Congressman Threatens Islamic Holy Sites

It's only a threat....and not even that.......A threat was really never made.....But.... Behave your selves....Leave us and the rest of the world alone....And ...hopefully...we, the US and the rest of the UN, and the world will leave you alone.....And why should other countries suffer for what the US has done in their foreign policies??????.....It doesn't matter.....The Terrorists will bully you too....as they have done...The "My stick is bigger than your stick"...Teddy Roosevelt.....

Am I digging my own grave....here.......I am really short...just dig a shallow one.... 😄

Originally posted by PVS
makes sense GCG.

but for some reason people think that if you aggravate them to a certain extent, they will suddenly cower and submit. stupid huh? they just want to hit the hornets nest harder and harder with hopes that they just give up.

It's always been that way......They will never cower and submt...they never have......this will not end anytime soon unless WE ARE THE ONES WHO SUBMIT....and that means all of us. Do you want to submit???

Yes, if such logic worked then the Afghan campaign would have had some effect. If anything it is just as bad, if not worse really. And at the moment Al Qaeda is still the minority of Muslims. If one were to nuke Mecca I can't help but feel pretty sure the worlds billion plus Muslims would be far more interested in what Bin Laden and his ilk have to say. Thats the problem with escalation "you throw a punch, I'll go get a knife, you'll get a gun, I'll get..." and if anything such a retaliation would escalate things only further...

Oh, and then there's the fact it's really, really stupid. So, terrorists, probably Al Qaeda, use some manner of nuclear weapon (probably a "dirty" bomb) and the "ultimate response" is to bomb Mecca, kill thousands, if not millions of INNOCENT people (as well as the fact Mecca is in an allied country really) and most probably make the problem 10 times worse. Were did this guy learn about foreign policy and strategy? In a corn flake box? Because really, it seems like he is trying to sound all tough.

Bombing mecca would have worse affects thebn 9/11 imo.

OK...here's a question...what if the US, the UN and everyone else pulled out of the Middle east....Would that solve the problem?

No but bombing mecca would make the War on terror impossibile to fight not even close to win.

I didn't say bomb them...I said threaten them to make the Middle East take more responsibility in finding those terrorists that live in their own countries, and help bring an end to this.

like thats going to happen. They would just go hide in the next country beside them.

If the US it self can't stop terrorist at their doorstep in Iraq how do you think Muslim countries will?? This is no game of threats or bomb the hell out of everybody. You have to stop radical Islam and thats near impossible.

Technically that's actually one of the things groups like that supposedly want, the West out of the East... granted, it probably wouldn't work, but then you never know, terrorist networks are insidious in that they prey on angry, vengeful people, drawing them in and sending them out. If say everyone left the Middle East, it's possible it might be a blow as the convenient target of the terrorist hate would be gone.

And one must remember, certain Middle Eastern nations have been known to support the likes of Al Qaeda (the Saudi royals, the Taliban) so it might not be that they would come into a conflict with them anyway.

Originally posted by PVS
sure, as long as you study christian history. *cough*inquisition*cough*
*ahem* my thought is so sore *cough*crusades*cough* i could use a glass of water

On the note of Christians persecuting others:

1. There have been numerous situations when the roles have been reversed (Fox's Book of Martyrs is a really interesting read, in case you cared).

2. Those were the Catholics...I'm not affiliated with them or their liberal ideals that control what they believe.

Okay, I am affiliated with them, but the latter part still stands. (I hope I didn't turn the thread into Christians vs. Catholics debate/flame fest).

catholics back then were some bad dudes.

Originally posted by debbiejo
I didn't say bomb them...I said threaten them to make the Middle East take more responsibility in finding those terrorists that live in their own countries, and help bring an end to this.

you think with no logic.
why do people fail to just take a moment and see things from a different
perspective. THEIR perspective. lets say a muslem nation like say....saudi arabia becomes frustrated with our handling of the war(s) and declares that if
we dont pull out of the middle east they will destroy the vatacan, killing everyone. of coarse, secretly they done MEAN it, but to us, and from what we hear, they do mean it. will we just say "OH LORDY LORDY WHAT WILL WE DO!!?!? oh well, lets do what they say." or will we bomb the shit out of them?

use some frikin logic people. alot of you view muslems as cowards and terrorists and thats a big mistake. and before you dellude the thread with your insincere PC bullshit lying double talk, understand what i said. to officially suggest such an action would enrage the entire muslem community and we would be in a world of shit. THINK FFS or STFU

Exactly.

With the sheer amount of Muslim faith countries on Earth, you literally would be talking the REAL World War III.

http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_3937059,00.html

Tancredo: No apology

He believes bombing of Muslim holy sites has been discussed

By M.E. Sprengelmeyer / Rocky Mountain News

WASHINGTON - The remarks were hypothetical but the outrage was real.

Facing mounting criticism, Rep. Tom Tancredo on Monday refused to apologize for suggesting the United States could target Muslim holy sites if radical Islamic terrorists set off multiple nuclear attacks in American cities.

"It's a tough issue to deal with," Tancredo told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference. "Tough things are said. And we should not shy away from saying things that need to be said."

Tancredo is known for his fiery rhetoric on immigration and other issues, but his words are coming under more scrutiny because he has started traveling to test the waters for a possible presidential candidacy in 2008.

A spokeswoman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called Tancredo's remarks irresponsible.

"They do nothing to advance our national security and protect Americans from terrorists," Pelosi spokeswoman Jennifer Crider said.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which calls itself the largest Islamic civil rights group in the United States, demanded an apology Monday, after the Rocky Mountain News published an account of his Friday interview with WFLA radio in Florida.

In the interview, talk show host Pat Campbell asked Tancredo what the United States should do if terrorists were to strike several U.S. 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," Campbell said.

"Yeah," Tancredo responded.

He went on to say that he was "just throwing out some ideas" but that an "ultimate threat" might have to be met with an "ultimate response."

Tancredo later said he was not advocating such a response, but merely discussing what could happen in a hypothetical situation.

"I was talking about what we could maybe do as a preventative," Tancredo said. "I simply throw that out there as a thing to think about, although it is horrendous to think about. So is having one or more cities destroyed in the United States."

CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper called Tancredo's remarks irresponsible, inflammatory and "unworthy of an elected official."

"These kinds of . . . comments just serve to fuel negative perceptions of the United States in the Muslim world that create a downward spiral of hostility," Hooper said.

"He needs to go far beyond a clarification and apologize, not only to the people of Colorado, but to the American-Muslim community."

Tancredo rejected the idea of apologizing at his news conference, where the controversy overshadowed the topic he wanted to address, his introduction of comprehensive immigration reform legislation. His bill would create a limited guest worker plan for immigrants but only after beefing up border security.

Last week in Iowa, home of the nation's first presidential caucuses, he pressed his immigration reform agenda to members of the Christian Coalition. At each stop, he also spoke briefly about what he sees as a clash of civilizations and war against "radical Islam."

Hooper said it was a "quantum leap" for Tancredo to go a step further and suggest destroying Muslim holy sites that are at the center of a faith for one-fifth of the world's people.

"Unfortunately, there's a veritable cottage industry of anti-Muslim rhetoric now in our society, and it seems to be growing," Hooper said. "I don't know where it's taking us, because if people really do believe we're in conflict with the faith of Islam, what does that mean? What are the implications of that? Unending civilizational and religious war? It's too much to contemplate."

In an interview, Tancredo said he did not intend to offend moderate Muslims, whom he calls the "best hope" of bringing terrorists to justice.

"When we bombed Hiroshima, when we bombed Dresden, we punished a lot of people who were not necessarily (guilty)," Tancredo said. "Not every German was a member of the Nazi Party. You do things in war that are ugly."

He stressed that he was not advocating an attack on Islamic holy sites, but that counterattacks had to be considered - and perhaps telegraphed ahead of time. That way, he said, both sides would know the stakes under a worst-case scenario, much as they did under the Cold War theory of "mutually assured destruction."

Tancredo believes government officials already have considered such a scenario.

"Do they think, honestly, if I never said that, it wouldn't be contemplated?" Tancredo said. "Of course, things are contemplated, and I certainly wouldn't be the only one. Not saying it does not mean it doesn't exist in the minds of people."

Late Monday, CAIR officials said they were trying to arrange a meeting between Tancredo and Colorado Muslim leaders. Tancredo spokesman Will Adams said he had not received the invitation but that the congressman would be willing to meet with moderate Muslims.

well...i do agree with one thing he said. im sure its been discussed as well.

True if you bomb mecca terrorists would attack with a fury aginst the troops in Iraq i think we would be forced to pull out or face a veitnam war there. Imagine what would happen if most of the population truns aginst you. You can never win. Its a fact in History. You make the war on terror from near impossibile to win to impossibile to fight at all!!!!

if this tan credo guy did something like this, he would never make it in 2008. the terrorists are playing games with tan credo. they want him to do this so that the prime ministers of the middle east would be outraged by what America did and declare a real war. the middle east doesn't care what they are doing in Iraq, as long as you don't hurt any holy shrines, if so then we are messing with the wrong people. If America bomb the middle east then the world will view America as the "murderous nation." then they will side with the middle east because they realize America is a threat and they might be attacked also. America's allies will not help America because they will feel like they are being betrayed. bombing the middle east would be like striking a hornet's nest. if any nations can start any wars it would be the middle east. America will be looking at fighting the world if this happens.

All this "oh don´t bomb or annoy the Muslim states, or they´ll attack us, set terrorists on us etc.." is bollocks.
There are already terrorsits running arround blowing folk up and planning other nasty stuff.
And in a *** for tat approach the Muslims will loose in the end, especially when they are all dead.

Im not saying that bombing holy sites is a right thing to do, just that in the end of an escalation the west, would win.

And it wouldn´t be a world war because the US is the only superpower, China doesn´t give a toss, Russia wouldn´t get involved or maybe help considering thier Czechnia problems, and who else has something to say apart from Pakistan which would cease to excist if they tried a Nuclear attack, plus India might join the battle and take Pakistan out.

No its not countries attacking the US that would not be the problem. It would be huge problems in Iraq for the troops. You know that terrorism would become very very popular in the middle east and you will find many people trying to attack the US. If you have the people against you can not win. It won't be countries attacking that would be a problem. It would be those terrorist groups and such that would cause the real damage.

Its a fact of history. If the masses are set against something it will be done. It would make the war very very hard and you would increase the number of terrorists by 1000%. You would loose many many friends and supporters. It won't be world war. It be Israel type situation in the US.

true, you can't fight a one country war and win.