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.
Lighten up.
Because PC liberalism is seeping back into the national mindset after 9/11, and the America Haters® in country are feeling comfortable again to continue to undermine the war effort against their allies.
I "really" have to wonder about the mindset of people who would even consider for a second setting off nukes in our cities.
It's not as if they don't already know there "are" consequences to their actions. ie:Afghanistan and now Iraq.
If it is worth writing, it is worth writing right.
You had not given a thought to the 30,000+ Americans living in Saudi Arabia, you had no clue about existing treaties, and there is no "abrogation" simply because you say so.
Rep. Tancredo has not given a thought about our 30,000+ citizens and troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, and he has no idea that there are treaties in effect, as he runs his mouth about nuking the country.
Just some more examples of the idiocy surrounding the whole notion; a fool of a Congressman being lauded by Internet keyboard generals.
I'm sure that these radical Muslims in Saudi Arabia will allow us to quietly remove our citizens without objections or obstacles of any kind prior to our detonating one or more thermonuclear weapons in their nation, specially considering the fact that Rep. Tancredo is promoting his idea of a solution.
Beauseant!
I'm glad you're enjoying it.
Beauseant!
Uh huh, so those Muslim Iraqi security forces we're training are our enemies, right? Pakistan's Musharaff is our enemy, right?
Communism is alive and well today. We have not ended it. WE have it in our own country. It is known as social programs and welfare benefits.
Not to mention all the far left wing liberals teetering on Communism if not already there.
Personally, I think it is Kewl with a capitol "K"!!
Of course you are right. My point was that Tancrendo was certainly not the first American government official to allude to nuclear weapons being used in this very fluid war. The brouhaha over Tancrendo's comments is ridiculous in light of that.
Tancredo made a Freudian slip, of which everyone is thinking about anyway. He's being criticized for thinking out loud. I would hope it would never come to that, but, in reality, it might.
I just don't believe it has sunk home to everyone here and throughout the world, of what we're into. Israel could write volumes, but, no one hears them. I'm afraid, It's going to take getting hit again to wake up the sleep walkers to the fact, the Islamofascists want to kill/destroy us.
Then after the next 'holy warrior' attack, we turn that black rock into dust. We wouldn't even need a nuke. One MOAB should do it.
And by the way, the Saudis aren't 'allies' by any stretch of the imagination.
L
Yup. The jihad trolls are outing themselves. The same crowd always has plenty of criticism for people on the right.
It's FR's open border fanatics. But now we can see they have a bigger agenda, and their attacks always seem to be aimed to their right.
I wouldn't quite go so far as to call Paddy's Apostles "jihad trolls" ;)
Hewitt has long been a shameless lackey of the GOP's powerbrokers, and they hate Tancredo. Hugh Hewitt's attacks will do more harm to his own reputation than to Tancredo's. The little yuppie is revealing his true nature, and I know a lot of his audience is surprised by what they hear.
That bunch is hardly "Paddy's Apostles." They used to spend their time attacking Buchanan before they moved on to Tancredo.
Someone else called them the La Raza Coyotes, which is amusing and pretty accurate.
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.