never the twain shall meet" sparring! I'm reminded of advising the victims of teasing that when they no longer react, the teaser becomes powerless. The gig is up. But if you're all having fun, hey, go to it!
That would be scary!
Heading for bed, see you tomorrow!
These threads bring out the loons. When this was posted yesterday, a few of us came on and made fun of the loons, but I doubt they knew what we were doing.
Amen.
Right, and if you bomb Mecca, you'll send the global economy into a swandive off the edge of a cliff. The United States is not the only user of Saudi oil you know.
If you bomb Mecca, instead of paying $2.50 for that gas, you may pay even more.
Nice try at historical revision, but it was the commies who were behind the Pope's assination attempt.
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.