Posted on 07/27/2005 10:06:07 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Once again, Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo is speaking for the majority of sane Americans. And once again, liberals, terrorist sympathizers (is there an echo in here?), and cowards across the country want him rebuked and repudiated.
Democrats, some Muslim groups, and the partisan media are boo-hooing over comments Tancredo made regarding the war on terror. Specifically, they’re upset over his response to a question by radio interviewer Pat Campbell—who asked Tancredo what the appropriate response would be to a nuclear terror threat against America.
Tancredo said the following: “What if you said something like, ‘If this happens in the United States and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you could take out their holy sites.’”
Campbell said, “You’re talking about bombing Mecca.”
To which Tancredo replied, “Yeah. What if you said, we recognize that this is the ultimate threat to the United States, therefore this is the ultimate response.”
Predictably, shock emanated from both liberals and conservatives. Liberals were furious over the barbarism of such an idea, adding Tancredo’s name to the Karl Rove/Tom DeLay list of Republicans to get thrown out of office.
Somehow, this version of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)—the wildly popular liberal solution to anything involving a threat of violence against Americans—is suddenly unacceptable to pacifiers on the Left.
While conservatives believe threatening Mecca with Daisy Cutters makes perfect sense, the liberal solution to Muslim terrorism looks a lot more like a paralyzed chicken asking a hungry fox not to eat him.
It’s simply fascinating that liberals—who have such little faith in God—have no trouble believing that the natural born killers of Al Qaeda would make peace with us if we would simply be nicer to them.
Conservatives, on the other hand, were shocked to find anyone in our federal government with enough common sense to say something so intelligent.
While liberals decry Tancredo’s remarks as hateful and demand the Republican Party denounce him, the Colorado congressman is sticking by his statement.
In the Denver Post, he wrote, “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.”
For their part, Republicans at large have not repudiated Tancredo.
Instead, like the crazy uncle who shows up drunk to every family gathering (or as the Kennedy’s call him…Uncle Teddy), Republicans try to ignore Tancredo, hoping he’ll just go away.
But the congressman is right, the American people know it, and his comments should be defended, not refuted.
Just as the country rallied behind President Bush following the 9/11 attacks, when he promised “the people who knocked those buildings down will here from all of us,” Tancredo speaks for the majority of Americans, who don’t want thousands more of their countrymen murdered before our government decides to take further action against terrorists.
Tancredo’s message is an important warning to all involved in the war on terrorism.
Those who presently turn a blind eye to terror need to know that there will be consequences for their inaction. They believe Mecca and other religious sites are sacred. Americans feel the same way about our lives and our freedom. If they are willing to stand by while their countrymen kill innocent American civilians, they should know what the consequences could be.
For our part, Americans must realize that those who aid, sponsor, and hide terrorists do not understand peace, harmony, or freedom.
Our enemies speak only the language of death.
They need to know that any attack on American soil will be met with an incomprehensible destruction that will give new meaning to the word.
About the Writer: Matthew Holmes is a North Carolina based columnist. His articles have been featured in the North Carolina Conservative, ChronWatch.Com, World Net Daily.Com, News Max.Com, Opinion Editorials.Com, and other media outlets. He can be reached at blade729@msn.com
I support his statement.
Tom Rules!
Amen!
Deterrence only works when the enemy know your retribution will be swift, sure, and too terrible to accept.
However, were I POTUS, this argument would be academic: Mecca and Medina would have been radioactive ash on 9-12-2001.
The more I hear and read about Mr. Tancredo, the more I like him.
Fantastic post. Thank you so much for sharing.
I agree with every single word.
We need more like Tancredo.
"Until “mainstream Moslems” rehabilitate their religion, the Koran should be looked upon no differently than Mein Kampf. After all, the Turkish translation of Mein Kampf is a bestseller in Turkey now, the Arabic translation a bestseller among Palestinians, and among Moslems in England and throughout Europe.
"Nazism may not have died with Hitler in his Berlin bunker – just lain dormant, to be revived and merged into the Islam of today. Not “Islamism” or “Islamofascism,” but Islam itself, “mainstream Islam.” A Sky News poll just conducted among British Moslems found that almost half of them thought that Moslem clerics who preach violence against the West agreed with “mainstream Moslem opinion.”
"Hitler has indeed become an Islamic God. Islam has no longer any claim to decency. If Moslems wish to regain respect for their religion, from now on we must tell them: they must earn it."
I learned MAD (mutually assured destruction) was what kept the USA and USSR from attacking each other. There is something to be said for deterrence.
That 'crazy drunk uncle' can pour me one of what he's having, anytime.
We have the ability but not the will to do anything.
When we have the will, will we still have the ability?
I have been trying to come up with a better term for "War on Terrorism." We should have a contest. The best I could do was "War on A$$holes" but I realized that didn't really narrow it down enough.
Good question. I certainly hope so.
Tom Rules!
----
One lone voice in our Congress, the only one of sanity -- the thought is beyond comprehension.
Tom is one of the few politicians who consistanly tells the truth. As usual anyone who dares tell the truth gets labeled insane because 95% of the population lives their life in a total lie.
this merits a moral-clarity bump, no?
While I agree that MAD was a deterrent to the Soviets, it was not the only, or even most important, factor - as it turns out.
The Soviet Union was never as big a military threat as we all assumed them to be.
I support his statement, as well, pbrown, and sent him an e-mail saying so.
He's just supporting America like Harry S. Truman would have: Hiroshi-mecca must be an option. And if this doesn't work, Hiroshi-medina, and so forth--- until the false god Allah is finally exposed.
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.