 |
| |
|
|
Ogie Oglethorpe
|
 |
Marietta, GA
Dec 1999
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Article Launched: 07/24/2005 01:00:00 AM
guest commentary
Bigger sins than offending
By Rep. Tom Tancredo
R-Colo.
By now, many people in America - and likely around the world - are familiar with my statements regarding a possible response to a nuclear attack on U.S. cities by fundamentalist Islamic terrorists.
Without question, my comments have prompted strong reactions from many quarters, but they have also served to start a national dialogue about what options we have to deter al-Qaeda and other would-be Islamic terrorists.
Many critics of my statements have characterized them as "offensive," and indeed they may have offended some. But in this battle against fundamentalist Islam, I am hardly preoccupied with political correctness, or who may or may not be offended. Indeed, al-Qaeda cares little if the Western world is "offended" by televised images of hostages beheaded in Iraq, subway bombings in London, train attacks in Madrid, or Americans jumping to their death from the Twin Towers as they collapsed.
Few can argue that our current approach to this war has deterred fundamentalists from killing Westerners - nor has it prompted "moderate" Muslims and leaders of Muslim countries to do what is necessary to crack down on the extremists in their midst who perpetuate these grisly crimes.
That being the case, perhaps the civilized world must intensify its approach.
Does that mean the United States should be re-targeting its entire missile arsenal on Mecca today? Does it mean we ought to be sending Stealth bombers on runs over Medina? Clearly not.
But should we take any option or target off the table, regardless of the circumstances? Absolutely not, particularly if the mere discussion of an option or target may dissuade a fundamentalist Muslim extremist from strapping on a bomb-filled backpack, or if it might encourage "moderate" Muslims to do a better job cracking down on extremism in their ranks.
People have accused me of creating more terrorism by making these statements. Indeed, we often hear that Western governments bring these attacks on themselves. Just days after the London subway attacks two weeks ago, for example, Tariq Ali, a prominent British Muslim activist, was quick to suggest
that London residents "paid the price" for British support in the Iraq campaign.
A professor in Lebanon, Dr. George Hajjar, went even further, proclaiming, "I hope that every patriotic and Islamic Arab will participate in this war, and will shift the war not only to America, but to ... wherever America may be." Hajjar went on to say that "there are no innocent people," and referred to the victims of the attack as "collateral casualties."
These are fairly "offensive" statements, to be sure, but the sentiments expressed by Ali and Hajjar are sadly commonplace in the "mainstream" Muslim world, where justification for terrorist attacks like the ones that rocked London, New York and Washington is never in short supply.
Fundamentalist Muslims have advocated the destruction of the West since long before the attacks of Sept. 11, long before the Madrid, London and Bali attacks, long before the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, long before the attack on the USS Cole and the 1993 WTC bombing.
In many respects, the decision of "moderate" Muslims to acquiesce to these actions and even provide tacit justification for them is just as damaging to global safety and security as the attacks themselves.
Until "mainstream" Islam can bring itself to stop rationalizing terrorist attacks and start repudiating and purging people like Ali and Hajjar from its ranks who do, this war will continue. As long as this war goes on, being "offended" should be the least of anyone's worries.
Republican Tom Tancredo represents Colorado's 6th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives. |
So rather than admit he was a moron when he proposed the nuking of Mecca and Medina (in response to a WMD terract by AQ or the like) he stands staunchly behind what can only be describedas one of the most reckless blusterings since Kruschev's "we will bury" you rantings.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ninot
Nuking Mecca and Medina won't exactly be taking care of the terrorists, and rationally, wouldn't be taking out many terrorists at all.
But then, from the U.S. point of view, if an investment banker in New York dies from an atomic blast (or dirty bomb, have your choice), how is that fair?
Its stupid to nuke and kill innocents, but how can the U.S. respond if it stats losing millions of innocents? |
...
...
...
So... um ....
since there is no way else to respond, it is understandable if the US takes out the holiest cities of a religion, which are not under control by the terrorists, which would turn the entire world against the US.... for ... um... fairness?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ninot
|
 |
Centre Bell
Nov 2001
time: 00:37
|
|
Yeah, it sounds stupid doesnt it?
But honestly, how can the U.S. respond to a nuclear blast that would 1: keep the nation content that the government is getting a good job done and 2: get something done?
When Nukes become an option, everything gets crazy.
If i'm a right-wing nut (which im not), and im trying to think of how to respond to a nuclear blast in the heart of my country, this is what i'd think:
The terrorists don't represent the majority of Islam. New Yorkers (or any city) don't represent the government of the U.S.A or the majority of Americans.
If the Terrorists can nuke New York, and kill people that have almost nothing to do with this entire conflict, then we'll respond in kind and nuke a big city full of Muslims
Again, thats not my position. But I am not suprised there are many Americans who do hold that position, and honestly, it does make a little sense to me. If only a little.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
Tancredo was talking about a situation in which AQ had nukes inside of our borders, in which case it would be incumbent to threaten anything neccesary to deter them.
|
Here's what Tancredo said:
quote:
Campbell: Worst case scenario, if they do have these nukes inside the borders and they were to use something like that — what would our response be?
Tancredo: What would be the response? You know, there are things that you could threaten to do before something like that happens and then you may have to do afterwards that are quite draconian.
Campbell: Such as...
Tancredo: Well, 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, um, you know, you could take out their holy sites . . .
Campbell: You're talking about bombing Mecca.
Tancredo: Yeah. What if you said — what if you said that we recognize that this is the ultimate threat to the United States — therefore this is the ultimate threat, this is the ultimate response.
I mean, I don't know, I'm just throwing out there some ideas because it seems to me . . . at that point in time you would be talking about taking the most draconian measures you could possibly imagine and because other than that all you could do is once again tighten up internally. |
Thus it's clear that he didn't mean an empty threat, but that he would in response, engage in what can only described as a monumentally idiotic act of mass-murder.
I don't know how this is supposed to be a deterrence, anyways, since AQ has made it clear that it isn't taking any special care to protect Muslim lives. We'd be purging Mecca of Saudis for them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
Anyway, with regard to the OP, we have morons by the bushelfull in Washington, so I doubt this Tom Tancredo fellow -- whoever he is -- is the biggest moron. |
True, there is the whole Defense Dept. after all.
Last edited by Ramo on 25-07-2005 at 20:55
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-07-2005 19:15
|