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
Tom is a special person!!
OK, troll, I'll tell you.
If we incinerate Mecca and Medina, the millions of illiterate Islamists will see that "Allah" is not all-powerful. Additionally, the focus of their politicoreligous worship will be gone.
An additional plus is that we would likely kill thousands of terrorists and their sympathizers.
Any more questions.
Do you dispute that they had or have the nukes to basically take out the US? Regardless of their military, they had the capacity to inflict massive nuclear damage.
A-L-L-A-H__I-S__ N-O-T__ A-L-L__ P-O-W-E-R-F-U-L-L
It'll give them a sh*t-load of pause for thought, that why.
Extremely profound of you, John Lenin, as usual. Your comments are so right-on. Thanks very much, and to everyone else, too. I'm glad that FR readers are beginning to realize that this really IS life or death. It is no different from Hitler's fascism, only it is worse, because it is a global disease and must be thoroughly eradicated before anything resembling PEACE can be enjoyed.
Thanks again, John!
Char (:
Tom is a special person!!
-----
God, why can't we clone he and Zell Miller, and replace most of those social climbers in the Congress -- hell, we could actually get our Constitutional Republic back -- wouldn't that be nice??
No... no dispute there at all.
My point is that the Soviets never had a strong enough military to invade western Europe sucessfully (after 1948, anyway), much less the US mainland, and their only defense against us was the threat of a massive nuclear first-or-retaliatory strike. The Soviets attempted to dominate the world by supporting "wars of liberation" waged by local communistic movements and by the subversion of western institutions. Their progeny are still very active in western nations today.
The Soviet Union was an institutionalized lie: the local party apparatchiks lied to Moscow, the local collective farmers lied to Moscow, and Moscow lied to the masses. Coincidentally, their threats of nuclear doom were mostly lies and/or bluster as well. After their fall, we discovered that their military infrastructure was crumbling, and their supply system could NOT have sustained much of a deployment outside their European borders. Look at what happened to them in a pi$$ant country like Afghanistan. Even their strategic forces were in a pitiful state of disarray. It is estimated that only about 30% of their strategic forces could effectively respond if called to action. Granted that this would have been enough to devastate the US (and with our retaliation; the world); they knew this as well as we did.
My point is that the USSR was more a nightmare than a real threat; politicians on both sides of the Cold War used this threat to further their own agendas.
We agree.
The Islamofacist's blew up Buddhist statues from the 3rd centruy A.D., I feel no sympathy for them. Tom's statement was for the good because it has gotten the Muslim world to start thinking about consequences.
Case in point: Tom voted AGAINST CAFTA. FOR AMERICA.
Let's see the President do that. Yeah, right. Go ahead, Jorge, sign that sell out plan. I can see the Costa Rican farmers lining up for their brand new Hummers right now.
Asia's too crowded, Europe's too old, Africa is way too hot, and Canada's too cold. Boom goes London and boom parie` more room for you and more room for me.....They all hate us anyway.
I'll send him one tomorrow. Thanks for putting that idea in my head.
If the so Called Moderate adherants to Islam
are unwilling or unable to Clean their own house.
Follow Tom's Suggestion. At the Height of the Hadj,
Airburst a W-91 SRAM-T over the Ka'aba.
Have you ever heard of any Muslim group break off as progressives from the cult? Call for ANY type of reform?
No, you haven't, and as we speak Iraqi women are duly upset as they are facing the old dress code of covering up, per the new constitution in Iraq.
The United States has the power TODAY to totally obliterate every last one of them.
....sounded so good to me, I had to see it again!
That makes my blood boil. The women in Iraq are being pushed back to the 12th century.
YES
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.