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.
I saw no explanation, I assume it got out-of-control.
He's not. Anybody that thinks America should never use it's nukes and continue to pursue a conventional war after a terrorist nuke strike is incapable of reasoned debate.
Do a little research besides the time and newsweak. Mehmet Ali Agca was a islamist who belonged to jihadi cell who confessed to trying to kill the Pope for islam. He may or may not have been involved with the bulgarian secret police at the behest of the kgb. Wouldn't doubt if the commies were involved. Wouldn't be the first time they have used the jihadis.
I am really starting to like Tancredo! Yes! TANCREDO FOR PRESIDENT!
Tell me, what is your plan of action if we were to be nuked?
"Right, and if you bomb Mecca, you'll send the global economy into a swandive off the edge of a cliff."
And just what would happen to our economy if we got nuked? The entire world economy would plummet. Investers would dump stocks and rush for gold. Our currency would plummet as well, oddly helping our exports, BTW.
And yes, gas would be outrageously high. If the US gets nuked, I sincerely hope we have cobalt [neutron] bomb capability and simply neutron the oil facilities of the Saudis, taking them over. If we are unable to liberate Iran, we would have to annihilate Iran as well, seizing what oil facilities we can. Without plenty of immediate oil access, our war would stall. And with the leverage of oil, we could have even more arrows in the quiver of the war against terror.
The only logical thing to do, if we nuke Mecca, is to annihilate the Saudis, topple the Iranian regime, annihilate Syria, and contemplate the nuclear neutering of Pakistan through pre-emptive measures. We would also have to keep a wary eye on Turkey and Egypt. And, we should then go to Kosovo and throw all the Islamics there in camps. Albania should be MOABed to uninhabited rubble as well, and the US government should auction off Albanian real estate for war funds.
I'm not a military expert and don't pretend to be one, unlike tom tancredo.
I am sure that our current military leaders have a variety of worst case scenarios and repsonses.
I will trust them rather than a publicity seeking congressman who gives propaganda points to America's enemies.
What's a Lancelot Jones?
"I'm not a military expert and don't pretend to be one, unlike tom tancredo."
Well I do know a thing or two about warfare. It's really simple. If we get nuked, that is irrevokable proof that we need to drastically change our strategy. There are two fundmental options in that case:
1. Capitulate
2. Get tough
If we capitulate, our nation will fade into obscurity, and the world would enter another dark age.
If we get tough, and I mean it would take a lot more than simply nuking Mecca, then what is left of the US could actually rise to greater heights than before the nuclear attack, assuming half of our land is still habitable. We would have to gain supremacy of all Persian Gulf oil [which means killing any living Islamic near those oil fields, and a naval blockade over the Persian Gulf to regulate trade]
in order to do that. Europe's economy would be completely at our mercy at that point. We could give US refineries top priority, while European countries would have to haggle for what's left over.
Through other means, we would have tremendous options to keep the US strong.
I don't want this to happen. It would be a hellish nightmare. But that is the kind of thinking required to prevent a new dark age.
Government is forbidden from discriminating. I'm not. These are the times that make me wish that Free Republic had a poster filter. Dealing with obvious trolls can even be amusing. Dealing with obvious paid plants is not.
JR has his standards for dealing with disruptive posters and the neurotic and generally it is effective, but it's not perfect.
Repeating the same inane statement ad nauseam might be a very effective torture technique in Hanoi but contributes nothing in a forum for the exchange of ideas.
All right already. You tried your technique and it's been generally rejected. Try something fresh.
Becoming a parody of yourself simply raises questions of motivation.
You are right. Many here have an agenda against him that has nothing to do with his comments regarding deterrence against a nuclear attack on America, and everything to do with his stance on illegal immigration.
No duh, and I have no doubts that our current military would get tough, that still doesn't give any excuse for a congressman to give our enemies propaganda points.
I'll leave the fighting to our brave and professional servicemen and women, not a congressman looking for publicity.
LOL! I surmise you ae talking about me. I'm not a paid plant, but keep wrapping yourself up in tin foil.
This week is "Tancredo, it's just all about him!"
No no no!
Pay attention.
The new week's People's slogan is "It's all about him!" (who comes up with this crap?)
Last week's people's slogn was "Tancredo provided the islamofascists with propaganda points".
The week before was "Tancredo stabbed fellow republican in the back".
Tons of intellectual fodder there; background material and biting analysis...
It totally reminds me of the pap that was printed nationwide when the Saudis spent tens of millions on a failed PR campaign to persuade us not to believe our eyes and ears.
And that similarity never fails to make me go "Hmmmmmmmmmm.".
Tancredo is the most gutsy politician to come along in quite a while. He is one of few members of Congress in either party who is trying to do anything about illegal immigration. And the leaders of both parties are fighting him all the way.
You can't expect idiots to know geography. Where's your multicultural and multiethnic tolerance?
You haven't been around much lately have you?
Meet our resident parrot.
"No duh, and I have no doubts that our current military would get tough, that still doesn't give any excuse for a congressman to give our enemies propaganda points."
This is where you are completely off-base. We need more Tancredos. I don't get embarassed by tough talk. I get embarassed by those wimps who whine about air conditioning at 'Club Gitmo' being quoted by Al Jezeera. We need someone talking tough to temporize such a pathetic, wimpy image.
We've been Mr. Nice Guy long enough. The Islamics aren't saying much of anything against terror. So now we need someone to offer the STICK rather than the carrot.
The more people who call for Tancredo to be president, the more those moderate Islamics will realize this is serious business.
That scares you, I'm sure. You think, "We'll drive more into al qaeda." But, we need to flush them out one way or the other. Either they let us know they are on our side 100%, or we need to round them up in internment camps.
I don't know about you, but I'm not satisfied. I'm very disappointed in Islamic moderates.
I don't get embarassed by smart tough talk either, what I am embarassed about is knee jerk tough talk, which gives our enemies propaganda points.
First, I agree that there's nothing wrong conceptually in saying that no response should be taken off the table. I'd be fine if that's all Tancredo had said in response to questions.
But that's not what happened. He was asked a question about how we'd respond if some of our cities were nuked. His first response was "bomb Mecca". I did not think that was a well-thought out response for the reasons I've stated. Namely, that holding individual nations responsible for terrorist activities that originate within their borders is, by far, not only the course of action most likely to benefit us, but also the least likely to antagonize both friends and neutrals.
I agree that being "PC" shouldn't override our national interest. But the fact is that we need allies in this war. Not only friendly nations such as Britain, but those responsible moslems within those radical nations. If we need to do something to protect ourselves, and that action will piss those people off, well, too bad. I agree with Tancredo that we shouldn't be concerned about their feelings when our national interest is at stake.
But the Mecca comment was unnecessary. Why toss that out there rather than simply reiterating what the Administration has been saying about holding host governments responsible? It's not a case of being a wimp, because we're still talking about nuking cities. But its a much smarter response because it sends just as tough a message without unnecessarily pissing off friends and potential allies.
Tancredo's had a bunch of opportunities to clarify his initial remarks by pointing to other options, like holding host governments responsible. But he hasn't. Basically, he's just flipping the bird to everyone, and saying "if you don't like it, too bad."
Like I said, I don't mind pissing people off if its necessary. Shoot at our guys from a mosque, and that mosque should get hammered regardless of whom it pisses off. But with Tancredo and some of the people defending his comments, I'm getting the sense that they like the fact that what he said was controversial. It's like they don't care who we antagonize, screw them all.
That may make us feel better at some level, but its only common sense that its better to fight a war with some allies than alone. As I've said, I think the key to success in the war against terror is getting Arab governments to crackdown internally. It's the most important thing. And I don't delude myself into believing that they're going to do it out of the goodness of their hearts. I think intimidation and believable threats are key. We've got to bully them, and make them fear us more than the terrorists.
But I also recognize the political reality in some of those countries that cooperating with the U.S. isn't too popular. And that those leaders who do cooperate sometimes put themselves at great personal risk. Musharraf is one example, with the eight assassination attempts by moslem radicals. Why make their jobs even more difficult by making public threats likely to antagonize their own people?
That's my problem with Tancredo. He doesn't appear to care who he pisses off, even if it makes it more difficult for us to gain cooperation from Arab governments. I want to win this war, not just make myself feel better by talking tough and pissing people off for no reason.
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.