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: 1 2 3 Next »
So little faith in your commenters…
Yes, it’s crazy.
brak on August 3, 2007 at 6:04 PM
Everything stays on the table.
Even the table is in play.
Or you lose the bluff.
If it is a bluff.
profitsbeard on August 3, 2007 at 6:04 PM
If Tancredo is crazy for wanting to hit Mecca, what does that make Bush for giving so many Saudis visas to the U.S. and wanting to further arm Saudi Arabia and “nation build” in Iraq?
Folks who live in glass loony bis should not through rocks.
MB4 on August 3, 2007 at 6:06 PM
The Muslims are entitled to Mecca and I absolutely reject cringeworthy rhetoric like this. Thanks, Tancredo, jerkimer.
RushBaby on August 3, 2007 at 6:06 PM
Absolutely crazy. He’s trying to put all of Islam in a single bucket. Wrong.
We need to have some of the Muslims on our side killing the Jihadies.
Be careful what you wish for. Bombing Mecca would indeed make a unified wall of Islam against us.
I want to put all of the Jihadies in a single bucket and drop in a MOAB. There’s no need to have every Muslim in that bucket.
TunaTalon on August 3, 2007 at 6:06 PM
I am a small brained person. I told my sons on about
9-12-01 that if we wanted to stop this world wide
encroachment that there would have to be three targets.
Mohamed (peace be on his name) said that without these three
holy sites Islam would not Exist.
spike on August 3, 2007 at 6:07 PM
Puhleeeeeez, the muslim world is already firmly behind jihadism! Tancredo had nothing to do with it. It’s in the koran.
heroyalwhyness on August 3, 2007 at 6:08 PM
Probably just his best guess seeing as he has expressed a willingness to replace that strategy with a better one if presented.
I thought your headline of “nuke” surprising and went to read the article but did not find that term used.
Spirit of 1776 on August 3, 2007 at 6:09 PM
My bad, AP. On “submit” I realized my folly.
yo on August 3, 2007 at 6:09 PM
Unrealistic?
Spirit of 1776 on August 3, 2007 at 6:10 PM
Tancredo’s plan is the only way that MAD can possibly work with Islamists. Name an alternative deterrent that may prevent Islamists from nuking one or more of our cities and I’m sure we would all be the wiser for it.
FloatingRock on August 3, 2007 at 6:10 PM
Just to clarify, I believe he said he would attack holy sites in Mecca. He didn’t advocate destroying the whole city or anything. It’s still crazy, though.
RW Wacko on August 3, 2007 at 6:11 PM
I agree Tancredos statements were way out of line. This is where alot of the hawk conservatives dont get it. Threats and things like MAD dont work with these people. This is the same reason we cant just go around killing terrorists all over the world. Its a big game of whack a mole that will never stop. we have to change the atmosphere, education and sentiment in the middle east to a point where the everday arab sees that it is really their fanatical leaders that are keeping them in their ruts. Which is exactly what is going on today. I would suggest anybody who doesnt understand this read of the 9/11 report. href=”http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec12.pdf”>
CaptainObvious on August 3, 2007 at 6:11 PM
Anyone think the radical muslims would think twice about nuking the Vatican if the got their hands on some?
It might not be that crazy an idea. I’m not thrilled with it, but I see the point he’s trying to make. Nothing is off limits to them, so why should anything be off limits to us?
Kowboy on August 3, 2007 at 6:12 PM
sorry dont know how to work the link thing but its chapter twelve that I was refering to that didnt link.
CaptainObvious on August 3, 2007 at 6:12 PM
There is no deterrent for Islamic terrorists; killing them is the only way to stop them.
RW Wacko on August 3, 2007 at 6:13 PM
To keep the enemy off-balance is essential.
Even Mohammad prophecized that the Ka’aba would be destroyed.
The less certain they are of your level of response, the more they will hesitate to tempt seeing their holy cash cow get chicken fried.
The Saudis need motivation to help us crush the violent Jihad, too.
(They can have all of the “innner struggle” they want afterward…)
profitsbeard on August 3, 2007 at 6:13 PM
I am a
smalllarge brained person. I told my sons on about9-12-01 that if we wanted to stop this world wide
encroachment that there would have to be three targets.
Mohamed (
peacepiss be on hisnamehead) said that without these threeholy sites Islam would not Exist.
spike on August 3, 2007 at 6:07 PM
MB4 on August 3, 2007 at 6:14 PM
Tancredo is nuts. Of course no option is off the table, but reality is one thing and blabbering about reality is another thing.
Honey-roast him and put him in a Planter’s jar.
Splashman on August 3, 2007 at 6:15 PM
For the outside, I think you are right. I don’t think the West can deter it. But how ’bout from inside the Muslim world? Is it possible?
Spirit of 1776 on August 3, 2007 at 6:16 PM
we have to change the atmosphere, education and sentiment in the middle east to a point where the everday arab sees that it is really their fanatical leaders that are keeping them in their ruts.
CaptainObvious on August 3, 2007 at 6:11 PM
That seems to be working out real well.
MB4 on August 3, 2007 at 6:17 PM
Somebody Nuke the State Department.
thareb on August 3, 2007 at 6:17 PM
Back in the 70’s, Islamic fundamentalists attacked Mecca because they thought the Mecca goers were too moderate for Islam. The structure was destroyed and many innocent Muslims were killed. This all took place a few days after Iran took Americans hostage. So what did some of the Middle Eastern news sources do? They tied the two events together and concluded that it was Americans who attacked Mecca in retaliation for the hostage crisis.
We didn’t encounter a violent reaction then.
Disclaimer: I’m not agreeing with Tancredo or AP with this statement. I’m just pointing out a historical perspective.
jediwebdude on August 3, 2007 at 6:17 PM
Does wanting to nuke Mecca mean Tancredo is banned from this forum?
jman on August 3, 2007 at 6:19 PM
The other day you called me a “fag,” now you’re making cracks like this that are only going to cause headaches for Michelle when people see them. I’m warning you now formally: knock it off. No threats, however jokingly, and no slurs. Okay?
Allahpundit on August 3, 2007 at 6:19 PM
The best thing we can do to stop these people is to kill as many of them as we can in the field. I agree nuking Mecca and Medina would be crazy.
jdawg on August 3, 2007 at 6:20 PM
If your gonna bomb mecca, make sure you do it at the right time.
It’s just crazy enough to work.
TheSitRep on August 3, 2007 at 6:20 PM
*rolls eyes*
I agree with brak, very little faith in commenters. The war that would create would be very scary indeed. The political will to finish such a fight does not currently exist.
Theworldisnotenough on August 3, 2007 at 6:20 PM
Chpt 12 What to do? A Global Strategy
12.1 Reflecting on a Generational challenge
It took 4 years to get the sheiks to side with us but it has happened.
CaptainObvious on August 3, 2007 at 6:20 PM
Didn’t Tom Clancy already deal with this in “The Sum of All Fears”?
Mecca… no. But I might be willing to give Qum, Iran a long, hard look.
jeffshultz on August 3, 2007 at 6:21 PM
It took 4 years to get the sheiks to side with us but it has happened.
CaptainObvious on August 3, 2007 at 6:20 PM
That is only a marriage of temporary convenience.
Wait and see.
MB4 on August 3, 2007 at 6:21 PM
In Pakistan, the US embassy in Islamabad was attacked by rioters.
mram on August 3, 2007 at 6:23 PM
Nuke Mecca? Crazy talk.
flipflop on August 3, 2007 at 6:23 PM
Yes Allah, That statement was seditious.
I hope Tancredo’s ideas are not considered so.
TheSitRep on August 3, 2007 at 6:24 PM
Hugh Fitzgerald, co-host to Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch – “The
fact that some Sunni Arab tribes have “turned on” Al Qaeda [also
know as al-Qaeda in Iraq. Not the real al-Qaeda.] does not mean that
now those Sunni tribes are “allied with us.” They aren’t.They are
simply getting revenge for the Al Qaeda attacks on them. That’s it.
No change of heart about Infidel Americans. No change of heart about
Kurds. No change of heart about the Shi’a, who if not quite “Rafidite
dogs” nonetheless should not be permitted to lord it over the Sunni Arabs.
The interpretation — misinterpretation — of the split between the
relatively tiny (though murderously effective) Al Qaeda group [also
know as al-Qaeda in Iraq. Not the real al-Qaeda.], and the much larger
group of Sunnis who will never acquiesce in their loss of power to the
Shi’a, and never — it is out of the question — be true friends, or
friends at all, of the Americans, show the limits of the current events.
MB4 on August 3, 2007 at 6:24 PM
Yes, I believe it is possible, though unlikely. It would require a level of introspection that their leaders don’t want them to develop. When the population is inundated with anti-Western rhetoric from the cradle to the grave, it is no surprise that some extremists take it upon themselves to strike back at the infidels.
RW Wacko on August 3, 2007 at 6:24 PM
maybe; but look at Iran, a more educated society. Alot of their civilians know when they are being abused by their leaders and have began to revolt against them.
CaptainObvious on August 3, 2007 at 6:25 PM
If mushroom clouds had appeared yesterday over Washington DC and NY, what, may I ask, would the “Tancredo is crazy” commenters here suggest we do to retaliate, if anything?
Retaliation is one thing, but what would the “Tancredo is crazy” commenters here do to prevent the mushroom clouds from appearing in the first place, if anything?
Maybe Mitt is right with his appeasement strategy. The west doesn’t have the will to survive anymore.
FloatingRock on August 3, 2007 at 6:25 PM
Is this the thread where we can finally comment about nuking and destroying the septic center of the Muslim cult without getting banned. I’ve been waiting a year on this list to finally be able to post thoughts on this without the pacifists that moderate the site from banning me. We should have bombed mecca on 9/13. Are you people freaking crazy? You win a war by throwing everything you have at it and hitting the enemy where it hurts. Which one’s of you think we have Muslims on our side with respect to destroying the Jihadists. They are, by definition, all Jihadists in training. They may never detonate the bomb or actually kill someone, but it’s not because they don’t want to or believe it’s the thing to do, it’s just that their chance may never come. And for those of you that don’t think all of Islam should be put in the same bucket and treated accordingly, your help is not needed nor will it be of any benefit. It is that sort of thinking that’s going to get more innocent people hurt and killed in the world. While you people are trying to figure out who’s on our side and who’s not (BTW, the very definition of the Muslim religion does not allow any of them to be on the side of peace and righteousness) they’ll be slaughtering innocents left and right. It’s high time “the world” stands up and tells these whackos that one more large scale attack in the name of Allah, and it will cause the holy (that’s an oxymoron word when you talk about their cult) sites of said cult to be decimated. In the history of the world, more people have died in the name of religions than any other reason. In those deaths, more have died as a result of Islam being involved than any other one religion. It’s time to end this nonsense and remove this parasite from our planet. The globe has gotten too small to tolerate this nonsense and we need to get serious about making these people a non issue.
rayvet on August 3, 2007 at 6:27 PM
maybe; but look at Iran, a more educated society. Alot of their civilians know when they are being abused by their leaders and have began to revolt against them.
CaptainObvious on August 3, 2007 at 6:25 PM
You may have a point with Persian Iran.
MB4 on August 3, 2007 at 6:28 PM
I agree. What’s the percentage so far?
Obama might consider Tancredo’s considering whether he’s in a particularly hawkish or dovish mood that day.
frankj on August 3, 2007 at 6:29 PM
I wont speak for the others but I never said the option should be abandoned but publically stating it does nothing to help avoid the “to prevent the mushroom clouds from appearing in the first place”
CaptainObvious on August 3, 2007 at 6:30 PM
afghanistan was the same way, before the taliban took over it wasnt a thriving metropolis but it wasnt what it was after the roads and schools were destroyed, people were isolated and generations of uneducated dependent serfs began to increase in their populace.
CaptainObvious on August 3, 2007 at 6:32 PM
Why?? Sounds like a great idea to me! I at least would not rule out any target in a war!
JellyToast on August 3, 2007 at 6:34 PM
rayvet on August 3, 2007 at 6:27 PM
Right on! Right on! Right on!
“Men ought either to be indulged or utterly destroyed, for if you merely offend them they take vengeance, but if you injure them greatly they are unable to retaliate, so if injury be done to a man it ought to be such that vengeance cannot be feared.”
- Niccolo Machiavelli
MB4 on August 3, 2007 at 6:34 PM
Who needs nukes? Just send in CIA Squirrel Brigade and their allies, the British Badgers Of Destruction.
Vinnie on August 3, 2007 at 6:36 PM
Thanks you for bringing that up. I’m truly hoping there is a new Revolution in Iran. There is a definite strategy in “deprived” and “oppressed” societies to keep the masses uneducated and reliant upon their government for information and for their very survival. I saw it up-close and in action in a communist-run state in India. I agree with you that education and access to the outside world is a key to combating extremism.
RW Wacko on August 3, 2007 at 6:37 PM
Actually I for one take Tancredo’s comment as being somewhere between dead serious and Ronald Reagan’s “We start bombing in five minutes”
MB4 on August 3, 2007 at 6:37 PM
If there’s another 9/11, or worse, in this country, how much choice do we have? Something big would have to be taken out in retaliation. They, the Saudis, already killed more people in one attack than happened at Pearl in WWII, and we were quick to declare then. These ‘people’ are going to take take take the more more more we give in. Although with this country being 50% liberal it would take a real leader, a strong leader, and strong houses of congress to do it, like the begining of WWII. I don’t see it happening. It’s going to come down to guys defending neighborhoods, block to block. For now, watch what’s happening in Europe, the same thing ‘could’, I emphasize ‘could’ happen here if we let it.
countywolf on August 3, 2007 at 6:39 PM
I say do it. It’s just a mosque covering an asteroid that’s been kissed at least a billion times. They’ll get over it. The State Department is a bunch of complete morons that don’t care about the interests of the U.S.
PRCalDude on August 3, 2007 at 6:40 PM
Hey, Allah I actually like Slate, or at least Kaus.
RW Wacko on August 3, 2007 at 6:40 PM
So the following argument comes to mind: flip the side that is doing the appeasing. If we can play our hand from a position of strength, we would do well. I don’t know how that can be done however without energy independence.
Spirit of 1776 on August 3, 2007 at 6:42 PM
AP was right to worry about some commentators.
zane on August 3, 2007 at 6:47 PM
Yeah it’s irresponsible to talk like that at this point, though the option is, by default, always there. The thing that people need to think about is that it won’t deter diddly. They’ll just change their current reading of the Koran to take it into account. Our only acceptable course at this point is to try to convince a sufficient number of them that they want Double Quarter Pounders with Cheese more than they want 72 grapes.
TBinSTL on August 3, 2007 at 6:48 PM
PRCalDude on August 3, 2007 at 6:40 PM
What we really should do is take some x-ray photos from one of our satellites and demonstrate to the world that that object is not really an asteroid, but the calcified toenail of their megalomaniacal prophet.
RushBaby on August 3, 2007 at 6:48 PM
We are more likely to have energy independence with Democratic leadership. We are also more likely to have millions of terrorists training overseas unabated, maniacal American-hating dictators with nothing to fear, and millions more illegal immigrants pouring over the border.
At least the Republicans are paying lip-service to the issue nowadays, but our dependence on foreign oil may end up being our downfall in the long run.
RW Wacko on August 3, 2007 at 6:50 PM
Yep. Nutso. This kind of apocalyptic rhetoric serves no useful purpose.
As for the brilliant idea of fighting terrorism with terrorism. I hate to break it to the nutroots, but there will never be a world where that makes sense. Punishing a billion people for the acts of a handful is nothing but crazy talk.
There is no easy answer. The transition from barbarism to civilization is never an easy one under the best of circumstances, and Muslims are a lot more intractable than any other group of savages we’ve had to deal with so far.
But we are very slowly and very painfully making the Arab world realize that terrorism will get them the opposite of what they want. Terrorism isn’t a fad with these people; they have been VICTIMS of it themselves for 1200 years. And more Muslims are finally freed to talk back against their oppressors every day this war is waged.
As Ronald Reagan once said: there are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We are winning very, very slowly – but we are winning. Bombing Mecca would be as easy as pie – but it wouldn’t solve a damned thing.
logis on August 3, 2007 at 6:51 PM
My faith in the triumph of “moderate Islam” is not strong, to say the least. If more 9/11s occur, then extreme measures may become necessary.
packsoldier on August 3, 2007 at 6:51 PM
All options are on the table period.
Why do we pay do much money for all these nuke, if we are never going to use them.
Bad investment.
JayHaw Phrenzie on August 3, 2007 at 6:52 PM
It’s a duel, not pattycakes.
profitsbeard on August 3, 2007 at 6:53 PM
nuke them now!
Ropera on August 3, 2007 at 6:54 PM
too much?
Ropera on August 3, 2007 at 6:54 PM
I can agree it might be crazy to expect it would cause deterence among the radicals. So then what does the threat accomplish? Sometimes drawing a line in the sand is necessary even if you suspect the enemy may cross it. It makes it clearer who are your allies and enemies. I don’t know if the threat of nuke is the best way to accomplish it though.
I know this goes against all conventional wisdom and non politically correct, but polarization could be good. Honestly think about it. Isn’t that the biggest problem we have, that our enemies don’t declare themselves enemies? If a dozen countries declared war on the U.S. tomorrow this would be huge victory for the U.S. With its 12 aircraft carriers it would clean up the globe in any kind of WW2 style openly declared war. It is this quasi-non-defined-never-ending-quagmire battles where you can’t tell who the enemy is that is a threat to a free Republic.
Resolute on August 3, 2007 at 6:54 PM
Thanks Vinnie… now I’ve got that “Badgers, Badgers, Badgers…” thing (with photoshopped badgers marching into Helms Deep) running through my head.
jeffshultz on August 3, 2007 at 6:55 PM
Forgt Mecca.
But I wouldn’t mind if a missle hit the palace of the Saudi royal family.
That would say to terrorist financiers…
“We know what you’re up to and we can end you at any time.”
Zach on August 3, 2007 at 6:56 PM
This is a gray area. I’m not saying this should be our first option but life is long and complicated. Are there no circumstance under which we would nuke Mecca? I doubt it. We can all imagine some bizarre, if unlikely, scenario that makes many thing possible. I guess the question is: In response to what? A nuclear attack on NYC or DC? The simultaneous destruction of several cities? The death of a million Americans? Ten million? C’mon, we can’t say that such a response is unthinkable, merely impolitic. It’s not appropriate to talk about it.
Say a revolution in Arabia puts a Mahdi in charge, a true fanatic like a Muslim Lenin. Then nukes go off in LA and Seattle, leaving untold dead and our economy in tatters. Standing at the Kaba this fanatic praises the strike as a holy act and urges more. This is a very unlikely event, but not impossible. Who can tell me you wouldn’t at least think about it? Who can tell me you wouldn’t actually want it to happen? Who can say that he wouldn’t urge the government to do it?
Life is long. History takes many twists and turns. I can’t say what I’ll want to do in the future. What seems like an insane atrocity now may seem like the only reasonable course of action in a very different future.
After all, in 1915 who would have imagined we would destroy two Japanese cities a generation later?
Thomas the Wraith on August 3, 2007 at 6:56 PM
But we are very slowly and very painfully making the Arab world realize that terrorism will get them the opposite of what they want. Terrorism isn’t a fad with these people; they have been VICTIMS of it themselves for 1200 years. And more Muslims are finally freed to talk back against their oppressors every day this war is waged.
logis on August 3, 2007 at 6:51 PM
At the rate things are going success should be here about three days before time itself comes to an end.
MB4 on August 3, 2007 at 6:57 PM
OK lets look at the scenario. A nuke goes off in New York. Several million dead and millions more blinded or sick
It turns out it was Islamic terrorists
So what is the correct responce ? Do we go into policeman mode and try and hunt down insurgents hiding in hills almost impossible to find ?
I personally favor the MAD approach. We tell muslim countries to reign in their nutcase. We warn them that if a Nuke goes off in our country there will be no second guessing or hesitation. We will hit back and it will be with all our might.
Then we get into target selection. Do we nuke a remote corner of Pakistan with little life there ? Does a Islamic terrorist from Indonesia care if we bomb Pakistan ? Does a Jordanian one care ?
There is only one target that unites them. One target they would fear to lose. So we to prevent the ultimate tragety HAVE to make it clear to the Islamicists that they will pay the ultimate price.
To do any less is to surrender the advantage to the terrorists and garauntee that our cities will be nuked.
William Amos on August 3, 2007 at 6:57 PM
Can’t send ground forces north of the 17th parallel, bombing runs have to use certain routes approaching Hanoi, can only bomb certain targets, can’t pursue into Cambodia… Johnson taught us to enjoy this type of conflict. Even if the attack is on our own cities, why should we change?
jaime on August 3, 2007 at 6:58 PM
Yes, I can’t escape that thought myself. It indisputably has made us weaker.
Peace through strength. We paid for them so we wouldn’t have to use them. It’s like health insurance for your daughter…doesn’t mean you hope she gets sick.
Spirit of 1776 on August 3, 2007 at 6:59 PM
A previous commenter was correct: the so-called “holy sites” (said with clenched teeth) are the the only real MAD deterrent we have. We should have red lasers on that place 24/7, just to get the point across.
If there are “reasonable” and “moderate” Muslims out there (tightly clenched teeth), give them the responsiblity of policing up their lunatics, not us.
Honestly, I was surprised Mecca wasn’t turned into glass around mid-September, 2001. I really was. THAT is the time Bush should have flipped off the camera and grinned.
Or have all of you forgotten about those poor folks having to make the unthinkable choice of jumping 90 stories to their death? They were my countrymen then, and they still are today.
Or maybe that doesn’t matter anymore… I mean, it WAS almost six years ago. Time heals all wounds, I guess.
(teeth shatter)
I could go on, but you get the point. Mecca? I care more about the contents of my trash can than the contents of that one. If Drudge popped up with “MECCA NUKED!” one morning, I honestly would be more concerned with the Rockies/Braves score from the previous night.
Thus endeth my sermon.
wccawa on August 3, 2007 at 6:59 PM
When did he say he was worried? Why should he be worried?
That someone may say they’ve had enough of capitulation to islamofascists and that it’s way past time that the muslim world reeled their own nuts in?
To date the west hasn’t done anything that would force the muslim world to finally get off their ass and destroy the sickness that is enveloping the world. I’ll give Tancredo credit for at least having the balls to finally say something that might get their attention instead of “oh, we understand … it’s a religion of peace”.
You mess with us … you get it back … bigger. That’s all he was saying. Sometimes the threat of losing something is enough to get the gears working.
Maybe CAIR will file some lawsuit stipulating that the US may not retaliate if nuked … muslims would find it offensive. Probably work too the way things go.
darwin on August 3, 2007 at 7:00 PM
There is a clash of civilization and Islam seeks to eventually impose its domination over the world. Some Mulsims want to impose Allah’s will immediately by force (Al Qaeda, Taliban, etc.) others want a slow and stead creep and infiltration until armed conflict because realistic or maybe even not necessary through demographics (CAIR and the Saudis). We, the west, are already fighting an asymetrical war with the Muslim world. The war wages on, but most on both side refuse to declare it openly. The Saudi are our enemies in the long run — they know it, and we know it, but neither of us will admit it openly — both finding it currently advantageous to feign friendship. I guess only bin Laden and Tancredo are willing to call a spade a spade
Eventually we will have to do to Islam what we did to political Shintoism — impose by force of arms a separation of mosque and state.
tommylotto on August 3, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Of course, THAT argument PRESUMES that the goal is deterrence. Is that Tancredo’s goal? AllahPundit’s goal?
It sure wouldn’t be MY goal.
That why we shouldn’t make threats. God doesn’t make threats. He makes promises.
Now watch WAY MORE than 5% of the HotAir’s readership read things into my remarks that were never there in the first place. (The mass hysteria is almost…magical.)
CyberCipher on August 3, 2007 at 7:07 PM
Allah, I’m surprised at you! No Tancelot pic? Really?
Bad Candy on August 3, 2007 at 7:07 PM
Hey buttheads!!! Tancredo has the right idea, just the wrong address. Nuke Tehran, that’s what we need to do.
Andy in Agoura Hills on August 3, 2007 at 7:08 PM
Nuke burritos!
Bad Candy on August 3, 2007 at 7:10 PM
Look we have already had the shell game by the Saudis and others. They tsk tsk the attacks by Islamic nuts then turn around and fund them. The moderate Arabs are Part of the problem. They have not fully stepped in to deter their own crazies.
Pakistan and Saudi arabia are allies yet they arent trustworthy on this issue. The only thing that would get them to FULLY back us is a threat that we wont tolerate them turning a blind eye to what is doing on in their countries.
I really hope it doesnt come to us having to use nukes. But like in WWII there may come a time when that is the only solution. Do we hesistate and not use a weapon in our arsenal because its too deadly ? Or do we bite the bullet and take the hit to win the war and bring aout peace ?
Sometimes you have to take the hardest option for the best result.
William Amos on August 3, 2007 at 7:13 PM
Thomas the Wraith on August 3, 2007 at 6:56 PM
You make good point, and under the circumstances you cite, I think most Americans would be all for turning the whole ME into one large sheet of glass.
Unfortunately, the dhimmis running this country would do nothing but “talk” and try to “understand” “why they hate us”
*spit*
jdawg on August 3, 2007 at 7:15 PM
You mean, just like Hiroshima/Nagasaki convinced the entire Japanese population to fight-to-the-death rather than surrender?
Oops. Sorry. That’s right. They either surrendered and/or committed suicide, didn’t they? Bad example I guess.
CyberCipher on August 3, 2007 at 7:20 PM
Saudi Arabia and Wahhabiism are the main source of the problem.
darwin on August 3, 2007 at 7:21 PM
Don’t worry Allah. If Tancredo bombed Mecca, crazy Jihadis wouldn’t attack America, because he’d make sure the borders were truly secure first – unlike the other fake “conservative” candidates that you DON’T use pictures of rare meat to introduce. Instead of a picture of meat, Allah, why not find a picture of a huge set of testicles for Tom?
bucktowndusty on August 3, 2007 at 7:22 PM
I think it’s a good idea. We must be willing to be badder and rabider and insaner than they are.
dhimwit on August 3, 2007 at 7:22 PM
…Actually, I agree w/ Tancredo. Only I would have already done it.
tele64 on August 3, 2007 at 7:22 PM
I have a MUCH better idea, but I wouldn’t say it in a public forum EVER. I’ve had this idea for about 10 years now.
ThackerAgency on August 3, 2007 at 7:22 PM
Let me clairfy one thing. Im not advocating a nuke strike on mecca. I stated before that we should consider a surgical conventional strike with the goal of destorying the shrines at Mecca and Medina.
We wont kill the people of Saudi Arabia. But we will kill Islam because we will turn their holiest site into a crater and they will no longer be able to do the Haji.
William Amos on August 3, 2007 at 7:25 PM
Allahpundit,
While threatening to nuke Mecca may not deter the Islamists from nuking us, it does build expectation of such a response in the event of a nuke going off here. I think that is a good thing.
The problem we face fighting a faith is that when the bin Ladens of the world hit the Great Satan hard and successfully elude capture, the Islamists and their sympathizers believe they’re free because of Allah’s protection in reward for their obedience. Even here, if a devout Christian drives into a tree at 80 MPH and walks away, he may be convinced that it was God’s will he was not as dead as he should have been.
If a nuke goes off here and proportinal force is not used, the end result is again the belief that what has transpired was Allah’s will, as proved by the holy sites still remaining through His most merciful protection. And I personally think that victory for the Islamists convinces the fencesitters and sympathizers that Allah is in fact exercising his will and that promised judgement has again been delivered. That’s why many extremists Muslims downplay the tragety of the deaths of 9-11 but will marvel at the “miracle” that only 19 men armed with tiny blades pulled it off.
I doubt an ICB would bounce off an invisible dome above Mecca, but I agree that such a response would be counterproductive. However, the Muslim world needs to think our leaders are capable of such a response.
Perhaps an American invasion and occupation of holy sites would be a better show of force. Moderate Muslims would be relieved that their worst fears did not come to bear, but the real nuts would be beside themselves thinking about Mecca in the hands of the infidels. Occupation might prove more defeating to the Islamists than its obliteration.
shuzilla on August 3, 2007 at 7:31 PM
Our goals should NOT be limited to deterring the Jihadists, and should NOT include killing Muslims en mass as the first principle or tenet of any strategy of deterrence.
Our primary goal SHOULD be to find ANY way that we can of getting Muslims to abandon their primitive, backward crackpot/cult religion — preferably of their own free will.
How can AllahPundit disagree? — since both Hitchens and Dawkins would most likely agree.
CyberCipher on August 3, 2007 at 7:32 PM
Let me propose an alternate idea: instead of nuking, let’s just load their space rock onto a flatbed and carry it off. We can dump it in an ocean trench or something.
PRCalDude on August 3, 2007 at 7:34 PM
You’re right, they surrendered. But Truman made the choice to drop the bomb based on the reports concerning an invasion of the Japanese main islands. American casualties alone were estimated at over 1,000,000.
Alfred Coppell(sp?) wrote a book called “The Burning Mountain” based on Japanese home defense plans and American invasion plans that were to be used if the Manhattan Project had failed. Conservative estimates were about 5,000,000 casualties on both sides.
The nuclear option is the last option. However, I wouldn’t ever rule it out.
Kowboy on August 3, 2007 at 7:41 PM
Nuke the cube and the holy asteroid of Jetson.
Hening on August 3, 2007 at 7:54 PM
AP, I think you’re right on. I don’t think anything would unite the Muslim world more than nuking Mecca and Medina. Tancredo’s trying to throw out populist red meat here, but it’s stupid.
Along the same theme, however, I have to give a shout to frankj at IMAO for his “Nuke the Moon” strategy.
CP on August 3, 2007 at 7:54 PM
Just a few thoughts:
1. Destroying Mecca and Medina, by nuke or otherwise, in retaliation for another terrorist attack on the US is crazy, however:
2. We know that there is such a thing as being too civilized when dealing with barbarians; maybe there is such a thing as being too rational when dealing with lunatics or a lunatic situation.
3. Muslims around the world danced in the streets by the tens of millions on 9/12. How many will dance when DC and NYC go up in twin mushroom clouds?
4. I am not advocating Tancredo’s position (yet), but I would like to see a poll of the Muslim world “Would you continue supporting jihad terrorism against the US if you knew that the next major strike against the US resulted in the destruction of Mecca, Medina, and the Karbala?” I think the results of that poll, if valid, would give us a better ruler to judge his idea against than mere rationality.
Lancer on August 3, 2007 at 7:55 PM
Count me as one of the 5%.
Bradky on August 3, 2007 at 7:59 PM
wccawa on August 3, 2007 at 6:59 PM
I for one my friend have neither forgotten nor forgiven, if we ever nuke Mecca I will be praying that it happens at the hight of Ramadan at the peak of the Haji. Hell why stop with Mecca if we do it we might as well hit Medina and the (may the Israeli’s please forgive me) Damn accursed Dome of the Rock.
doriangrey on August 3, 2007 at 8:00 PM
You are overlooking the possibility that making a position as you suggest leaves open the very real possibility that a group or nation would do it just to see us vaporize lots of the mideast.
That is why driving a stake in the ground like that is NOT a good idea at all.
Bradky on August 3, 2007 at 8:07 PM
Tanc just moved theperceived center of the political spectrum to the right.
Why? Because all solutions short of what he suggested seems reasonable.
Thanks Tanc for taking one for the team!
csdeven on August 3, 2007 at 8:13 PM
Muslims have declared war on the West and vowed our destruction. Moderate Muslims? Show me some. Yes, if they bomb one of our holy cities we should return destruction seven-fold. The Jihadists will understand and respect that threat! Tancredo has spoken what many of us have been thinking for quite some time.
drewas on August 3, 2007 at 8:19 PM
I love Tancredo. Not just because he’s willing to call a spade a spade on the illegal immigration issues and islamofacsists, but because he drives Allah wild. :)
Blake on August 3, 2007 at 8:26 PM
You aren’t really comparing the Japanese to radical Islam, are you? Really?
Tanya on August 3, 2007 at 8:35 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »