Tiny Tancredo Threatening Islam Holy Sites

ButchHowdy

Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
1,008
Doesn't he know that real terrists wear suits ?


Tancredo: U.S. Should Threaten Islamic Holy Sites
By Dennis Conrad, AP Writer


(AP) WASHINGTON Republican presidential hopeful Tom Tancredo says the best way he can think of to deter a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. is to threaten to retaliate by bombing Islamic holy sites.

The Colorado congressman on Tuesday told about 30 people at a town hall meeting in Osceola, Iowa, that he believes such a terrorist attack could be imminent and that the U.S. needs to hurry up and think of a way to stop it.

"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 at the Family Table restaurant. "Because that's the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they otherwise might do."

Mecca and Medina, in Saudi Arabia, are Islam's holiest cities. All able-bodied Muslims are required to make a pilgrimage there at least once in their lives. Tancredo's comments were recorded and posted on the Web site iowapolitics.com.

A Washington-based Islamic civil rights and advocacy group responded in anger Thursday, calling Tancredo's statement "unworthy of anyone seeking public office in the United States."

"Perhaps it's evidence of a long-shot candidate grasping at straws and trying to create some kind of a controversy that might appeal to a niche audience of anti-Muslim bigots," said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Campaign spokesman, Alan Moore, said Tancredo stands by his statement.

This isn't the first time Tancredo has suggested taking extreme action against Mecca and Medina.

In 2005, he drew international criticism after he told a radio talk show host that "you could take out" Islamic holy sites if terrorists ever launched a nuclear attack against the United States.
 
This is just great. Respond to a terrorist attack by destroying a site of which virtually all who hold it to be holy are not connected to the perpetrating terrorists. Shows the collectivist mindset that Tancredo must have, viewing all Muslims as one unvariated Borg.
 
That's kindergarten strategy.

"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 at the Family Table restaurant. "Because that's the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they otherwise might do."

Yep, and he doesn't think much. Not much of a brainstormer. Derrrr......I seem to have forgotten something. He needs to go to the Emerald City. Follow the Yellow Brick Road....
 
WOW.....I am shocked :eek: ! That is pure foolishness. Instead of creating new terrorists daily by killing their friends and families in Iraq like Bush does, Tancredo would just create a whole country of Terrorists in one day by striking the one thing that would create insant hatred by all of them :eek:
 
He has a hollow space between his ears to even suggest this. As a Muslim I can tell you that if the US were to do this, any previous offense Muslims have felt from the US would be forgotten as trivial. The blowback that would result from this would be the deaths of millions of Americans. It would be committing the greatest offense possible to over 1 billion people and it would be met with immediate military and private response on Americans at home and abroad by a number of countries and individuals, almost all of whom would never otherwise lift a finger against Americans or America.
 
Last edited:
What would this do to Islam?

Anger them obviously, but who would they be angry with?

If you believe in Islam, nothing could possibly happen to Mecca and Medina. God wouldn't allow it. So if something actually did happen, wouldn't that be undeniable evidence that their views on god are wrong?

Obviously it is policy we can't pursue but I am curious what the blowback would truly be. I honestly think this would be the death of the religion.

It's almost like finding verifiable evidience that Jesus was a work of fiction. How could such a thing not cripple christianity?
 
I can see a certain strategy in this as a warning to the peaceful Muslims around the world to take control of their religion. Sort of like "We don't want to do this but unless you guys clean house we'll have no choice". However, it's extreme and I don't think it will work with an entire religion.

However, against a nation it might. If al qaeda continues to operate against us out of Pakistan and Musharraf refuses to do anything about it and refuses to let us take care of it ourselves or even hinders us, threatening Pakistan would seem reasonable to me.
 
I can see a certain strategy in this as a warning to the peaceful Muslims around the world to take control of their religion. Sort of like "We don't want to do this but unless you guys clean house we'll have no choice". However, it's extreme and I don't think it will work with an entire religion.

However, against a nation it might. If al qaeda continues to operate against us out of Pakistan and Musharraf refuses to do anything about it and refuses to let us take care of it ourselves or even hinders us, threatening Pakistan would seem reasonable to me.

Like Nefertiti said, it wouldn't serve as a warning but it would trigger otherwise non-violent Muslims to become violent. Al-Qaeda wouldn't be operating against us out of Pakistan if we aren't in Iraq...
 
Al-Qaeda wouldn't be operating against us out of Pakistan if we aren't in Iraq...

Are you sure about that? Do you really believe that every single person that is fighting against us now will just stop if we withdraw from the middle east entirely and stop funding Israel? There won't be any groups who will think that we haven't been punished enough for past grievances or who have bought into the theological excuses for this conflict that will still continue attacking?

I think this view is just as ignorant and naive as "they hate us for our freedom".
 
This is just great. Respond to a terrorist attack by destroying a site of which virtually all who hold it to be holy are not connected to the perpetrating terrorists. Shows the collectivist mindset that Tancredo must have, viewing all Muslims as one unvariated Borg.

Well you know, it probably takes one to know one on that issue so he's effed on that.

It's like those cartoons where the two guys are stuck in the dinghy in the ocean and one sees the other turn into a steak.

-
Negersky
 
It's unwise to articulate what our response to an attack will be in advance. Uncertainty about our reaction is a greater deterent.
 
Are you sure about that? Do you really believe that every single person that is fighting against us now will just stop if we withdraw from the middle east entirely and stop funding Israel? There won't be any groups who will think that we haven't been punished enough for past grievances or who have bought into the theological excuses for this conflict that will still continue attacking?

I think this view is just as ignorant and naive as "they hate us for our freedom".

Israel will definitely do something if we stop the money flow.

They're so bent on it that they will launch nukes if they have to do it.

My hope is that someone flips the scalar light on when and if they decide to press the red button.

This whole conflict could be started and defused worldwide in a matter of moments with the right interferometry set up. Nikita Kruschev wasn't lying in the 60s
-
Negersky
 
Are you sure about that? Do you really believe that every single person that is fighting against us now will just stop if we withdraw from the middle east entirely and stop funding Israel? There won't be any groups who will think that we haven't been punished enough for past grievances or who have bought into the theological excuses for this conflict that will still continue attacking?

I think this view is just as ignorant and naive as "they hate us for our freedom".

What I meant is Al-Qaeda wouldn't be a direct threat to us if we weren't in proximity to them by being in Iraq.
 
Nope, Tanc would be a good VP

I hope we can all agree to ixnay on the eepvay, okay?!?

Sorry buddy, gotta disagree.

Tanc is even crazier than Ron Paul, that deters any attempt on the good doctor.

Marc Sanford is the best choice, but I like the way Tanc thinks and says what he feels.

I think nuking Mecca, Media, and Jerusalem would finally bring the Old World out of the Dark Ages.

They need to stop with the tribal squabbles and help humanity achieve its destiny in space. Or get out of the way, forever.
 
A concept called "deterrence."

Bombing ancient holy sites... Tancredo has no honor.

Reagan would have bombed the Kremlin, despite the historical curiosity the churches there might provide to future generations.

Maybe Tanc feels that that losing some old buildings in another country is worth it, when American lives are at stake.

Amercians > holy sites.
 
Back
Top