Posted on 08/04/2007 11:16:37 AM PDT by Clintonfatigued
Republican presidential hopeful Tom Tancredo says the best way he can think of to deter a nuclear "terrorist" attack on the U.S. is to threaten to retaliate by bombing Islamic holy sites.
The Colorado congressman on Tuesday told about 30 people at a town-hall meeting in Osceola, Iowa, that he believes such a "terrorist" attack could be imminent and that the U.S. needs to hurry up and think of a way to stop it.
"If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina," Tancredo said at the Family Table restaurant.
"Because that's the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they otherwise might do."
Mecca and Medina, in Saudi Arabia, are Islam's holiest cities. A Washington-based Islamic civil rights and advocacy group responded Thursday, calling Tancredo's statement "unworthy of anyone seeking public office in the United States."
"Perhaps it's evidence of a long-shot candidate grasping at straws and trying to create some kind of a controversy that might appeal to a niche audience of anti-Muslim bigots," said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
(Excerpt) Read more at kavkazcenter.com ...
I like Tom Tancredo, but this remark was just plain dumb.
Why didn’t we do that after the World Trade Center was brought down?
that wasnt a nuclear attack...
Hey, I resemble that remark...
I suspect many of those who think Tancredo’s suggestion is way out of line would think otherwise if an American city were incincerated in a nuclear fireball.
Tancredo knows that the jihadi cares little for human life...so making mention of attacking capital cities of islamfacist countries like Syria and Tehran will do little good as deterence...so...since the jihadi only cares about muslim holy cites...if we target those...then perhaps deterence is obtained.
They're right. It would be much more effective if we threatened to target every Middle East capital as well, unless they can bring these maniacs under control.
Bingo...
Don’t know how you came across this site but it is the most openly terrorist English site that I’ve seen. I don’t give a rat’s a$$ for what they or cair have to say.
If we are nuked...I will look back to this thread for your opinion again and see where you are at then.
That’s actually a good point.
My family’s clan fought in the crusades, and I’m proud of that, but even I think he went over the top here. At least in as much as he -said- it- ha ha
In the back of your mind, this should always be an option. We just don’t have to bring it up. I really hope there are a few missles with those gps coordinates in our stockpile. (let me check google earth for those...)
Of course, if I were to vote for Tancredo, it would be for many other more pressing reasons, not this one.
* Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan created the taliban and the wahabists. They funded them, allowed them training camps and permit the continued funding of terrorism, weapon purchases and transportation to every killing field on earth today.
The majority of muslims may not be direct participants, but the overwhelming majority either aid and support the active ones, they shelter them, protect them and empower them through silence; even when the killers are murdering other muslims.
All of these activities take place in muslim as well as non-muslim countries worldwide. If the few "good" muslims wanted to bring the entire terrorist structure to an immediate halt, it would happen within 6 months.
hmmmm....
It's like the British threatening to bomb the Vatican as retaliation for the next Irish Republican Army attack.
It does nothing to hurt the terrorists and it is used to great advantage by the terrorist propagandists.
I don’t know about that. Muslims tend to speak with a great deal of flowing and violent rhetoric. This “threat” may be something that they can wrap their minds around and understand, besides I like to keep all options open.
The souce site is banned on my network due to being “hate speech”....
If nothing else, the Saudi’s are likely to take much better care that their local crazies don’t get them nuked.
Romney's Hezbollah blunder the other day revealed him to be less polished than previously thought.
If military conflict arises with the host countries of those sites, than all options are open. But Tancredo’s remarks accomplish nothing, other than getting free ink.
“It’s like the British threatening to bomb the Vatican as retaliation for the next Irish Republican Army attack. It does nothing to hurt the terrorists and it is used to great advantage by the terrorist propagandists.”
I could not have said it better.
The problem, however, is whom you target the retribution against. It's not clear that the Al Qaeda types value anything tangible. So the defined retribution may have to be targeted at people who should be helping us to root out Al Qaeda but are passively supporting them.
It makes a lot of sense to at least SAY this. Plant a seed of doubt in the minds of the enemy.
Sure, you could have said it better. Simply point out that Boston, not the Vatican, was more likely the headquarters site for the IRA.
Oops, should have read the article. Tancredo’s approach is indeed a serious tit-for-tat as far as Islam is concerned, and all Muslims would have to account for it in their thinking if it became U.S. policy.
If they want to live in the Seventh Century, they’ve picked the enemy that can make it happen.
Good analogy.
well remember it when you submit to allah one day (during you forced conversion).
Tom Casey, a deputy spokesman for the State Department, told CNN’s Elise Labott that the congressman’s comments were “reprehensible” and “absolutely crazy.” Tancredo was widely criticized in 2005 for making a similar suggestion.
–CNN Associate Producer Lauren Kornreich
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/04/tancredo-bomb-muslim-holy-sites-first/
Why is it dumb?? It’s not a problem at all if they don’t attack here again! That’s all they would have to do to avoid it.
I think there’s a photoshop’d pick out there with Mecca getting nuked...
But let me ask you a question — would you change your mind if a suitcase nuke was detonated midway between the White House and the Capital Building.
|
Many “Non Terrorist” men, women and children danced in the streets after the 9-11 attack. This happened throughout the world.
Did you see anything on a similar scale after an IRA attack in London?
Without Mecca what would Islamists pray to? Maybe this fear will encourage “moderate” Muslims to rein in their more blood thirsty brothers.
No threat of retaliation will serve as a deterrent to the animals who carry out these attacks. They crave chaos and destruction.
As far as those who may have some influence over them caring about what we do, they only have to rely on the many millions who are not yet jihadi to witness one attack on their holy places, and they become jihadi overnight.
Tancredo has this one wrong, from a practical standpoint. It might feel good to see a mushroom cloud rising over the holy site of the religion that seeks to subjugate the world, but the threat would influence no one who matters, and it will inflame those who are currently on the sidelines.
Since I have said that Tancredo’s solution doesn’t work, I am obligated to offer my own, I suppose.
1. If we know a country is supporting, harboring, condoning, or educating terrorists, announce it, loud and clear, with proof.
2. Immediately seize all of that country’s assets within our borders or under our jurisdiction. Close their embassies, and declare them enemies of the US.
3. Blockade that country by any means possible, including drones, ships, sat surveillance. Destroy without discrimination any vehicle doing commerce with that country.
4. Starve them, choke them, wither them until they cry for mercy.
Extreme measures? yes. Provocative to the rest of world? Damn right. But no more than what Tancredo and Obama have said. All I’ve done is call it what it is: War.
After all, are we serious about this, or is it just another opportunity for saying the right thing to our constituency so we can get elected and continue business as usual - with our enemies?
That's totally reasonable. How long are we going to put up with their jihad of bombings around the world before we do anything? If they don't bomb us, their "holy" sites will be safe. If they bomb ANYONE ANYWHERE, the world's policy should be to bomb their "holy" sites.
It certainly would not need to be nuclear, but could be announced, say 2 hours ahead of time, to give time for everyone to clear out or become the martyrs they calim to aspire to be. A smart bomb or missile would do nicely. But surely if a nuke were to be used to attack us, a response in kind might be appropriate. To take it completely off the table, as some are wont to do, is insane. And if they love death as much as they seem to, maybe a nuke would be just what they need most.
Hear hear....it is time we stop treating these”people” like humans and treat them like the animals they are.Threaten thier most sacred ground, and see how fast they heel too.
Tancredo proves he’s a bigger idiot than Obama. Actually, that’s not true. I don’t believe Tancredo is quixotic enough to believe he can or will be president. I believe he’s cynical enough to play to a small % of the population for his own personal benefit. Typical politician, pandering to a niche market.
Or we could at least laugh at them for praying towards a radioactive hole in the ground!
Would any other threatened retalitory strike be able to possibly make some Islamofacist terrorist rethink his plans? If there are any, I'd like to know what they would be.
They attack our interests, we attack theirs. I would caveat this threat with an "out" for more "moderate" Islamic countries: Find and destroy the terrorists responsible (and their support structure - including other governments) or Mecca and Medina won't be worth fighting for anymore.
This would be a "last option" but should be an option.
Tying our own hands by limiting what could be a very effective threat of retaliation is NEVER a good move. That's why Obama is a nut-job: no nukes for terrorists??? Where did the Dims dig up this moron?
The real problem is how do you create a deterrent to what people regard as a very serious eventuality. One option, which this expresses, is to hold countries which have sponsored or tolerated terrorism at risk, if something like this were to happen.
It would destroy one of the pillars of islam, namely the once in a lifetime pilgrimage to mecca to hit the black meteorite. Can’t do it, can’t get to heaven. Perhaps it can be done a a pre-emptive measure to convince Iran to back off the nuclear bomb.
It might, however, have an impact on friends, families, and national hosts who are overly tolerant of their activities.
The rubble. (The Wailing Wall sacred to Judaism is what is left of the Second Temple after the Romans got though with it.)
Another meteorite.
Some disembodied entity "not of this World".
Maybe this fear will encourage “moderate” Muslims to rein in their more blood thirsty brothers.
Or, it could turn "moderates" into rabid anti-Americans.
If, as in the analogy, the British ever bombed the Vatican, Catholics all over the World that have not set foot inside a Catholic Church in years would be pelting the nearest British Embassy with stones.
In the 1960's, at the time of the Arab-Israeli War, the "radical" Arab governments were secular. It is only recently that the religious fanatics have gained more power in Arab politics. You can only turn Nasser's Egypt into the relatively well-behaved present day Egypt as long as the religious radicals are not given the upper hand. Bombing Mecca would give a sure fire recruiting tool to the religious fanatics.
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.