Tancredo: Bomb Muslim holy sites first

[davedlg 0]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/03/tancredo-bomb-muslim-holy-sites-first/

Quote

Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo’s campaign stood by his assertion that bombing holy Muslim sites would serve as a good “deterrent” to prevent Islamic fundamentalists from attacking the United States, his spokeswoman said Friday.

“This shows that we mean business,” said Bay Buchanan, a senior Tancredo adviser. “There’s no more effective deterrent than that. But he is open-minded and willing to embrace other options. This is just a means to deter them from attacking us.”

On Tuesday, Tancredo warned a group of Iowans that another terrorist attack would “cause a worldwide economic collapse.” He said that attacking Muslim holy sites first would be the only means to prevent terrorists from attacking America. IowaPolitics.com recorded his comments.

“If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina,” Tancredo said. “That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong, fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent, or you will find an attack.”

Tom Casey, a deputy spokesman for the State Department, told CNN’s Elise Labott that the congressman’s comments were “reprehensible” and “absolutely crazy.” Tancredo was widely criticized in 2005 for making a similar suggestion.

Yup great idea. Follow a terror attack with what by all means is another terror attack. That'll show em' to mess with us. I expect after bombing all the muslim holy sites, the terrorists would just sit at home and leave us alone.


I can't believe that someone in congress would be so bold to make that kind of suggestion. This is the kind of thinking that really makes me wonder about how we can keep electing people like this. If we pulled some kind of shit like this could you imagine what the response would be from the muslim world?? I don't think the 95% of muslims who are currently peaceful and not actively supporting terrorism would remain that way for long.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

I can't believe that someone in congress would be so bold to make that kind of suggestion.

GOP backroom guy Ed Rawlins hit the nail on the head when he said (roughly) "The US congress is an accurate mirror of the American public; the same percentage of them are geniuses, and the same percentage of them are morons." I can't find my copy of his book but that was the gist of it.

[idrankwhat 0]

Someone must have spiked his Wheaties with dumbassitol.

[ryoder 1,401]

A downside of being a proud Coloradan is the embarrassment of being represented by Tom Tancredo.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[misaltas 0]

Seems the reporter twisted his words a bit. He didn't say that bombing holy sites first would act as a deterrent, he said putting on the table the threat that this would be the retailiation would serve as the deterrent.

Still f'kin insane though. Mutually capable mass destruction as a deterrent ended up working ok for a while with the US/USSR because both central gov'ts were in reasonably full control of the means of destruction. That isn't what we have here. Maybe some on either fringe would like to trigger just that type of retailiation in order to further polarize and energize the mainstreams on both sides.

Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

[champu 1]

The Shi'a and Sunni have been bombing each others' mosques for years now in Iraq, it has proven to be an excellent way of inciting rage amongst the local population.

This statement would essentially be a claim that, "Look out! we're completely out of our minds and ready to snap and over react to whatever someone does next!" which will make normal people rightfully terrified and make terrorists rightfully rub their hands together.

Tancredo is batshit fucking loco.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Seems the reporter twisted his words a bit. He didn't say that bombing holy sites first would act as a deterrent, he said putting on the table the threat that this would be the retailiation would serve as the deterrent.

Still f'kin insane though. Mutually capable mass destruction as a deterrent ended up working ok for a while with the US/USSR because both central gov'ts were in reasonably full control of the means of destruction. That isn't what we have here. Maybe some on either fringe would like to trigger just that type of retailiation in order to further polarize and energize the mainstreams on both sides.

While I don't agree with his idea, finding the pressure point is critical. Where the slower progress of "rebuilding" can work, finding that more "immediate" deterrent is important as well. In my observation though, one is dependent on the other, and that's why MAD made "sense" in the cold war environment.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Royd 0]

Isn't the argument that we should go after them where they are at? Obama wants to go into Pakistan.

If a group of people here in the States decided to form a terrorist organization, but proclaimed their santuary Holy Ground, do you think that would stop the govt. from destroying it, or would that decision depend on whether or not there were 3 million people waiting in the wings to join them?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Isn't the argument that we should go after them where they are at? Obama wants to go into Pakistan.

If a group of people here in the States decided to form a terrorist organization, but proclaimed their santuary Holy Ground, do you think that would stop the govt. from destroying it, or would that decision depend on whether or not there were 3 million people waiting in the wings to join them?

Ask the Branch Davidians.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[birdshit 0]

I dont know... The rabid liberal in me says that he is a retard that threatens to destabilize the region with inflammatory talk, and that peace is the answer, and that only by coming to a common understanding then we can reach a mutually beneficial and lasting respect.

Yadda yadda lets all sit and have a big group hug...

Then again, if we used 10 or 15 of the largest neutron bombs we have, detonated at a fairly high altitude, then we wouldn't really *break anything* structural, just eradicate all of those pesky little dirt-kissing terrorists huddled around those sites...

After all, they killed more people on 9/11 than at pearl harbor and we nuked the Japanese and didn't even blink. And, by all accounts, it was very very effective in demonstrating just how irritated we were at the whole affair. Why have we now become so afraid to break out the big guns?

Sure, bush would be reviled forever as a war mongering murderer, but then again, I think that ship has already sailed... So why not get some mileage out of his 'crazy ass bastard from texas' legacy and get some dirty work done? Seems reasonable to me...

Whats the point of being the most powerful nation on earth if a guy with 5 pounds of semtex a bicycle and a cell phone can make CNN Late Edition? They have demonstrated that they want to play 'hardball'... Women, Children, Babies, innocents, heads chopped off, etc, etc, and so on and so forth -- Soo?

"I say we pull out and nuke the site from orbit" - From the Movie 'Alien'



lets play hardball... It's a war people, lets start acting like it, get our game faces on and start killing some folks.

I am birdshit, and I approved this message

[birdshit 0]

Oh My god... I have been in Texas too long... I think I am infected.

[Gawain 0]

Your comparison to Japan and Pearl Harbor left out one thing: that whole nation was behind the effort, and they went on to be accountable for many, many thousands more US deaths during the course of the war.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[ryoder 1,401]

1. WW2 was a real, declared war between nations. The "War on Terror" is not a war at all, but political rhetoric by politicians trying to drum up support for their failed policies. The terrorists are nothing more than a (loosely) organized, widely dispersed, crime mob. They are not represented by any nation, although there is evidence that some nations give them money under the table, including our supposed "friends" the Saudis.

2. Japan was not going to back down until soundly defeated. The Japanese royalty was ignoring it's own generals who were advising surrender. The Allies had done the calculations on doing a conventional invasion, and it was clear the casualties on both sides were going to be horrendous. Going to nukes saved American lives. It is unclear whether Japanese casualties would have been less with a conventional invasion.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Then again, if we used 10 or 15 of the largest neutron bombs we have, detonated at a fairly high altitude, then we wouldn't really *break anything* structural, just eradicate all of those pesky little dirt-kissing terrorists huddled around those sites...

Along with a bunch of innocent Muslims as well.

Do you & Tancredo REALLY want to support Al Quaeda's propaganda that the USA & its allies are just about making war on Islam??

this is supposed to be a war against terrorists, not against Islam. Remember there's about a billion Muslims out there.

Stop helping the enemy's propaganda machine.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Remember there's about a billion Muslims out there.

Stop helping the enemy's propaganda machine.

...and very few of them are stepping up against the extremists that are marring their faith. While we are trying to not make it about religion, the other side already has.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[crwtom 0]

Quote

After all, they killed more people on 9/11 than at pearl harbor and we nuked the Japanese and didn't even blink. And, by all accounts, it was very very effective in demonstrating just how irritated we were at the whole affair. Why have we now become so afraid to break out the big guns?

not to defend Hiroshima/Nagasaki but these were far from direct
responses to Pearl Harbor. PH was the trigger for the US to enter
Pacific War. That was an enterprise with well over 20 Mio dead
people (most Chinese but also millions on the Japanese and Allies)
At stake was control of half of the worls by either a Japanese empire,
the "free world" or a communist Soviet Union that could have
gained a lot more control over east Asia had the Pacific War lasted
much longer.

As bad as that sounds - compared to the Pacific War the "war on
terror" is peanuts and hardly classifies as a war to being with.

The US nukes were droppped to end the Pacific War not to retaliate
for one single attack such as Pearl Harbor.

Cheers, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[Royd 0]

Quote

As bad as that sounds - compared to the Pacific War the "war on
terror" is peanuts and hardly classifies as a war to being with.

What about the economic effect of 9/11.

I would imagine that bridge in Minnesota will cost far more economically than just to cost of replacing it.

Imagine if the enemy could take out the stock market or major highways into the big cities.

I'll bet that if we made a blanket policy that if terrorists came from any given country, and caused us harm, that we would deal with that country with a heavy hand, swiftly, they would start dealing with the punks, themselves.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Quote

Remember there's about a billion Muslims out there.

Stop helping the enemy's propaganda machine.

...and very few of them are stepping up against the extremists that are marring their faith. While we are trying to not make it about religion, the other side already has.

It doesnt change the fact that threatening to bomb Mecca/Medina only HELPS the jihadists.

It does nothing to deter them (do you really think it would frighten them into not attacking??? These jihadists have an apocalyptic mentality!) , and only helps them recruit more people to their side.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[crwtom 0]

Quote

about the economic effect of 9/11.

Thanks for mentioning - making 9/11 reposible for the recession in
GWB admin is a big load of huey. Look at any SP500 chart. 9/11
created a short-term down-spike. A couple of weeks later SP 500 was
back to almost the same level. The reasons for the down-spike were
all temporary. NYSE closing, break down in communication lines
and, most significantly, the fear that trader data from the previous
day(s) was lost which would have been a bad situation. Fortunately,
all the data was backed up and recovered a few days later, markets
reopened and communications were restored. A little while later
most stock losses had been recovered. (see any SP500)

Edit: SP500 Chart (Pre and post 9/11 levels at around 1150 and
holding steady until mid 2002 break in)

For the next months the the trend mainly continued the gradual
downwards trend that resulted from the dot-com bust a year or so
earlier. The only somewhat longer term effect on the economy were
the problems in the air line industry - since this actually involved
a lot of people who didn't want to fly. (although the air line industry
was hardly in healthy state to begin with)

The really steep downslide in the economy happened in late
summer of 2002 ... What happened then? Talk of an impending and
unrelated war in Iraq - and threats of war tend to be even worse on
stock markets than wars themselves. The persistence of the recession
had to do with poor management of war and economic affairs of the
admin than anything else.

It is really bizarre to expect that taking out a few city blocks in a huge
country like the US could cripple an entrie economy. If there was
any merit to such a claim most wars in modern history would have
ended within days and weeks and not dragged on for many years.

9/11 was economically a short-term scare, but in the long term not
more than a ripple.

Quote

I'll bet that if we made a blanket policy that if terrorists came from any given country, and caused us harm, that we would deal with that country with a heavy hand, swiftly, they would start dealing with the punks, themselves.

Quite a bit of hate mongering. Yeah - let's go and bomb all muslims.

Just to make the point. Suppose the "Army of God" or the "KKK" or
some other US wacko terror group decide sto go big and global for
theis causes and stages attacks in another country.

Would you find it justfied if the other country would launch
retaliatory airstrikes or missile attacks against US cities and
monuments?

Cheers, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[Royd 0]

In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'll bet that if we made a blanket policy that if terrorists came from any given country, and caused us harm, that we would deal with that country with a heavy hand, swiftly, they would start dealing with the punks, themselves.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quite a bit of hate mongering. Yeah - let's go and bomb all muslims.

Quote

Just to make the point. Suppose the "Army of God" or the "KKK" or
some other US wacko terror group decide sto go big and global for
theis causes and stages attacks in another country.

Would you find it justfied if the other country would launch
retaliatory airstrikes or missile attacks against US cities and
monuments?

I'm sure that the govt. or the people would deal with such a situation on their own, unlike the Muslim community, which, in large, has sat on their hands. After all, the KKK is kept in a pretty small box these days by the attitude of the rest of the nation. Agreed?

Cheers, T

[tbrown 26]

I think it's a good idea. We didn't start this war, they did. And it's already upon us.

For starters, Muslim is a gutter religion, opposed to all our values. Please don't tell me there are "moderate, peace loving" Muslims either. If there were, they would be ratting out their co-religionists who are supposedly giving their religion a bad name.

The tough thing about war is that it sucks. People get killed in the name of bigger stupider shit. The Muslims have already started it. So the deal is simple; either they can knock it the fuck off, or we can simply destroy their religion, period.

I have no moral qualms at all about nuking Mecca or any other of their stupid filthy religious sites. Kill them all, before they kill us. They started it, now they can knock it off or die.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

I think it's a good idea. We didn't start this war, they did. And it's already upon us.

For starters, Muslim is a gutter religion, opposed to all our values. Please don't tell me there are "moderate, peace loving" Muslims either. If there were, they would be ratting out their co-religionists who are supposedly giving their religion a bad name.

The tough thing about war is that it sucks. People get killed in the name of bigger stupider shit. The Muslims have already started it. So the deal is simple; either they can knock it the fuck off, or we can simply destroy their religion, period.

I have no moral qualms at all about nuking Mecca or any other of their stupid filthy religious sites. Kill them all, before they kill us. They started it, now they can knock it off or die.

You've already lost the war before you even starting fighting it...

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[funkcanna 0]

Quote

For starters, Muslim is a gutter religion, opposed to all our values. Please don't tell me there are "moderate, peace loving" Muslims either. If there were, they would be ratting out their co-religionists who are supposedly giving their religion a bad name... The Muslims have already started it. So the deal is simple; either they can knock it the fuck off, or we can simply destroy their religion, period..

This is one of the most ignorant posts I have ever seen. How many muslims do you know? how can you judge them? Would it be right for me to assume that all Americans are as bigotted and ignorant as you?

To know requires proof
To believe requires evidence
To have faith requires neither.
If you stick with that, we'll never be confused again

[ryoder 1,401]

Quote

I think it's a good idea. We didn't start this war, they did. .

I strongly recommend you read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeping_With_the_Devil

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[juanesky 0]

Quote

You've already lost the war before you even starting fighting it...

How appropiate from a French perspective

Thanks man I needed that.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon