Posted on 07/26/2005 2:03:01 PM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March
Just a quick heads up. Hannity announced he will be talking with Tancredo regarding the "Mecca Remark". If I'm not mistaken, it will be one of the segments in the last hour of his radio program. I'll try to provide a link for online feed.
Let's see... Henry Kissinger was... ummm He used the concept of MAD all the time. Let me think... he was ummm... yeah... let me see...
Let me research it, LOL!
I didn't tape it. Basically, Hannity went over Tancredo's original statement word-for-word. Hannity was pretty nice to him. Tancredo sounded nervous, to be honest. Very meek. I'm more inclined to trust someone like that than some blowhard politician, but that's just me. Tancredo didn't sound like some 'slick snakeoil salesman', the way...
CONFIRMED.... TANCREDO COMING UP ON SAVAGE!
Tancredo coming up on Savage.
Plus more than a few minor ones, one of which produced the quote in question.
"his [General Curtis LeMay's] record in WW II for the ruthless bombing of Japanese civilian proved it was not empty talk, he had the nads to do as he threatened."
Very interesting. And our willingness to bomb Japan with two nukes has been getting undermined and watered down. Ironically, our subsequent wimpiness may one day require us to do it again.
"I think Medved and Hewitt lost 25% of their audience in the last few days due to their attack on Tancredo and their PC echoing of the mass murderers whining..."
I for sure have tuned Hewitt out because of his obsession with Tancredo. Hell I even had to listen to BO for about 15 minutes. YIKES!! Just can't listen to Hannity any more.
The evidence is exactly opposite. The evidence is that bin Laden's war against the west was inspired directly by his desire to get westerners out of Saudi Arabia and as far away as possible from Mecca and Medina, which he reveres more deeply than anything else on earth.
In sum, Tancredo was not close to the mark. He was dead on the mark.
But evidence never prevented ignorance from flourishing among the appeasers.
They won't because even if they don't agree with the fanatics' style, they agree with the objective. And the jury remains out on whether or not they agree with the style.
Tancredo will be on Savage tonight. FRegards....
Take a look at this, which someone brought to my attention the other day. Even de Tocqueville nearly 200 years ago knew what was up with islam:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I studied the Quran a great deal. I came away from that study with the
conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as
deadly to men as that of Muhammad. So far as I can see, it is the principal
cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less
absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are
in my opinion more to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of
decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself."
Alexis de Tocqueville
Democracy in America
How about Savage as Secretary of State? I think he could prevent a lot of wars with his rants. =]
Speaking of the "rabid and loony", why don't you ever heap scorn like this on the terrorists and the moderate Muslims who support their aims, you know, the animals who strap bombs to their bodies and kill innocent people in subways and on buses?
Why do you reserve your bile for Americans like Tancredo?
If the Muslims know, know, that if they bomb America, America, Mecca will cease to exist, do you really think any will bomb America?
Please, let's not get into the "insane wildcard" issue. I would suggest that Mecca is more important to the Muslims than America is to us. An "insane wildcard" would not get the backing, extreme backing and the effort of a lot of people being logistically necessary to nuke the US.
And, yes, I agree the Muslims are insane, generally, from my viewpoint, but they are insane because of their teachings, and Mecca is the Earthly hub. Would any of the normally insane Muslims be responsible for destroying Mecca.
thanks for the heads up!!
If anyone here supports terrorists I would heap scorn upon them, too, instead of just upon their enablers.
You have mischaracterized my positions twice now.
You said I called the non tancredo supporters stupid. I corrected you and said they were limp wristed moderates or jihadist apologists.
Now you have said that I've compared this situation to that of the USSR. I have said no such thing.
Are you a troll or are you really this stupid?
Dane!!!!!!
It wouldnt be a tancredo/savage thread without you popping in for a quick troll!
"We can agree that Tancredo was undiplomatic"
diplomacy is overrated when you're facing an enemy like islamofascism.
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.