Way off the mark. Spencer accuses Tancredo of suggesting a pre-emptive strike. An absolute falsehood. You call that a "fair take?"
Bringing up the threat of a nuclear annihilation of some portion of their core may help the moderates to realize that they are responsible for saving their religion from this radical infection.
Mosques are the batteries powering terrorism. Hatred and terrorism starts in the mosque, and radiates outward. Destroy the mosques and deport the clerics (which is what this is going to come to) and the problem will be solved.
If we are hit in another massive terrorist attack, this will be the only solution.
This author is offering more of the "don't give them a reason to hate us" claptrap. It is actually a reason for them to fear us. So much better.
http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/pillars.shtml
A pilgramage (Hajj) to Mecca is a requirement of all Muslims financially and physically able to do so. Eliminating one of the 5 pillars would seem to be a pretty useful threat.
Tancredo was wrong to mention this. It plays into the hands of Muslims who aren't moderate but wish to seem so.
I wouldn't take it off the table. But I wouldn't mention it either.
Yes, he did, when asked what America's response should be if terrorists set off nuclear bombs in the U.S.
I think this should be just PART of response from the U.S.
Nuking Mecca is a much more effective threat than actual tactic - for one thing you can only do it once, for another it is a deliberate insult that absolutely solidifies a fight with all Moslems at large. If, by then, that is what we face then it isn't invalid, IMHO, but it is entirely symbolic.
Of course, taking the city, establishing a defense in depth, and putting the stump grinders to work - that might do the job. Or setting up a subway turnstile and charging them for the Maypole dance around the rock...
I wonder how in love with death they would be after this:
was applied to this:
The ultimate goal of such groups is the restoration of this office, the reunification of the Islamic world under the caliph, and the establishment of the Sharia as the sole law in Muslim countries. Then the caliph would presumably take up one of his principal duties as stipulated by Islamic law: to wage offensive jihad against non-Muslim states in order to extend Sharia rule to them also.
So exactly how is it that a religion with this as its goal, can be called a "Religion of Peace".
Best Regards
Sergio
P.S. By the cryptic comments in some of the posts, I gather you have been a bit under the weather lately. Glad to see you posing and hope you are feeling better. Best wishes for continued health.
How do you feel?thank you
1) Capture a terrorist, or insurgent...
2) Hold him for a few weeks... (insert tracking mechanism into him)..
3) Track him like we do animals..
4) Spread the news(leak) that he will be released after finishing CIA school.. paiseing him for good grades..
5) Collect his (and his familys) bodies for burial..
6) Go To 1)...
They don't need another 'cause' to rally around. They already have half a dozen, everything from Israel's existence to American culture. The real problem is that they will use nukes on the US and then what will we do? Demand an apology? Take our grievances to our friends at the UN? Anything other than the use of overwhelming force will be looked on by the Muslims as weakness and will encourage the use of more WMD's against us. We will end up like the black knight in 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail', chopped to bits, but still yelling our defiance.
Primarily, of course, it contravenes Western principles of justice which, if discarded willy-nilly, would remove a key reason why we fight at all:
An extraordinary response to the nuclear destruction of an American city by Islamic terrorists isn't the "discarding of Western values, willy nilly." This is a completely rabid mischaracterization.
But even aside from moral questions, which are increasingly thorny in this post-Hiroshima, post-Dresden world,
Any sensible person must reject--out-of hand--any writer who implies, however indirectly, the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima or the conventional attack on Dresden was unjustified. The Nazis and their allies began the practice of attacks on civilians and other violations of the laws of war to which they were signatories. And since the writer claims to be concerned with practical outcomes, perhaps he should learn some history: the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima saved many lives--American and Japanese.
Will men who love death, who glorify suicide bombing and praise God for beheadings and massacres, fear the destruction of holy sites? It seems unlikely in the extreme...
This isn't an argument against nuking Mecca under ultimate extremity--it's an argument against any violent action or threat of violent action; as such it is on its face preposterous.
The abolition of the caliphate, then, accomplished precisely the opposite of what Ataturk hoped it would: it gave the adherents of political Islam a cause around which to rally, recruit, and mobilize.
Again, the supposedly reasoned response has nothing to do with the actual facts. The abolition of the caliphate in fact accomplished exactly what Ataturk desired: it established Turkey as a secular state. Ataturk couldn't possibly have cared less what a bunch of nut-cases in Egypt used as a justification for their murderous ideology. Learn some history, Mr. Spencer. And once again the author is making an argument against any attempt whatsoever to bring Islam into the 21st century--any attempt to separate religion from governance, in this author's opinion--can only strengthen the radicals. Given this view, Islamists are genuinely invincible, since no action against them can do anything but strengthen them. So the "reasoned argument" against Tancredo is nothing more than a craven appeal to hoist the white flag everywhere on earth that radical Islam has taken hold. Ridiculous.
Finally, Mr. Spencer isn't even correct in his assessment of the origins of the rise of radical Islam. The abolition of the caliphate had far less to do with the actions of Ataturk than the rise of Wahhabism, which was simply a manufactured justification for the House of Saud to overthrow the Hashemite rulers of the Arabian Peninsula and the historical protectors of Islamic holy sites.
In sum, there are arguments against Tancredo's proposal, but Spencer doesn't make any of them: He attacks a position Tancredo has not taken, the logic of his position leads inevitably to helplessness and surrender, and his historical assertions are simply laughable.
Well, if we get nuked I don't thing we should announce that we're very angry but we understand that most muslims are peacelovign people and that we won't retaliate against them. That we will bring the people responsible to justice or bring justice to them.
No, if we get nuked, somebody has to get nuked. I reject Mecca too. Too symbolic. I say Damascus and Tehran.
Let me get this straight, it was bad to get rid of the caliphate because it created terroists group to bring back the caliphate and the caliphate is bad because it would cause war agianst nonmuslim nations. So what he is is saying it is better to have muslim nations fighting war than to have mulsim terrorists? Sounds like stupid logic to me. Than again bring back the caliphate, let them start a war, nuke them and their stone back to the prestone age or slime period out of the pond. No more islam....hhhuummmmm. Liberals would never go for it so I vote for getting rid of the caliphate and never letting it return.
For the fun of it!!! Radioactively boil Brer Rabbit, don't throw him in the briar patch.
How do we 'know' this?
I don't know. Let's test the proposition, unless you have some other bright idea.
Tancredo for President 2008/2012.
Nothing wrong with that.
Make it so if they decided to give us an American Hisroshima, the Islamic countries supporting Islamic Jihad would never be inhabitable again.
You can use all the "Oh I don't think we should do this if that happends" logic, but when the US is hit with a nuke, you can bet there will be an outcry to get them and hit them hard.
IF I was a leader of an ISlamic nation right now, I would be worried that my inaction of not doing anything to stop these hatefull ISlamic extremists would come to a head if the US was nuked.
Yes...Nuke teh ecenters of Islam if we are nuked. And make them pay dearly for their inaction.