Tancredo is a bomb thrower, and does not have the communication discipline to sniff the Presidency, much lesss the Republican nomination. I lost respect for him with the "nuke Muslim cities" comment. It is unhelpful and silly.
Nevermind the decades of death-to-America saber-rattling from Islamists across the world.
Sure...Tancredo's remarks were bombastic, but it was spit in the ocean of the venom that Islamist politicians have hurled at the U.S. since Jimmy Goober disgraced the Oval Office.
Lets get it right, Tancredo isn't the bomb thrower Muslims terrorists are (literally). As far as Nuking Muslim cities goes, that's not what he said. He said IF Islamic terrorists nuke us (as in first) THEN we should nuke Mecca. The notion of preemption was not even in the mix. As I recall we made the very same deal with the Soviet Union If they were to nuke us we would nuke their cities in retaliation, the correlation is exactly the same, its called deterrence. I would be willing to bet that if we had B-52's in permanently rotating standoff range with nuclear cruse missiles targeting Mecca the Muslim world would have real incentive to stop terrorism. Arabs understand force, and thats how we should negotiate, with force.
Actually, it's more insightful than that.
The terrorist have no standing army.
The terrorist have no central base, such as a state or country.
The terrorist have no financial institutions.
So how do you hit them where it hurts?
Mecca would be a fine start.
So if the usa is nuked, by the nation of islam, thousand and thousand of Americans killed, a city or two or three in ruin, what would you do?
Zack, Tancredo is not under consideration for the presidency of Harvard. However, he has more than defended his remarks, which you misconstrue and take from context, in re Mecca, etc. In explaining them, he has refused to apologize, and IMHO, rightly so.
The sensitivity of Muslims is not an issue in solving the problems of terrorism. You will also notice that, perhaps and hopefully in response to his tough remarks, we have finally, finally seen some mealy-mouthed apologies coming from the the so-called "Moderate Muslim" camp. Albeit far from satisfactory or even wholly sincere, they are among the first recorded condemnations of terror from this side of the fence.
Maybe in these SOB's are taking OUR sensitivities into account. We are faced with an international enemy that far outnumbers any we have ever faced before. They wish our conversion, or death, or perpetual enslavement. Why take any of their sites off a potential target list?
Use the FR search functions to come up to speed on exactly what Tom Tancredo has to say.
Are you suggesting Bush did during his primaries??? He resembled Goober Pyle of the Andy Griffith Show (in actions and looks)...Granted, he's come a long way since then...
And since you don't believe we should nuke muzlim religious sites, what would you propose we do when the muzlims unleash nuclear weapons on American cities???
"It is unhelpful and silly."
Yes, it was rather insensitive wasn't it? It sure stirred sh*t up though. I want a president that's in touch with his inner self and is sensitive to the feelings and needs of others. I want a president who cares about the environment and the poor (especially the poor from Mexico) and doesn't mind wearing his heart on his sleeve. Oh, wait a minute, that was Bill Clinton!
I lost respect for him with the "nuke Muslim cities" comment. It is unhelpful and silly.
He gained a lot of respect from me over it. The only thing I want him to say is that he would do it when Mecca is full of Muslims! Do ya think that's silly? That want to kill me, my family, my friends, and ALL Americans. I assume you're one of them?