I’m About To Catch Hell From Those That Know Me
All I have to say, first of all, is hear me out. Don’t jump the gun on a damned thing, yet. I’m about to address a story that has very little legs right now except among bloggers. The MSM hasn’t picked up on this, that I’m aware of. In a seemingly innocuous talk show appearance, Rep. Tom Tancredo, (R-CO), admitted that we should take some rather "draconian" measures in the face of a act of nuclear terrorism on the United States last Friday.
Rep. Tom Tancredo made his remarks Friday on WFLA-AM in Orlando, Fla. His spokesman stressed he was only speaking hypothetically.
Talk show host Pat Campbell asked the Littleton Republican how the country should respond if terrorists struck 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.
The congressman later said he was "just throwing out some ideas" and that an "ultimate threat" might have to be met with an "ultimate response."
Spokesman Will Adams said Sunday the four-term congressman doesn't support threatening holy Islamic sites but that Tancredo was grappling with the hypothetical situation of a terrorist strike deadlier than the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
"We have an enemy with no uniform, no state, who looks like you and me and only emerges right before an attack. How do we go after someone like that?" Adams said.
"What is near and dear to them? They're willing to sacrifice everything in this world for the next one. What is the pressure point that would deter them from their murderous impulses?" he said.
I’m taking this man to task. I’m not some intellectually-dishonest, right-wing Kool-aid drinker here. I took Durbin to task over his comments, and I’m going to do the same to Tancredo. What this man proposes is reprehensible. It may be a "hypothetical" situation, but this country has never—NEVER—responded to any attack by bombing civilians.
We don’t target civilians. This is what sets this nation apart from many, including nations like Iran and Syria, who are ongoing sponsors of terrorists, which end up targeting civilians. No matter the conflict they participate in, they eventually turn to attacking civilians. I think Iraq is proven that that is a misguided tactic. It also doesn’t work for us, as 11 Sept. proved. We don’t like pulling bodies of civilians out of rubble because of an attack. It irks us. Ask the Taliban.
Further, it would be utterly stupid of us to attack a religious site, especially one the caliber of Mecca. That would be the equivalent of detonating a nuke in Jerusalem or Vatican City. You just don’t do it. The repercussions of such an act, as Tancredo offered, would be a fair majority of the 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide joining the ranks of al-Qaeda. Talk about a terrorist recruitment symbol. I guarantee you that each and every day he wakes up (provided he’s still alive) bin-Laden tries to devise a plan to push us in that direction. He knows that such an attack would fill his ranks. He’d have legions of terrorists more than willing to "martyr" themselves in his name.
There are ways to deal with such a threat. It’s in the return of a not-so-veiled threat. Tancredo, had he been using his head, should have stated the following:
"If a nuke is lit off in the US, then Damascus and Tehran will disappear. They’ll glow in the dark because they sponsor this sort of behavior, and chances are, they’ve had a hand in this attack. Next, because so many terrorists are grown in Saudi Arabia, it’s time for regime change. The House of Saud gets no further protection from the US, or its military, and the House of Saud will be gone."
Pretty straight forward. We have enough evidence to justify a strike on either Iran or Syria. Iran is pursuing their nuclear weapons program, and we have enough evidence to show they may have as many as two working nuclear devices. Syria has been such a longtime financier and backer of terrorism, al-Qaeda looks at them as the eccentric, rich uncle handing out hundred-dollar bills instead of quarters if you pester your sister. Add to the fact that Syria has still not conducted a full pull-out from Lebanon as they agreed to. (I know this doesn’t warrant a nuke strike, but it’s just further justification for action, as the non-adhered to UN sanctions against Iraq only furthered the argument for regime change did.)
And, it doesn’t turn an entire religion against us. I know a lot of them are saying, "big deal, bring them on," but I’d like to serve up a prominent reminder that many strategists in this area have to look at. Both Pakistan and India are predominantly Muslim nations, and they have nuclear weapons. Those weapons can either reach us (via missile), or they can hand the warheads off to terrorists to smuggle into the US for another nuclear-style strike.
Too many people act on emotion, which is what such a retaliatory strike would be based on, rather than cooler heads working the problem. Reaction isn’t the problem. Those responsible will eventually be hunted down, but we’ll get no cooperation from them if we glass their holiest site. The comment was just plain foolish. As I said, I can understand the excuse of a "hypothetical" situation, but the statement needs to be retracted, or apologized for. Tancredo’s a good man, and I’d hate to see what this continues to foster before he deals with it. He already has a lot of people who agree with him. I’m guessing that the full picture just didn’t unfold for them the way it did for me.
I talk about the law, in regards to the Constitution, and I know I’m good at it. But I don’t have a law degree, or any serious, formal training in the law. I talk about a lot of things I haven’t been taught about. In this case, I know zip about geopolitics and strategy, but this sort of an idea just screams, "DUMBASS!" I’m not a weak man; I am willing to go to certain lengths to deal with our enemy, but it doesn’t involve nuking a civilian populace for the actions of a few bad apples. Would we support the annihilation of a town, during the Revolutionary War, because one person told the British about plans the Continental Army had? No, of course not. So, why should we subscribe to such an action now? Why should we punish all for a few? It’s illogical, which is why I waited so long to post this. I wanted to hear him speak. He sounds genuine on this.
But it’s not acceptable. So, I’m joining the swarm over this, and I’m calling for Tancredo to either retract his statement and/or apologize for it. This is not an acceptable statement from a sitting US congressman. The propaganda fallout alone could hurt the nation if al-Jazeera gets wind of this and starts playing it. This sort of statement is as unacceptable as the statement made by Durbin about our troops, or any analogy made by any government official comparing an ideological opponent as Hitler. This just isn’t done. This is not how the Founding Fathers would have dealt with such a question. And we, as a nation, are wrong for siding with such a notion. We are not the barbarians that attack us, and the free peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan. We are the United States of America, and we’re better than that.
Publius II
All I have to say, first of all, is hear me out. Don’t jump the gun on a damned thing, yet. I’m about to address a story that has very little legs right now except among bloggers. The MSM hasn’t picked up on this, that I’m aware of. In a seemingly innocuous talk show appearance, Rep. Tom Tancredo, (R-CO), admitted that we should take some rather "draconian" measures in the face of a act of nuclear terrorism on the United States last Friday.
Rep. Tom Tancredo made his remarks Friday on WFLA-AM in Orlando, Fla. His spokesman stressed he was only speaking hypothetically.
Talk show host Pat Campbell asked the Littleton Republican how the country should respond if terrorists struck 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.
The congressman later said he was "just throwing out some ideas" and that an "ultimate threat" might have to be met with an "ultimate response."
Spokesman Will Adams said Sunday the four-term congressman doesn't support threatening holy Islamic sites but that Tancredo was grappling with the hypothetical situation of a terrorist strike deadlier than the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
"We have an enemy with no uniform, no state, who looks like you and me and only emerges right before an attack. How do we go after someone like that?" Adams said.
"What is near and dear to them? They're willing to sacrifice everything in this world for the next one. What is the pressure point that would deter them from their murderous impulses?" he said.
I’m taking this man to task. I’m not some intellectually-dishonest, right-wing Kool-aid drinker here. I took Durbin to task over his comments, and I’m going to do the same to Tancredo. What this man proposes is reprehensible. It may be a "hypothetical" situation, but this country has never—NEVER—responded to any attack by bombing civilians.
We don’t target civilians. This is what sets this nation apart from many, including nations like Iran and Syria, who are ongoing sponsors of terrorists, which end up targeting civilians. No matter the conflict they participate in, they eventually turn to attacking civilians. I think Iraq is proven that that is a misguided tactic. It also doesn’t work for us, as 11 Sept. proved. We don’t like pulling bodies of civilians out of rubble because of an attack. It irks us. Ask the Taliban.
Further, it would be utterly stupid of us to attack a religious site, especially one the caliber of Mecca. That would be the equivalent of detonating a nuke in Jerusalem or Vatican City. You just don’t do it. The repercussions of such an act, as Tancredo offered, would be a fair majority of the 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide joining the ranks of al-Qaeda. Talk about a terrorist recruitment symbol. I guarantee you that each and every day he wakes up (provided he’s still alive) bin-Laden tries to devise a plan to push us in that direction. He knows that such an attack would fill his ranks. He’d have legions of terrorists more than willing to "martyr" themselves in his name.
There are ways to deal with such a threat. It’s in the return of a not-so-veiled threat. Tancredo, had he been using his head, should have stated the following:
"If a nuke is lit off in the US, then Damascus and Tehran will disappear. They’ll glow in the dark because they sponsor this sort of behavior, and chances are, they’ve had a hand in this attack. Next, because so many terrorists are grown in Saudi Arabia, it’s time for regime change. The House of Saud gets no further protection from the US, or its military, and the House of Saud will be gone."
Pretty straight forward. We have enough evidence to justify a strike on either Iran or Syria. Iran is pursuing their nuclear weapons program, and we have enough evidence to show they may have as many as two working nuclear devices. Syria has been such a longtime financier and backer of terrorism, al-Qaeda looks at them as the eccentric, rich uncle handing out hundred-dollar bills instead of quarters if you pester your sister. Add to the fact that Syria has still not conducted a full pull-out from Lebanon as they agreed to. (I know this doesn’t warrant a nuke strike, but it’s just further justification for action, as the non-adhered to UN sanctions against Iraq only furthered the argument for regime change did.)
And, it doesn’t turn an entire religion against us. I know a lot of them are saying, "big deal, bring them on," but I’d like to serve up a prominent reminder that many strategists in this area have to look at. Both Pakistan and India are predominantly Muslim nations, and they have nuclear weapons. Those weapons can either reach us (via missile), or they can hand the warheads off to terrorists to smuggle into the US for another nuclear-style strike.
Too many people act on emotion, which is what such a retaliatory strike would be based on, rather than cooler heads working the problem. Reaction isn’t the problem. Those responsible will eventually be hunted down, but we’ll get no cooperation from them if we glass their holiest site. The comment was just plain foolish. As I said, I can understand the excuse of a "hypothetical" situation, but the statement needs to be retracted, or apologized for. Tancredo’s a good man, and I’d hate to see what this continues to foster before he deals with it. He already has a lot of people who agree with him. I’m guessing that the full picture just didn’t unfold for them the way it did for me.
I talk about the law, in regards to the Constitution, and I know I’m good at it. But I don’t have a law degree, or any serious, formal training in the law. I talk about a lot of things I haven’t been taught about. In this case, I know zip about geopolitics and strategy, but this sort of an idea just screams, "DUMBASS!" I’m not a weak man; I am willing to go to certain lengths to deal with our enemy, but it doesn’t involve nuking a civilian populace for the actions of a few bad apples. Would we support the annihilation of a town, during the Revolutionary War, because one person told the British about plans the Continental Army had? No, of course not. So, why should we subscribe to such an action now? Why should we punish all for a few? It’s illogical, which is why I waited so long to post this. I wanted to hear him speak. He sounds genuine on this.
But it’s not acceptable. So, I’m joining the swarm over this, and I’m calling for Tancredo to either retract his statement and/or apologize for it. This is not an acceptable statement from a sitting US congressman. The propaganda fallout alone could hurt the nation if al-Jazeera gets wind of this and starts playing it. This sort of statement is as unacceptable as the statement made by Durbin about our troops, or any analogy made by any government official comparing an ideological opponent as Hitler. This just isn’t done. This is not how the Founding Fathers would have dealt with such a question. And we, as a nation, are wrong for siding with such a notion. We are not the barbarians that attack us, and the free peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan. We are the United States of America, and we’re better than that.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 12:34 AM
1 Comments:
I'm interested to know how bin laden feels now that the threat has been made against Mecca. I understand the historical importance of the place, but they do not care one iota about other cultures historical importances. They blew up the Buddhas in Afghanistan. I think it's time to fight fire with fire. In general, it makes me sick to think about it, but if nukes hit the USA, this is war to the nth degree. Tehran and Damascus are good starts, too.
Post a Comment
<< Home