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.
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!
Many believe, myself included that Saudi Arabia is still the largest sponsor and supporter of Islamic terrorism in the world.
IT is a war of faiths, IT IS a war of civilizations between [and] Islam and America.
It is a war. We did not start it. Osama's murderers came knocking at our doors.
We must defeat it. We cannot "outlast" it like we communism. This war is as old as time.
Mutual destruction had much to do with our winning the cold war. They (terrorists) nuke us, I say nuke Mecca. Let it be known to the 4 corners of the Earth. Mecca or the terrorists--see if that is enough for the peaceful followers of Islam to keep the terrorists in line.
Paddy forgets one crucially important bit of fact: We had a policy of targeting the cities of the Soviet Union with thermonuclear warheads. This policy kept things civilized.
Paddy often forgets such inconvenient details.
I saw him...I think he was at Liberty University, I may be wrong.
He was chilling. And I believed every word he said.
If they look the other way as potential attackers plot in their midst, well, then, yes, they are a problem.
Are they the enemy? Depends upon your definition of such. But, then again, isn't that what this debate is all about? Who is the enemy in this asymetrical war where we aren't quite sure who is friend or foe?
I have more respect for a lefty than a fake conservative.
Till they frikkin GLOW!
More than a pitcher full apparently
There is but one cure for mad dogs.
One.
Hard to say. However, you've shown a strong propensity to down the "race card" Kool-Aid flavor. So I ain't gonna listen to your complaints about consumption of other flavors.
WAS a Saudi. He's been exiled by the nation and disowned by his family.
But since when did the Buchanan/Tancredo crowd ever care about facts.
It didn't take you long to start the name calling this time around.
Congrats.
The analogy would be threatening to bomb the capital of any country that supported, aided, abetted, or sheltered the terrorists. That at least has some logic to it. But how does bombing Mecca as retaliation deter, say, a secularist moslem like Assad of Syria? If he shelters a terrorist group that nukes Detrout, how is the thread to bomb Mecca in retaliation relevant?
Saudi Arabia,Iran and Syria are major supporters of terror.If one or more of our cities are hit by terrorist using nuclear devices,we have every right to retaliate against these countries.What other choice do we have,when nothing else will deter them from doing it again?Maybe if the state sponsors of terror are aware of the consequences,they will stop helping our enemy.
Actually the Bin Ladin family is originally Yemini, but since when did facts matter to the Quisling crowd.
How many people did he kill? Oh thats right, NO ONE! Please, cool graphic don't make your argument!
Re:university,you're probably right,I forget that part. But yes,it WAS chilling. All that our "political correctness" means to the terrorists is a weakness to cynically exploit,and use against us,while they don't beleive in it at all. Their mindset is kill and die for what you want(Islam or slavery or death for all the world-that's no secret,they talk about the "British caliphate"),and if we won't fight to the death for OUR way of life,then that's nothing but weakness and lack of surety of what WE beleive.
Not for a lack of trying.
I find his graphic a bit arrogant as well. But it is best attacked with reason instead of emotion.
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.