On Friday, Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., was asked by a talk show host how the United States should respond if terrorists struck several of its cities with nuclear weapons.
‘‘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,’’ Tancredo answered.
‘‘You’re talking about bombing Mecca,’’ said talk show host Pat Campbell of WFLA-AM in Orlando, Fla.
Ok Ken, I will play, what do you not like about his answer? I appreciate what he said and I think it makes a point that needs to be made clearly. Let me ask you the same question he asked Tom. If DC, NYC, Chicago, LA and say Dallas were nuked what would you do?
I think it is important to note this was a hypothetical question during an interview as a what can we do if this happens, not a statement by Tancredo that we should just do this for a threat.
Tancredo is one of the only people who is talking about issues like the border and expressing openly a challenge to Bush about it. If he ran for President I would vote for him because I bet you lunch he would shut down the borders.
Don’t know where you live but the upswell of frustration over illegals is mounting and people are looking for someone like Tancredo who will take some action on the borders and illegals. I appreciate the fact he says what he thinks instead of the PC bullshit that flows everywhere else and I am happy isn’t buckling and apologizing to Pelosi, CAIR and crew
I think the problem with his answer is that it targets the religion instead of the people who do the deed…destroying Mecca or Medina would do absolutely nothing to get the perpetrators unless they happened to be there at the time, and what would that do us? We are trying to win Muslims over to our cause agains the fanatics/fundamentalists, and doing something like that would put that goal forever out of our reach.
Ok Ken, I will play, what do you not like about his answer? I appreciate what he said and I think it makes a point that needs to be made clearly. Let me ask you the same question he asked Tom. If DC, NYC, Chicago, LA and say Dallas were nuked what would you do?
I think it is important to note this was a hypothetical question during an interview as a what can we do if this happens, not a statement by Tancredo that we should just do this for a threat.
Tancredo is one of the only people who is talking about issues like the border and expressing openly a challenge to Bush about it. If he ran for President I would vote for him because I bet you lunch he would shut down the borders.
As spot points out, reacting to a nuclear attack on our country by bombing the holy sites of the religion that the terrorists happen to espouse is the absolute worst possible response, in both practical and ethical terms. We’d be talking global world war at that point. It’s not the religion that did the attack, it’s some people. Go after the infrastructure that supported those people (corrupt regimes, etc.).
I would hope that our elected officials answer hypothetical questions with realistic answers. This was just stupid.
I also think that when an elected official even says crap like this, it is further fodder for the fundamentalists to preach their vision that this is a jihad against the US, and that the US is fighting against Islam. Who doesn’t think that this won’t be replayed on Al Jazeera over and over again??
Ken, I agree with your point about infastructure but that needs to be yesterday and today not after that type of an attack. I will ask again, what would you do? So far there are 3 or 4 people who say he is stupid, and maybe the comment is pushing the edge, but no one will tell me what they would do besides count the dead.
Ken, I agree with your point about infastructure but that needs to be yesterday and today not after that type of an attack. I will ask again, what would you do? So far there are 3 or 4 people who say he is stupid, and maybe the comment is pushing the edge, but no one will tell me what they would do besides count the dead.
I thought I answered: “Go after the infrastructure that supported those people (corrupt regimes, etc.).” I don’t believe in retribution for retribution’s sake.
So, surprise nuke attack = nuke Mecca?? I assume then, that it would acceptable to you if, say, Pakistan nuked Jerusalem because a crazy Christian group nuked Islamabad?
Really, with a surprise attack, all you could is figure out who did it and where they got the materials/bomb, and go from there. Bombing a site that had nothing to do with the attack gets you nowhere, except converting the rest of Islam to the side of the fanatics. If you have warning, sure go after the infrastructure/regime.
Fair enough, although that course of action seems to be too little too late to me. I also think you would find it a challenge to maintain that position under the pressure of a public that does want retribution.
I understand why you don’t like the comment, but I like Tancredo’s willingness to give an answer some people don’t like and I like the fact that he gets the border issue, unlike Bush
I really hope and pray the guy who published this theory is wrong and we never are faced with it. It makes my stomach turn just thinking of it.
So far there are 3 or 4 people who say he is stupid, and maybe the comment is pushing the edge,
It isn’t “pushing the edge,” it’s stupid. Bomb Mecca? Yeah, that’s stupid, alright.
no one will tell me what they would do besides count the dead.
I’m pretty sure counting the dead would be among the first priorities, and just about all one could do in the immediate aftermath. After that, of course, you work to determine who’s responsible and hunt them down, and you figure out how they managed to pull it off, and hopefully take steps to prevent anyone else from doing it.
So, surprise nuke attack = nuke Mecca?? I assume then, that it would acceptable to you if, say, Pakistan nuked Jerusalem because a crazy Christian group nuked Islamabad?
Actually, to be consistent, we’d have to nuke Medina and Jerusalem along with Mecca. Maybe Pakistan could nuke the Vatican City.
spot, a nuke attack of any kind is not acceptable to me. I am not saying (nor did Tancredo) that this is “acceptable”. The scenario you suggest isn’t the same.
Really, with a surprise attack, all you could is figure out who did it and where they got the materials/bomb, and go from there
Well we know who did it right? We know where they got the material because they already told us where they got it so that part is done.
Bombing a site that had nothing to do with the attack gets you nowhere, except converting the rest of Islam to the side of the fanatics
You could be right, but let’s look at it from the other angle. We do nothing except count dead and ask what happened do we win the hearts and minds of muslims around the world? We didn’t get that in the hours after 9/11 so not sure this would be different.
If you have warning, sure go after the infrastructure/regime.
We know where they got the material because they already told us where they got it so that part is done.
I must have missed that post. Where did they get it, and how do we know that? (Not to mention, “How is that relevant”? since I’m pretty sure they didn’t get the nuke from Mecca.)
We do nothing except count dead and ask what happened do we win the hearts and minds of muslims around the world?
