The jihadists are on our side of the war too
Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) told WFLA-AM in Orlando, the U.S. could “take out” Islamic holy sites if Muslim fundamentalist terrorists attacked the country with nuclear weapons.
Rep. Tancredo made his remarks Friday, yet, his spokesman stressed he was only speaking hypothetically.
According to a Yahoo report, talk show host Pat Campbell asked the Littleton Republican how the country should respond if terrorists struck several U.S. cities with nuclear weapons.
Tancredo said, “Well, what if you said something like if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites.”
Campbell replied, “You’re talking about bombing Mecca.”
Tancredo responded, “Yeah.”
Ah, good ol’ Nutty Tom.
Just a couple of weeks ago, he was raising hell with the Denver Public Library because they plan to buy some books printed in Spanish!
Believe it or not.
I guess I missed the left’s substantive discussion.
But now if he had compared U.S. troops to Nazis or Guantanamo Bay to one of Stalin’s gulags, the left would find that perfectly acceptable.
Shorter Hedley: I have nothing to say, so I will troll.
Oddly enough, I see no military experience in his background. Color me surprised.
Isn’t he the loon behind attacks on undocumented aliens?
Interesting. I wouldn’t rule it out if we found out that Saudi Arabia was behind such an attack. Mecca and Medina, the two holiest Muslim cities, are both in S.A.
However, to say such a thing would be just as ridiculous as an Arabic guy saying that if the US bombs Iraq, they would “take out” Jerusalem. It’s a non sequitur that just exposes the lack of reason of this representative from Colorado.
Once it hits al-Jazeera, al-Qaeda will get 500 new suicide bombers from this comment alone. Where’s Glenn Reynolds on this one? Oh, he’s going after the War of the Worlds screenwriter for making an irresponsible comparison. Keep speaking truth to power, Glenn!
He probably got the idea from Little Green Footballs. It’s quite “understandable.”
neoconsrloopy, yeah, he’s got quite a bit of support on the right because of his views on immigration “reform” and border security. He’s rumored as a possible presidential hopeful for 08.
TomY: All conservatives are evil and they do whatever LGF says.
Board apologist extraordinaire!
Ahh, that’s right, I forgot. When a congressman on the right says something stupid, the sky is falling (”500 new suicide bombers”) and everyone who looks for balance is either a troll or taking cues from LGF. But when a congressman on the left says something stupid (certainly as often, if not more so, then as occurs on the right) just ignore it and talk some more about Karl Rove and his non-crime.
Hedley: I still have nothing to say, except that I don’t like liberals.
Thanks for trolling!
I would not target Islamic holy sites, I would target (wait for it)… terrorist cells.
And what happens when terrorist cells hide out in (wait for it) … Islamic Holy sites?
What then, Oliver?
All of Jay C’s outrage and scorn is directed at liberals, no matter how stupid, counterproductive to the war on terror, or flat-out evil conservatives get. Where’s your conscience, Jay C?
Wait, so Oliver’s post was about the left, and Nazis at Guantanamo? Oh, no it wasn’t. You’re a troll after all.
I thought Oliver supported attacking Saudi Arabia.
You couldn’t bomb that country WITHOUT hitting an Islamic holy site.
I think the more shortsighted viewpoint being espoused isn’t about where, but with what.
We bombed Afghanistan and Iraq. Bombed and bombed and bombed some more.
And yet terrorist cells still exist, killing innocent civilians in Baghdad and London.
All of our greatest victories in the war on terror–the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, for example–were the result of police action, not daisy cutters.
Think: if killing 3000 people in NYC–a great American city, but not a “holy” one–didn’t cause rational-minded Americans to surrender, then why does Tancredo seem to think that the destruction of Mecca would somehow take the heart out of a bunch of zealots?
This is, perhaps, a misapplied lesson of Hiroshima/Nagasaki–that a display of superior firepower will force your opponent to surrender. This is not 1945, and Al-Qaida is not the Japanese. The war on al-Qaida can be won, but not the way it’s been executed thus far.
But police action is what Clinton did, and Clinton is the root of all evil and tooth decay, so we must not do what Clinton did.
Kind of like a successful economy, etc.