Tancredo: No Apologies For Proposing To Attack Mecca

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Not_Whistlin_Dixie, Jul 25, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colorado) stirred up controversy when he suggested, on a radio talk show, that perhaps the USA should answer future terrorist outrages, directed against its territory, by destroying the Islamic holy places, presumably Mecca and Medina.

    He now says he stands behind these utterances and makes no apology for them.

    "Tancredo talk too offensive? Too bad, says congressman" 25 July 2005
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45425
     
  2. What a complete tool. He clearly needs a kicking on the grounds that such moronic statements are more likely to incite further violence than put the terrorists off. Who are the agressors here? I would like to think that we (in the UK) will be pro-active in the quest to stop the terrorists, but I would also like to think that we will be perceived in our actions as reasonable and fair, and not as agressors. Making statements about bombing Mecca is only going to result in more US-hating.

    I wonder if he has any fingers in 'defence contract' pies?
     
  3. What the heck? That's a complete idiot. What, if anything, is that going to accomplish other than a complete disaster?
     
  4. Soldier_Why

    Soldier_Why LE Moderator

    I get the impression that he doesn't actually know where Mecca is.

    Incidentally isn't Jerusalem more of a holy site than Mecca to Muslims? Maybe we should bomb that.
     
  5. Not that I'm remotely interested in what some clueless spam politician is gobbing off about, but I suppose he is illustrating quite appositely his First Amendment rights.

    V!
     
  6. Totally off-topic but hey, I'm feeling reckless today... if the US Constitution is so sacred, why does it have so many Amendments? And who's to say the Amendments shouldn't be amended?
     
  7. Near Luton High Street, does a bloody good vindaloo .
     
  8. Well, they did bring in the Twenty-First Amendment to get rid of the Eighteenth Amendment... I'd better stop there as the idea of bringing in an Amendment to Amend an Amendment is making me feel quite dizzy!
     
  9. Good point young man. Probably enough to get you arrested by the FBI for generic nasty thoughts!
     
  10. utter b0llocks...the statement about further inciting the terrorists. They, the terrorists, will use any and all excuses to conduct further attacks. Today it is our action in Afghanistan and Iraq and tomorrow it will be the incarceration of a fellow terrorist and the day after that some other excuse. They use the excuses to justify their actions to those stupid enough to believe they must have a good reason for carrying out attacks against civilians. It does not matter what we say or do as to whether they "feel" incited to commit violent attacks against innocent civilians. Hell they are killing Iraqis and kidnapping fellow muslims that are working toward a free and democratic Iraq or taking part in a new Iraqi government.

    They care not what we do or say, they are driven by the fact that we are either not followers of Islam or not followers of their form of Islam and will not rest until all infidels are dead.

    As for the statement by Rep. Tancredo, I find it a bit over the top and do not agree with it, but he is a politician and as such is vying to retain his elected position. I am sure that this is the rhetoric his constituency is wanting to hear from him, based on his polling data and interaction with them.
     
  11. Tancredo may be over the top but I guarantee that if a nuke is detonated in NY or London the one thing that I can guarantee is that ALOT of people will be fired up [read angry] and no action would be considered extreme by a public demanding revenge.

    http://froggyruminations.blogspot.com/

    Hugh Hewitt Gets Taken For a Ride

    Hosting Hassam Aloush (?) the SoCal head of C A I R for the first two hours of his program today, Hugh unwittingly turned the keys of his radio show over to an organization that has a long track record of apologizing for islamic terror. I’m not sure if Hugh was simply unprepared for the interview, or in his zealousness to deconstruct the Tancredo Option that he decided to swing the conversation in the opposite direction. At the end of the day it really doesn’t matter. Toward the end of the first hour he had Duane working the phones desperately to get Frank Gaffney on the show to bail him out. What he got was some guy named Dr. Morey (?) who was as much a moonbat as the CAIR guy.

    Throw in a couple of hillbillies getting past the call screener calling for the US to nuke the muslims and you have yourself the show that should never have happened. Look, I’m not a radio talkshow host and I can’t imagine the show prep that goes into this kind of thing (neither did Jeff Goldstein and Bill Ardolino), but it obviously didn’t go the way it was planned. Aloush stonewalled on every point, and gave the impression, like a good little CAIR spokesman, that there really isn’t any terrorism in the world. Hugh pulls out the guy who murdered Van Gogh in Amsterdam, Aloush retorts with Eric Rudolf. He dismissed the Lakawanna Six, the Lodi cell, any acknowledgement of any radical imams in the US, and denied that wahabbi charities had ties to terrorism and were active in the US. He said that “hundreds of fatwas” have been issued AGAINST Usama bin Laden, and offered no substantiation at all. He criticized MEMRI as essentially racist. I can’t remember all the deceptions and outright lies that were told and mostly completely unchallenged.

    Of course he promised to come back on the show with Frank Gaffney who would have called him out on his many specious claims, but he accomplished his mission and I doubt he answers Duane’s phone calls. Hell, Charles Johnson of LGF would have been just as good. Somehow I don’t think this transcript is going to make it onto Radioblogger.com

    Another blogger weighs in.

    http://baldilocks.typepad.com/baldilocks/2005/07/get_it_right.html
     
  12. Tomahawk, I'm also reasonably au fait with the right-of-centre blogosphere, finding it a refreshing break from the MSM as you probably do.

    However, it's a hothouse environment full of people who broadly agree with each other and should be treated as such. And, like many other things, when you start delving into the American right-wing blogosphere, away from the fairly vanilla VodkaPundit and the like, you really start heading into deepest, darkest tinfoil Napoleon hat-land.

    Which is where much of your material is coming from.

    V!
     
  13. Why doesn't Tancredo volunteer his 2 sons for service with the Colorado National Guard?

    They look of a suitable age to be looking down a rifle sight at scenic Baghdad!

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  14. The so called right wing blog's represent main stream of US public opinion. Viewership is way down for ABC,CBS,NBC,CNN and way up at Fox news. In next year's election's the Republican's will gain more seats in the Senate and House with the Dem's becoming an even more shrill minority. While I would not want to have to see nuke strike's on targets in the middle east if the US was attacked by a nuclear device I wouldnt bat an eye by turning the islamic world into radioactive cinder. Alot of innocent people were killed during WW2 but the war was fought to its conclusion.
     
  15. cpunk

    cpunk LE Moderator

    I should imagine they would be upset but the reality of high grade WMD in the hands of terrorists is currently a right-wing fantasy. I would think that Islamic states might become more minded to supply WMD to terrorists as a deterrent measure if irresponsible goons like this continue to make wild statements. So far as I know, the only 'terrorist' attacks ever attempted with real 'weapons grade' WMD were the US postal anthrax attacks, and the reality there is that the Anthrax was stolen from a US Government laboratory, probably by one of its employees (and if its the one everyone thinks it is, he's a right-wing Islamophobe) for reasons which aren't entirely clear.

    Is the threat of nuking Mecca or Medina likely to deter Al Qa'eda? Nope, not in the slightest: they've shown no reluctance ever, anywhere, to moderate their attacks because of the risk to innocent Muslims or Holy places. It just makes Tancredo look a fool and reinforces outsiders' prejudices about the USA.