State Department: Tancredo “absolutely crazy” for wanting to hit Mecca; Update: Slate rips “imbecilic bigot”
posted at 6:00 pm on August 3, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
He’s not talking preemptive strike, just a preemptive threat to retaliate after the next attack as a means of deterrence. Which brings us to the “absolutely crazy” part: Why does he think it’d deter them? The backlash from a strike on Mecca might well swing most of the Muslim world firmly behind jihadism. If anything, the “threat” is an inducement.
Now, let’s see if even 5% of our commenters agree with me.
Update: Even a stopped amateurish webzine is right twice a day.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
If anyone really cared about stopping the arab/persian/islamic war against the West (and if they wanted to do it with as few casualties as possible) then they would realize that this war starts and stops at the same place – the oil fields.
The oil fields provide the political and financial power for the arab/persian/muslim enemy. Without control of these fields, the arab/persian/muslim worlds would be effectively defanged.
So, if one doesn’t like discussing the necessary deterrence against this well-funded, politically powerful enemy then they should have some intellectual honesty and realize that they must be in favor of seizing the oil fields and ending the main threat that way.
But these same morons have problems even discussing rational deterrence against aggressive populations and also refuse to contemplate defanging these aggressive populations.
As to the oil field argument and those who say that we can’t just “take their fields”, I would remind them that the arabs and persians never built any fields, have no real use for oil themselves (as they produce nothing) and only control the fields because we allowed them to steal the fields in the wave of nationalizations in the middle of the 20th century. If the fields were “legitimately” nationalized because they are important national resources, then there is just as good an argument to “internationalize” the fields because they are the world’s most important resource and because the arabs and persians cannot be trusted with the security of the fields, or with the money they get from them.
It doesn’t take too much to realize that all starts and stops with the oil fields, and if anyone is against discussing nukes as deterrence then they should have the intellectual honesty to discuss cutting off the supply lines for the enemy – the oil fields and the wealth and political power they provide.
But they have the same argument, it will make them mad. Eventually they will realize that everything makes the arab/persian/muslim world mad (short of military victory) so better to defang them in the process.
progressoverpeace on August 4, 2007 at 3:49 PM
P.S. Saddam Hussein showed what the arab/persian/muslim world cares about oil when he intentionally dumped 40,000,000 barrels of oil into the gulf and lit just about every single oil well in Kuwait on fire – all while he retreating in one of the most humiliating military defeats in all of human history.
That action (and the general use of scorched earth policies by the arab/persian/muslim world) mean that they cannot be trusted with the oil that is needed by everybody but them, nor with any of the power derived from the oil.
progressoverpeace on August 4, 2007 at 3:53 PM
The USSR was a conglomeration of nation states that shared a common ideology. Islam is a collection of nation states that share a common ideology. Certainly there are different sects within Islam, but all of them share a belief in Jihad. There were also various power-groups vying for control in the USSR, but all of them shared a belief in communism.
The only practical difference is that the USSR had a dynamic central authority verses Islam currently has a static central authority, which is the tenets of the Koran. The Koran is the current central authority of Islam while Mecca amounts to their capital.
Any practical differences between the USSR and Islam are merely in the eyes of the beholder. If you are going to argue that we should fear Islam more than the USSR because Islam has a larger population, I would suggest that the USSR was far more powerful than Islam has ever been in spite of their inferior numbers.
FloatingRock on August 4, 2007 at 4:18 PM
With MAD uniforms are not required, nor are boundaries. All that is required is a common ideology with a shared value in things that can be destroyed.
FloatingRock on August 4, 2007 at 4:25 PM
So in other words, if the USSR had nuked the USA and we retaliated by nuking them, those innocent citizens of the USSR would have paid with their lives for the actions of their non-representative leaders, which comprised a tiny minority of their population. Likewise, if Islamic terrorists nuke Washington DC, those residence of Islam’s holiest of cities will pay with their lives for the actions of their non-representative leaders which may also be a tiny minority of their population. Of course, Tancredo apparently didn’t argue for nuking all of Mecca but rather only called for bombing holy sites.
FloatingRock on August 4, 2007 at 5:15 PM
Ahhh . . . we share a beautiful memory, techno. And like you, seeing old film footage with the Towers feels like a kick in the stomach. I don’t think that pain will ever go away.
Blake on August 4, 2007 at 5:28 PM
You parse words better than Bill Clinton. Your meaning was clear. Nice try at being cute.
Bradky on August 5, 2007 at 12:49 AM
One comment: F**K Mecca
sMack on August 5, 2007 at 1:29 AM
somebody’s got all hopped up on Robert Spencer. Where were all the islamic extremist attacks within the united states throughout the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries? Fundamentalism of any kind is a reaction to secularization…islamic fundamentalism is no different. I recommend reading “Strong Religion” by Almond, Appleby and Sivan. Pretty academic, agenda free study of fundamentalism world-wide.
crr6 on August 5, 2007 at 2:24 AM
Why do you recommend “Strong Religion”? Is that the book you read that now qualifies you as an expert on Islam and allows you to dismiss Robert Spencer’s work? Which book did your read that makes you an expert on the topic of MAD?
I’ll spend the time to answer your question if first you’ll answer my corollary question, which is: Where were all of the Soviet nuclear missiles throughout the 17th, 18th and 19 centuries?
Yeah, I realize you’ll scoff at my question. I understand that the answer is irrelevant as well as obvious, the answer being: who cares? It doesn’t matter in the least. But before you climb back on your soapbox, please consider the Barbary Pirates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Pirates
Oh, but perhaps that doesn’t count in your mind because they didn’t attack our homeland— score for you, Crr6. Yeah, in light of the fact that they didn’t attack our homeland way back when, certainly Islamists aren’t a threat to us presently, and more specifically, if they nuke one or more of our cities we can all rest assured that Almond, Appleby and Sivan will redouble their efforts to assuage our fears on the matter.
FloatingRock on August 5, 2007 at 3:58 AM
So flying planes into buildings and chopping off heads is a common trait to fundamentalists of all religions then? Hmmmm… are you sure you didn’t mean to type: secularization of any kind is a reaction to fundamentalism? As an atheist myself, neither sentence seems particularly valid or relevant to what’s going on in the world today, but at least the second version is slightly more accurate.
FloatingRock on August 5, 2007 at 4:56 AM
If we want to fight a traditional war in the way we fought WWII, we need to ignore the Muslims until they have created their Islamic paradise. After they create their religious army with uniforms and command structure etc, we can safely go in and kill ever single one of them with carpet bombing etc.
csdeven on August 5, 2007 at 8:02 AM
I enjoy your comments and have enthusiastically agreed with all of them up to this point. But you seem to be advocating the nullification of the Constitution. That would lead to our enslavement in very short order. The Constitution is the only thing that stands between cherished rights and totalitarianism.
Maxx on August 5, 2007 at 12:03 PM
nope certain strands of fundamentalism become violent,most don’t, but its more a question of the government in which they develop then the religion involved. Violent christian fundamentalists are rarer because they tend to develop in free societies where they can pursue power through elections, the media etc (like the Christian Right here in America). No one says we shouldn’t “worry” about Islamic extremists of course, but making it a war against Islam as a whole is just plain dumb, and exactly what the Terrorists want.
crr6 on August 5, 2007 at 1:17 PM
Some time ago I made a post concerning the media and how they like to use the word “fundamentalist” to promote the idea that all religion is the same:
If I might add just one more point in regard to the feckless liberal media, and how it irks me the way they throw the word “fundamentalist” around. Liberal media has one big bag labeled “fundamentalist” and all religions get tossed into it. They work hard to make no distinction between Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Shinto, Hindu or anybody who has been within 75 feet of a church. They are all exactly the same according to the liberal media. They portray it something like this, all religious people are fundamentalist and all fundamentalist are nutjobs waiting to blow something up.
They follow the Marxist play book to the letter and unfortunately Islam has given them the perfect climate to treat all religion with equal disdain. But they seem to be especially delighted anytime they are able to mock Christianity or make some weird twisted comparison between it and the “religion of peace”. They can show the blood covered wreckage from a terrorist bomber in one scene and a singing Baptist choir in the next and their harsh cold look and dry tone full of disdain does not change, they are just two different groups of “Fundamentalist” you know ? They are so smug and so very despicable !
You should get a job in the main stream media crr6, you would fit right in.
Maxx on August 5, 2007 at 2:57 PM
Heavy.
shuzilla on August 5, 2007 at 3:19 PM
huh? I said that not all fundamentalist movements are violent (like for the most part, the Christian Right) and i certaintly agree that not all religious people are fundamentalist nutjobs. You’re projecting a lot. Relax.
crr6 on August 5, 2007 at 3:24 PM
What “violent Christians” are you talking about, that Christianity and Islam can be compared or even mentioned in the same breath with such a derogatory tone? And in the case of America… Christians didn’t “develop in free societies” ….. instead, it was Christians that DEVELPED THE FREE SOCIETY. Big difference.
Maxx on August 5, 2007 at 3:38 PM
i’m speaking of fundamentalism in reaction to secularization (like the Christian Right) and yes that was formed in a free society. I’m not saying “Christians” formed in a free society but the most recent Christian Fundamentalist movement did. As for violent Christians…how about the murder of abortion provider Barnett Slepian while he was eating breakfast with his wife and kids? It happened like 20 mins from my house. I’m Roman Catholic myself and proud of it but acting as if there aren’t Christain loonies here and there is delusional.
crr6 on August 5, 2007 at 3:58 PM
crr6 on August 5, 2007 at 3:58 PM
The murder of anyone is anathema to the Christian faith. Whoever murdered this man was not Christian. Do you have another example? And the rest of what you are saying is nonsense… Christians have been here since the foundation of this nation, indeed they founded it. So what are you talking about ?
Maxx on August 5, 2007 at 4:11 PM
well if any violence i mention doesn’t count in your eyes why bother mentioning more lol. James Kopp was affiliated with the extremist Christain group “Lambs of Christ”. He felt his killing was justified because he was saving the lives of unborn children. And yes Christains have been here since the founding of America, some of them founded it, but i’m speaking of Fundamentalist movements. Not of Christianity as a whole. Thats the distinction. Lately world-wide there has been a resurgence of Fundamentalism across almost all religions in response to increasd secularization world-wide. Fundamentalist movements form either violently or nonviolently for a variety of reasons, mostly depending on the government in which they develop. For example ones formed in repressive totalitarian regimes tend to become violent because they don’t have legal ways in which to pursue their goals.
crr6 on August 5, 2007 at 4:32 PM
crr6 on August 5, 2007 at 4:32 PM
Once again… there is a huge difference between a group calling themselves Christian and the group actually being Christian. I don’t care what they call themselves, you judge what they are by their actions. Any group that advocates the murder of anyone for any reason is not Christian… period.
And once again… where is this Christian group that has become violent, do you have a link to such a story? In what country are Christians rampaging in the streets and killing indiscriminately ? Where are the Christian suicide bombers ? Where are beheadings being conducted by Christians on other peoples because of their faith? Where and who is the Christian equivalent of Al Qaeda ? What recognized Christian leader is calling for the death of any other nation or people ?
Until you can provide such links you should stop implying there is parity between Christianity and Islam… which seems to be your intention.
Maxx on August 5, 2007 at 4:57 PM
well heres the wikipedia to the murderer. I think you’re entirely missing the point though. This isn’t acontest of whose religion is the most moral. Whether a fundamentalist movement becomes violent doesn’t depend on what the religion of the movement is. It depends on the political, economic and social circumstances surrounding the movement. I guess you misread my intention. Comparing religions as a whole is inane.
crr6 on August 5, 2007 at 5:23 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Kopp
sorry theres the link^
crr6 on August 5, 2007 at 5:23 PM
No… I think I see your point. I just disagree with it. There is much REAL persecution of Christians all around the world, but I know of no organized violent Christian rebellions against any government. According to Voice of the Martyrs:
And if you don’t want to believe VoM, then re-read Corinthians, Galatians and Ephesians where Paul talks about living each day under threat of death and how many times he was beaten and jailed for his faith. Yet he never called for any violence against anyone.
Maxx on August 5, 2007 at 6:04 PM
Quran; Surah 004: Ayah 089
Take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah. Seize them and slay them wherever ye find them.
________________________________________________
Bible: Exodus 20 or Deuteronomy 5; The 6th Commandment:
You shall not murder.
**********************************
Any Questions?
LegendHasIt on August 5, 2007 at 8:33 PM
Yeah, so is wearing your underwear inside of your pants.
I agree. The worst is when he tries to talk tech. Ugh!
In my limited estimation, the discussion is about the threat of bombing Medina and Mecca in retaliation. I think the threat does not serve a purpose.
Obama is a non-issue. He is an amateur thrust forth by political paparazzi. He has no executive experience and no context to prove or disprove his psuedo diplomacy.
Inaction is not an option. But it is the sign of a failed argument to dispute facts not entered into evidence. The opposite of blind rage is not inaction. In your favor, pacifism and diplomacy for the sake of avoiding violence is also a losing tactic.
Listen. My first schoolyard fight was with a Samoan guy, twice my size and 3 years older than me. I spilled hot chocolate on his shirt. The fight was inevitable, and I knew I would probably have to fight dirty (which I did). But what I also knew was that if I knock over any more hot chocolate onto the table full of his buddies sitting there…I was gonna be in even deeper sh*t.
I took my lumps and distrubuted my own. I walked away, he limped.
As evidenced by the current wave of anti-Christian rhetoric and legislation, you and I both know that bigotry is not limited to race or ethnicity. Furthermore, there is a huge difference between bigotry and racism.
I agree that Islam has become a political veil for many. And we must be careful. Many liberals will go out of their way to protect Islam as a gesture of anti- bigotry while engaging in covert but clear anti-Christian behavior.
You have made a very provocative argument. I agree that Islam presents many problems for Western nations. I also agree that Islamofascism seeks to dominiate through overpopulation and legislative aggression. We will end up in a very bad place in 20-25 years if we do not bolster our Western and largely Christian values.
The only thing I am afraid for is losing our American values in our quest to save Western Civilization.
Exit question: Can we maintain our historic reverance for Constitutionality and morality while battling a growing number of political and social insurgents who have no regard for our way of life?
End
The Race Card on August 6, 2007 at 3:15 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3