Replies

And from Hugh Hewitt
http://www.hughhewitt.com/#postid1811

The Tancredo Blunder

Donald Sensing has all the links that really matter on the Tancredo blunder. (HT: StonesCryOut.) Pastor Sensing notes that I corrected the first post to specifically note that Congressman Tancredo talked of "bombing" Mecca, not "nuking" Mecca. The actual audio is available to anyone now at the website for WFLA 540 in Orlando. Note two things. First, Congressman Tancredo said that if we determined that "extremist fundamentalist Muslims" attacked the U.S. with nukes, then we shoudl bomb Mecca. Why, he should be asked, if "extremist fundamentalist" Muslims are guilty would we declare war on all Muslims? Why make the distinction about "extremist, fundamentalist" Muslims if the distinction doesn't matter in our response. Second, the Congressman also said "the most draconian measures" should be on the table." He didn't say "nuke," but it is a fair inference.

Tancredo is no doubt being inundated with "Stand tall Tom!" calls and e-mails from the anti-Islam crowd. This is a fringe opinion, but its supporters are not afraid of voicing it, much like the pro-Durbin remarks crowd on the left fringe urged Durbin to stand tall when he compared the American military to Nazis and Pol Pot's killers. This creates a problem for Tancredo: He will offend this very loud portion of his support by regretting and retracting his remarks which he surely must do, and the sooner the better.

The remarks he made are a positive disservice to the United States, for all the reasons Durbin's were. He has to retract them. And he ought to apologize to every Muslim soldier, sailor, airman and Marine for suggesting that the way to respond to an attack on America is to attack their faith.

I have been hearing from people who urge that Tancredo is just voicing the updated version of the MAD doctrine which kept the USSR at bay through the long years of the Cold War. That's silly. Destroying Mecca wouldn't destroy Islam. It would enrage and unify Islam across every country in the world where Muslims lived.

Let me be blunt: There is no strategic value to bombing Mecca even after a devastating attack on the U.S. In fact, such an action would be a strategic blunder without historical parallel, except perhaps Hitler's attack on Stalin. Anyone defending Tancredo's remarks has got to make a case for why such a bombing would be effective.

Take down the Syrian regime? You bet. Replace the House of Saud? Fine. Bomb every nuclear facility in Tehran? Absolutely. The US would respond to a savage attack with fury --but purposeful fury. Bombing Mecca would be the opposite of purposeful fury.

Those who support him have to explain what the strategic value of such a response would be. There is none.

Mr. Hewitt. The strategic value, moron, is that if that was the rep-announced, known policy of the United States to a nuclear attack by Muslims engaged in jihad it would act as a very effective deterrent.

Your other options simply are not. They are viewed as acceptable losses to most of Islam. You're really worried about enraging the Muslim world after they make NYC and LA smoking craters? Wake up.

Actually, just bloody ignorant. We are not in conflict with terrorists, or even, radical Islam. We are at war with Islam. These acts have the strong support of the vast majority of the Moslim population. This is Islam. Always has been. From the beginning. Wake up.

Those who support him have to explain what the strategic value of such a response would be. There is none.

Well, now wait a second. Some 'holy' city in the Middle East is more worthy than some 'non-holy' city in the MidWest of the US?

Our innocent citizens are more worthy of attack than their innocent citizens? Our children should be roasted, but theirs not?

You want strategic value!? It goes like this: Kill ten thousand of my people and I will guarantee 100,000 of yours dead. Call it the strategic factor of '10'.

"And he ought to apologize to every Muslim soldier, sailor, airman and Marine for suggesting that the way to respond to an attack on America is to attack their faith."

You mean apologize to Muslim soldiers like the one who rolled those hand grenades into his comrades' tent? Or Muslim veterans like John Mohammed, the D.C. sniper? How about that lovely Muslim FBI agent who refused to wiretap a terror suspect because it "violated his religion"? How stupidly naive we are. 9/11 wasn't enough. What in God's name will it take for people to understand the monolithic evil we are facing?

"Why make the distinction about "extremist, fundamentalist" Muslims if the distinction doesn't matter in our response."

Ummm, perhaps it's because there is absolutely no way to strike back and only hit the 'extremist, fundamentalist Muslims' that hit us with (the hypothetical) nukes?
We have smart bombs, but they're not quite smart enough to make that differentiation yet.

BTW, did this very same moral dilemna prevent us from intentionally killing innocent civilians when we bombed Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden and Berlin? No, because war is what it is, hell; and if your country and your people are attacked and slaughtered en masse by a barbaric enemy without conscience, and who are determined to destroy you and your way of life, then you really have no choice but to fire back at them in a place that hurts them most, such as the epicenter of their sanguinary cult.

And do not forget that Saudi Arabia is the country that teaches the greatest hatred for the West and produces our most cunning and savage enemies. Were not most of the 9/11 terrorists and masterminds from Saudi Arabia? Is Osama bin Laden not from Saudi?

I don't believe for a milisecond that aren't a great many terrorists and terror supporters amongst those folks who flock to Mecca to join the throngs of fanatics who bow in the dirt to mohammed and the homicidal cult he formed.

Finally, bearing in mind that Sen. Tancredo's statement, (as is mine above), was in response to a hypothetical, multi-pronged nuclear attack of America by Muslim extremists, what the hell would you do about it, send some special forces to Afghanistan to try to find some 'bad guys' to kill? Yeah, that'd work.

Valin, your response Tom Tancredo's remarks regarding "glow in the dark" Mecca (and I would add Medina to that list) is pretty damn stupid. Only an arrogant idiot would refer to the Tancredo proposal as a gaffe.

The preferred strategy is to deter an attack on CONUS before it happens rather than exact retribution after an attack has occurred.

Mecca and Medina are dearly beloved religious sites in the eyes of the muslim world and the threat of their loss represents the most draconian threat imaginable to them. By placing them on the table as the minimum price to be paid in the event of one or more WMD strikes within CONUS, ranks right up there with being buried in pig shit. In order for the deterrent to be effective, muslim heads of state must be warned ahead of time so they can take whatever measures necessary to keep their stooges in check. I would hope the Bush administration has already done so. It may be the only thing keeping suitcase nukes from going off inside the US.

Should the deterrent fail and we get hit, then depending on the severity of damage, additional targets such as those you mentioned (muslim capitol cities: Damascus, Riyahd, Teheran) can and should be added to the list.