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 need to do some research, but I believe that islam already was officially prohibited in the latter part of the 19th century. I am not sure if it was several states or a federal law.
The crux of the problem (rather obvious after the fact) is that islam is not a religion.
Imagine a religion which incorporates, as an inseparable part of itself all the tenets of communism.
Or imagine another which in theory and in practice also had as an inseparable element of itself all the tenets of Nazi Germany's government.
Would that make the picture any clearer?
Must they be tolerated because they call themselves a religion?
A thorough knowlege of islam and history can do wonders to bring a clear picture into focus.
"They have already shown themselves as unworthy to be in society and we are allowing them to be indoctrinated in devil worship."
Sorry about that. Devil worship in prisons, for goodness sake! Good point. BTW, we do not have the Constitutional right to worship Satan or devils-- only to worship a single God.
You talk as if the winner in world conflicts makes the rules.
As an originalist, I think that as it stands, the Constitution does allow the worship of a 'One God', including Allah. But that can and should be amended. I think that most muslims may be able to get by with ankle bracelets, perhaps. And I don't want them to have the 'out' of pretending to leave that religion after an amendment is passed. There must be a new status of citizenship: the muslim citizen, who has less privacy than the rest of us.
"What a silly person! You talk as if the winner in world conflicts makes the rules."
Yep. We've never exploited a victory economically before, but we would need every advantage we could get if we suffer a nuclear attack. A change like that requires massive brain re-wiring. It seems so un-American, you know?
We probably would not need an amendment Arthur if we just get past accepting every oddball belief as a religion just because someone has figured out they get all sorts of protection by such claims. A simple test (feel free to expand upon this) can be made for a valid belief system.
1) If your belief system instructs you to kill nonbeliever's it is not a religion.
2) If your believe system instructs you to kill those who disavow or leave your belief system, it is not a religion.
THIS has been, is, and always will be the key to the "war" on terror. We can kill the fringe until the camels come home but there will always be more until the dark holes where they hide give no succor. Despite the successes in the WOT so far, the great and continuing failure is that there are vast populations that harbor or tolerate these terrorist, if for no other reason than they share the same faith, in name or in deed.
We can have troops on every street corner in the Middle East and South Asia or bring every solitary soldier home and it won't change one iota until that attitude changes across Islam - there will be more and more bombs going off killing innocents. Until the Muslims turn out the terrorists, the terror will continue.
they'll toast any conservative who doesn't grovel.
It is an accurate statement, it is also accurate he said that statement to bring attention to himself.
He could have written "the policy I stated brought much criticism" and left it at that, but the subsequent statement of
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."
with the use of tancredo starting a "national dialougue", IMO, shows a bit of meglomania.
tancredo is saying that it was him and him only, who brought about the debate, but that's not the truth, there has been much debate about it, before tancredo mentioned it.
He just as an elected representaive of Congress, brought cheap publicity, with the expressed content to shine attention on tancredo, IMO.
This very point is starting to be discussed in different forums/threads. Imagine if Nazi (pagan) Germany, Imperial (Shinto) Japan, and/or Communist (?) Russia had positioned itself as a religious movement? Even more alarming is that now the weakness has been exposed, how many more movements will adopt the same posture of victimhood? The Communist (Taoism/Confucianism?) Chinese? Imagine an agressive, expansionist China enjoying the protection of the West declaring that it's an ROP?
What is it about Islam that you find appealing?
I was "thinking" of the mideast in general and the fall-out from nukes in the area which would disrupt our oil supply.
Now that I've read some of your posts...nobody seems to be all that concerned about it.
BTTT
Naw it's Tancredo waving his imaginary genitalia. Some people seem to find that attractive.
There is one country that's missing from that list. And our State Department will never have the nerve to add it.
Saudi Arabia.
Everybody in the world already "knows" we have nukes and retain the option to use them.
BTTT
Today it seems it's Tommy Talkeredo
I blame entropy.
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.