Posted on 07/26/2005 7:25:31 PM PDT by Kenny Bunk
Tom Tancredo, the Colorado congressman who caused an uproar with the suggestion Muslim holy sites could be taken out in response to a nuclear attack on U.S. cities, is making no apologies if people are offended by his frank talk.
"Many critics of my statements have characterized them as 'offensive,' and indeed they may have offended some," writes Tancredo in a guest commentary in the Denver Post.
"But in this battle against fundamentalist Islam, I am hardly preoccupied with political correctness, or who may or may not be offended. Indeed, al-Qaida 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."
Tancredo, who in recent months has been an outspoken critic of immigration policies allowing illegal aliens to stream across U.S. borders, says few can argue the current approach to the war on terror has deterred fundamentalists from killing Westerners, adding so-called moderate Muslims and leaders of Muslim countries have done little to crack down on extremists.
"That being the case, perhaps the civilized world must intensify its approach," Tancredo says. "Does that mean the United States should be retargeting 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."
Tancredo's commentary comes in the wake of reaction to his remarks during a Florida radio discussion.
In the interview with Pat Campbell of WFLA radio, Tancredo discussed his request for a briefing from the Justice Department on information it has on plans revealed by WND this week for a nuclear attack on the U.S. by al-Qaida terrorists.
Campbell noted that just after the July 7 London bombings, former Israeli counterterrorism intelligence officer Juval Aviv predicted an attack in the U.S. within the next 90 days. Aviv believes the plan is to attack not one big city, like New York, but half-a-dozen smaller ones, including towns in the heartland.
The host asked Tancredo, "Worst case scenario, if they do have these nukes inside the border, what would our response be?"
The congressman replied: "There are things you could threaten to do before something like that happens, and then you have to do afterwards, that are quite draconian."
"Well," Tancredo continued, "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: "You're talking about bombing Mecca?"
Tancredo: "Yeah. What if you said, we recognize that this is the ultimate threat to the United States, therefore this is the ultimate response."
The congressman quickly added, "I don't know, I'm just throwing out some ideas, because it seems that at that point in time you would be talking about taking the most draconian measures you could imagine. Because other than that, all you could do is tighten up internally."
Tancredo's office clarified the comments, saying Tancredo was not advocating an attack on Muslim holy sites.
As WND reported, the controversial lobby group Council on American-Islamic Relations is urging the Republican Party to repudiate Tancredo's remarks.
Previous stories:
CAIR to GOP: Repudiate Tancredo
Tancredo clarifies 'ultimate response'
Well the obvious follow up question is...
If even more horrible things start happening in all of the major muslim cities starting with their capitals, and they can't prove who did it, don't the same rules apply?
That was a mistake.
Maybe he's from the DU..
Earth to CAIR: FOAD.
White House to CAIR: "Yes, my master."
bttt
Natalee Holloway's mother did nothing different than many, many parents do today. Beth Twitty never imagined that her daughter would not come back to her and the rest of the family. With all the "high-school graduation" vacations and "college graduation" trips, what are the numbers on those who never make it back?
Exotic get-aways for graduates strikes me as silly.
For example, those who have every opportunity to get a high school degree SHOULD be doing just that. College, the same. Neither are exceptional feats to be highly rewarded these days. Seventy years ago and before, many did not finish high-school and a minority went to college. How many were rewarded with a luxurious vacation? Only the very wealth, if any, I believe.
The tragic disappearance of Natalie Holloway may change the thinking of some parents, but it won't be for my reasons. Regardless of the law, an 18-year-old IS NOT an adult. Let's not kid ourselves. I don't think the few chaperones who went along on the trip to Aruba were given the responsibility of knowing the actions and whereabouts of all those teenagers. If the parents wanted every movement of their child to be watched over, they would have insisted on many more chaperones before they agreed to the trip.
If Natalee made a bad decision, it did not give anyone the right to murder her! Let's be clear about that. As of now we don't know what happened, what caused it, who, if anyome, is responsible.
To anyone who wants to blame her parents, you had better be a perfect parents yourself, and you will be the first!
I disagree. After hearing Tancredo speak on his own behalf earlier tonight on FOX (Hannity & Colmes), I now see that what's taken place is that a lot of negative media spin has been applied dishonestly to what Tancredo said.
Because of that, it's impossible to now know (or ever) if "people in politics" aren't discussing what Tancredo said because they don't know what he said but only what the negative and wrong spin has stated about what he said (but what he didn't say), or, if they understand what he actually said (I don't think so) and have refused to discuss that for whatever.
It's dangerous to begin a national discussion that includes in media the issue of possibly launching nuclear weapons against anyone, much less "mosques" in general (which Tancredo DID NOT SAY, but which it's been wrongfully said he did, and even Hewitt proliferates the dishonesty and fails to mention what Tancredo said, with any accuracy)...thus, what I am thinking is that most in politics are not discussing this issue because it's a dangerous one -- and more importantly, there are enough unreliable and unpredictably unstable "leaders" in other countries who would be easily -- in their perceptions -- incited by even the idea that the U.S. was discussing the use of nuclear weapons (Castro, Chavez, Bin Laden and many in Africa, Palestine, and particularly, Korea and elsewhere come to mind here). And who might, worse, premptively launch thier own weapons based upon a misperception about such a discussion...should legislators actually start making public comments about the very idea.
However, back to Tancredo, it's significant to my view that, after hearing him repeat what he actually said (FOX, earlier tonight), I can easily see how badly he's been misrepresented.
I don't know about Hewitt sometimes, but this is one case where he's been unreliable in discussing what he alleges Tancredo said, but which Tancredo did not -- thus, Hewitt and others are ensuring that people are misled about Tancredo (if he's being refuted [even though he didn't say what's being refuted], many people assume he's actaully said whatever, given that other people are so consumed by whatever).
I understood Tancredo after hearing him earlier clarify what he said and it wasn't at all an unreasonalbe premise: that he would hypothetically consider launching nuclear weapons if the U.S. was attacked with nuclear weapons or with some other equally horrific damaging problem.
That's, in effect, what was the U.S. policy that won the Second WW -- we launched atomic bombs on Japan to ensure they got a severe message that exceeded the horror of what they'd done at Pearl Harbor.
Thus, Tancredo was making quite a bit of sense, contrary to what so many are wrongfully saying about him.
Exactly. I wonder where this crazy idea of fighting a war "fair and square" came from... Obviously, not from anyone who's ever actually fought and won a war!
Mark
attack the pyramids??? you'd be doing the Jihadis a favor... those are pagan sites...
Simple... If I were Bush, faced with this, I'd conference with the General at Whiteman AFB (where the B2s are), SecDef, the general in charge at NORAD, and the JCS, go over the MAOs (major attack options) with Mecca and Medina as the primary targets aiming for the Grand Mosque in Mecca and the holy sites in Medina, use the low yield (250KT, no megaton bombs--has vaporize/incinerate effect but less long term implications) on the B2, the one that is launched via an air/ground cruise missle, order a sorty of those planes to bomb those sites, while particularly avoiding attacks on the surrounding areas.. Also would launch F14s from carriers in the Med to level the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock)...
If theory is corrct that destruction of the grand mosque and kaaba in Mecca would put an end to Islam, then no more need be done, other than wipe out the remaining individuals behind terror attacks and outlaw Islam.
The oil belonged to our companies to begin with!!!!
Remember...Libya got out of the American terror business after Reagan bombed Qaddafy's palace, killing his whole family. Welcome to the real world.
How do I get PINGs for "Tancredo" and "Ron Paul?"?
Tancredo and Ron Paul are the rarest breed of politician. They are Patriots and Americans, -- first and foremost. Tancredo and Ron Paul would make a great presidential combination.
I smile everytime imagine 16 years with them at the helm.
I agree with both of you. Maybe a nuclear attack will be what it takes to urge our "leaders" to finally wage a proper war on islam. We know for certain that 3000 souls killed and billions of damage in one attack did not do it.
Well put.
Needs saying.
80% or MORE of Freepers have been saying these exact same sentiments, in their posts, for the last four years. We better get behind Tancredo when the enemy comes to try to get him. He is philosophically one of us. We don't forget one of ours when attacked. When one of ours is attacked (such as Michael Graham as well) we are all attacked, because they would just as soon do it to one of us Freepers if we ourselves were in the public eye, saying what we say here on this forum.
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.