Good!
Congressman Tom Tancredo, the only true conservative in Congress and the only politician on Capitol Hill who takes a hard line against illegal aliens, said that if Islamofascists upgraded to nuclear attacks, we could threaten to bomb Muslim holy sites.
Republicans and Democrats are jumping all over him, mischaracterizing his remarks. They believe Tancredo should apologize. He said he won’t, and I hope he doesn’t. I stand behind him 100 percent, even as Republicans and so-called conservatives demand an apology. We need tough talk and tough action on global terrorism, and what Tancredo said was actually mild compared to what Islamofascists have in mind for us.
Most politicians are faint-hearted, weak, ineffectual, disconnected, and desensitized pencil-pushers, so when one comes along and says what should’ve been said eons ago, his own party wants to see his head on a platter because he dared “offend” someone. Numbskulls.
It’s becoming painfully clear to me that I’m moving farther to the right than so-called conservatives, including bloggers. As they cave to PC pressure and become indistinguishable from liberals, I’ll take up the slack and remain as un-PC as I can get.
More from Baldilocks.
Bloggers who agree with me: Instapunk, HCS’s and Gen’s Place…
National Journal is blogging and rounding up.
Update (2:29 p.m.): For Islamist apologists and soft-on-terrorism types, I’m going to pretend I’m an Islamist and crush all dissent. If you don’t agree with me, your comment may not be posted. I don’t think I’ll make any bombs, though. I’m really busy today.
Update (7/20): Conservative bloggers are jumping all over me the way Republicans have jumped on Tom Tancredo. While the man said that threatening Mecca was a possibility in the event of escalated attacks, conservatives have drunk from the same putrid cup of swill that liberals devour. Any time a politician who just so happens to be a Republican utters the slightest controversial word, the left is all over him. That so-called conservatives fail to see the difference between blowing Mecca off the planet and expressing an opinion about our options should Islamofascists ever, God forbid, launch the nuclear weapons we all know they have, is a bitter disappointment.
Say what you will about me. I couldn’t give a rat’s behind. Criticism from conservative bloggers, particularly on my defense of Tancredo, means as much to me as the daily dung dropped by the most rabid and vacuous liberal bloggers who, ironically, live to read my blog.
I am an independent conservative for a reason. I don’t seek approval from any man, and I don’t attach myself to whatever hare-brained meme Republican bloggers float. Fortunately, the blogosphere is big enough for all of us. As I’ve done since the beginning, I’ll continue to occupy a tiny corner of the blogosphere that’s free of rancid PC jargon and Republican bootlicking.
If a nuclear attack occurs, I think alot more than a holy site will be bombed.
Comment by Dell Gines — 07.19.05 @ 9:43 am
That’s why the uproar over Tancredo’s comments is stupid. In my not-so-humble assessment, we should destroy the “holy” sites if one more American is killed by Islamofascists. But that’s just me.
Comment by La Shawn — 07.19.05 @ 9:46 am
What strategic advantage would bombing muslim holy sites give us? I have to take the Hugh Hewitt line on this one because the bombing of holy sites would only serve to inflame the propaganda war against us and would not serve to disable our enemy.
We should be threatening Syrian and Iranian military targets in the case of a nuclear attack against the US, not Mecca.
Think about how insulting the recent remarks from the Chinese General were about nuking us if we interfere militarily with Taiwan. Tancredo’s remarks were just as insulting. Furthermore, he serves on no committee which would be making these recommendations to the pentagon so why he would agree in passing with the remarks made by the radio host is beyond me. I think he should have been more careful in agreeing with the interviewer as anyone should. Don’t say, “yeah,” to inflammatory remarks like that. It was foolish.
Irrelevant, too. He’s not in the position to make such decisions.
The reactions to Tancredo’s “yeah” are overblown, but I am curious why you, LaShawn, would support an attack based on revenge and humiliation instead of military strategic importance. We should not respond in-kind to civillian attacks, we should take out the states that make those attacks possible.
Comment by SAS — 07.19.05 @ 9:50 am
Like I said in a previous discussion LaShawn, Tom Tancredo is the ONLY member of Congress that should keep his job…EVERYONE else should be voted out!
Comment by M. Woodward — 07.19.05 @ 9:58 am
SAS, I’m “surprised” that you don’t read carefully.
Comment by La Shawn — 07.19.05 @ 10:10 am
Tom Tancredo Refuses to Apologize La Shawn Barber’s Corner: I agree. All you have to do is read the interview. Don̵ […]
Pingback by HCS's Place — 07.19.05 @ 10:44 am
yep. I am getting criticism here at home because i am seen as far right. i refuse to play PC. While it may not mean much in the grand scheme of things i agree with you 100% Lashawn..:)
Comment by Hescominsoon — 07.19.05 @ 10:55 am
It’s about time we finally got someone (or any high level official for that matter) who had the nerve to stick by what they said (as opposed to always wimping out because someone “might” be offended). Get over it. I am sure terrorist, islamofascist, murderers, etc. care when their victims are offended.
Comment by Renee — 07.19.05 @ 11:00 am
“SAS, I’m ’surprised’ that you don’t read carefully.”
I love it when you’re ironic, La Shawn. Obviously, he’s interested in yapping, not reading. If you accept the fact that this is a cultural war, not a “military” war, which SAS does not (but bin-Laden, et al., do), then there are no illegitimate targets. Cultures do not compromise; they can’t compromise on basic perceptions about the way the world should be. They fight to the death. They fight against chaos and against other cultures until their culture prevails or is the one destroyed. Of course, it’s difficult to fight that war when your back is being watched by the clueless. What “states” are you going to destroy to crush Islamists in Thailand, Indonesia, The Phillipines, Afghanistan (oops, already destroyed the government, but still it lasts), Iraq (oops, again), Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Algeria, Morocco, Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, Lybia, Great Britain, Spain, Germany, France, The Netherlands, etc., etc., etc.? Islamists infest the planet. There are billions of them, either fully formed or in the making, and there’s not a damn thing we can do to “change their minds” without making them to become something they are not and will never be: non-Muslims. You don’t destroy them by destroying only military targets and states. You destroy them by killing human beings, the physical infrastructure that supports them, and the symbols that support their beliefs. You destroy them and their culture as the Spanish destroyed the Aztecs. You wipe them from the face of the planet. Or, ultimately, they destroy you. They’re not going to leave us a choice. It’s not a question of “if,” just “when.” We can continue to delude ourselves and hand the task over to the next generation or the one after that, but by then it will be too late.
Comment by Kevin — 07.19.05 @ 11:01 am
When it comes to bombing their “holy sites” all I have to say is Buddhist statues carved into the hillside in Afghanistan. Tit for tat. Besides, if you worship a “site” as “holy”, that is idolitry.
And besides, what is the value of a “site” when compared to human lives? Obviously they thought we considered the WTC and Pentagon “holy sites” when they targeted them.
And I will stop now before I get foul-mouthed as I feel myself getting all riled up.
Comment by DragonLady — 07.19.05 @ 11:03 am
I would rather launch bombs into the seats of government of Syria, Iran, North Korea, Libya, etc. Target the leaders who are the sugar daddies of terrorism.
On the other hand, just how “holy” are these holy sites when they are breeding grounds of hate? By that same logic, every spot where the KKK lynched someone or burned a cross could be considered sacred ground (and therefore off-limits to law enforcement). Do we want to go down that road? I don’t give a hoot about “inflaming” opinion against us - that job is already taken by the MSM in this country.
I admit - it’s a dilemma.
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi — 07.19.05 @ 11:04 am
Hey, LaShawn, welcome to the “quite a little bit more right of center than center” crowd.
I like this” NUKE ‘EM TIL THEY GLOW AND THEN SHOOT THEM IN THE DARK!”
We are dealing with people who only respect TOUGH, HARD, and VICIOUS attacks.
Tom Tancredo for president!!!
Comment by vilmar — 07.19.05 @ 11:16 am
There would be no need to nuke Mecca. All that is needed is to bomb the main mosque where the big meteor rock is stored that is worshipped once a year. This can be done in the middle of the night with a minimal, if not any, loss of life.
The reason why such an action is expedient is the fact Islamic superstition is tied to the promise allah allegedly made that no infidels (that is us) would ever destroy the mosque or desecrate the holy site. We have seen similar superstition with the whole flushing the Qur’an nonsense.
A surgical strike with 2 or 3, 2,000 lbs bombs, would show the false prophecies of the false god allah to be what they are, false and it would demoralize the beliefs of the jihadists. If allah cannot defend his own holy sites as he claimed he would, he is exposed as being the false god that he really is. Thus, there is no more a reason to make war; at least for a weak, defenseless god.
To place this in perspective, after WW2, General MacArthur insisted that the emperor go on Japanese national radio and renounce his claim as being a divine being. The reason that was necessary was because Japanese national imperialism was tied directly to the emperor who was the god giving the orders to make war. Once the “god” was exposed as false, the purpose for making war is gone.
This type of mentality is seen through out all of human history. The defeat of one nation was viewed as a defeat of that nation’s god. It demonstrated that the god was unable to defend the nation.
Hooray for Tancredo not being a girly man. Hewitt and the others criticizing him yesterday are an embarrassment and only demonstrate their myopic ignorance of Isalm in light of the historical facts. I can only wish Hewitt will educate himself.
The one bit of advice I would give Mr. Tancredo would be to clarify his comments in light of what I wrote above. Draw back on the nuke comment and talk about the destruction of the main mosque
Fred
http://www.hipandthigh.blogspot.com
Comment by Fred — 07.19.05 @ 11:23 am
La Shawn wrote (original post):
“It’s becoming painfully clear to me that I’m moving farther to the right than so-called conservatives, including bloggers. As they cave to PC pressure and become indistinguishable from liberals, I’ll take up the slack and remain as un-PC as I can get.”
—- Come. Do not be afraid. Join us.
Yeah, it seems to me that, even if you don’t support what Tancredo said, you’ve got to admire his guts for sticking by it.
Comment by docjim505 — 07.19.05 @ 11:48 am
Waging the “war on terror”
A US Congressman, Tom Tancredo, has been making waves by suggesting in a radio interview that the US should respond to terrorist nuclear attacks on her soil by bombing Muslim holy sites…
Trackback by connexions — 07.19.05 @ 11:53 am
In all honesty, I had the exact same reaction to La Shawn’s comment as SAS did.
I am sincerely asking how we miscontstrued your remark La Shawn. Could you briefly explain exactly how SAS misconstrued your remark?
Comment by jab — 07.19.05 @ 11:57 am
This one makes me sick. Even Hugh Hewitt who I listen to all the time (maybe not much more) is railing against him. Islamofacists need a deterrent. They need to know that we will not tolerate a city being bombed with a nuclear bomb. The question was posed to Tom Tancredo as a hypothetical.
Now I read the comments.
SAS wrote, “What strategic advantage would bombing muslim holy sites give us? I have to take the Hugh Hewitt line on this one …”
Answer: The advantage to the threat is deterrance. I’m sorry you are taking the Hugh Hewitt line but neither you nor Hugh Hewitt should be attacking Tom Tancredo. You guys just have a different opinion that Tom Tancredo and I. Nothing to use as an attack. Just a difference of opinion. Don’t grow the liberal trait of attack attack.
Sas wrote, “Irrelevant, too. He’s not in the position to make such decisions.”
Anwser: He was posed the hypothetical question. Tom answerd as something you should threaten so that the hypothetical nuclear bombing of our cities don’t happen. Then to come back and say he’s not in power doesn’t make you look smarter SAS.
Sas wrote, “attack based on revenge and humiliation ”
No. Reading comprehension my friend. It was given as an answer to threaten before any of our cities are blown up with a nuclear bomb. It wasn’t given as a revenge answer it was given as a deterrance answer.
Comment by Baklava — 07.19.05 @ 12:37 pm
Fred wrote, “There would be no need to nuke Mecca.”
Read Tom’s remarks. He didn’t say nuke Mecca. You must be talking about someone else.
Comment by Baklava — 07.19.05 @ 12:49 pm
Fred wrote, “Draw back on the nuke comment ”
He can’t draw back on a comment he didn’t make Fred.
Comment by Baklava — 07.19.05 @ 12:51 pm
As I said in http://donsingleton.blogspot.com/2005/07/retaliate-for-nuclear-terror.html Bombing their Holy Sites would enrage all Muslims. If we have to target something in Saudia Arabia, it should be the leaders of the extreme Wahhabbi teachings, but my preference would just be to expell all Muslims that have ever spoken in favor of terrorism in any context (including Israel), and close our borders to any new entry.
Comment by Don Singleton — 07.19.05 @ 1:11 pm
If we were dumb enough to bomb Mecca, we’d have a billion more instant enemies than we do now. It was hard enough as it was, convincing moderate, fence-sitting Muslims that we’re only at war with their terrorist/fascist contingent, not with Islam as a whole. Tancredo’s idiotic comment just made things an order of magnitude worse. There’s a reason why, even at the height of the IRA’s terror, the British government never threatened to retaliate by bombing the Vatican.
Even if threatening to bomb Mecca were a sound strategy, it still wouldn’t be wise for threats like this to come from a Congressman, who appears to the outside world to speak for the U.S., but who in fact has no real authority to carry his own threats out. Now, the next time the Islamfascists strike against us and, in keeping with our existing, non-Tancredo foreign policy, we don’t bomb Mecca, al Qaeda will have another “paper tiger” story to sell its new recruits. Thanks, Tom.
Comment by Xrlq — 07.19.05 @ 1:12 pm
Don wrote, “Bombing their Holy Sites would enrage all Muslims.”
I think the Hugh’s and Don’s of the world need to review Tom’s comments and the question posed to him 10 times.
It was a threat to deter any city of ours from being nuked. He wasn’t saying definitively that we would bomb Mecca if such and such happened. He was saying that we should make it clear that it would happen (deterrence) so that the Islamofacists would know that nothing is off the table. When it comes to the rubber meeting the road, I don’t see any American president including Tom Tancredo if he was bombing Mecca. You people have got to get a clue and move on to a different topic. You are driving the debate down the sewer and I’m thinking at this point that I was an everyday listener to Hugh and I won’t be anymore.
And why?
Because of Reading Comprehension my friends. People get so focused on a few words and don’t put into context what was actually said and asked.
XrlqOK. Let’s turn it around. What would you pose as a deterrant to Islamofacists who are intent on nuking an American city? What would be your deterrent situation (that’ll never happen - the one thing we agree on).
Comment by Baklava — 07.19.05 @ 1:27 pm
In The Blog’s-Eye: Tancredo Goes Nuclear
“Tancredo” has soared to near the top of the search terms at Technorati.com, a search engine for blogs. It’s now just one notch below “Karl Rove” and one above “Harry Potter.” The reason: Rep. Tom Tancredo suggested that a terrorist…
Trackback by Beltway Blogroll — 07.19.05 @ 1:30 pm
Congressman Tom Tancredo was our guest this past Saturday on “The Dickson/Chappell Report.” When I asked what Mike Pence’s chances were for becoming the next House Speaker, Congressman Tancredo replied, “He has my vote!”
Comment by Chris Dickson — 07.19.05 @ 1:36 pm
Xrlq,
I don’t know how many new recruits this would create, but it might be a wake up call to the “moderates”. I cannot help but notice that in Iraq and other areas of the muslim world, when they have seen that they, too, are on the receiving end of wahabism, support dwindles. But for many in the ‘moderate’ islamic world, they don’t feel the consequences of terror attacks against the west. They don’t much like the west (many of them), and they aren’t getting hurt, so why would they stand up to the radicals?
If the radicals’ actions have consequences that they have to deal with, they may feel differently. They may join up with the jihadis, which would make the bombing arguement easier to justify, or they can oppose the jihadis, making it easier for the west to target the people that need to be removed.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 07.19.05 @ 1:42 pm
Better to Remain Silent and be Thought a Fool…
Tom Tancredo is great on immigration, but when it comes to other issues, he’s great on immigration.
…
Trackback by damnum absque injuria — 07.19.05 @ 1:44 pm
You guys so worried about how we are making Muslims feel need to recognize where this multicultural babble is leading us. By looking tolerant, our enemies construe us as being weak or soft. True deterrence is through strength and the threat that we will use that strength. We aren’t making new enemies and we aren’t winning new friends by virtue of what Tom Tancredo says. That is painting the general Islamic public as being way too stupid or way too ignorant. The Arab street is a lot wiser than you guys think. And they are using our mealy mouthed-nonsense against us. They want us to believe that we have to be “tolerant” and nice to them so that they can use us to achieve their aims. How stupid are we to allow ourselves to be so manipulated? As long as we give in to this line of thinking, the longer we will continue to have problems. Only by directly staring down the threat and backing it up with action will the threat dissipate, and it won’t be quick nor easy. Right now these Arab despots and their network news outlets are scared. Scared of real freedom and democracy booting them from power. The Islamofacists are just the same. They’ve got a bunch of people hoodwinked. They bomb and terrorize and blame us for how we talk abou them and we buy it. Many of our leaders believe that if we talk nice they will leave us alone. So we talk nice, and act nice, and the terrorists get what they want. Then they will bomb again and blame some other aspect of our society. Their goal is to get us to submit. And by worrying about what we say and who we offend, we are doing so much more to achieve their goals than we are in achieving ours.
Comment by Chris Roberts — 07.19.05 @ 1:51 pm
SCSI #24. I agree with you.
The Cuban missile crisis comes to mind. We had nuclear missiles at the Soviet Union’s border (in Turkey) and to the Soviet Union that was the issue. They had to bring the message to us in a big way that they won’t tolerate that and put missile’s in Cuba.
While the leader of the Soviet Union at the time seems to have had more sense (just as JFK had more sense) than the terrorists each party was able to determine that they both need to back away from thier offensive weapon positions to keep the peace and keep the very near annihilation of people from happening. The climactic few days when Russian subs with Nuclear torpedos were approaching Cuba and we had a quarantine of Cuba and many U2 recon flights were going over Cuba and a U2 plane was shot down over Cuba and what not was done with two heads of states that didn’t want the first shot fired period. The U2 plane that was shot down was not ordered by the Soviet Union.
What is the point? Sometimes it requires that the enemy have a clear understanding that we will not tolerate a nuclear bomb going off in our city.
Comment by Baklava — 07.19.05 @ 1:52 pm
Baklava, short of incapacitation, there is no way to “deter” Islamofascists from doing anything. Moderate Muslims are the ones we can and should be deterring, even as their non-moderate terrorist brethren keep trying to convince them that the War on Terror is really a war on all Islam. But who needs al Qaeda to make that argument, when they’ve got a U.S. Congressman to make it for them?
Comment by Xrlq — 07.19.05 @ 1:54 pm
They think of us as infidels and think we have to convert or die. That is their interpretation of what the Quran says.
While it is true that SOME or MANY who practice Islam don’t interpret the Quran that way, it needs to be made clear to the moderates that the Islamofacists are RUINING their religion and making a bad situation for them.
They need to weed out and help all civilized countries weed out anyone who is a terrorist and killing in Allah’s name.
Comment by Baklava — 07.19.05 @ 1:55 pm
If a nuclear, biological or chemical weopon is used on American soil, then retaliation will be too little, too late. Good for Tom Tancredo! It’s about time that a representative of the American people stated unequivocally that we are not going to be simpering, whinning victims. It’s the threat of nuclear weopons that matters when dealing with an enemy that plays on our “tolerance.” And it is the threat on Islamic “holy” sites that lets the enemy know we recongnize that it is Islam itself that is dangerous to our way of life. The PC brigade can get over it. It’s time to change the rules of engagement.
Comment by Independent — 07.19.05 @ 1:59 pm
Xrlq wrote, “Baklava, short of incapacitation, there is no way to “deter†Islamofascists from doing anything.”
Then the hypothetical question and answer posed as deterrent should be a moot discussion for you. One that you don’t participate in.
Tom Tancredo isn’t saying that would be what he would do as president after a city was nuked. Here’s what he said (reading comprehension required):
—–
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.”
Comment by Baklava — 07.19.05 @ 2:01 pm
Without Apology, I Agree With This
Not wanting to risk being crushed by the likes of Jack Kelly, Captain Ed and Hugh Hewitt, I have to challenge the three of them to refute the prescient scribbling of Samuel Huntington. Facts which seem obvious to me and many of my friends and family a…
Trackback by Lump on a Blog — 07.19.05 @ 2:09 pm
“SAS, I’m “surprised†that you don’t read carefully.”
La Shawn, what leads you to the conclusion that I do not read? I read the transcript of the radio interview and and I read your post. Again, he is in no position to choose targets for US bombing campaigns, so who cares what his opinion is regarding them? They’ll probably show up on an islamofacist website as a recruiting tool, but I am in the “bring it on,” camp anyway, so one more careless response to our hysterical enemy isn’t going to effect much really.
What leads me to care at all about your opinion is that I read your site often and we are both Christians and yet this issue has brought to my attention that we do not agree on the purpose of our military. I am not sure what purpose your blog serves with open comments if not to discuss these things civilly, but I am open to going back to lurking here if disagreement is met with terse and dismissive remarks. I get the sense you won’t miss my anyway.
Kevin posted that “he [sic] is more interested in yapping,”" and quite honestly I don’t see how my very first post to this site would lead one to that conclusion logically. I am seeking clarification and would like to suggest that both your response and Kevin’s are more the result of comment thread conversations with others in the past and not my particular post. I happen to disagree with you on what would be the result of bombing muslim holy sites.
Baklava, I hear you saying, “Islamofacists need a deterrent.” Death and destruction aren’t deterrents to Islamofacists. It wasn’t even a deterrent to Hussein, a muslim of convenience. Did you see the portrait that was painted for him seized by the 3rd ID? (Free Republic has it on a post. Scroll down. Have that portion of arabic translated for you by a friend, but loosely it says, “we are the panarabic dream, and if not, we are the bridge to it;” something like that. What do people of that mindset care about death and destruction? I’ll leave your personal remarks where they landed. I’m not interested in engaging in namecalling and estimations of intelligence.
No matter what Tancredo did or didn’t say, the interview itself did bring to the surface the opinions of others. La Shawn says we should threaten to bomb muslim holy sites. Even if Tancredo didn’t really say that and was just being strung along by a persistent interviewer, we can recognize the interview did result in polarization and people have begun to debate which “camp” they are in. This is not to say that Tancredo did anything “wrong.” I’m not jumping on Tancredo or anyone else. I simply am interested in why La Shawn put herself in the “threaten the holy sites” camp. I hope I clarified my intentions and hope that this post isn’t met with suspicion that I am picking a fight. I just disagree.
The purpose of this blog is to provide a forum for my views. It is not a “debate” site. It’s a discussion site only as much as I want it to be. If you don’t like it, I suggest you don’t lurk. Here’s a better idea: Just stop reading it altogether. - Admin
Comment by SAS — 07.19.05 @ 2:21 pm
I am praying for this man to run for President. He certainly has my vote.
Comment by Raymond — 07.19.05 @ 2:28 pm
I like a guy who doesn’t beat around the bush. As stupid as his comments were, I like the no-spin opinion. Blow ‘em up! Kill ‘em all! Who cares? I find an opinion like that both disgusting and refreshing.
Comment by Mike M. — 07.19.05 @ 2:30 pm
Revenge and humiliation should be a part of every war plan contrary to popular thought. In war, your mission is to totally destroy your enemies ability to make war and that means destroying him, his will, his abilities, his symbols, his religion if possible and anything the removes him as a future threat.
I just saw a story on TV news where the media was lauding the actions of a soldier who had just been shot in the chest by a terrorist sniper. The bullet hit the chest plate in his armor and didn’t wound or kill him. The soldiers returned fire and gave chase to the attackers. The soldier caught the sniper who had just shot him and restrained him and gave him medical attention. The media calls this a perfect example of restraint and honorable behavior. I call that soldier an idiot. A raving idiot! yes, he was only a private, but nothing stupider than giving medical attention to someone who just shot you.
YOU KILL THE ENEMY! You do not coddle him. I would have court martialed this soldier for cowardice and got him off my battlefield.
Comment by Raymond — 07.19.05 @ 2:34 pm
LEt’s not just give Tom Tancredo’s comments lip service. We should be urging him to run.
Let’s quit talking and get this man on the ticket.
Comment by Raymond — 07.19.05 @ 2:36 pm
Amazing how this story gets legs (as it should), but the “alternative border security solution” is met with disgust.
Comment by Raymond — 07.19.05 @ 2:38 pm
#36 was good stuff.
#38 - Your alternative border security solution was not a Tom Tancredo idea it was your idea and it was terrible . It created problems that I outlined. It also would end up having whoever implemented said solution from office as I outlined. Me thinks you want conservatives removed from office if you keep the “alternative border security solution” idea argument going (as I speculated).
Last sentence I write on that topic. You know I think it’s bad. I don’t need to keep stating that opinion.
Comment by Baklava — 07.19.05 @ 2:54 pm
Responding in kind to a terrorist attack seems like an odd way to wage war. As cliched as it is, doesn’t this make us just like them? Bombing Mecca only ignores the fact that this is exactly what they want — they aren’t afraid because of their conviction that martyrdom is a ticket to Paradise. Deterrence only works if it’s credible and threatening to send Muslims to Allah isn’t even a threat. You cannot deter the insane.
Sure, by all means, bomb the perpetrators back to the stone age. However, slaughtering civilians because they happen to worship in a place we don’t like is not only going to be ineffective but is barbaric. This line of reasoning leads to genocide and goes too far towards blurring the lines that separate us from them.
Comment by Al — 07.19.05 @ 3:05 pm
I agree. In fact, I said the same thing on my blog last night: in the event of a nuclear attack on the United States, all civility will be off the table.
If Islammunists nuke us, they can probably kiss Mecca goodbye.
Comment by SingleMind — 07.19.05 @ 3:09 pm
Tancredo Is Right On Nuking Mecca (We Are Not At War With Islam)
“What Difference Do Nuclear Weapons Make?,” by Max Singer and Aaron Wildavsky, The Real World Order: Zones of Peace, Zones of Turmoil, revised edition published 1996, pg 66. “Revisiting Questions on Deterrence and Nuclear Terrorism,” by Mark Safra…
Trackback by tdaxp — 07.19.05 @ 3:10 pm
Al:
We would not need to bomb civilians. We could give a 36-hour notice for everyone to get the heck out of Dodge City, and then turn sand into glass.
Comment by SingleMind — 07.19.05 @ 3:10 pm
La Shawn,
Since the time when we invented nuclear weapons, the Unites States has had one abiding policy with regard to their use by or against us. If any enemy chooses to make a nuclear strike against this country, all bets are off. We have always maintained that NO SITE will be off limits in a retaliatory strike. This is accompanied by the policy that a nuclear strike by any enemy will ALWAYS engender NOTHING LESS than a nuclear strike of infinitely larger proportion in return. This is what nuclear deterrence consists of. IF you allow ANY room for any other response, if you allow any target to be declared off limits, then you no longer have an effective deterrence.
The unfortunate thing with Islamic terrorists is that they represent no one foreign government or country, but instead an ideology based on religion.
If the US government would have the courage to make this known as an absolute, that if we ever suffer an attack such as the one Bin Laden is now threatening, that ALL Muslim holy sites would be utterly destroyed along with much of the Muslim world, perhaps there would actually be some deterrent effect.
Comment by Montie — 07.19.05 @ 3:12 pm
Al wrote, “Responding in kind to a terrorist attack seems like an odd way to wage war.”
Al. The comment was about a threat and what we should say in order to deter the threat (nuking our cities).
Al wrote, “You cannot deter the insane.”
Then you don’t believe Tom’s remarks will deter which makes your involvement in the discussion pointless.
Your last paragraph makes it seem that that is what Tom Tancredo WOULD do if he were president which completely ignores the fact that it was a comment aimed at deterrence.
You are already on the offensive (as liberals do) talking about slaughtering civilians blah blah genocide blah blah.
Really good for elevating the level of the debate. If you stick to the issue - deterrence - you find there isn’t much YOU can say but you don’t believe it’ll work. That’s all you can say.
Comment by Baklava — 07.19.05 @ 3:14 pm
tdaxp,
Tom never used the word Nuke.
Comment by Baklava — 07.19.05 @ 3:19 pm
Stay tuned to the news ladies and gentlemen. I am drafting a Contract for Office to be signed by all candidates for office running in our county or seeking our county’s votes. I am trying to think of a good name for it.
The contract will in effect prescribe the rules for serving as a representative of our people. Major tenets are as follows:
- You will recognize and fully understand that you are an elected representative of the people. You are required by law to represent our will and not your own. You serve only because the founding fathers did not want a pure democracy and understood that one-person-one-vote was a physical impssibility with respect to voting in Congress and the Senate.
- You will under no circumstances ever vote yourself a pay raise without our expressed written permission. Procedure for asking will be devised. At the maximum, you may not participate in any vote raising you pay above the hourly wage minimum for an unskilled worker. In other words, you cannot give yourself more than $6 or $7 per year.
- When reporting to the constituents, you will not use language that is confusing or politically correct. You will not use PC language.
- You will address us as if you work for us and not the other way around. You will show us respect first. WE are YOUR employer.
- You will not be afraid to entertain any solution to any problem offered by the people no matter how silly or dangerous it may sound to you. Again, you do not have permission to think for us, but we reserve all rights to think for you.
This is it in a nutshell. I am still working on it. This will ensure that we produce true conservatives and not the Democrat lite versions thereof.
Comment by Raymond — 07.19.05 @ 3:25 pm
The best way to fight islam is to outlaw the practice of it in groups larger than 2 as was done in effectively eliminating the KKK as a major national threat.
You can allow the practice of the “religion” but just don’t allow people to congregate in numbers greater than two where the message is one of murder and hate for this nation, her people, our TRUE religions and her Constitution.
Comment by Raymond — 07.19.05 @ 3:29 pm
So. What is the action that would be enforceable against any Congress person for breaking the contract?
Comment by Baklava — 07.19.05 @ 3:36 pm
I am hereby calling for calm tonight ladies and gentlemen. Please do not get excited over President Bush’s nominee. True to form, the pick will be a disappointment. It will be more based on what the Democrats want than what he originally promised.
The pick will be a social experiment. The pick will please no one so be prepared. I am trying to let you down easy so you won’t feel so stressed.
The President is not a conservative (still love the guy) so do not expect a conservative nominee.
Comment by Raymond — 07.19.05 @ 3:43 pm
Oxymorons used by morons:
“Muslim holy site”
“Moderate muslims”
Comment by Dave in AZ — 07.19.05 @ 3:43 pm
Al wrote, “You cannot deter the insane.â€
I agree. But it is liberals that insist that the MAJORITY of the Muslim world are not insane killers. If that is true, then the Muslim world is more likely to clean house themselves if they perceive the danger caused by the radicals. If the knowledge that any nuclear strike on our soil will result in a devestating nuclear counterattack persuades the “moderates” to think twice and report suspicious activity, then the threat of destroying Mecca IS a deterent.
Comment by Independent — 07.19.05 @ 3:44 pm
If I were Osama Bin Laden and had a suitcase nuke, I’d wait for the next bombing on the scale of Madrid or London, then set it off in Mecca and paint it as a retaliatory strike by the US. The negative consequences for the US would make 9/11 look like a bad hair day. As a bonus I’d get to send thousands of true believers directly to paradise.
Comment by Not One Jot — 07.19.05 @ 3:46 pm
Independent wrote, “But it is liberals that insist that the MAJORITY of the Muslim world are not insane killers.”
Pow. Biff. Smack.
Comment by Baklava — 07.19.05 @ 3:48 pm
Thank the Lord I am not alone in this! Thank you for your clear support to the Congressman.
MAD kept the Soviet madmen at bay. It WORKS. The credible threat makes the need to execute less. We need a new MAD Doctrine!
Comment by Ranten N. Raven — 07.19.05 @ 3:52 pm
LaShawn,
The Muslims is this country have used language of civil rights forty years ago. Those that do us harm, in the UK and the USA, and all Islamic and some are black ( the guy from Islands that converted to Islam), some may be white, but it is not racial but rather cultural. Last Saturday, July 16th was the 60th anniversary of first Atomic bomb explosion at Trinity site. My father was there thanks to the Army. It scared the daylights out of him. His plane ride back was scary, ending with the landing in the Bay off Aberdeen. As a small child I did not understand at 5 or 10 years of age what really scared him.
Having mechanic crank down the wheels when they would not go down at press of button would be scary. What he said was the truth but not the whole truth. We could nuke their Holy Sites, but they would want to kill us more. Having degrees in physics, I well understand how bomb (Atomic (fission) and Hydrogen (Fusion) are made. The ones
that kill are no better than Hitler.
JMB
Comment by James M. Barber — 07.19.05 @ 3:56 pm
If you have strep throat, you don’t just numb the pain with a spray, you kill the bacteria staphylococcus that is causing the infection.
If you have fire ants in your yard, you don’t just kill the one that bit you. You kill them all. You destoy their mounds. You kill the queen and your treat the areas where they like to build or congregate.
Sooooooo. If radical islam is the symptom, for 1000 points, what is the root cause?
Comment by Raymond — 07.19.05 @ 3:56 pm
SAS #34 wrote, “I am not sure what purpose your blog serves with open comments if not to discuss these things civilly,”
And I would say more importantly - ACCURATELY.
Comment by Baklava — 07.19.05 @ 4:00 pm
I have no problem at all what this fine man said but with one caveat…….we give the citizens of Mecca or Medina a week to leave these cities before we trash their so called holy sites…..we are not savages and I do not believe we want to kill a bunch of civilians……simply eradicate physical structures……
And in a way, we will be doing Muslims a favor if we eliminate Mecca………instead of 5 pillors of their faith they have to do, they will only be left with 4!!!
Comment by Proud Albertan — 07.19.05 @ 4:04 pm
SAS wrote, “Death and destruction aren’t deterrents to Islamofacists.”
Then the conversation is moot for ya. No point in going further than you think there is no ability to deter.
Comment by Baklava — 07.19.05 @ 4:06 pm
#58 Baklava, LOL. If you don’t think death won’t stop them, you’ve been watching too many movies.
I am glad to see that at least on politician has the guts to speak the truth about this issue. Both parties have their heads stuck in the clouds on this issue.
Tancredo 2008!
Comment by NYgirl — 07.19.05 @ 4:14 pm
Baklava,
#s 18 and 19
I stand corrected, thanks.
Fred
http://www.hipandthigh.blogspot.com
Comment by Fred — 07.19.05 @ 4:15 pm
Not One Jot wrote, “If I were Osama Bin Laden and had a suitcase nuke, I’d wait for the next bombing on the scale of Madrid or London, then set it off in Mecca and paint it as a retaliatory strike by the US.”
So he would take a lot of his foot soldiers out of the war and recruit some more. He would also; by useing a nuclear device, wake up a lot of the western world’s terror apologists. Right now the “sleeping giant” is only half roused and is having to spend most of it’s energy arguing with itself. Let a nuclear device be used anywhere in this world, the giant will be fully awake and ready to fight.
Comment by Independent — 07.19.05 @ 4:20 pm
This seems to be the only kind of threat that might get through to the Islamofascists. They need to know what the repercussions would be if they bombed us, and even if so many politicians are trying to ignore what he said, the fact that the bombing of Mecca has been on the table should be enough to get their attention. We would bomb Tehran and Damascus as well, so they’d better decide real quick whether or not they want to make us THAT angry.
Comment by RepJ — 07.19.05 @ 4:21 pm
#48 Raymond. You are on the right track. I would also add:
-You have been elected by the citizens of the United States, to serve, protect & defend the nation & its citizenary. Therefore, you will put the interests of the United States of America & its citizens before that of other countries & its citizens.
PS: Do you have a blog. I’d love to see the finished version
Comment by NYgirl — 07.19.05 @ 4:21 pm
To me, the most tragic thing about Mr. Tancredo’s remarks is the hand-wringing and demands for apologies. Expansionistic Mohammedans do see and hear — they monitor American media, believe it — the bed-wetting after an elected official made it clear that we will stand up to them; and must conclude that the American government in general isn’t really serious.
Hugh Hewitt is a genuinely nice guy, but I fear he has really gone too far down the path of this nouveau conservatism.
Comment by Mark Slater — 07.19.05 @ 4:22 pm
Very true Mark, the reason the Japanese attacked us is because they believed that we would surrender to them.
Until Pearl Harbor, despite their attacks on the Philipines, we appeased them. The appeasement did nothing to deter their ambitions. If anythign, it emboldend them. The same goes for Islamicists.
As bin Laden himself said, Muslims will follow the strong horse.
Comment by NYgirl — 07.19.05 @ 4:33 pm
I agree let it be known that “Holy Sites” are fair game. Also when are we going to start dipping our marines, soldiers, and sailors bullets in hog fat and manufacturing our munitions with pig fat and blood? It was done in the Phillipines and there was not a problem with islamic “extemists” for years.
Comment by Don Mc Donald — 07.19.05 @ 4:34 pm
If it gets to the point where Islamic fanatics are nuking our cities, why would nuking Islamic holy sites in response make things worse exactly? What else could Islamic fanatics do, exactly?
We’re never going to win the hearts and minds of the people in the region. We’ve tried in Iraq, and it’s not working. The Iraqi people have suffered terribly from these fanatics (as the recently bombing of children, and the apparently attempt to bomb the funerals), and yet it’s not their fault, it’s the US’s fault. More and more suicide bombers from other countries keep coming into Iraq from the region.
Appeasement won’t work. Fighting them via a guerilla war apparently doesn’t work (Iraq is not a failutre, but at the same time, it doesn’t seem to be improving). What else is there left? Threats of nuclear weapons seems like the only thing left.
Comment by Jeremy — 07.19.05 @ 4:54 pm
Good idea Don, but the ALCU & AI will raise hell.
Comment by NYgirl — 07.19.05 @ 4:58 pm
Tancredo: If Islamofascists Go Nuclear, Destroy Mecca
Finally, a member of Congress who understands the stakes in the War on Terror: DENVER, Colorado (AP) — A Colorado congressman told a radio show host that the U.S. could “take out” Islamic holy sites if Muslim fundamentalist terrorists attacked…
Trackback by Conservative Dialysis — 07.19.05 @ 5:02 pm
Yes. We’ve come a long way from the horrors of war and WWII and losing over half a million of our men who fought for the survival of this country as well as many other countries.
America did bomb cities in Japan and Germany. We killed many civilians. Germans and Japanese went to internment camps under the guise of their protection. After 1945 we spent 10 years in Germany and 7 in Japan losing thousands of our servicemen. We went through rations and shortages and real pain as our entire countries national resources went towards war and there was almost zero luxuries.
How do you have a debate decades later with ZERO perspective about what pain this country would be in (rations and shortages and suffering) if one of our cities were nuked. It’s not just a map having a city eliminated or marked differently. There are REAL problems and family sufferings and every ounce of our national resources would again go towards war just like in WW2.
How can we make sure that Islamofacists understand that it WILL NOT be tolerated?
For those who think they can’t be deterred you need not be in the debate..
How will you answer the posed question if you were Tom Tancredo?
Again. if you don’t think they can be deterred then that is your answer and you move on. You simply disagree and have no room criticizing someone like Tom who DOES believe they can be deterred. Also, how do you think they are undeterrable and yet a probable majority peace-loving moderate muslim population at the same time. Obviously there is a contradiction in your view of muslims.
Comment by Baklava — 07.19.05 @ 5:06 pm
A form of MAD directed at Mecca or anywhere holy to Muslims is not altogether loopy. Not if it motivates moderate Muslims worldwide to assess the possible consequences of their brother Islamofascists’ bad actions toward the US and begin to move to permanently quell their virulent anti-Americanism. I think it would be wrong to think that Islam and the West will ever sit down, hold hands, and sing “Kumbaya” but it is not wrong to think both spheres can’t do and say things that will work out in the best interests of the two sides. MAD might be the incentive because it is so unthinkable.
Comment by Politickal Animal — 07.19.05 @ 5:08 pm
You are not alone, La Shawn. Click on my URL for some links and some analysis of what Mecca really is. (Although I think some of your readers beat me to it.)
Comment by salt1907 — 07.19.05 @ 5:10 pm
NY Girl. No I do not have a blog yet. Everytime I get ready to start one, a “life-changing event” occurs. LOL!!!
Comment by Raymond — 07.19.05 @ 5:10 pm
Muslims did not hesitate to desecrate Chritian churches such as the Hahia Sophia, & the Vatican does not bar those of non-Catholic persuasion from entering it.
Yet, under the guise of religion, Muslims bar ‘infidels’ from even traveling on the road to Mecca. They also forbid anyone from carring non Muslim religious items such as Bibles.
Imagine the outcry if the Vatican did something like that?
Comment by NYgirl — 07.19.05 @ 5:18 pm
Sorry to be o/t, but I can’t wait to hear your thoughts on the supposed Clement nomination. My comments are posted at my url above. I hope and pray that I am wrong.
Comment by salt1907 — 07.19.05 @ 5:21 pm
Not trying to be mysogynistic or sexist, but why he would pick another gal after O’Connor and Ginsburg is simply beyond me, but…….I would expect no less from the GOP leadership. As I have said all along. The Democrats will pick the nominee.
Comment by Raymond — 07.19.05 @ 5:28 pm
Hey! You made it into bernie Goldbergs new book!
(in a good way, under sheila jackson lee p. 59) Good job!!
I stand behind Tancredo as well!!
keep up the great work La Shawn
Comment by nerdwallet — 07.19.05 @ 5:31 pm
#74 Raymond, I know how that happens. It kept me from bloging for about six months.I really like your porposal. Just get a spot on Blogger. It only takes a few minutes
Comment by NYgirl — 07.19.05 @ 5:44 pm
“The Islamists are now within the gates. They fled the fires and the terrors of the Arab-Islamic world but brought ruin with them. This new Islamism mocks the borders of nations and the very idea of nationality. “We may carry their nationalities,” a Wahhabi preacher decreed recently, “but we belong to our religion.”"
This was written by Faoud Ajami in this week’s U.S. News and World Report. Taking account of this, then how do we respond to an enemy that claims no home by Western standards. If Mecca is their home, is Tancredo’s statement that far off the mark? Not by a longshot.
Comment by Chris Roberts — 07.19.05 @ 5:49 pm
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2782
An apology to Daniel Pipes? Wow! First time in history has libel been stopped?
Comment by Baklava — 07.19.05 @ 5:55 pm
Defending Tancredo
Maybe… all Tancredo was doing was promising the American people that, should the unthinkable happen, if he had his way, we would get our payback…. and we’d end the war. A bit late. But we’d end it.
Trackback by ThoughtsOnline — 07.19.05 @ 5:58 pm
Bravo La Shawn. Also good to see my friends are on the same side in this. And a big bravo to Tancredo for flushing out closet namby-pambies posing as conservatives.
This line in ground is more significant than lines drawn around immigration, SS, or any other political issue. This line is the demarcation that determines whether or not our civilization survives or is wiped out.
Since everyone has covered most of the bases, I’ll comment about something that I haven’t seen covered yet.
R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
Why should anyone respect muslim holy sites when a) terrorist don’t respect their own mosques, b) moderates appear unconcerned about the lack of respect shown to other religions?
What about current laws on the books that forbid non-muslims in Egypt and other Arab countries from building new churches & synagouges or even maintaining the existing structures? As long as they remain intolerant of OPR (Other People’s Religion), then tit for tat remains on the table — except we have a biger tat than their tit.
Now that the islamic advocacy groups are all abuzz and want to meet with Tancredo. Good for them if they come seeking a frank discussion.
Except they need to bring something concrete to the table. If the so-called moderates want to take their rock & mecca off the table permanently, then they need to go back to the islamic governments and MAKE them strike the anti-OPR laws from the books and freely permit Christians, Jews, Buddhist and what have you, to build, maintain, worship, fellowship & even invite muslims/strangers to join their faith.
If the countries will codify that and the mullahs issue standing fatwas against interfering with OPR or desecrating their infrasturctures, to include leaving the Jews alone, then we’ll take MOAB-ing their holy sites off the table.
The onus is then on the muslims to restrain themselves and start practicing moderation. That should defang the extremists, but if we’re still attacked, then we’ll limit ourselves to other targets, only as long as OPR are respected in word and deed by the islamic states.
That’s what I call throwing down the gauntlet!
Comment by Andy — 07.19.05 @ 6:00 pm
Bravo Andy!
Comment by NYgirl — 07.19.05 @ 6:02 pm
Nygirl, I see you were thinking the same thing while I was writing my comment.
Comment by Andy — 07.19.05 @ 6:07 pm
Listening to Hugh now… Why? I have hope he’ll stop with the attack of Tom Tancredo.
He thinks the President did a huge head fake with Clement today but it’ll probably be someone else that the president nominates. We’ll see…
Comment by Baklava — 07.19.05 @ 6:12 pm
By all means wipe, wipe! Kill the dramatics and just GO. - Admin
Comment by SAS — 07.19.05 @ 6:17 pm
Andy-
The silence is what speaks loudest of all.
Comment by Chris Roberts — 07.19.05 @ 6:41 pm
If he is going to nominate a girl, he had might as well nominate Janice Rogers Brown. That way the Sociocommielibdems would be forced into opposing a double-”minority” and someone they gave in to as quailfied for her latest position.
The Dems would now be on record as having opposed a Black man, a Black woman and a Hispanic (Estrada). They could never justify or recover from these insults. The Black “community” would not stand for it even thought they are conservatives. Then again, most Blacks ARE conservatives.
Comment by Raymond — 07.19.05 @ 7:15 pm
What an unecessary thing for Tancredo, or anyone else for that matter, to say. How does this help our mission? Tom Tancredo isn’t in charge of dictating strategic/anti-terrorism strategy. What do his words do other than incite? Does anyone really think terrorists are going to be deterred (sp?) by his remarks? Since we all are so quick to yell “your helping the terrorists!” let’s make sure we apply it to those situations were its proper — like this one. Save the verbal artillery for when it’s really needed. Tancredo’s remarks only make it more difficult to respond in the future, not to mention what he’s suggesting is extreme (as I hope everyone will admit, even if you support what he’s saying) and will probably dissuade some of our already reluctant allies from continuing to support us — allies that the President often refers to and needs, so that we can continue the war on terrorism. Tom Tancredo needs to choose his fights wisely and this was a huge blunder.
Comment by spade — 07.19.05 @ 7:19 pm
Chuck wrote, it will make us come down to their level”.
I’m sure that people argued we were going down to the German and Japanese level in WW2. Ultimately we prevailed and the world is better off for it.
Chuck wrote the judgmental opinion, “but you’ve lost your focus….”
I disagree. I think La Shawn and Ann are great human beings who are rarely factually incorrect and have impeccable logic. It seems that you just disagree Chuck. No need to go on with the judgmentalism/intolerance.
Chuck drew the trump card and wrote, “I’m beginning to lose the respect I had for you as a Christian I can look up to.”
I lost respect for you Chuck. What is your interpretation Chuck of what you think Jesus would have us do with the Islamofacists? Turn the cheek? Please there have been many Christian writers who have deconstructed and constructed what Jesus was talking about and how leaders of nations like Bush or Tancredo are obligated to NOT turn the cheek but protect the citizens by providing for the strong defense. That means deterrence. If you Chuck disagree with the means of deterrence then state it that simply without getting all judgmental against individuals because it doesn’t help your Christian argument case. And… wouldn’t it be helpful for you to state how you might deter Islamofacists from nuking American cities and putting this country in a huge hardship with loss of life and way of life and complete change of resources towards defending this nation as we did in WW2?
Comment by Baklava — 07.19.05 @ 7:20 pm
Spade wrote, “What do his words do other than incite?”
Deter.
Spade wrote, “Does anyone really think terrorists are going to be deterred (sp?) by his remarks?”
If you think they won’t be deterred then just state that and move on. You just disagree.
Spade wrote, “Tom Tancredo needs to choose his fights wisely and this was a huge blunder.”
The question was posed to Tom. He didn’t pick the question. He answered honestly that we should make sure Islamofacists understand that all options are on the table before our cities are nuked so they realize they shouldn’t do it.
Question is spade… What would you offer for deterrence?
If you don’t believe they’ll be deterred… are they moderate and peace loving at the same time? Are they reasonable and can they be reasoned with? Which is it? Are they insane madmen or something else?
Comment by Baklava — 07.19.05 @ 7:25 pm
#92. Every time someone offers and effective solution to a problem, some chicken heart inevitably calls it extreme. Thank God our Founders and WW2 warriors didn’t use that stupid term.
Comment by Raymond — 07.19.05 @ 7:26 pm
Tancredo’s words will “incite?” Hmmmmm. Then I wonder what incited those to commit:
- The Beirut barracks bombing
- WTC 93 bombing
- Pan Am Flight 103 bombing
- US Embassy in Riyhad bombing
- Khobar Towers bombing
- USS Cole Bombing
- WTC 9/11 destruction
- Achille Lauro killings
- Teheran embassy takeover
- Madrid bombings
- Munich Olympics murders
Seems all of this and much much more happened well before Tom’s warning.
Comment by Raymond — 07.19.05 @ 7:31 pm
I see hypocrisy on parade here. Loud, frequent and hypocritical.
Comment by Raymond — 07.19.05 @ 7:33 pm
It has to be understood that these “arguments” against Tom’s words are not based on anything but politics. If Bill Clinton had said those same things in our present circumstances, then he would be lauded for his bravery. I don’t take most of the negative statements here (or anywhere else) seriously because they are based on political advantage rather than national security. That doesn’t mean I want argue with the naysayers for sport, just that my blood pressure is not likely to rise too much. Their screeching is only further marginalizing their position.
Comment by Independent — 07.19.05 @ 8:28 pm
Didn’t Clinton & a lot of Dems want to go into Iraq to take Saddam out?
Comment by NYgirl — 07.19.05 @ 9:18 pm
I find it mind-bogglingly ridiculous that people would be worried about Islamists hating us more after they set off a dirty bomb on us.
Comment by Juliette — 07.19.05 @ 9:37 pm
Didn’t Clinton & a lot of Dems want to go into Iraq to take Saddam out?
Nah, only did a few bombings or took out aspirin factories elsewhere when he was diverting attention from his private parts…
Comment by Renee — 07.19.05 @ 9:46 pm
Juliette, not to mention a dirty bomb going off and taking muslims with it, just as the bombs in London took out muslims as well. Who do the muslim families of the victims blame?
Oh yeah, blame Bush and Blair for going to Iraq, that’s who. /sarcasm
Comment by Andy — 07.19.05 @ 10:15 pm
Renee, apparently Clinton’s intel told him if he lobbed a few bombs at the aspirin factory and a couple of other remote targets, that would be enough to tip the scale and cause regime change in Iraq IAW his 1998 Regime Change Doctrine.
Comment by Andy — 07.19.05 @ 10:18 pm
Hey Bak, who’s Chuck?
Comment by Andy — 07.19.05 @ 10:24 pm
Andy you are funny
Comment by Renee — 07.19.05 @ 10:31 pm
#96 Raymond, exactly what I think, plus the beheading and burning those bodies hung from the bridge. These folks are daring us to fry them almost on a daily basis. They’ve brainwashed their teens to spy for them or to be suicide bombers. If a weasel comes into your chicken house, do you kill it or coach it outside and expect it will learn to eat bugs? I can’t think of one U.S. soldier I would sacrifice for a chance to change the mindset of a terrorist. This “Political Correctness” is no longer diplomacy, it’s cowardly. Or am I being too un-P.C.? IMHO, naturally.
Comment by Chevy Rose — 07.19.05 @ 10:47 pm
So, I’m “Insane?”
At least I’m in good company!
Trackback by The View From The Nest — 07.19.05 @ 11:31 pm
There were a lot of responses to my last post, I’ll try to address them all.
First, Baklava. I don’t think that Tancredo’s words will deter Islamic Terrorists from anything. Also, Tancredo is not in charge of the war on terrorism. I’m sure al quaeda understands this. Therefore, they have no reason to fear him. But I’m sure the terrorists use statements like Tancredos to portray Americans as hostile to the religion of Islam, thus justifying the terrorists “cause” (if that’s what you can call it), because an attack on Mecca would understandably be seen as an attack on Islam rather than an attack on Islamic terrorists. So what you have is a big down side with absolutely no corresponding upside. Tactically, as far as furthering our mission to stamp out terrorism and protect America and our allies, Tancredo’s remark was an enormous blunder. Big down side, no upside.
And bombing Mecca serves no purpose in defeating the war on terror. Does anyone here really think that if we were to level Mecca, there would be a single young muslim man who wouldn’t strap a bomb to his chest and go charging into a crowded cafe? Wiping Mecca off the face of the Earth will do nothing but put us under greater threat of attack, unless we then follow it up with killing just about every muslim person under the age of fifty, living around the world. Not to mention we would probably kill thousands of innocent civilians in the process. It doesn’t make sense. It sounds bravado and tough, but at the end of the day if it makes more terrorists (thousands and thousands) than it deters (none), it’s not worth it.
I understand that Tancredo didn’t pick the question. And had he stopped at “all options are on the table,” I think that would have been a good response. Politicians get bad or tricky questions all the time, and they can just about always find a way to fashion an appropriate response. Tancredo failed to do that in this situation.
What do I suggest for deterrence? Every time we find a terrorist or terrorist cell, we drop a bomb on it and do our best to avoid killing civilians, thus keeping this a West v. Terrorists thing. Dropping a bomb on Mecca kills a lot of innocent civilians, makes a lot of new terrorists, and makes this a West v. Islam thing, which it shouldn’t be. West v. Terrorists, NOT West v. Islam.
Finally, I find your choice of moderate peace-lovers v. insane madmen to be unrepresentative of how things probably really are. It’s more complicated than that, as I’m sure most people would agree.
Raymond. I don’t understand your post where you write out the list of terrorist attacks that have already occurred. I’m talking about what happens as a result of Tancredo’s statements, not what happened before them. Your list has nothing to do with how remarks like Tancredo’s change things in a bad way for us in the future — they hurt our cause, rather than help it.
Point being, if you want to win the war on terror, you have to be smart, reserved, and disciplined with what you say. Tancredo shot from the hip and failed to be any of those things.
Comment by spade — 07.19.05 @ 11:41 pm
La Shawn,
I am about as right wing as you can get on the WoT. But I disagree with Tancredo. My disagreement is purely practical. What he proposes is a twofer for OBL. First he detonates a nuke in an American city. Lots of dancing in the palestinian streets. Then the Americans destroy Meca. Lots of outrage among all Muslims. If OBL could get America to attack Mecca, he would. Because he would not be blamed by the Muslims, but America would.
Imagine if Blair said he would nuke the vatican if the IRA nuked a UK city. Lots of Catholics would be upset with Blair for doing this.
If you want to threaten nuclear retaliation, do it intelligently. Threaten it against any nation that has supported terrorism and has not shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are now actively hunting down the terrorists. Now Syria, the palestinians, Jordan, Iran, Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Libya, Morrocco, Tunisia, Algeria, etc. would have to weigh what would happen if OBL got a nuke. They would know that if OBL sets of a nuke in a US city, then their country ceases to exists and becomes a night light you can read by for a few thousand years.
Now you can argue the ethics of bombing countrys that support terrorism, but not a specific terrorist act. If Bush asked me, I wouldn’t suggest any stated nuculear retaliation policy. But if you are going to suggest nukes, don’t hit a black rock in the middle of the dessert. Take out their capability to wage war, not a symbol.
Comment by yetanotherjohn — 07.19.05 @ 11:51 pm
Spade, what’s the point of strapping on a bomb to kill infidels for allah when allah can’t even protect his holiest of holy? Afterall, it is promised that the site will never be desecrated by infidels and lo and behold if the infidels don’t do so anyway.
Or did allah lie? I know the koran says that someimes it is best to lie and muslims do lie with relish. I’m just wondering if they would be as ready to blow themselves up when allah has been shown to be a liar once.
What if the 72 virgins is a lie & there’s actually 72 Virginians waiting to pummel him?
I’m reminded of the scene in Hal Lindsey’s early 70s tome Late Great Planet Earth where the Dome on the Rock is pulverized with a laser. It’s probably been that long since I read it. I guess I should read it again.
In any case, I think you’re overstating the propensity for outrage in the muslim street. Heck, look at all the times that mosques have been desecrated/destroyed. Isn’t one of their tenets, ‘once a mosque, forever a mosque’?
But since you’re concerned about the death toll, even though we’ve already stated that this is retaliatory and not premptive and that fair warning would be given. Then what say you that we threaten to drop a ‘lard bomb’, so that they’ll keep their mecca intact, but have to find someone to clean it up?
Comment by Andy — 07.20.05 @ 12:03 am
Spade, are you ignoring the point that has been made several times in this thread. Noone, including Tancredo implied that they wish to go bomb Mecca without provication. The provication we are talking about is a NUCLEAR BOMB or other devestating device used on American soil. What would you suggest we do in such an event? Should we say pretty please don’t do that again? Besides, the THREAT of nuclear retaliation could be effective if the majority of Muslims are as peace loving as the left claims. I’ll copy and paste my own thoughts from up-thread.
“It is liberals that insist that the MAJORITY of the Muslim world are not insane killers. If that is true, then the Muslim world is more likely to clean house themselves if they perceive the danger caused by the radicals. If the knowledge that any nuclear strike on our soil will result in a devestating nuclear counterattack persuades the “moderates†to think twice and report suspicious activity, then the threat of destroying Mecca IS a deterent.”
So, do you want to encourage the muslim world to take care of their own menace, or do you prefer we spend decades spot bombing terrorist cells and praying the next attack isn’t the one that kills you and your loved ones?
Comment by Independent — 07.20.05 @ 12:05 am
Here’s a lower step on the escalation plan for discussion.
Muslims claim no allegiance to their homeland, only to mecca, well we’re going to make them acutely aware of their homeland.
For every act of terror — short of WMD — we will embargo a region from going on hajj.
Another London bombing, and British, Jamiacan & Pakistani muslims won’t be allowed to travel to mecca for a year. If Phillipine terrorists are behind an attack, no Filipino will be allow to travel to/from mecca, and so on.
In essence, we’d be forcing muslims to apply the the underlying principle in Act 1:8 “…in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. They will deal first with their homegrown radicals, then eventually spread moderation to the ends of earth.
Comment by Andy — 07.20.05 @ 12:11 am
I’ve yet to see any mention of Tancredo on broadcast MSM. What’s it like on cable or is it only the blogosphere that’s buzzing?
With the nomination of Roberts to SCOTUS, I’m guessing there won’t be much energy expended on trying to force Tancredo to apologize. Meanwhile, his statements will continue to swirl in the undercurrents of politics and gain weight with the grassroots.
Good power play Mr Tancredo! If left to ferment long enough, it could become a real issue in ‘06, with those against the ‘nuclear’ option under the gun.
The ones really sweating it will be CAIR and the MSM/DNC aren’t going to care about giving up precious political capital kowtowing to the muslims while they have 2 SCOTUS appointments (Rheinquist after Roberts is confirmed) to deal with, plus a possible ’sneak attack’ on SS. Even Plame is off the front burner.
So who loves ya CAIR (& other advocacy groups)? Not the MSM/DNC — they only love ya when they can use you.
Comment by Andy — 07.20.05 @ 12:30 am
I think this is a brilliant idea!
Why wait to start making threats, though? We should start now! It’d be a great deterrent and something that we can implement at once for relatively low cost. And we have the perfect occasion with the recent sentencing of Christian Terrorist, Eric Rudolph. We should immediately threaten to bomb the Vatican, Salt Lake City, and that Crystal Palace Megamart Church they built just north of Chicago. That should keep those Christofascists in line!
Thank you, Congressman Trancredo! Thank you, LaShawn!
Comment by FunTed — 07.20.05 @ 12:36 am
Okay, for the most part, this thread had devolved into something not worth sustaining. E.g., Andy has turned this into exactly what most Americans don’t think this should be about: making Muslims at large suffer for the acts of Muslim terrorists. I think yetanotherjohn’s Tony Blair/IRA analogy is appropriate here, Andy. I don’t want to make muslims pay, I want to make terrorists pay. I’d rather devote my time and energy to killing terrorists than killing Muslims. In fact, I’ll probably kill more terrorists if I don’t waste time killing Muslims in general.
That said, my last post did get confusing. To address your point, Independent, that some people have not been addressing the fact that Tancredo was responding to a hypothetical, I was somewhat unclear in my last post. Please let me clarify.
My point is this: Tancredo’s response to the hypothetical plays into the terrorists’ strategy while providing no corresponding benefit of deterrence. His response plays into the terrorist strategy because it makes America look hostile to Islam (which is how the terrorists have been — falsely — portraying us for many years) when we should only be hostile to terrorists. Tancredo’s response does not deter terrorists for several reasons: 1) fighting words don’t seem to deter terrorists; 2) Tom Tancredo is not in charge of our military / anti-terrorist strategies — therefore the terrorists have no reason to fear him or what he says; and 3) threatening to attack Mecca because of the acts of extremist Islamic terrorists is like threatening to destroy the Vatican because of people like Eric Rudolph — totally nonsensical.
For these reasons, I think Tom Tancredo’s response to the proposed hypothetical hurt our cause against terrorism more than it helped. I hope that answers your concern, Independent.
-Spade
Comment by spade — 07.20.05 @ 12:42 am
FunTed, apparently we came across the Vatican / Eric Rudolph analogy at the same time.
Comment by spade — 07.20.05 @ 12:44 am
[…] ue enemy, not just to the Western world, but to Islam itself. Other coverage: Jack Lewis, La Shawn Barber
by mccaskil @ 12:52 am. Filed under Middle East
[…]
Pingback by ChristWeb » Blog Archive » Tom Tancredo: The Ultimate Nuclear Option — 07.20.05 @ 12:52 am
Spade wrote, “And bombing Mecca serves no purpose in defeating the war on terror. Does anyone here really think that if we were to level Mecca, there would be a single young muslim man who wouldn’t strap a bomb to his chest and go charging into a crowded cafe? Wiping Mecca off the face of the Earth will do nothing”
You keep talking as if Tom would bomb Mecca. It hasn’t happened. Probably won’t happen. What he talked about Spade (I’m informing you now so you can’t keep up the same argument if you read this) is the threat of the worst if they do the worst. They have to know that nothing is off the table. It was a conversation in context of deterrence. If you don’t think they can be deterred then state that and you are done. But you go on as if Mecca will be bombed. You are done by saying it won’t be a deterrence. You disagree with those who think it is a deterrence to some extent. That’s that.
Spade wrote in total avoidance, “What do I suggest for deterrence? Every time we find a terrorist or terrorist cell, we drop a bomb on it and do our best to avoid killing civilians, thus keeping this a West v. Terrorists thing.”
Spade. The question was about what we do if a terrorist nukes an American city. Not if we “find a terrorist or terrorist cell” what do we do. You deflected or are uninformed about the entire dialog that Tancredo had with the interviewer. I have it posted above if you don’t know it.
Comment by Baklava — 07.20.05 @ 12:55 am
YetanotherJohn #109,
Tom never said nuke but you go on for a full paragraph as if Tom did. What literature have you been reading?
Comment by Baklava — 07.20.05 @ 12:57 am
Independent #112,
You saw that too huh?
Comment by Baklava — 07.20.05 @ 12:57 am
Baklava, please see my post #116.
Comment by spade — 07.20.05 @ 1:01 am
Spade #116 wrote, “Tancredo’s response does not deter terrorists for several reasons: 1) fighting words don’t seem to deter terrorists; 2) Tom Tancredo is not in charge of our military / anti-terrorist strategies — therefore the terrorists have no reason to fear him or what he says; “
Let me address nonsensical point #2. Tom didn’t issue a threat to Muslims as if he was in charge of the military. He was answering a question about what we should do if an american city was nuked. He stated that we should make the threat before any thing like that happens so that everyone knows that there is no option off the table.
Point #1 now. If you don’t think terrorists will be deterred then that is the end of your argument. You really have nothing further to say except that you disagree that terrorists will be deterred. Maybe you explain why (that they are madmen, not moderates, insane, have no fear whatever) but going on as if it was more than a threat for deterrence is what is degenerating the conversation.
Comment by Baklava — 07.20.05 @ 1:03 am
Now. I asked a question Spade and you were able to evade it. Do you want to get back to explaining what you think might be a deterrent given the hypothetical situation? Of course you could state that there is no deterrence and nothing you could do as the American president to deter. Just state that unequivocably and I’ll be satisfied that you answered the question.
Comment by Baklava — 07.20.05 @ 1:05 am
Baklava,
My point is not nonsensical. Maybe you come out differently on it, but it isn’t nonsensical. I think you’re response is obtuse, and I’m not going to repeat my reasoning. It’s all up in #116, and I think it’s clear.
Saying that terrorists aren’t deterred by statements like Tancredo’s is different than saying terrorists aren’t deterred.
I’ve read over some of your posts and I think you are generally very nasty in your responses. I’ve been patient with you, but I feel like you’re the one most guilty of what you claim other people are doing.
-Spade
Comment by spade — 07.20.05 @ 1:09 am
It is nonsensical if it isn’t even factual. He wasn’t issuing a threat to muslims as if he was in charge of the military. He was asked a question and was answering it. Unlike you when you are asked a question.
Talk about guilt. You are attacking and smearing a guy who is wonderful, good for America, smart, and deserves respect. People all over are missing the point ENTIRELY. Even in the midst of us trying to help you understand the point.
If you disagree that Islamofacists can be deterred then that is all you can really state. Then you are done.
Comment by Baklava — 07.20.05 @ 1:13 am
Post #125 is exactly what I mean with you. I’m not here to satisfy you, Baklava. And I haven’t evaded any questions. When Independent pointed out something that I was unclear about, I clarified it. Can I get any back up on this from anyone else? Whether or not you agree with me, have I not made a decent attempt at answering the questions I have been asked? Does anyone else find Baklava to be strident and difficult sometimes?
Tancredo should have said “all options are on the table.” I’m not sure there is anything Tancredo could have said in that situation that would deter terrorists from using nuclear weapons.
Comment by spade — 07.20.05 @ 1:14 am
In post #108 you acted like you were answering and missed the entire point of the question and then Independent and I caught you on it.
You are right you didn’t evade a question. You just misread it and then answered it as if we asked something else.
Sure I’m difficult. You are attacking Tom. I’m defending him. I ask a question to see how you might offer deterrence given the posed question. In #116 you act like you are going to answer it and MISS the entire point of the question by talking about what you’d do when finding terrorists and terror cells.
Comment by Baklava — 07.20.05 @ 1:20 am
I’d be dissapointed in Tom Tancredo if he was asked about terrorists bombing an American city and for deterrence Tom said we should threaten before an American city was nuked that we’d bomb wherever terrorists or terrorist cells were found.
I would then state my disagreement with Tom and say, “I don’t think Islamofacists would be deterred in any way from nuking an American city”.
Then I also would state (don’t know why - but I’m learning from spade) that Tom doesn’t control the military and doesn’t make military decisions. I’d wonder why Tom was even speaking as if he was in charge.
Comment by Baklava — 07.20.05 @ 1:26 am
BAKLAVA!!! WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH YOU?!?!?
I didn’t miss the point of any of your questions! My comment about dropping bombs on terrorists and terror cells rather than Mecca at large is exactly about deterence! Killing terrorists deters them! Threatening Mecca with destruction doesn’t! What is so hard to understand about that?!? Perhaps your questions weren’t clear, which is a very likely possibility with you! And I understand you are defending Tancredo, but you’re being obtuse!
Comment by spade — 07.20.05 @ 1:28 am
Here’s a must read 19 Sep 03 post from Belmont Club:
The Three Conjectures
A Pew poll finds 40% of Americans worry that an US city will be destroyed by a terrorist nuclear attack . James Lileks thinks the annihilation of a city is a dead certainty and will only mark the start of a long, wearying struggle against Islamists armed with nuclear car bombs.The imminence of the threat is open to debate. Despite the perception that technological diffusion has put weapons of mass destruction within easy reach of Islamic terrorists — the cliche of a mullah brewing anthrax in a cave — terrorist weapons remain at the 1970s level. The Al-Qaeda attack on the September 11 was the most sophisticated terrorist assault in history. Yet it did not employ any new technological elements, just the creative use of old techniques like the airline hijacking. High explosives, small arms, and poison gas still comprise the terrorist arsenal…
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2003/09/three-conjectures-pew-poll-finds-40-of.html
Comment by Andy — 07.20.05 @ 1:32 am
Spade, the point is the MAD threat should be enough for the moderates to come to bear on the radicals within their ranks to deter them from even thinking of it.
-To force mullahs to start issuing fatwas against terroirts.
-To force them to revoke previous fatwas encouraging the radicals.
-To isolate and marinalize terrorists.
In case you haven’t noticed, we are exterminating cells as we find them in the context of GWOT. That is not stopping them of dreaming and scheming greater attacks. The only thing to defuse the situation is to demonstrate the futility of taking on us infidels.
The point about Eric Rudolph and McVeigh is moot. They didn’t use the ultimate weapon and it is clear that they are not christians. The only way your thinking would be acceptable is if Catholic priests & pope were advocating terror against abortion clinics. Or if Mormon bishops were urging terror against non-Mormons and then some of them went and set off a nuke.
Go back to #85 to see where I specify the only situation where the black rock and mecca would be taken off the table. Keep in mind that under Islam, the church and state (Sharia) are one entity for all pracical purposes (See #111)
In context of Eric Rudolph or better yet that anti-gay wack from KS, Phelps, if his people were to somehow set off a nuke under the pretext of wiping out the fags, then I have no problem with obliterating his church and followers.
If the moderate muslims play ball with us and actively marginalize the radicals and somehow Osama bin Dead was to set off a nuke here, we’d have no cause to flatten mecca. But as it stands now, the wahabbi sect, keepers of the black rock & mecca, are the fastest growing and unapologetically anti-western to the point of urging annilhation of us infidels. Therefore it is emminently logical to target their sacred ground until they repent.
I see the arab street didn’t rise up when shia’s holy sites were desecrated. Why would the world at large rise up if mecca, under the leadership of the wahhabis, led them into ruin.
W/o mecca & black rock, there is no allah, w/o allah, there is no islam. (See #113)
Don’t you get it? Given enough time, I think most Americans will get it (see #114 and Judges chp 12). We have the right to take extreme countermeasures. Again, not necessarily premptive, but certainly ruthlessly when provked.
Oh and FunTed? I think it’s safe to say most of us don’t care about the views of insipid trolls like you’re acting. If you’re serious, fine, but you’re going to have to come up with more thotful comments, otherwise you’re wasting your time.
Commen