Replies

Why not bomb Mecca? Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) has brought the issue to the table.

Look, I know that FrontPage is a conservative site but I have to point out something...when the lead sentence, which is what is quoted above, doesn't contextualize Tancredo's remarks for the average reader (much like what AP does) it doesn' give a fair portrait of the comments. Tancredo said 'if a nuke goes off in an American city *THEN* we should bomb Mecca'.

Not that we should just arbitrarily 'bomb Mecca'. Get it right!!

I think that most readers read the first few sentences of AP stories or pieces and draw conclusions.

When heard in context, Tancredo's comments are perfectly reasonable.

I have yet to hear someone give a rebuttal to this "bomb mecca" arguement: The threat of Mecca's destruction may put more pressure on moderate muslims to root out the badguys.

Hugh? Captain Ed? Bueller?

Clean up your mess, or someone else will.

www.hughcantwinemall.blogspot.com

Tancredo said 'if a nuke goes off in an American city *THEN* we should bomb Mecca'. Not that we should just arbitrarily 'bomb Mecca'. Get it right!!

Was this so hard for the media to get these facts straight? Yes. However, Tancredo sure got some milage out of this. This administration should take note & find out how these terrorist countries would possibly help us if they knew their possessions could go up in smoke if any terrorist act should happen again. That wouldn't be politially correct in the compassionate conservative administration but we are told that illegals only come here for jobs & Islam is a religion of peace.

"When heard in context, Tancredo's comments are perfectly reasonable."

Spot-on. Tancredo was responding to the question as to appropriate reponse to the use of nuclear weapons against the US, on our soil.

We obliterated Hiroshima and Nagasaki for less...and rightfully so. In so doing, we killed many thousands of Japanese civilians. Such is the nature of war. We need to make it absolutely unthinkable for any nation on earth to knowingly harbor and/or support terrorists. There is only one way to achieve that end, and that's to make the rest of the world "pant-sh!++ing" afraid of what will happen to them if they do. They need to know that the US is serous, that we've got the will and the resolve to do whatever it takes to protect our nation and people, and that we won't wait a second to strike with brutal force to punish any nation that supports a terrorist/terrorist group that attacks our nation with WMD. There are two ways to achieve that end. We can either sit back, guard our tongues, and wait until we've been devastated to finally grow some spine and respond. Or, we can do exactly what Tancredo did...warn the world that there will be hell to pay, literally, for anyone and/or any country that is connected to such an attack, in any way.

This is the gist of what TANCREDO said:

Before a strike (Terrorist Nuclear Strike on the United States)we would make it known:

We might say to the powers at be in Islam, "If a nuclear strike were to happen against the United States and its origin was a Islamic Terrorist Org, then all bets are off and every option is on the Table including a strike by the United States against Holy Sites.

Its the standard deterance used in the Cold War.

There is nothing other than standard policy in his supposition.