Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Thu 07/21/2005 View Wed 07/20/2005 View Tue 07/19/2005 View Mon 07/18/2005 View Sun 07/17/2005 View Sat 07/16/2005 View Fri 07/15/2005
1
2005-07-21 Home Front: Politix
Tancredo won’t apologise
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Fred 2005-07-21 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11137 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 I respectfully diagree. I thought Tancredo was an ass for saying this.

I've said this before and I won't belabor the point, but nuking Mecca, Median or any of the other 129,598 most holy sites in Islam is a bad, bad idea. I believe that to be true even if some Islamofascist terrorist were to use a WMD against us. All it will do is unite the world against us. Our best friends in the world, the Brits and the Aussies, would no longer stand by us. All the surviving Muslims, 'moderate' or not, would turn against us. The America-haters around the world would have the perfect cover to come at us openly.

It's because I believe this whole idea to be terrible that I support GWB and his approach so strongly. We must, we must beat down Islamofascism, we must kill the terrorists, we must bring personal liberty and democracy to the Islamic world, and we must succeed -- or else those who would nuke Mecca will someday get their chance. And we'll regret it.

The fools, rubes, pollyannas and evil ones on the Left think that if we run away from violence that the Islamofascists will leave us alone. They're fools and we know it. But we can't afford to be foolish on the other end.

If, God forbid, someone uses a WMD on us, we rip doors and walls down wherever we have to in the world to identify all those responsible -- the terrorists, their supporters, and the governments who aided and abetted them. THOSE are the ones we nail. If the Mad Mullahs give Al-Qaeda a nuke and they use it on us, we kill the Mad Mullahs. Anyone standing near them the day we do, tough shit. Don't stand near them.

But we don't nuke a holy site. If we do, we lose the WoT.

My opinion only and not that of any of the other moderators. YMMV.
Posted by Steve White">Steve White  2005-07-21 00:29||   2005-07-21 00:29|| Front Page Top

#2 State Department spokesman Adam Ereli ... replied, “I guess we periodically see, you know, remarks or comments that are insulting to facism Islam. And such remarks, wherever they come from, are insulting and offensive to all of us. Speaking on behalf of the US Government, let me say that we respect facism Islam as a valid political ideology religion, we respect those who have adopted it its holy sites, and we believe we share - the US is a country of political religious diversity that our citizens, whether they be Nazi Muslim or supporters of liberal democracyChristian or socialist Jew or whatever, respect the dignity and sanctity of other political ideologies religions and believe we are part of one human family ....

I'm not sure if it's more sad or frightening.
Posted by AzCat 2005-07-21 00:33||   2005-07-21 00:33|| Front Page Top

#3 I've been trying to write a comment for about 30 minutes straight, I've re-started 4 times - and almost everything has been said, more eloquently than I can muster, already. The main thing I offer to Dr Steve is that I see a Law Enforcement approach at the heart of your acceptable response. I believe it to be an obviously flawed position. LE, as practiced in the West, is a cleanup operation. Sure, it'll help some folks sleep better at night, by giving them ass and guilt coverage - "See? My hands are clean! I played by our civilized rules!" But I find that specious. Certainly all those dead folks and their families might correctly ask, "What about about prevention? Why did we have to die? So you folks could sleep well at night?" LE is wonderful in hindsight - after the act, when counting the dead and logging explosives' tagants, building spiffy databases, cross-checking shit with shinola, etc. But it just doesn't even begin to address effective prevention.

I believe, in the end, that Islam, the whole stew of hardcore nuts along with the full bandwidth of do-nothings to active logistical supporters, will drag us, kicking and screaming, to a front-row seat for a modern-day Armageddon. Whose? Well now, that is the question still in play, isn't it?
Posted by .com 2005-07-21 01:26||   2005-07-21 01:26|| Front Page Top

#4 .com: I don't have a law enforcement approach at my core (what, you think I'm a Democrat? Perish the thought! :-)

I have no problem what-so-ever finding and whacking terrorists. I have no problem whatsoever in removing governments that are terrorist supporters. If law enforcement happens to be the best tool on a given day, great. If the SEALS happen to be the best tool that day, you betcha.

I'm with you completely on prevention. I'm with you completely on protecting innocents.

But I won't go along with mass murder, which is what nuking Mecca would be. If the Mad Mullahs give someone a nuke and they use it on us, nail the Mad Mullahs. No mercy, none. But nuking a holy city in response, with the hundreds of thousands of innocents who would die (and they are innocent) is wrong.

And, I respectfully submit, dumb. I don't want to turn the world against us, I want the world to realize that we have the right (indeed, the ONLY) approach. Kill the terrorists. Remove the thugs. Allow innocent people to live their lives without terror. That's how you fix the problem. Not nuking holy places. Tancredo is wrong.

Parenthetical note: no salmon-colored comments for me on this thread. Any respectful disagreements on opinion that I might have with Fred or the other mods go into the comments.
Posted by Steve White">Steve White  2005-07-21 01:36||   2005-07-21 01:36|| Front Page Top

#5 Steve - here is a MAJOR correction to your mis-statement.

Tancredo said we should CONSIDER BOMBING mecca. Nothing about nukes.

We shouldn't jump out on a limb here like people over at DU or Kos - stick to the words said, not to what you want to put in between the words, or that the press has put there.

Bombing Mecca (or Medina, etc) is something that we may have to consider if that is where the Wahabbis who started all this are holed up - going after the cause, not just the symptoms. If they were to employ a WMD with large loss of life and damage to the USA, we must ensure that they have no sanctuary, no peace, no shelter. And we need to do that now, as a deterrent. I called the congressman's office and thats what I got - although I suspect it may be somewhat "revised and extended" version. And that is what Tancredo was talking about, albeit in blunt terms that could be misconstrued as you and others have done. Like Bush, Tancredo tends not to be nuanced in his speech.

And if thats the case, I agree: No safe place for any terrorist that comits mass murder in the US, especially if its by way of a WMD.

From an old Gospel Hymn:

At the end they'll try to find a hiding place
When it comes their time to die
No hiding place in the mountains
No hiding place in the waters
No hiding place Down here
No hiding place
And they went to the rock to hide their face
But the rock cried out
No hiding place!
There's no hiding place Down here

Figure this: hundreds of thousands dead or poisoned, a major city significantly in ruins. Whats happens next, especially if we get good evidence of the sources of the attack? We go after the bastards, No Matter Where They Are. Hoist the crimson flag and sound Deguello - we are coming for you with no mercy.

Rev 6:16-17 "Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?"

Wrath is the right word for what will happen as a result of a WMD strike on the US. And I believe in letting them know up front, the terrs and their supporters and sympathizers in the Islamist and Islamic world: if its you who instigated, supported or encouraged this, the wrath will fall on you - wherever you happen to be, be it your mosque in Detroit, madrassa in Pakistan, government office in Teheran, or gathering in Mecca.

The message does need to be blunt.

As direct as a surgeons incision to remove a cancerous tumor, we will cut you out and destroy you and the roots of your growth.

You. Will. Die. We will obliterate you. Cold. Calculating. Complete. We owe it to our nation and our dead.
Posted by OldSpook 2005-07-21 01:41||   2005-07-21 01:41|| Front Page Top

#6 OldSpook: thank you for the correction. It does make a difference. And a big thank you for calling Tancredo. I'm impressed you got a response.

I think we're in agreement that there can never be a sanctuary for anyone who attacks us, be it WMD or ramming a jetliner into an office tower. If the bad boyz decide to use the Grand Mosque in Mecca as an ammo dump, it's now a legitimate military target. Flatten it. Wrath is the correct word.

It's because we in the West value innocents that I'd never use a nuke on a holy site. It's because we in the West understand the difference between good and evil that I would employ the wrath of the righteous against evil, and spare the good.

I think (I hope) that we're in fair agreement on the big issue. We must destroy the vicious evil that threatens us, but we can't do it at the expense of our own souls.
Posted by Steve White">Steve White  2005-07-21 01:49||   2005-07-21 01:49|| Front Page Top

#7 Nuke a holy site? Threre distinct disadvantages. Now, capital cities on the other hand are another thing entirely. We're brought back to the same argument. You don't murder animals, you kill them. And when they see that we are willing to it dispassionately and continuously, the smart ones will bring and end to it. It's the only thing that ended WWII and until the so called "moderate moose-limbs®" get serious about their so called religion - it's the only thing that will work in the WOT.
But if we want to go the softly-softly approach then fine - drop a tacitical nuke in some emtpy desert - then tell 'em the next one will be the mother of all Char-B-Q's.
Posted by Rex Mundi 2005-07-21 01:55||   2005-07-21 01:55|| Front Page Top

#8 Dr Steve - OS makes a point that was lost in the original thread, here.

Hmmm. In your post I see no preventative stuff, just response stuff. That's LE's gig.

Me, well, I don't have to be nice, heh. I want hardcore profiling, heavy moskkk surveillance, deportation of every imam who preaches anything less than ANTI-jihad - along with their followers, firings for all Justice & DOD translators who fail vetting, hiring of translators whose loyalty is to America - such as the various Jewish ethnic groups who were blacklisted, serious impenetrable border walls built, biometric passports and drivers licenses, manpower and money put into protecting our ports to scan and track cargo - in conjunction with current efforts in foreign ports, surreptitious blockades of asshat countries such as NorKieLand, a full break with the House of Saud for their demonstrable duplicity and full planning for the Republic of Eastern Arabia, a break with Pervy and relaxed ROE since he can't deliver dick, serious preparations and efforts to align and ally ourselves with Persian opposition forces - arming them and aiding in every way possible, and a slew of other "draconian" preventative steps. But that's just me, heh.
Posted by .com 2005-07-21 02:03||   2005-07-21 02:03|| Front Page Top

#9 Damn, .com, - I thought that was the plan 9/12, or at least is should have been.
Posted by Rex Mundi 2005-07-21 02:08||   2005-07-21 02:08|| Front Page Top

#10 Thanks guys great stuff.

To make consequences for a WMD attack very clear, is a good thing *if* we are prepared to follow through after the attack. Nothing wrong with a clear message of Magnum doom, it might even persuade a mad mullah or two?

SW Grand Mosque in Mecca as an ammo dump
>w00p there it is!

OSWrath
very sp00ky!

Posted by Red Bone 2005-07-21 02:23||   2005-07-21 02:23|| Front Page Top

#11 RM - Heh - should've been is right. Sadly, we have been hamstrung by PCism and a solid 20-30% of our population swilling Tranzi MultiCulti Moonbat Kool Aid - and many of these airheads have wormed their way into our institutions and skewed them toward self-hate / self-defeatism.

I mention this because I was listening to some TV news bit about the pedo sexual predators this afternoon and a thought struck me: those that teach our children this Kool Aid shit are pedo's too - intellectual predators. They're dangerous not just to innocent individuals, but to our entire society and way of life. They are infinitely more dangerous.

I look back at 2000 and 2004 and marvel at how close-run things have been - and how tentative a fair chunk of us are - even about our own survival. Utterly amazing to me.
Posted by .com 2005-07-21 02:30||   2005-07-21 02:30|| Front Page Top

#12 If Tancredo means no target should be off limits then I agree with him. If he means bombing religious targets then I disagree. Not becuase of the reaction of the Muslim street, I'd probably find that quite satisfying, but because it's symbolism and is just more of the 'hearts and minds' shit except from the stick perspective. The cold war equivalent would be bombing Lenin's tomb.

I'm probably closer to .com's position. If they want to go back the eight century, I think we should oblige them and destroy all modern infrastructure starting with electricity and telecoms. I'm sure they would use the wonders of Islam science to quickly figure out how to replace them.
Posted by phil_b 2005-07-21 03:25||   2005-07-21 03:25|| Front Page Top

#13 To those who object to nuking Mecca I have one question: why do you think the Islamofascists attacked the WTC?

And to those who are worried that there might be innocents in Mecca, I have another question: were there innocents in Hiroshima?

As for those who think the UK and Australia would not support the US, what would you as Americans do if London and Sydney were razed to the ground, with millions of deaths?

My own answers are that Mecca is as much a symbol as the WTC was; the guilt for the victims of Hiroshima lies with Bushido Japan; and I certainly without hesitation support nuking Mecca and various capitals of the Middle East if London or Sydney suffered a terrorist WMD attack.

Ultimately, you have to decide whose lives and symbols are more valuable to you: yours, your loved ones, and the people of our free lands --or the Moslems who want you to submit to their death cult.

Tancredo is the most responsible American politician to speak in the last several years.
Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-21 03:55||   2005-07-21 03:55|| Front Page Top

#14 Absolutely no site, place or city, should be off the table if muslims use WMD in our or any of our allies countries. We are not the bad guys here for being frank and honest. We need to do what ever is necessary to get the message across. We want to be your friends, but if you keep treating us as foes and supporting attacks against us and our allies that is what we will be, your mortal foes with all that entails.

I think many need to all revisit Dave D's list of options. I post it her in full with full credit to him.

"Well, I don't know about nuking 'em all, but that is one of the options.

Problem is, when you look at the entire range of possible responses to future terrorist attacks and enumerate our options, the resulting list is pretty short:

1. SURRENDER- One quick way to solve the Islamic terrorism problem would be to simply surrender to them: become Muslim, or dhimmis.

2. APPEASEMENT- Maybe they can be bought off, perhaps with lavish foreign aid; or maybe we could withdraw our support from Israel and give the Muslims free rein to indulge their passion for slaughtering Jews.

3. CRIMINAL PROSECUTION- We could round up terrorists one by one or in small groups and "bring them to justice"-- but only after they've done their damage, and only if we can find them, capture them, and gather enough evidence against them to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. And then come the appeals, and the ACLU...

4. LIBERATION & DEMOCRATIZATION- What we're doing now in Iraq and Afghanistan: seeing if Arab/Islamic society can be detoxified by introducing democratic self-governance. Maybe it can; maybe it can't. The jury's still out, at least for the duration of Bush's presidency. But it won't be out much longer than that.

5. CONQUEST & SUBJUGATION- The "Ann Coulter Option": invade their countries, execute their political and religious leaders, dynamite their mosques and madrassas, and rule them with an iron fist.

6. EXPULSION & QUARANTINE- Expel all Muslims from the U.S., make the practice of Islam within our borders a criminal offense, and refuse visas-- even for the briefest of visits-- to all Muslims and all citizens from Islamic countries.

7. COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT- We could respond to terrorist attacks on our cities by attacking Arab/Muslim cities in kind, a la Dresden. Or Hiroshima, for that matter. Tit for tat.

8. EXTERMINATION- No more Muslims = no more Islamic terrorism. One and a quarter billion people would have to be incinerated in a nuclear holocaust, but what the heck- can't make an omelet without breaking eggs, right?

And that's it.

Most of these options are bad-- VERY bad-- for either us, or them, or both. There's only one-- #4, what we're doing right now-- that creates any kind of "win-win situation"; and it doesn't appear to be going spectacularly well.

It's also the most laborious of all the options, and if future American presidents will take just one lesson from George Bush's travails, it is this: the American people do not have the stomach for any more "long, hard slogs". The anti-war camp is powerful and relentless; the Democratic Party will remain loyal only up until the next campaign season; the press will do everything possible to undermine and discredit everything our troops do; and the U.N. as well as most of our "allies" will work steadfastly against us, not for us.

Given all that, I suppose I wouldn't blame some future President for responding to another mass-casualty terrorist attack by choosing Door #7 or Door #8. What else could he do, really?

(Sorry for the bandwidth-busting comment, Fred; but this has been gnawing at me for quite a while)"
Posted by: Dave D.|| 2005-05-17 02:57|| Comments|| Top
Posted by Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-07-21 04:12||   2005-07-21 04:12|| Front Page Top

#15 I am not sure it was about nuking Mecca, rather about it's obliteration. I agree with Kalle.

Those that say it would enrage mooselimbs do not consider that hajj is one of the 5 pillars of Islam. The second one is to pray 5 times a day in its direction. Take out two pillars and the ROP may not have enough legs to stand on.

Of course, from a mooselimb's POV, obliteration of Mecca is impossible, Allan would prevent it. IOW, if that would happen, it may be interpreted that the whole "Submission" edifice is a scam, by a majority. The hardcore fanatics would find some explanation, and would have to be put down like rabid animals they are, but that would be the case at some point, no matter what.

The third day after 9/11, I thought WWTD (T=twobyfour). Projecting all possible scenarios (and the current state of the world seems like a deja vu), obliteration of Mecca and Medina seemed to me as the best course of action.

It still does. One of these days in the future, it will happen. Islam delenda est. No other choice if we want our grand-grand children to live in decent environment. But because we do not have the fortitude and the foresight to see the obvious, a lot of blood and resources will have to be expended to make sure of it.
Posted by twobyfour 2005-07-21 04:47||   2005-07-21 04:47|| Front Page Top

#16 If we are on the subject of stuff that really burns us. What burns me is they are free-riding on Western developments over the last 400 years and especially more recently American developments. If they want to be proud Muslims let them be proud of the telecoms, computers, drugs, precision engineering, etc, etc, they develop on their own, rather than free-riding on the achievements of other societies.
Posted by phil_b 2005-07-21 04:50||   2005-07-21 04:50|| Front Page Top

#17 There is also 7 1/2, ESCALATION. See Kipling's The Grave of a Hundred Dead:

...
Then a silence came to the river,
A hush fell over the shore,
And Bohs that were brave departed,
And Sniders squibbed no more;
For the Burmans said
That a white man's head
Must be paid for with heads five-score.
Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-21 04:57||   2005-07-21 04:57|| Front Page Top

#18 Phil, parasitism is built in the ROP. Since its inception. It is the true pillar of it.

I know that it is more rhetorical device on your part and that you are aware, very likely, that you ask for impossible.
Posted by twobyfour 2005-07-21 04:59||   2005-07-21 04:59|| Front Page Top

#19 Vansdals don't invent things, they either cart them away and use them to their own ends or destroy them so no one else can benifit from them. That is how I see radical islam, as technological vandals.

"The pump don't work cause the vandals took the handle."
Posted by Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-07-21 05:13||   2005-07-21 05:13|| Front Page Top

#20 Steve
Who cares? I am not a goody two shoes. Some want the US to be one. Not me. Actions and non-actions should have costs too high for even morons to consider.
Posted by 3dc 2005-07-21 06:36||   2005-07-21 06:36|| Front Page Top

#21 Here's my take, for whatever it's worth. I think it boils down to three questions:

1. Should our policy be that, even in the event of another mass-casualty terrorist attack on U.S. soil-- that is, another 9/11-- we will consider Islam's holy sites strictly off-limits to any military response?

Absolutely not. We should consider Mecca, Medina, and Qom no differently from Jeddah, Riyadh, or Tehran. If these places were involved in any way in the attacks, they face military action just like any other place.

2. Should our policy be that, in the event of another mass-casualty terrorist attack on U.S. soil, we will retaliate by bombing Islam's holy sites?

No. There's no value in doing so, unless those places make sense as military targets for practical reasons. "Nuking Mecca" might give us some brief emotional satisfaction, but that's all.

3. Should Tom Tancredo apologize for his remarks?

Absolutely NOT.

Frankly, I think we've erred grievously by going WAY too far in shielding Muslims from the full extent of our anger and exasperation with the so-called "Religion of Peace". It's high time we start speaking in blunt, no-nonsense terms, because Muslims have some serious work to do.

If it is to survive beyond the next few decades, Islam needs to make a fundamental, profound transition, one in which "submission to the will of God" no longer means, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER, "submission to the will of man". One in which an individual's faith becomes a private matter between him and his God-- not a public, political matter between him and society.

If it can make this transition, quickly and completely, it will survive. If it does not, it will perish because its institutionalized bigotry, xenophobia, hatred of The Other, and determination to establish itself as The One True Faith by any means available, including violence, have put in on a high-speed, head-on collision course with all of Western civilization.

My view is that Islam will not undertake this reformation until it is motivated to do so. And it will not be motivated until it is staring at close range down the barrel of a LARGE loaded gun, cocked and with the safety off.

All Tom Tancredo did was move a hand in the direction of the holster.
Posted by Dave D.">Dave D.  2005-07-21 07:15||   2005-07-21 07:15|| Front Page Top

#22 Really insightful comments here, I'll try and contribute something as worthy.

Tancredo *had* to say it - *someone* had to say it, at least to put people on notice that it's a possibility.

LE is no-hoper, with the weapons being mooted, 'cleaning up after the event' is non-option. A while back, it was estimated that a single Nuclear attack on a British city would totally overwhelm the entire capacity of the NHS to do anything about it - 'cleaning up' would involve bulldozers and mass grave pits.

Is there anyone here that thinks there are other options available than SPoD's #14 list? If not, then if you also take into account the (depressing) conclusion of SPoD; that the American people are not inclined for 'long hard slogs' any more, you are in theory left with #7 Collective Punishment and #8 Extermination.

I think there is another option, a combination of those options SPoD has enumerated. If a WMD attack does take place, the pressure for a visceral lash-out will be enormous, perhaps Tehran will be vapourised - after the US has given the populace 24 hours to get out (that will avoid killing 'innocents' - except in this War there are no innocents, everyone is involved).

Once the boil has been lanced, the real work takes place; mass deportations, the seizure of as much Arab treasure as necessary - this implies that a lot of 'relationships' with the Saudis are going up in smoke - they're about to become very poor, considering their money in Swiss bank accounts etc will be forfeit, the seizure of the Saudi oil fields and any other infrastructure the US sees fit. This may well extend to other countries as well - presumably Iran will also have its oil fields seized. The oil fields and refineries will be guarded, and there will be a standard 'Grave of a Hundred Dead' escalation doctrine in place for people who mess with the oil production.

It's a kind of #5 Conquest and Subjugation, except that you can expect the populace to kill off their leaders for you. Let them worship who they like, but without the money supply that the oil brings to the Arab world they are going to have to find other ways of bringing the cash in. And as we're also going to enforce #6 Expulsion and Quarantine, they are going to have to be very clever about what they do.

It's now a moot point as to whether this should have happened after 9/11 (my opinion is that it, or something very close to it should have).

Basically, if these people want to live in the 7th Century - fine. Just don't get us involved in it too.

The Muslim world needs a Reformation and one might also add, a Renaissance as well (and throw in The Enlightenment for good measure). It took Europe some 300 years to do that, and that was with a lot of people wanting it to happen. The Muslim world, by the unhappy circumstance of being a 7th Century culture finding itself in the 21st Century with its accelerating rates of change, does not have 300 years - or rather, the rest of the World cannot afford those 300 years for the Muslim world to put it's house in order. Not with the weapons that are now available - it's simply too dangerous.
Posted by Tony (UK) 2005-07-21 07:25||   2005-07-21 07:25|| Front Page Top

#23 Nuking Mecca would only remove the Haj piller of Islam. Praying in that direction will always be possible. If the city is merely destroyed, with no residual contamination (whether radiation, biological or chemical), the Haj would still be possible, albeit difficult and very uncomfortable. But the lesson, that Allah cannot or will not protect his own, would be very, very clear.
Posted by trailing wife 2005-07-21 08:13||   2005-07-21 08:13|| Front Page Top

#24 Excellent comments all around.

Tony UK, you're quite right, and in addition to the weapons available now, you can add demography.
Muslim countries are more or less experiencing a transition, but it is slower than in others part of the world, due to political and religious reasons, and the muslim world's share of humanity is going to hugely increase in the coming decades, and for a long time.

Do we really want a large and increasing part of humanity to be non-productive, bellicose, intolerant (wimmen, non-believers) and expansionnist? And all this while "enlightened" West (including Asia)'s demography will be going down.

Traditionnal islam (ie the sufi version of Turkey, North Africa) was already bad, despite the "hipness" of sufism, but the re-arabized, salafist islam that has been sweeping muslimland for the last decades is even worse, not to mention revolutionnary islam à la Qtub or UBL.

This will pose many, many serious problems in the future.
Posted by anonymous5089 2005-07-21 08:27||   2005-07-21 08:27|| Front Page Top

#25 I suppose that we should have left the Nazi monuments intact out of respect for different beliefs.
Posted by Neutron Tom 2005-07-21 08:29||   2005-07-21 08:29|| Front Page Top

#26 I somehow missed the really big picture you present, anon5089. A key point that underlines the importance of fixing the problem quickly. Thanks!
Posted by trailing wife 2005-07-21 08:31||   2005-07-21 08:31|| Front Page Top

#27 The first thing about solving a problem is determining ad stating what the problem is.

One "silver lining" in the Tancredo affair is that it has finally forced peopel to come to grips with the problem: Wahabbists and Salafists pushing a militant, expansionist, rigid, fascist and hostile version of Islam all over the world.

I pray for the day that the MSM will wake up and realize (and publicize) the real threat behind the terror.
Posted by OldSpook 2005-07-21 08:53||   2005-07-21 08:53|| Front Page Top

#28 I'm slow this morning, but Old Spook answered a question I was truly wondering, especially in light of the MSM bias here. What did Tancredo REALLY say? Did he use the term "nukes" or just "bomb"? If "bomb", then I have no problem with it (especially with precision guided weapons). Take out the rock, you take out a once-a-year gathering where jihadi "networking" occurs. If "nuke", then I'm not there yet, but I'm getting really close. If a WMD is used here in the States (or any of our allies), I'm all for opening a BIG can of whoop @rse! This leads me to another observation (a little off topic)...we need a NEW NATO-like alliance now. All western democracies need to ban together and clearly state (like NATO) an attack on 1 of us is an attack on ALL of us, and will be reciprocated in kind.
Posted by BA">BA  2005-07-21 09:08||   2005-07-21 09:08|| Front Page Top

#29 Wahabbists and Salafists pushing a militant, expansionist, rigid, fascist and hostile version of Islam all over the world.

The $64 question is whether or not this expansionist, rigid, fascist, hostile sort of Islam is really significantly different than the traditional variety in its ability to avoid megalomania inspired by its belief in its own divine providence.

My money's on a big fat, "No!" The Qur'an and Ahadith both progress from peaceful tolerance to the bellicose and belligerent sort of behavior we see from the Wahabbi/Salafist arms of Islam today. I'm certain it's sheer coincidence that Mohammed preached peace and tolerance early on when he was weak and had few followers and progressed to violence and expansion by the sword later as his armies gained strength. Well, that and 1400 years of history shows us the whenever Islam is able it spreads itself via the sword and whenever Islam contracts that too occurs via the sword.

Given the prima facie case Islamic writings and history lay out against it I’m not certain there’s any basis to believe that Wahabbis and Salafists are anything other than normal traditional Muslims. If that's the case we're in for a mighty long wait ahead of the Islamic Rennaissance.
Posted by AzCat 2005-07-21 09:32||   2005-07-21 09:32|| Front Page Top

#30 BA, that was the purpose of NATO - an attack on one is an attack on all. The US called that debt in after 9/11, and IMHO, to the eternal shame of those nations who did say so, there were some that said "well, it's not *really* a full-blown war is it now?"
Posted by Tony (UK) 2005-07-21 09:34||   2005-07-21 09:34|| Front Page Top

#31 "But we don't nuke a holy site."

I'll take that to also mean "we don't bomb a holy site" (since the difference is mainly how much of an annihalation, not just the fact of the annihalation itself).

One problem: Damn near every place the moslems have ever been is littered with "holy sites." Iraq is full of them (which, by the way, the jihadis don't have any problem bombing).

I agree that except in extreme circumstances we shouldn't nuke anything. But with our firepower capacity, we don't have to to make our point.

We can't pre-emptively take their "holy" sites off the table, since you can rest assured they haven't taken ours off. (Anyone want to bet what will happen if they set off a fairly powerful bomb in the Vatican? There'll be some mightedly piss-off people worldwide, and most of them won't be interested in restraint.)
Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut  2005-07-21 09:54||   2005-07-21 09:54|| Front Page Top

#32 Nuking Mecca would only remove the Haj piller of Islam.

Yep, how about the occupation/colinization and US commercialization of the haj? Big ass Sonny's BBQ in 10 strategic locations.

Let's just overrun the place, physically, intellucatally and commercially.
Posted by Shipman 2005-07-21 09:56||   2005-07-21 09:56|| Front Page Top

#33 Excellent idea Shipman! With 1.3 billion Muslims on the planet a large enough Haj fee could go a long way towards funding the empire.
Posted by AzCat 2005-07-21 10:00||   2005-07-21 10:00|| Front Page Top

#34 Ooooh. Take over Mecca. Leave it as it is, with security managed by the locals --BUT make Moslems pay in gold to go there, the locals turn all money over to us, and we use the proceeds to fund the War.

That would turn their holy destination into a source of income to wage war against Islamofascism. Any "moderate" Moslem could go to Mecca and thereby express their opposition to Islamofascism.

Wonderful. We don't have to nuke Mecca -- we can turn it into an Islamic Disneyland and use the profits for our weaponry.
Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-21 11:13||   2005-07-21 11:13|| Front Page Top

#35 Tony-UK : Tancredo *had* to say it - *someone* had to say it, at least to put people on notice that it's a possibility.

I think that says it succinctly...

Tancredo is a pretty good sort... A non-BS guy.

I think Hugh Hewitt's overraction to his remarks, and shocked at the support and refusal to retract is indicative of the mindset "statist right".

The Prez's father is a perfect example of this "statist right" mindset. However the current Prez, though a product of this (e.g. minutemen=vigilantes) still has an independent streak in him (Iraq invasion).

Anything should be considered possible, especially considering the deafening silence from the Muslim community as a whole...

Tancredo just voiced what everyone was wondering about in the multitude of "what ifs" floating around...
Posted by BigEd 2005-07-21 11:45||   2005-07-21 11:45|| Front Page Top

#36 IMHO - Its as simple as the fire triangle - Fuel, O2 and Heat. In this case, I made up something called the Terrorism Triangle. All 3 elements of my Terrorism Triangle draw significantly from Saudi Arabia.

Fuel = those willing to fight or blow themselves up
Heat = wahhabism
O2 = $ from Saudi Arabia

It takes allot of time to gather the "Fuel and Heat" in my terrorism triangle but O2 is instant. Its also the easiest out of the 3 to track, trace and seize.

I truly believe if $ from SA were to dry up Syria, Hezbolla, Hamas, PLO offshoots, and even a good portion of Iran would dry up or at least be severely crippled. They would be forced to spend the majority of their time scratching up funds inturn making them more traceable and easier to find.

Please critic this from me - its something I've been thinking about for a while.
Thanx
Posted by Yosemite Sam 2005-07-21 12:05||   2005-07-21 12:05|| Front Page Top

#37 I like Yosemite Sam's analogy. Follow the money. Dry up the resource base. Saudi money finances Iraq troubles now, Chechnya, Indonesia, Thailand troubles, etc etc. Cut the money (resource) trail and the rest withers on the vine. Maybe Bush realizes this now, but needs to work slowly w/r/t Saudi. I do not know all the details that he does, for sure. It seems that the only reason that we are playing footsies with the Saudis is because of the difficulty of living without their oil.

It seems in the final analysis that the big nut to crack is how to deal with the Saudis.

I guess that we have to thank Tancredo for helping in getting the country off bottom dead center by putting unmentionables on the table to stimulate thought.
Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul  2005-07-21 12:35||   2005-07-21 12:35|| Front Page Top

#38 (Reuters) - General Hernado Cortez, who proposed laying waste to Tenochtitlan to counter pagan “mass human sacrifice,” has refused to retract his words or to apologize. Facing mounting criticism, Cortez, while refusing to apologize said, “It’s a tough issue to deal with. The Aztecs have sacrificed more Mayan teenagers to the Smoking Mirror than I’ve had hot lunches. And we Spanish should not shy away from saying things that need to be said.” According to some, the explorer from Medellin is a possible candidate for Marques in 1534.

A spokespriest for his holiness the Aztec Emperor Montezuma II has called Cortez’s remarks “irresponsible.” He said, “This does nothing to advance Spanish national security, promote understanding and religious tolerance, or protect Mayans from having their hearts removed from their chests.”

Say, anybody heard from that Aztec spokespreist lately?
Posted by Secret Master 2005-07-21 13:00||   2005-07-21 13:00|| Front Page Top

#39 I've disagreed with the Tancredo comment in the past couple of days, but there are some very compelling arguments here that are turning me. OS's specificity of his comments helped.

Our response is difficult to forecast at this point. We just don't know how we would react or with what force. Even at the end of the war the fire bombing campaigns, which really ended the war, were regarded as a questionable strategy by some in the military. They were very concerned about the public reaction to the killing of tens of thousands of civilians per day. In the ned the public had no problem with it. The Japanese had no choice but to surrender.

I just don't see how things are going to get better any time soon. The muzzies are going to continue to "fulfill their destiny" and that is directly counter to the continued existence of western civilization. When enough westerners are killed, the response will be overwhelming. It may not be nuclear, but it will be massive. And if Tancredo's comments force all parties to look at the real potential end game square in the face and deal with it now, then that is a good thing.
Posted by remoteman 2005-07-21 13:49||   2005-07-21 13:49|| Front Page Top

#40 Yosemite, that sounds perfectly reasonable to me. A few comments though;

Fuel = those willing to fight or blow themselves up

This is a problem, trying to stem this tide is going to be very difficult - all those madrassas are churning them out by the truckload. But they need $$$ to do their work.

Heat = wahhabism

This is the catalyst, but that's all it is - if it wasn't Wahhabism it would be some other version of radical Islam causing problems.

O2 = $ from Saudi Arabia

This is the one to go for - the Saudis have got ludicrous, unearned wealth, and have a corrupt regime. To turn the attention of the Wahhabists (whom they created!) away from this corruption they turn them loose on other countries.

As .com has said several times, follow the money. Kill that, and although the whole edifice might not come tumbling down, we would be dealing with a much more manageable situation.

My comment #22 has more details, but is there anyone here who thinks that if the West were managing the oil fields of the Middle East the wealth generated would be spent worse than it is now?
Posted by Tony (UK) 2005-07-21 13:49||   2005-07-21 13:49|| Front Page Top

#41 Yep, dang fine analogy. Go for the Oxygen. But keeping in mind the theory of oil fire fighting. You can remove the heat and the fuel with enough dynamite.
Posted by Shipman 2005-07-21 14:41||   2005-07-21 14:41|| Front Page Top

#42 Red sez Ima moron, he's right. With enough dynmite you can remove the fuel and the air.
Posted by Shipman 2005-07-21 14:42||   2005-07-21 14:42|| Front Page Top

#43 I appreciate all the comments, and I especially appreciate OldSpook's correction and clarification.

Here's the bottom line of my concern, and I've been thinking about this all day whilst working the lab. In the end, what Tancredo proposes is, in the words of WH Auden --

"Those to whom evil is done / Do evil in return."

I don't believe in that.

I believe in justice. I believe in prevention. I believe in removing evil, and removing the life from evil people. I believe that delivering justice and removing evil sometimes requires us to do hard things, and just as it's sometimes difficult to watch sausage-making, it's sometimes difficult to do and view these hard things.

I won't blink.

But I won't visit evil on innocent people because their co-religionists visited evil on me and mine.

To do so in the end makes me a "root cause" type of person. The terrorists do bad things to us because bad things were done to them, and so it's okay to do bad things back. It's a seductive way to think, but it takes you all the way back to Cain and Abel. Occasionally good can come out of evil, but it's more often that evil just begets more evil.

And just as important, evil frequently arises of its own account. Osama bin Laden may rail against all the things we’ve done, but a world that beget rights for women, an end to slavery, the internet, baseball and short skirts is not to blame for what he's done. He is. He's seen the good of the world and has reacted to it in an evil way. To label that reaction as a 'root cause' is to miss that Osama and like-minded terrorists hate us because of what is good about us, not because of the wrongs we might or might not have committed.

And that leads me to why I'm deeply troubled by Tancredo's comments, and the comments of people who think that it's acceptable to nuke/bomb/level a holy city. In the end, one of the main measures that makes us good and not evil is how we respond to injustice. How do we respond to evil? Hitler gassed the Jews, but we did not gas Nazis. Stalin murdered the kulaks, but we did not murder communists. We fought and brought about an end to both of those evil systems. That was good.

Today bin Laden murders innocents in office towers and subways. We cannot in return murder innocents going about their daily business in Mecca, in Qom or Najaf, and remain good. We remain good by removing bin Laden, removing the terrorists and the dictatorial thugs who support the terrorists, and by draining the swamp.

.com might accuse me of being reactive. Well yes: the first response, dusting ourselves off from the trauma of 9/11 and comforting our wounded and grieving, was and must be reactive. After that it’s all pro-active: render the terrorists dead, jugged or scattered. Render justice. But remember what makes us good. Murdering innocents is not good.
Posted by Steve White">Steve White  2005-07-21 15:29||   2005-07-21 15:29|| Front Page Top

#44 Got to reattribute that list again since at least one of you didn't pick up the "Quotes" around it all. That post was made by Dave D. back at 2005-05-17.
Posted by Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-07-21 15:33||   2005-07-21 15:33|| Front Page Top

#45 "How do we respond to evil? Hitler gassed the Jews, but we did not gas Nazis... We fought and brought about an end to both of those evil systems. That was good."
Do you think Allied bombs spared the innocents in Nazi Germany? Have you seen photos of Dresden after the fire bombing or Berlin in 1945? Did we leave Nazi monuments standing? You do agree that the Nazis had to be wiped out, don't you?

Until "moderate Muslims" purge murdering the infidel and deceiving the infidel from their Friday services and their holy book, I'm all for keeping all retaliatory options open and possible.
Posted by Neutron Tom 2005-07-21 15:44||   2005-07-21 15:44|| Front Page Top

#46 Steve what assurance do you have that those coreligionists are "good"? Just what do the Imams in those "holy sites" preach?

Are they preaching love thy neighbor? Turn the other cheek? That is not what I am hearing. I hear they want to convert or kill us all. I hear and read that they want to have their religion's rules be the law by which we are all judged. I hear that they want their islamic "justice" to be the the only justice. All the coreligionists are good with that it appears since they belong and participate in that religion and that religious system.

I refuse to sit by and watch them further those ends in silence and without total resistance. Therefore I am good with Tancredo's statements and position.
Posted by Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-07-21 15:44||   2005-07-21 15:44|| Front Page Top

#47 SW you may want to study WW II. In particular what happened to the people of Dresden, Berlin, Hiroshima, Tokyo, etc.

And you should avoid trying to blame the West for our acts of self-defense. The people who die when we are defending ourselves are entirely the responsibility of those who initiated force against us. In the current case, Bin Laden and his supporting cast of Moslem leaders are guilty for every single death in the War.

We don't desire that innocents be killed. That choice has already been made by Islamofascists all over the world.
Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-21 15:52||   2005-07-21 15:52|| Front Page Top

#48 Wrt the fuel/heat/O2: Don't forget that a lot of the $$ can come from Muhammadans in rich countries like UK or USA.

And I think trailing wife is correct that Muhammadanism is quite flexible enough to adapt to the loss of a little black stone--I've said so before. Unfortunately, the adaptation is likely to make them more intransigent.

Is it possible to define Muhammadanism as a political party rather than a religion?

If your loyalty is to a universal caliph which rules all the earth, are you a loyal citizen of any other country? (Yes, some countries allow dual citizenship...)
Posted by James">James  2005-07-21 16:11|| http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com]">[http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com]  2005-07-21 16:11|| Front Page Top

#49 Murdering innocents is not good, but sometimes there is no other way to get to the terrorists and their leaders. Collatoral damage does occur. Innocents are killed. It is the way of war. The deaths of our innocents will harden us to the deaths of their innocents. We will kill their combatants and, as a byproduct, intentional or otherwise, their innocents until one side is victorious. It is this way in all wars that are fought for total victory. I believe it will be that way in this one.
Posted by remoteman 2005-07-21 16:17||   2005-07-21 16:17|| Front Page Top

#50 I agree with remoteman. I'd rather not target innocents; that's what the terrorists do. But, if we're targetting the guilty, and they are hiding behind the innocent, c'est la guerre.

There were a lot of innocent people in Dresden. There were also factories making Panzerfausts and a major rail yard to redeploy the Wehrmarcht divisions fighting the Red Army.

There are many innocent children in Arabia and Egypt. There are also many, many mosques and madrassas preaching hatred and murder, weapons suppliers, and oil ticks funding them.
Posted by Jackal">Jackal  2005-07-21 16:30|| home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]  2005-07-21 16:30|| Front Page Top

#51 I'm well aware of Dresden, Hiroshima, etc., in WWII. I'm also well aware that no system is perfect. And I'm aware of collateral damage (and one of the things that makes us as good as we are is how we try to minimze that).

What evidence do I have that all the co-religionists are good? I have none, and I have no evidence that all of them are bad, either. As in most (not all) situations, there's some of both. This gets us to the Sodom/Gemorrah argument -- must I find 10 good people in Mecca to spare it?

If the WoT turns out to be as WWII, a total war against a murderous ideology that has been endorsed by most of the other side, then Dresden and Hiroshima are going to happen again -- Mecca and Qom will eventually go up in flames. There weren't a hell of a lot of good Germans or good Japanese around in 1941.

And so we're back to the debate we've had for a while: is there a difference between Islam and Islamofascism? I think there is, but there some here who would say no. If there's no difference, then Tancredo, et al., aren't too far off the mark.
Posted by Steve White">Steve White  2005-07-21 17:57||   2005-07-21 17:57|| Front Page Top

#52 It all comes down to whether they have the will to edit that "holy" book, doesn't it? "Islam" means "submission" and we are not going to submit or be destroyed.
Posted by Neutron Tom 2005-07-21 19:16||   2005-07-21 19:16|| Front Page Top

#53 What evidence do I have that all the co-religionists are good? I have none, and I have no evidence that all of them are bad, either. As in most (not all) situations, there's some of both.

Well then you don't have no evidence do you, you just have evidence insufficient for you to be comfortable reaching a conclusion. Fourteen centuries of Muslim warfare against their neighbors and bloody expansion by the sword coupled with: Islam's current bloody borders, the long procession of international terrorist incidents carried out almost exclusively by Muslims, and the failure of the allegedly greater Muslim community to root out and destroy the terrorists in its midst are quite enough evidence for me. At least they're enough that I'm comfortable with the presumption that Islam supports violent action against non-Muslims until this alleged silent majority of Muslims takes strong and decisive action to demonstrate that this is not the case.
Posted by AzCat 2005-07-21 19:20||   2005-07-21 19:20|| Front Page Top

#54 It would have been better to express it thus - Americans have shown considerable restraint. There are limits to that restraint.
Posted by DMFD 2005-07-21 21:20||   2005-07-21 21:20|| Front Page Top

23:55 mojo
23:53 Sock Puppet 0’ Doom
23:49 borgboy
23:20 DMFD
23:19 Old Patriot
23:06 OldSpook
22:54 too true
22:49 OldSpook
22:49 .com
22:43 phil_b
22:30 GK
22:30 .com
22:22 Sherry
22:17 .com
22:13 phil_b
22:09 trailing wife
22:07 .com
21:56 trailing wife
21:51 Dave D.
21:51 ex-lib
21:50 .com
21:49 muck4doo
21:47 muck4doo
21:41 .com









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com