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 terrorists viewed the twin towers as our mecca and all the so called mainstream muzzies either didn't condemn the act or in most cases sympatized with or understood why the act was taken. Muzzies around the world danced in the streets.
Only among the appeasers. In their minds it's ONLY about Tancredo.
Search their posts if you dare. You'll find only the most superficial mention or discussion of alternatives. Most of their posts are ad hominem attacks on Tacredo, and little else.
Appeasers will do anything to avoid facing up to the truth that underlies Tancredo's statements, and it is this: Islamic terrorism is first and foremost an Islamic problem, not a western problem. Muslims, especially moderate Muslims, have the first, primary duty to fix the problem.
ping
"In the last century, America was threatened by a global communist revolution. Avoiding all-out war, we outlasted it. And we can outlast this Islamist revolution. What we must avoid is a war of faiths, a war of civilizations between Islam and America. And those who propagandize for such a war are the unwitting or willful collaborators of Osama bin Laden." -- Patrick J. Buchanan
Beauseant!
You said it well, JC. The Muslims have created the problem, let them stop the problem.
I think they fear the end of RINO domination of the Republican/conservative party more than they fear radical islam.
The alternatives?
Tancredo's is the absurd alternative.
The solution is on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan and fighting every day.
Beauseant!
In World War 2, the vast majority of the residents of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. That did not save them.
In the following half century, we were prepared to incinerate a good chunk of the USSR in response to nuke attack, even though 99.9% of the people we would kill would have no responsibility for the Soviet attack.
Same deal if China launches against us
Islamic theology makes a big deal that they are all one big Umma, one community. The latest international Pew poll shows a great deal of support for bin Laden and terrorist bombing.
Fine, then. If it's all one big Umma, then lets treat it as such. A nuke attack on the US by ANY muslim entity, is an act of war upon the US by Islam as a whole. If they don't like it, then they should get more energetic about tracking down the radical extremists
His big head. The only thing that under lies tancredo's statements is his self absorbed ego.
Time to put political correctness to death.
why do they keep pulling these threads>??? whose running this CAIR??
You would nuke an ally, ignore bin Ladin and Al Qaida, and call it a victory.
Bin Ladin is a Saudi!
Most of the hijackers were Saudis!
The Whabbi Religion is financed and spread by Saudis!
The military bases we had in Saudi Arabia, the Saudis asked us to leave!
The country we protected in the first Gulf War has us paying $2.50 for a gallon of gas!
Tell me this delusional crap again about an ally of ours?
Those who advocate nuking Mecca make the muslim terrorists look like cute little kittens and puppies. They don't even realize they are playing right into the hands of the muslim fanatics.
Uh no the point I am making is that in his(tancredo's) mind it's about him.
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.
There are anywhere from two to six million American Muslims, are they the enemy as well?
What about Turkey?
There are 150 million Muslims in India...is India then an enemy?
Beauseant!
" The hubris of this guy knows no bounds."
Wow, Dane shows up to diss Tancredo. We're all shocked.
Well Dane, this is one way that you can't say that Tancredo = Buchanan!
Nice technique dude... when you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. You're 100% class, all the way. /sarcasm
Richard Reid was British.
Do we nuke London?
Beauseant!
"Richard Reid was British."
Richard Reid considers himself a Muslim more than a Brit.
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.