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 Next »
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.
CyberCipher on August 3, 2007 at 7:32 PM
Would that be before or after we build a warp drive Starship out of mud and straw?
MB4 on August 3, 2007 at 8:44 PM
He is the only one in the government who has the right ideas about fighting this war.
Why is it that we decided in WWII to strike Berlin and Munich and no one cared that it would “enrage” more Nazi sympathy, but for some reason Mecca is off the table.
Spencer is wrong, his argument about the fall of the Calphate being weathered by Islam is not an apples to apples comparison with bombing Mecca (and Dome of the Rock for good measure).
Tim Burton on August 3, 2007 at 8:49 PM
Jerusalem has been under steady violent attack for a long time, now, and a majority of muslims around the world support these attacks on Jerusalem. The only holy site in all of Judaism, the Temple Mount, is routinely used as a staging area for muslims to rain rocks down on the heads of Jews praying.
If muslims support attacks on the only holy site in Judaism, then I don’t see any reasonable argument that muslims should not expect their holy sites to be targeted by others.
Whether one agrees with Tancredo, that Mecca and Medina are the best targets to list for effective deterrence against muslim aggression (and 70%+ approval ratings around the islamic world for Bin Laden tell us the true breadth of support), there is no question about the fairness of bringing those sites onto the target list. It is fair and everyone knows it. The only question is whether someone is scared – but the bulk of the muslim world can be whipped into a frenzy by mere cartoons, so I don’t think that trying to appease muslims will get us anywhere. That turns more muslims against us than threatening their sites.
What was the world islamic reaction to the destruction of the Red Mosque (among many other holy sites in Iraq) by other muslims? Nothing. Muslims don’t care about holy sites the same way westerners do. And, for anyone who doubts that, just think back to the Pal terrorists who used the Church of the Nativity as a fighting base and personal bathroom. No muslims came out against that abuse of one Christianity’s holiest places, so they should expect much the same in return.
progressoverpeace on August 3, 2007 at 8:49 PM
You aren’t really comparing the Japanese to radical Islam, are you? Really?
Tanya on August 3, 2007 at 8:35 PM
The japs (that’s what one of my uncles who was in the Army Infantry at Okinawa called them to his dying day and he would want me to use that term) were damn
radicalfanatical back then.MB4 on August 3, 2007 at 8:50 PM
I think,G!d forbid if anything was to happen on
your on soil,involving smashing atoms together.
Then Islam’s holiest site may well be a
smoking gapeing hole.
canopfor on August 3, 2007 at 8:51 PM
I blame Kang and Kodos ▲
Kini on August 3, 2007 at 8:52 PM
Please purchase and read “The POlitically Incorrect Guide to Islam” by Robert Spencer.
PRCalDude on August 3, 2007 at 8:58 PM
Why is it that we decided in WWII to strike Berlin and Munich and no one cared that it would “enrage” more Nazi sympathy, but for some reason Mecca is off the table.
Tim Burton on August 3, 2007 at 8:49 PM
Because we weren’t
nazifieddimmified back then?MB4 on August 3, 2007 at 9:00 PM
Please purchase and read “The POlitically Incorrect Guide to Islam” by Robert Spencer.
PRCalDude on August 3, 2007 at 8:58 PM
I have got my copy of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to ISLAM (and the Crusades)” by Robert Spencer.
It is right next to my copy of “In Mortal Danger (The Battle for America’s Border and Security)” by Tom Tancredo.
MB4 on August 3, 2007 at 9:05 PM
Will Rage Boy show his face again?
mram on August 3, 2007 at 9:06 PM
I’m not saying some of their soldiers weren’t barbaric. I know all about Bataan. But this is a whole different motivating, unifying force.
Tanya on August 3, 2007 at 9:08 PM
Unless I miss my guess most muslims already hate us.
So nothing we do will make them like us.
Maybe they need to fear us more than like us.
William Amos on August 3, 2007 at 9:16 PM
i wonder why ap does threads like this. It basically proves that around half the commenters here are batshit insane. O’reilly wouldn’t have to sift through years of comments to profile hate on HA.He could look on this thread.
crr6 on August 3, 2007 at 9:19 PM
I think this comment thread stands out as one of those not-so-rare instances wherein Republicans/conservatives make themselves very difficult to defend.
Much of what I have read here sounds like rationalized bigotry. This thread sounds EXACTLY like the left wingnuts going off about how Republicans want to go to war because the encroaching Apocolypse ordains it.
Threats against all Muslims, excretory references to their religious figures and the kill ‘em all attitude do nothing for our base. Such reckless rhetoric essentially brands the entire lot of us as ridiculous, if not hateful.
Don’t go telling me that I don’t have the requisite anger I should after events like the attack on our country on September 11, 2001. I hate what happened to my countrymen and I hate those people who attacked us. Luckily, for the next Muslim I encounter, I understand that no group is well-defined by their extremists.
Christian extremists often keep company with violent, racist and/or terroristic Americans. I would not like to be defined by these people.
Granted, the percentage of extremist Christians is very low. Also granted is the fact that Islam is the second most popular religion and had notably dense geographical penetration. Those are forboding factors which make it difficult to respond rationally. I get that.
There is no shortage of ingenuity and courage in America. I just think many are misguided and have lost their way, due to poor leadership.
A thread like this certainly should generate more well-reasoned discourse and less reactionary blather.
The Race Card on August 3, 2007 at 9:23 PM
crr6 on August 3, 2007 at 9:19 PM
Bless your sanity.
The Race Card on August 3, 2007 at 9:27 PM
Bless your sanity.
The Race Card on August 3, 2007 at 9:27 PM
Sanity is highly overrated!
MB4 on August 3, 2007 at 9:30 PM
Want try Kos and the hate that goes on there ? The anti Semitism and Neo nazism ?
William Amos on August 3, 2007 at 9:32 PM
O’Reilly is also HIGHLY overrated!
MB4 on August 3, 2007 at 9:34 PM
Maybe they need to fear us more than like us.
William Amos on August 3, 2007 at 9:16 PM
“From this arises an argument: whether it is better to be loved than feared. I reply that one should like to be both one and the other; but since it is difficult to join them together, it is much safer to be feared than to be loved when one of the two must be lacking.”
- Niccolo Machiavelli
MB4 on August 3, 2007 at 9:36 PM
baloney. We are talking about the extreme of millions of fellow citisens dead and what we should do about it.
We advocate a strong resxponce. Unlike Obama who is ready to surrender at the drop of a hat. Or try diplomacy.
If millions of americans are dead then I hope we arent as stupid as Bill Clinton to launch a few worthless missles and write the dead of because its “too much trouble to be bothered with”
Cowardice comes in many forms. Inaction is the biggest form of cowardice
William Amos on August 3, 2007 at 9:37 PM
I’m with Tanc on this one. This is a war, after all. Wage it to win or don’t wage it at all.
infidel4life on August 3, 2007 at 9:37 PM
“Everything stays on the table.”
All right there Dr. Strangelove.
Nonfactor on August 3, 2007 at 9:39 PM
We take cowardice off the table. unlike the democrats who only know that
William Amos on August 3, 2007 at 9:41 PM
I’m with Tanc on this one. This is a war, after all. Wage it to win or don’t wage it at all.
infidel4life on August 3, 2007 at 9:37 PM
Life is really simple, but some insist on making it complicated.
- Confucius
MB4 on August 3, 2007 at 9:47 PM
One question for those that want to take this option off the table: What kind of response would YOU favor should terrorists successfully detonate a nuke in an American city.
It’s a fair question.
thirteen28 on August 3, 2007 at 9:47 PM
While you may think it’s a bad idea, calling Tancredo a “nut” for putting it out there is ludicrous.
Has anybody else put a deterrent out there besides “dialogue”, “education” yada yada yada?
And who cares if the whole Muslim world is against us? Did we care if the whole Soviet world was against us when their cities were assured to be blown to dust during the Cold War? No. And don’t tell me, “it’s a different world” because I ain’t buyin’ it.
Just how deep does the pussification of America reach?
Metro on August 3, 2007 at 9:48 PM
This article unfairly neglects to state the context in which Tancredo made that statement.
If I recall correctly, Tancredo was ask point-blank what he thought America should do if one of our cities was destroyed by a nuclear device planted by terrorist. To this, Tancredo stated that we should destroy the Islamic “holy” sites. That is the context in which he made that statement, and I agree with him one-hundred percent.
The way I see it, Islamic “holy” sites are much more to them than church buildings are to Christians. If a Christian church gets burned down or blown-up or destroyed by any means whatsoever, there are no tears shed… it’s just a building… we re-build it and that’s that.
But for Islam… their sites are like a “power source” for the fanaticism that drives them. Destroying those sites would shake the foundations of their beliefs and that is exactly what we want to do. Demoralize them…. it could actually save lives, and not just ours.
Maxx on August 3, 2007 at 9:52 PM
Why do people like to pretend that we don’t have a gigantic nuclear arsenal?
progressoverpeace on August 3, 2007 at 9:53 PM
Allow me to quote the great Michael Savage on this issue….. Whats so difficult? If someone wants to cut your familie’s throat you cut theres first. If someone wants to bomb your house you bomb there house first. War is kill or be killed. If we had a dirty bomb or anuclear explosion inside the United States bombing Mecca is the LEAST radical thing I could think of doing.
Joey1974 on August 3, 2007 at 10:05 PM
Hysterical. Have you been following Robert Spencer’s Blogging Through the Qur’an series? If we’d spend more time documenting the hate found in that one book than ‘hate’ on this site, we’d have the terrorists on the run. Thanks for being a fifth column.
PRCalDude on August 3, 2007 at 10:17 PM
The Japanese of WWII were motivated to suicidal fanaticism by their religion — Shintoism. This political religion made peace impossible until the entire population was thoroughly subdued. Then we forced a constitution upon them that prohibited the commingling of politics and this religion. That is how we turned a fanatical militaristic theocracy into a friend and ally. [Very unlike what we are doing in Iraq]. We need to do the same for the Muslim theocracies. Hopefully it will not require a pair of nukes to do, but I doubt the chances of that.
tommylotto on August 3, 2007 at 10:22 PM
How so?
Islam is a set of beliefs not an ethnicity.
Islam is as much a political movement as a religion.
Zach on August 3, 2007 at 10:22 PM
And why doesn’t the goofy State Department just shut-up ? What have they been right about in the last twenty-five years, I can’t think of a single thing. Wasn’t it the State Department that was so quick to go along with Jimmy Carter’s big plan to undermine the Shah of Iran because of “human rights violations” which shifted Iran from being our friends to the enemy it is today?
I doubt the State Departments patriotism and I doubt it often, and I’m not joking.
Maxx on August 3, 2007 at 10:22 PM
I am going say right here right now, They have taken Europe, if you think the Vatican or for that matter the Pope are safe you do not really know the massive evil we face. Tancredo has the back bone to say it, unlike our new world order state dept.They want us all dead! What part about dead don’t you understand? I’m with Tancredo!!
build the wall on August 3, 2007 at 10:27 PM
Yes, Tancredo’s remarks may accelerate the muslim’s war against us, but that’s a good thing. Since muslim aggression is as inevitable as Nazi aggression in 1938, the sooner we have the war with them the better–the fewer atomic weapons they will have to launch.
If you want to find a truly Tancredo ridiculous statement, I suggest looking at the debate where he stated his belief in Creationism. It’s why I would find it hard to vote for him. On the other hand, I do think he is one of the few truly nice politicians. Perhaps, I could bring myself to vote for him.
thuja on August 3, 2007 at 10:37 PM
Fvck Mecca, and fvck Tancredo’s half measures. One ought not merely threaten the life of a prince; one ought to act against him in such a way that he can’t even think of taking revenge. Given a free hand, I would destroy the rulers in Riyadh, Damascus, and Tehran, and I’d threaten all the rest. I would not engage in nation-building. I would seize the oil fields of Saudi Arabia and extort the accounts and investments of the House of Saud. I would silence my critics by selling oil cheaply to my allies and to respectful neutrals and by giving nothing to my mouthy critics, except barrels and barrels of STFU juice.
As for Mecca and Medina, I would hold them as hostages. I would charge pilgrims for admission. Profits from oil sales would fund my research programs in solar energy, but charges to see the Ka’bah would fund my restoration of the World Trade Center in minute detail. I’d make it clear that if I ever failed to make the annual quota on admissions charges, my friends and I would barbecue pork ribs on the Ka’bah. I’d promise never to nuke the holy cities, but promise, too, that if muslims didn’t promptly cut the sh1t, I’d desecrate the holy cities with my p1ss and then nuke them.
Kralizec on August 3, 2007 at 10:40 PM
If that scenario occurred, I wouldn’t be surprised if non-Muslim Americans started retaliating in small organized mercenary-style groups. This would be the result of loss of faith in the U.S. government. Factions would start targeting Muslims in the U.S. and Europe, and possibly go into Islamic homelands. It would be chaotic.
The radical Muslims don’t seem to understand the counter-productive method to their madness. If they keep pushing westerners with violence, a boiling point will be reached and the wrath of retaliation could be unlike anything they had imagined.
The non-radical Muslims aren’t doing enough to out the dangerous radicals. What the moderate Muslims don’t seem to comprehend is the violent actions of the radicals have the potential of putting the moderates at risk of retaliation.
jediwebdude on August 3, 2007 at 10:41 PM
Hell, if you even drew a cartoon about it someone would get beheaded. I wouldn’t be surprised if he has a Jihad put on him for saying that. Which makes him a lot cooler to me for some reason…
I heard on the radio a few years ago someone say that we should rebuild the Twin Towers just as they were, and name one Mecca, and the other Medina. Then tell the Jihadis that as long as those two buildings remained standing, their namesakes would also. They were quoting someone, maybe themselves.
I’m jumping in late here, if someone mentioned that previously sorry.
Dork B. on August 3, 2007 at 11:06 PM
The moderates are convinced the jihadis are winning, And we feed that over here in the states.
In 1993 they hit the towers. We arrested a few people. In 1995 they hit the Kolbar towers. We hit saddam. In 1996 they blasted the USS Cole and killed more. We barely did anything. In 1998 they killed hundreds in the Africa embassy bombings. Clinton launched a few missles at Afganistan. Then came 9/11….
Each instance we held back. and the attacks got worse. Each time they grew bolder.
Yeah Iraq is a mess. But for a change it isnt US civilians dying because our government is too afraid to do anything
Moderates will abandon Jihadist when we show them that the Jihadists cant win.
William Amos on August 3, 2007 at 11:12 PM
I was thinking Project Bluebeam could be useful at Qom. We could project the risen 12th Imam. hehe
Connie on August 3, 2007 at 11:15 PM
Now that is creative thinking!
Connie on August 3, 2007 at 11:16 PM
I don’t see anyone here advocating the eradication of Muslims. What they are saying is that if we get hit, we have a right to hit their most precious sites. I agree that there are some semi-hate filled posts here, but I don’t see anyone suggesting that genocide is the answer.
Eliminate the entire city that they are supposed to pray to 5 times a day and their entire structure for life is disrupted. They are still alive, but their ideology has taken a hit. They used to pray toward Jerusalem, then Mohommed changed it for them to pray toward Mecca. If there is no Mecca, they have to re-evaluate their daily routine.
Here again, it seems like hate – but I wanted to detonate a nuclear bomb in Iran last August when Iran defied the very first UN inspection request. I didn’t want to kill anyone, but one nuke detonated in the middle of their desert, televised across the world, would be the most effective and appropriate ‘negotiating’ tactic. When Ahmadenijad got done picking his jaw up off of the ground, we tell him that the next nuke would be over Tehran if he didn’t comply with UN resolutions within the week.
THAT is how you negotiate with these people.
ThackerAgency on August 3, 2007 at 11:32 PM
Go home Tancredo, your 15 minutes are up
EricPWJohnson on August 3, 2007 at 11:34 PM
We’re arguing extreme positions because the unthinkible is now thinkible. We have to have some idea on how to act if this does happen.
Do we have comissions and debates and little action after millions are dead ? Some seem to suggest this very thing.
Diplomacy is not an option if LA or NYC or any other city goes up in a nuclear flash
William Amos on August 3, 2007 at 11:35 PM
I’m sure the Military has some contigency plans for various scenarios.
Dork B. on August 3, 2007 at 11:43 PM
To tell the truth, I believe thats one of the main reasons why we havn’t been hit again.. The terrorist know GWB is crazier(I say that in a good way for us that is) than they are. Has nothing to do with us doing a better job of securing our country.. has everything to do with the fact that you have a President willing to kick butt, just give him a reason..And Tancredo will carry on that philosophy.
Legions on August 3, 2007 at 11:53 PM
Anti-Tancredo zombies continue to mislead readers by misrepresenting the facts.
Even as the headline would seem to indicate that Allah is aware of this, he still insists on using the story to mock Tancredo. As with the NAU subject, Allah is continually dishonest to his readers regarding Tancredo and the NAU.
Tancredo has never suggested bombing Mecca. Ever. The suggestion was to TELL them that you would have that as an option IF they were to attack you. The idea was to use the THREAT as a deterrence.
These people, when arguing the accuracy of the quote, resort to quoting the following portion of the interview:
Unfortunately, this isn’t the entire text and the first part of the first sentence is conveniently left out of the quote, effectively changing the intended suggestion.
Here is the actual quote (emphasis mine):
Notice a very important difference. Tancredo never said we “should nuke Mecca.” He suggested that we “THREATEN” that we would “take out their Holy sites.” There was never any mention of using nukes. The suggestion was to use the THREAT of ATTACKING “Holy sites” as a “deterrence.”
It’s the deterrent, stupid.
Those who are attacking Tancredo for this are no different than the liberals who attack the war plan. They misrepresent the facts to fit their agenda, all the while refusing to offer a better solution.
The question is … what do you do to “deter” terrorism by followers of Islam? Death, torture, and life in prison are NOT a deterrent to radical Muslims, and in fact … these penalties actually MOTIVATE them by making them martyrs.
Do you have a better idea?
Most of these people are smart enough to know what Tancredo was suggesting, so one has to wonder what motivates them when they purposely ignore the truth in their desire to mock the man.
Oh yeah, and I guess Allah and the other mindless followers who consistently brown nose him also think Laura Ingraham is “absolutely crazy.” She seems to think most of America agrees with Tancredo.
As for the article Allah linked to at Slate, we find that the author has a serious comprehension problem of his own. He writes …
“How destruction of Islam’s holiest sites could possibly represent appropriate punishment even for the trash-talkers is not immediately obvious.”
Once again, we have a writer ignoring reality and claiming that Tancredo suggested the action as a “punishment.”
Again … it’s the deterrent, stupid.
Appropriate “punishment” would be to lower anyone found to be involved into a bath of pig’s blood moments before hanging them in a public square. This would eliminate any illusion they might have of being rewarded with virgins and glory.
Gregor on August 3, 2007 at 11:56 PM
Could you give me an example of some of these “Christian extremists” you are talking about and what “violent, racist and/or terroristic Americans” they are associating with?
Maxx on August 3, 2007 at 11:58 PM
Yep…we’ll be open season the minute Hillary becomes prez.
jediwebdude on August 3, 2007 at 11:59 PM
It’s not crazy; the argument should be, as many have made above, whether that’s the most effective place to retaliate or not. The terrorists have no central place of government, no other symbols for us to attack. If they want to wage a war of symbol-attacking, we ought to give it to them.
I think “nukes” are unnecessary at first: we want the ability to continue to escalate. Let them feel a daisy cutter and then decide if they’re still up for more. And we could first hit, say, the field where they throw the rocks, instead of the ka’aba.
TexasDan on August 4, 2007 at 12:05 AM
Plus, I thought it has been established that we’re going to nuke the moon first.
TexasDan on August 4, 2007 at 12:07 AM
The Twin Towers were such hideous architecture that naming them after Mecca and Medina should be sufficient insult to the Muslims.
I’m not sure how to write the next sentence without idiots with limited ability to understand logic reacting negatively, but rest assured I’m not actually saying that logically is evil, even if you imagine so at first. I see the point of 9/11 as an act of architectural criticism. Of course it was not an act of architectural criticism. It was an act of war and an act of terrorism. Still hear me out. Mohamed Atta, suicide pilot of American Airlines Flight 11, was an architecture and urban planning student who hated structures like the World Trade Center. He was also an Islamic nut and his major point was an overall hatred of the West. Obviously, it was not his feelings about architecture that lead him to kill people, but he must have taken some pleasure in the destruction of the hideous buildings themselves. And obviously, I do not promote or condone architectural criticism by vandalism. I am, however, morally allowed to appreciate an eyesore gone. I am allowed to say that 9/11 improved the NYC skyline.
thuja on August 4, 2007 at 12:08 AM
Exactly. Great comment.
Gregor on August 4, 2007 at 12:10 AM
I say we take the Palestinian approach.
Let’s just throw rocks and molotov cocktails at Mecca and go from there.
Vinnie on August 4, 2007 at 12:24 AM
I am, however, morally allowed to appreciate an eyesore gone. I am allowed to say that 9/11 improved the NYC skyline.
You have the Absolute Moral Authority of Cindy Sheehan.
And, like Cindy Sheehan, 99.9% of Americans will think you’re a stark raving lunatic.
Vinnie on August 4, 2007 at 12:31 AM
No New York and/or no Washington DC=no Mecca, no Medina
A. Let them know in advance.
B. It’s good for Muslims to hear some Americans talking like this, because the terrorists are not just a threat to us, but to them also.
Little Boomer on August 4, 2007 at 12:33 AM
I don’t think it is good, nor do I think it is wise to state this as some kind of policy. You are encouraging the jihadists to do it anyway since we will bring down the governments for them and they can advance the cause.
You could also have a Tim McVeigh type who believes God has whispered in his ear that he is the chosen one to begin the Apocalypse by instigating an attack on the mideast.
Bradky on August 4, 2007 at 12:40 AM
You are.
And I’m allowed to remember the very first time I flew into New York in 1995. I looked out the window as we circled to land and saw the Towers lit up and sparkling, reflecting the perfect golden sunrise, not unlike the morning of 9/11. I’ll never forget it. Wonderous and beautiful sight.
Now when I see old movies that show New York and the Towers standing tall; my heart aches that they’re not there anymore, and I become angry.
And I am morally allowed to remember and appreciate exactly why I’m angry, and it has nothing to do with racism.
techno_barbarian on August 4, 2007 at 12:52 AM
Ltes try it this way. If a US president has a choice of either allowing a US city to be nuked or attacking Mecca and pissing off muslims I would have to say that if a president choices option 1 then he(or she) isnt fit to be president.
William Amos on August 4, 2007 at 12:58 AM
What President is going to allow a US city to be nuked? Your comparison is flawed.
Bradky on August 4, 2007 at 12:59 AM
Why do you imply that McVeigh was some kind of religious… perhaps Christian nut when he was reported to be an agnostic? And by his own words stated that he had lost touch with religion ?
Maxx on August 4, 2007 at 1:00 AM
Old News. Tancredo has said this before, albeit while stuttering badly. Unfortunately it is a symbolic attack, which will do nothing to deter jihadist mentality. On the contrary, it will most assuredly encourage it amongst the Islamic masses.
He would make a good Secretary of Defense however, with his stance on border security and immigration control. Homeland security director for sure. Just give him a pen and paper to express his thoughts and excuse him from the room for a time-out when he invokes that “nuke Mecca” thingy of his.
awake on August 4, 2007 at 1:01 AM
Note that I said “believes God has whispered in his ear”. By definition if he were Christian he wouldn’t have committed that crime would he?
The Son of Sam thought his Dog was Satan talking to him or something like that. Pick any scenario you wish – the point is that a nut is a nut. You are being overly sensitive.
Bradky on August 4, 2007 at 1:03 AM
The jihadists can be deterred alright. Don’t think they can’t.
In the early ’80s, a Russian ambassador was taken hostage by islamic radicals in Lebanon. Rather than negotiate, the Russians seized the son of the ringleader. They cut off the boy’s ear in a video and returned the ear and the video to his mother. The Russians were released. For 20 years after that, no other Russian was bothered by the jihadists. In the same time, scores of Americans were kidnapped and/or murdered. The moral of the story? They can be deterred just by an ear alone.
The reluctance to even consider Tancredo’s idea is sad testimony to how deeply antagonistic even most conservatives are to the idea of war with islam – even when islam itself demands it and 20th century history teaches us the inevitability of mass warfare on civilian populations when their totalitarian governments enjoy the ideological support of their people.
If bombing Mecca could be beneficial to the west, should it not be done? If cutting the ear off a boy would save lives, should the ear take precedence? Do we make a suicide pact with our conscience? Should we let our civilization be destroyed, comfortably knowing we died ethically superior? Some would say Yes. And that is what islam is counting on.
jihadwatcher on August 4, 2007 at 1:07 AM
Bradky on August 4, 2007 at 1:03 AM
Yes I am sensitive when I perceive that Christianity is getting a false/bad rap, and I speak up. And that is correct, McVeigh was not a Christian.
Maxx on August 4, 2007 at 1:10 AM
And missed the main point in the process re threatening to nuke mecca?
Bradky on August 4, 2007 at 1:12 AM
this speaks for itself
Janos Hunyadi on August 4, 2007 at 1:14 AM
Do not think that Muslims will react like anyone else would if their holy sites are attacked. They respect only raw, brutal power.
Instead of providing a rallying cry, they will submit meekly. They are either at your feet or at your throat. There is no place for equals in Islam, whatever taquiyya they spout.
Decades of war in the Sudan when Field Marshal Kitchener destroyed their holiest site, the Tomb of the Mahdi and scattered his bones.
Mecca, Medina, and Qom are the black heart and lungs of the vile beast. We should have ripped them out on 9/12/01. That would make Islamic Rage Boy even more angry? Cry me a river.
The definition of a ‘moderate’ muslim is someone who tries to distract you so his buddy with a knife can sneak up on you and slit your throat. I am a firm believer in reciprocity. There are no innocent infidels? Infidels should be converted, subdued, or killed?
As Ace said in another context, I don’t like being the first guy into the gutter.
I have less of a problem being the second.
Akmed might be proud his son dies in a suicide bombing. Knowing that his son’s actions will result in the death of him, his wives, his other children, his siblings, parents, cousins, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, neighbors, coworkers, etc., etc….
I think he’ll be more motivated to turn little Mohammed in. Maybe he’ll even consider not raising him to hate the infidel more than he loves life.
If not, dead men don’t breed. One way or another, Islam as it exists today will not survive this century. How much blood is shed depends on them, not us.
ticticboom on August 4, 2007 at 1:15 AM
Oh geez…we can’t even use water-boarding on captured terrorists without the ACLU and libs crying “Bush is using torture!”
jediwebdude on August 4, 2007 at 1:19 AM
There is nothing I can say that won’t get me banned, assuming my account survives my post above.
ticticboom on August 4, 2007 at 1:20 AM
Pick a liberal candidate. Any liberal candidate, except Lieberman, but that would be the one guy you liberals don’t like, wouldn’t it?
Gregor on August 4, 2007 at 2:12 AM
And CAIR coerced (didn’t take too long either)Hollyweird into changing the bad guys to South Africans. You know, the ones who are always strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up women and children.
Texas Nick 77 on August 4, 2007 at 2:21 AM
During the Cold War the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction acted as a deterrent to prevent either side from preemptively attacking the other. While I suspect there were plenty of people who found the concept repulsive, what could they do but accept it if they wished to survive?
The arguments of some of the people here in this thread that appose a MAD policy with Islam are identical to arguments against a MAD policy with the USSR back in the day. What possible justification would we have had for nuking all of USSR in retaliation when virtually nobody in the USSR had a voice in their government? What right do we have to kill so many innocent bystanders? And here are some examples of what people in this thread think of MAD and people who support it:
So there we have it. How far we’ve fallen. What once was a generally accepted strategy for survival that has to date been successful is no longer accepted by many Americans. In fact, many of the people here apposed to MAD seem to feel that those who support it are racists, bigots or crazy. Whatever… Reminds me of the shamnesty “debate”.
Why the change in opinion, I wonder? Some of these people seem to feel that since most Muslims don’t play a direct role in the Jihad and therefore the strategy is somehow invalid. Yet, as I’ve addressed above, this same argument would have been even stronger in reference to MAD against the USSR. The leaders of the USSR probably had less support than Bin Laden does in much of the Islamic world. I’m only speculating but there was probably more support for the USSR in Hollywood than in the USSR itself.
Then there are those who claim that MAD won’t work in this case because Muslims are insane and they all want to die in a horrific way along with everybody else they know. Perhaps they are correct but I doubt this is a common feeling in the Islamic world. More likely, as in the USSR and Nazi Germany, the bad guys that we really need to be concerned with are only a very small percentage of the whole. Most Muslims are sane, I bet, and when confronted with the prospect of MAD would act very much like Americans did during the cold war: they would be scared silly. They would probably build bomb shelters, stocking them and taking other measures to increase their chances of survival, assuming they can afford to. They might ask for spiritual guidance at their Mosque, the leaders of which may begin feeling some pressure. They might take action to stop the bad guys in their midst by capturing, killing or reporting them to authorities. Imams may start talking about the dangers of extremism in every Friday sermon.
But ultimately, let’s assume for a moment that Islamic culture and Muslims in general are so vile that MAD would only cause them to fall in behind and support the Jihadists, as some have suggested or inferred… would it matter? If they are such terrible people, why should we even hesitate to announce a MAD policy? If their hatred is so frenzied that everything we do to dissuade them only increases their belligerence, than what alternative will we have but to eventually destroy them? I find this, the worst case scenario, to be highly unlikely and I suspect that similar arguments were put forward at the beginning of the Cold War, yet after all of these years MAD is still in force.
FloatingRock on August 4, 2007 at 2:51 AM
I think it depends on the nature of the next terrorist strike upon America. Recall Wretchard’s “Three Conjectures”
In Conjecture 2: Attaining WMDs will destroy Islam
Wretchard wrote:
Yes, striking Mecca and Medina is most certainly on the table. It might not be a deterrent, but it could very well be the end result.
Pretending that it is too inflammatory to speak out loud doesn’t change Wretchard’s points about the nature of Islamofascism. Or what might happen to Mecca, Medina and other Muslim population centers should the United States be struck by nuclear armed Islamic terrorists.
georgej on August 4, 2007 at 3:28 AM
Didn’t we have this exact same discussion here about four months or so ago?
Nuke Mecca?
No way.
I don’t like releasing the nuclear ‘genii’ when conventional weapons will do the job just as well, without as many negative side effects.
But to destroy one of the major shrines to
satanthe enemy’s false deity…. Indeed, I’d be willing to do the job myself, in retaliation for a massive strike against a US target.I’d warn them right now: (six years ago, actually, were I President) any WMD attack or massive conventional attack on American targets, and they can kiss Masjid al-Haram, Al-Masjid al-Nabawi and Hazrat Masuma goodbye.
The only way to stop these islamic terrorists (that won’t take, literally, generations of education, money and American lives) is by convincing their ‘moderates’ that they will lose the only things that they hold to be of value if they continue to (allow their fundamentalists to) make war upon the worldly powers.
With normal, rational people, the threat of loss of their lives, the lives of their loved ones, their economy is enough to get them to see reason. But when people WORSHIP death and destruction, and are content to live in a poverty stricken feudalistic, theocratic society, the deterrents to violence that have worked against our enemies in the past are of no use.
The only deterrent is to threaten what they DO value in this life…. and that is in Mecca, Medina and Qom. (and a few other places).
LegendHasIt on August 4, 2007 at 4:46 AM
Gregor on August 3, 2007 at 11:56 PM
Well said Gregor..Thanks, I believe to secure our borders will solve many other major problems we are have..
Legions on August 4, 2007 at 8:14 AM
Legions on August 4, 2007 at 8:14 AM
oops..we are having…more coffee please..
Legions on August 4, 2007 at 8:17 AM
I find the responses in these posts to be both interesting and disconcerting. Interesting in that I had always thought the majority that visited here were conservatives that valued the ideals on which this country was based and on knowing what it took to get it to where it is. However, I have been proven wrong by the vast number of posts that suggests we can negotiate and rationalize with these animals. Disconcerting because these same conservatives in name only try to accuse those of us that realize what is necessary (the total destruction of the Islamic cult as we now know it) of being rascist or supporters of genocide. It’s time the world wake up and smell the roses. It’s been asleep, in denial, attempting the PC path etc. for way too long with this scourge that is the Islamic cult and those that practice it’s teachings. It’s high time everyone realize the fact that Muslims and our society do not mix PERIOD. They shouldn’t even come here as their way of life is not compatible with ours and they can not assimilate. We recently had a new ice cream store AND mailing store open side by side in my community several months ago. In my patronizing of these two stores, I struck up conversation with their owners and sometime during the talks asked quite bluntly “Are you Muslim?”. Both answered yes and I will not patronize those establishments anymore and tell others I know why they shouldn’t either. It’s time we cut these terrorists off where they need it at their funding. Many of you can sit there and comment that I’m racist, prejudiced, whatever, but all I know is that 25 years from now, if the Muslims have taken over 1/2 of what they are now trying to, I’ll at least know I did my best to prevent it by trying to get them to go back from where they came.
rayvet on August 4, 2007 at 8:44 AM
That is patented crap and you know it. Any president would respond. Saying that one party or another wouldn’t care if a city was attacked is quite frankly fearmongering.
You cannot back up that assertion with any statement or writing of any presidential candidate.
Bradky on August 4, 2007 at 9:01 AM
I think tank’s comments were a little over the top, just a little. I also think he was “playing to the crowd” as it were.
Having said that, if I had heard a suggestion like that on 9/12/2001, I would have been all for it. And even today if you were talking about hitting NE Pakistan I would at least mull the idea over. I don’t believe though, that the concept of MAD works in the current conflict.
conservnut on August 4, 2007 at 9:21 AM
Why is this being discussed? Of course the destruction of Mecca and Medina should be on the table. Bush should have spoken on 09/12/01 that any attacks on our nation would bring massive bombings to all islamic holy sites in the world. Also for each attack an oil field in a seperate country would be taken over to pay for the repairs of the attack on our country.
These people are the same ones that blow-up buddas. This is language they would understand.
We would not have even needed to go into Iraq. The “moderate” muslims would have hung every terrorist the next day to protect their shrines.
unseen on August 4, 2007 at 9:33 AM
Tom the right man for the right times with no money.
unseen on August 4, 2007 at 9:34 AM
ticticboom on August 4, 2007 at 1:15 AM
But…but…but that would be like total war….we can’t do that…we are civilized….said the British to the Americans in 1775. Why don’t we just you know do limited war said LBJ to the Veitcong…..OR maybe we could…you know…give into some of their demands for the sake of peace said chamberlian to the Nazis…..We don’t want to target populations that hate us said….the Allies during WW1….but total war never wins said the Northen army generals before Sherman and Grant….Nah let’s just fight a low intense conflict for the next 50-60 years said the USA to the USSR……
Wars should be short, swift, brutal and destroy the enemy so that war is never seen as the best first answer; but always the last worse answer.
By promoting wars that last for decades the people become immune to war and the results of those wars multiply.
So your post is right.
unseen on August 4, 2007 at 9:44 AM
Of course.
Our enemies can openly talk about nuking our cities. They can fly planes into our civilian buildings, killing thousands. They can overtly tell us that, if possible, they will kill us all – men, women, and children – with no distinction made between civilian and military targets.
They can behead and torture civilians on camera. They can stone women to death for the vaguest independent thought. They can murder filmmakers for exercising free expression, they can spend decades hunting down an author who offends them in fiction, they can openly cheer our tragedies.
And in our own country – they can all rest easy, knowing WE will do all we can to make sure they aren’t “offended.” They can burn our flag, desecrate our religious symbols, and we will do nothing. NOTHING.
Meanwhile, if one of our own desecrates their “holy book,” – we will take it upon ourselves to charge that person with “hate crimes.”
While the poor innocent victims continue their global onslaught of murder and rape and torture. Beheading people with rusty knives on television. Murdering innocent missionaries, one by one, while their friends weep in horror. Attacking schools and killing children.
And plotting, every day, to find a way to kill us in the millions. Or tens of millions. Or hundreds of millions. No one doubts this. No one doubts that, if Muslim radicals find a way, if they buy themselves a nuke or two, whether they’ll use them.
This is reality. Cold, hard, factual reality. This is what we face.
———————–
And yet we’re “crazy” to even DISCUSS hitting them back. To even DISCUSS actually fighting this enemy. To even DISCUSS ways to use our military power that might – just maybe – prevent some of the above.
We can’t even TALK about it, even amongst ourselves, without being labeled as “crazy.”
Dear sweet God. This is insanity. Never in history has any sovereign power worked so hard and so long and so diligently to bring about its own suicidal end.
Professor Blather on August 4, 2007 at 9:49 AM
there is a bully on the playground that takes your lunch money everyday and knocks you around a bit. somedays are worse than others. couple options:
a) let’s just take it and hope the bully eventually learns to live peacefully with me. just give up the lunch money and take the beatings.
b) let’s be threatening every once in a while. refuse to give up the money or take a couple beatings now and then.
c) or lets be a threat. punch out the bully and knock him into next week. i will maintain my dignity and I will be a slave to no one.
options a and b are choices of an individual that does not know what dignity is, or willing to let it go. they will make good slaves and will seek to ‘fit in’ with their masters.
those that choose option c, they and their families will die free with their dignity intact. bullies understand actions, they aren’t interested in diplomacy, only subjugation.
Expand this to your scenario – I am more aligned with rayvet and i pick option c.
AZ_Redneck on August 4, 2007 at 9:53 AM
AZ_Redneck on August 4, 2007 at 9:53 AM
and
Professor Blather on August 4, 2007 at 9:49 AM
For 6 years now the MSM and our government has been quietly trying to put the giant back to sleep. Yes we opened our eyes on 09/11/01 but we are still in the time between sleep and full awakeness. There are attempts to sing us back to sleep so that we do not get up and start massive destruction that would cause major disruptions in economies and governments around the world. A large minority of Americans are fully awake and are demanding an end to this conflict by total war.
Still the vast majority are still asleep content in their safe homes and jobs and do not want to expand the effort to swat the bee buzzing around us. Sure it stung us once but we survived. What will we do when we are stung once more or twice or the entire hive stings us?
That is what keeps Bush up at nights. He knows that if that happens the American people will DEMAND an end to it and that means Total war the likes the world has never seen and never will again.
One civilization will prevail and one will be placed in the dustbin of history. There is still hope to avoid this clash but it requires us to sacrifice long help views like our founding documents.
unseen on August 4, 2007 at 10:11 AM
Is it? Is it a war? Are you sure?
You’re reading an allegedly “hawkish” blog – yet half the commentators are calling you “crazy.”
The reality, as this thread clearly demonstrates, is that no more than 10% of Americans truly believe we’re fighting a war. And I’m probably being generous.
We can’t even openly DISCUSS options – even among conservatives – without hearing labels of “crazy” and “reactionary” and “nutty” and “hateful” and “bigoted.”
If most people truly believed we were fighting a war, that wouldn’t happen. A war is about survival – and the truth is that even most hawkish conservatives don’t, in their hearts, believe we’ve reached that point yet.
It is insanity, of course. It is madness that, even in a place like this, even DISCUSSING all possible options is attacked with labels like “hate.”
If we all believed we were actually fighting a war, my friend, this wouldn’t happen.
And in the end there are only two possible outcomes:
1) The “you’re crazy” crowd turns out to be right. The countless millions of fanatic Islamists see the light and peace reigns (or at least as close as us nutty humans ever come to seeing peace reign); or
2) The Muslims do exactly what they’ve told us over and over that they’re going to do it – and the next attack(s) make(s) 9/11 look like nothing at all.
I sincerely hope it turns out to be option 1.
But history, if it teaches anything, suggests that option 2 is much more likely.
At the very, very least, at least in a place like this, we ought to be able to discuss how to prevent option 2 – and what happens when option 2 comes to pass.
Sadly, you can almost guarantee what will happen. You can just about be sure that, sooner or later, the worst will occur.
And when it does, the same people calling you “crazy” today for even TALKING honestly about world events – will be screaming the loudest that we didn’t do enough, soon enough.
In the end, you and your family and your children may die … just so that enough people believe we’re really “at war” to allow us to openly and honestly discuss our options.
Professor Blather on August 4, 2007 at 10:13 AM
If we’re hit again by muslims, Islam should no longer exist as a religion in the USA. We should add an amendment to our constitution banning it. And our response to such an attach? I prefer the Ann Coulter response to 9/11 of invading their countries, killing their leaders and converting them to Christianity (or nothing, or anything other than Islam). And to hell with what others think while we’re doing it.
BowHuntingTexas on August 4, 2007 at 10:15 AM
Very well sad.
And what causes me the most sadness – and its a bitter sadness – is that I *know* we’re going to all fully wake up, and I also *know* what’s going to have to happen before we do wake-up.
Many, many Americans are going to die before we wake up and do what we could do today, if we had the will.
And then … what are all of the “you’re crazy and bigoted” folks going to say? “Oops?” “Our bad?” “We were wrong?”
We have it on our power, right now, to prevent a future tragedy beyond historical precedent.
But we won’t do it.
And that saddens me to no end.
———————————-
I’ve been having these very thoughts watching coverage of the Minnesota bridge disaster … and it’s providing a perfect analogy. Have you been watching?
What has the government done in response? Of course – NOW they’re suddenly inspecting all the bridges of similar design all over the country. NOW they’re suddenly spending hundreds of millions of dollars to inspect and upgrade those structures.
NOW they’re taking the steps that – if they’d been taken before – could have prevented the tragedy.
It’s a perfect analogy for our response to global Islamic fascism. We won’t do what’s needed NOW, will we?
But I can guarantee that we WILL seal the border, we WILL let our military actually fight, we WILL all start acting like this is a war …
… and we’ll do all of that right after it’s too damn late to do any good.
We will indeed slam the barn door closed … right after the horses have escaped.
For now … why, you’re crazy to even talk about closing that barn door, aren’t you? It might offend the horses.
That’s as stupid as spending money inspecting bridges before they fall down, isn’t it?
Of course it is.
The best part of all? The best part of all is that the very same people preventing us from inspecting the metaphorical bridge, the very same people keeping us from even talking about ways to close the barn door before the horses are already out … will be the first to point fingers when the worst case scenario happens.
Wait and see. The one place they’ll never point a finger will be at themselves.
Professor Blather on August 4, 2007 at 10:25 AM
Right on TICTIC and RAYVET! That Racecard guy must think that islam is a ‘religion of peace’. If any of his family was killed or maimed he’d be the first to call for revenge. Of course retaliation is necessay. I don’t think 9/11 was ever avenged. Islam is an infection. As infections do, it will come to a head to be erradicated by an antibody. Hopefully, sooner than later.
countywolf on August 4, 2007 at 10:26 AM
Striking Mecca in retaliation would allow us to more easily identify the enemy-they would be those turning around in circles on a regular basis because they have lost their compass and sense of direction.
MSGTAS on August 4, 2007 at 10:41 AM
countywolf on August 4, 2007 at 10:26 AM
I’m not looking for revenge I’m looking for victory. Victory will be revenge enough. But to obtain victory one must first have goals. to this end Bush has been a failure. What are our goals in the WOT? What is victory? Bush has not stated except for some general ideas (i.e not to be attacked again) That is not a goal that is a result.
unseen on August 4, 2007 at 11:17 AM
Professor Blather on August 4, 2007 at 10:25 AM
That is what happens when the herd is led by one of the herd instead of a true leader. A strong stallion or bull will at times stop a herd from stampeding and chart a safe course for them. A weak leader just follows the herd over a cliff.
unseen on August 4, 2007 at 11:19 AM
“It’s the deterrent, stupid.”
America1st on August 4, 2007 at 12:05 PM
Muhammad did not leave a document explaining what should happen to Islam after his death and the fighting started even before he was buried. It took them a while to finalize the book and ended up with its current form which does not follow the historical order of the “revelations” leading to great confusion with respect to its interpretation and its relations with Dar Al Harb (That’s everyone else).
In any case the last remnants of a structure which could, in theory, negotiate for Islam died after World War I with the end of the Ottoman caliphate. We must remember that in Islam religion and government are intertwined in such a way that the western idea of their separation of the two is unthinkable. There is a movement, principally among Sunni Muslims, to propose a new Caliphate as a model for global rule. During its implementation this “government” could negotiate in the Name of (political) Islam with those infidel entities which had not yet been assimilated. (Of course, there would be no transactions with the Zionist entity.)
In any case none of today’s governments can speak for Islam as a whole and the only targets terrorist cells, radical training camps, high profile religious schools and clerics and, finally the holy sites.
I would not like to see Mecca or Medina destroyed. It would leave me with the same feeling that I had when the Buddha was blown up by the Taleban in Afghanistan. However, threatening to blockade the holy sites, thus eliminating Hadj, would be an interesting idea.
Taking out minor holy sites like the famous mosque in the city of Qom in Iran where the Mahdi is to appear or Karbala would be fine. Destroying the centers for centers for temporary marriages would really upset the more sex crazed Ayatollahs. Shutting down, by destructive means if necessary the main Islamic universities and religious training centers wherever they may be.
Annar on August 4, 2007 at 1:02 PM
I wonder if the difference of opinions concerning MAD is due in part to the age of the commentators—perhaps the people who don’t understand MAD are too young to realize it’s prominence and effectiveness in the world before the fall of the USSR. I only remember the tail end of the Cold War myself, but that was enough for me to understand the concept. When I was a kid there was a time when I was truly afraid that the USA might be destroyed by the USSR, which was during Mondale’s run for POTUS and his avocation of unilateral disarmament.
Besides naiveté, some of the commentators here seem to feel that in this case MAD won’t work, presumably because Muslims worship death, but then conclude that these death-worshipers have some intrinsic value and shouldn’t be nuked or have their holy sites destroyed. Those of you who hold this opinion, how do you reconcile the contradiction?
FloatingRock on August 4, 2007 at 1:02 PM
It’s interesting that in your response, you were actually dishonest about what your own original quote was. You originally asked (emphasis mine) …
In your follow-up response, you attempt to suggest that I stated that liberals would not CARE if a city was attacked. That’s not even CLOSE to what you asked, or what I suggested in my reply. You wrote …
I never suggested that anyone “wouldn’t care.” I stated accurately that there is not a liberal Presidential candidate who would do what it takes to PREVENT a nuclear attack, other than Joe Lieberman. It would be extremely difficult for you to argue this successfully, being that all of the current liberal candidates are fighting to stop every method of defense currently being used.
Extremely dishonest of you, but par for the course for liberals when unable to argue facts or reality.
Gregor on August 4, 2007 at 2:21 PM
you’re comparing a sovereign nation with a few tens of thousands of extremists. Thats the difference. Islam is a religion of a billion people. What would striking, or threatening their holy site in response to an attack by extremists accomplish? It would only increase anti-american sentiment which fuels terrorism. I can’t bleieve I even have to argue this. It was nice when we had a whole nation as our enemy, one with a standing army, uniforms and everything. But those days are over. Its a different ballgame.
crr6 on August 4, 2007 at 2:55 PM
This is a gross mis-understanding of reality. Islamic terrorism is not cause by anti-American sentiment, or hate for ANY country. It’s caused by the instructions of the Qur’an, which instructs it’s followers (Muslims) to murder anyone who refuses to submit to Islam. It’s really that simple. Until the world understands this reality and accepts the only logical defense … we’ll be forced to live under the threat of attack.
Terrorism will always exist, but Islamic terrorism will threaten all civilized societies as long as we permit the Qur’an to be taught.
Gregor on August 4, 2007 at 3:20 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »