Bigger sins than offending (Tancredo writes editorial)

Denver Post ^ | Tom Tancredo

[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.

[King Prout]

well, some of them spout St. Paddy's spiel when it suits them.
a case of "strange bedfellows" perhaps?

In any case, I think the immediate reprisal nuking of Mecca would be an incorrect policy.
1. I think it would be better to target Medina (literally "the city of the prophet"), as it was there that Mohammed declared war on the entire world some 1350 years ago, beginning the subsequent uninterrupted imperial ambition of Islam.
2. I think we should give formal notice of imminent nuclear eradication, and give them one full week from the conclusion of the announcement to evacuate the city.
3. I think we should then stack-nuke it, starting with airbursts and ending with deep-penetrators.
4. I think we should make it explicitly clear that any subsequent Islamic WMD violation of the "second chance" this policy grants the Ummah to keep its damned Black Stone will be repaid with the instant and unannounced stack-nuking of the Kaaba enclosure and Mecca as a whole (including ALL the traditional pilgrimage features).
5. I think this should be public policy.
6. I think this policy should make it explicitly clear that we do not *desire* to do this, but assuredly SHALL do this, without fail, should we ever come under WMD attack by any Islamic entity.
7. I think this policy should make it explicitly clear that, in this war against trans-national Islamicists, the onus of cooperation rests upon the Ummah as a whole. If they want to keep their fetishes, they need to play ball... or we will definitely ram the bat up their collective arse.

Such a policy used to be called "nuclear deterrence"

[Pelham]

Works for me.

[AnimalLover]

BTTT

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"We don't. Clinton gave that technology to the Chinese."

I wouldn't be surprised. I also hope that a copy of that technology was saved behind Clinton's back, just like Venona continued behind FDR's and Truman's backs.

[rmlew]

There already is such a war. Muslims acknowledge it. Buchanan fears it like his model, Neville Chamberlain.

[rmlew]

Were we to destroy Mecca and the Kabbah meteorite, it is likely that it would shatter the faith of Islamists.
They believe in continuous conquest and that Allah protects the Ummah.