Tancredo: Bomb Mecca

[MNeedham73]

Not sure quite what to think about this idea. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/) Not that Tancredo has a snowball's chance in hell of being elected anyway, but laying waste to Mecca or Medina if the US suffers another major terrorist attack? Might be one hell of a deterrent if terrorists thought we were serious. Or maybe not.

“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. “That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong, fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent, or you will find an attack.”

[Advocat]

Not sure quite what to think about this idea. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/) Not that Tancredo has a snowball's chance in hell of being elected anyway, but laying waste to Mecca or Medina if the US suffers another major terrorist attack? Might be one hell of a deterrent if terrorists thought we were serious. Or maybe not.

Oooookay then... so, let's unite all Muslims against the West by threatening to destroy the holy sites of their religion if a handful of fanatics attack the US again. Yep, sounds like a wonderful idea to me. One of the major ideas pushed by the terrorists is that the West is out to destroy Islam, so let's prove them right by threatening the centres of their religion. That will solve everything :crazy:

But hey, it's election time, so anything goes. Who knows... as a political ploy, it might work, though I'd worry about anyone with this philosophy getting elected.

[ethics]

That has to be the dumbest idea I've ever seen from any politicians.

[Advocat]

That has to be the dumbest idea I've ever seen from any politicians.

Well, you have to remember that Obama upped the ante by saying under his Presidency the US would attack al Qaeda strongholds in Pakistan if Musharraf wouldn't, so I'd say Tancredo is just trying to outdo Obama on rhetoric. After all, it doesn't look like he can outdo him on much else. :)

[Coot]

It's not campaign rhetoric. Tancredo's been on the record with this for several years now. And, it's not all that whacky. If that becomes a defacto position, I do believe it would give the extremists a reason to pause on their desire to assplode shit in this country.

[Advocat]

It's not campaign rhetoric. Tancredo's been on the record with this for several years now. And, it's not all that whacky. If that becomes a defacto position, I do believe it would give the extremists a reason to pause on their desire to assplode shit in this country.

Just my opinion, but not in the least. An attack on Mecca/Medina would just prove to the general Moslem public that the West was against all Islam, thereby creating a wave solidifying support behind the fundamentalists; this is exactly what al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have been trying to sell to the Moslem world. This would effectively create the total polarization of West vs. Islam the fundamentalists are seeking. We'd be playing directly into their hands.

Ah, but it sounds so good.

I'm sure that if, say Hezbollah, threatened to bomb the Wailing Wall, it would stop the Israelis from bombing Hezbollah targets in Lebanon or the Golan Heights.

No? Then why would you think a similar concept would stop Islamic fanatics?

[ethics]

Coot. Do you really think extremists who go against Islam and bomb little kids and women, any civilians, would really care what you do to the holy sites? US would play right in to their script.

[joseftu]

It's not campaign rhetoric.
I can't decide whether it would be worse for him to just say this in order to be elected, or for him to actually believe it.

Either way, there's no way he should ever be close to having the power to act on such a statement.

[Copzilla]

Nuke 'em til they glow, then we'll have a night fire exercise!

...

Kidding!

A few observations from above statements -

1) A "few extremists" isn't. The entire region is extremist. The religion is becoming more and more extremist, and they hardly need an excuse to unite against western interests. They already are united against western interests.

that said...

2) It's still a stupid idea to target a holy site, because it wouldn't accomplish anything. The notion that terrorists won't be swayed by such an act is correct.

3) What WOULD make a difference is an ultimatum to Egyptian, Saudi, Syrian governments, stop them, give us those terrorists or we will kill you, straight up. Not bombing holy sites... oh no. Bombing presidential palaces, bouncing the rubble of the homes of the ruling elite. Remember what happened when this was done with Quadaffi? And does anything think the public gives a crap about those ruling elite? haha... don't think so.

[Violet1966]

I could not believe my ears last night when I heard this on the news. If anyone ever did this, we'd have Muslims who are now nuetral, infuriated and signing up to help bring down the West.

Also, I don't doubt for one second that the first thing they would target would be Jerusalem. Destroying important religious sites will only bring more hate. :(

[Stiofán]

3) What WOULD make a difference is an ultimatum to Egyptian, Saudi, Syrian governments, stop them, give us those terrorists or we will kill you, straight up. Not bombing holy sites... oh no. Bombing presidential palaces, bouncing the rubble of the homes of the ruling elite. Remember what happened when this was done with Quadaffi? And does anything think the public gives a crap about those ruling elite? haha... don't think so.


An in my opinion, this is exactly what Tancredo meant by this statement, although he makes it very clumsily.

Everyone turns their head when Pakistan, Egypt, the Saudi Princes play both sides against the middle, professing their support while funding the extremist theologians. Is this really fooling anyone here? You all know this happens. So what is the solution? Make it more painful for them to continue this, than to change and stamp extremism out. Our present administration, and the one prior, talk a good game but do/did squat.

Yes, Tancredo's statement was out of line as there are ways to make the same point without using buzz words like nuke. But if certain dictators and royal families knew they were the next on the regime change list things might get done over there.

I don't fault either Tancredo or Obama for thinking this way, just for poor execution. Does anyone think the status quo is working, I mean dn't they all hate us over there before these things were said? Time to put some serious pressure on the governments over there, imo.

[ethics]

Does anyone think the status quo is working

Last time I checked, the last successful operation in US was in 2001. Six years ago.

[Stiofán]

I wasn't talking military operations you goon (and we have had successful military operations since). You know what I mean.

[ethics]

I really don't. What status quo is not working? Where then?

[jfcjrus]

{snip} An attack on Mecca/Medina would just prove to the general Moslem public that the West was against all Islam, thereby creating a wave solidifying support behind the fundamentalists; this is exactly what al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have been trying to sell to the Moslem world.{/snip}

I could not believe my ears last night when I heard this on the news. If anyone ever did this, we'd have Muslims who are now nuetral, infuriated and signing up to help bring down the West.

Also, I don't doubt for one second that the first thing they would target would be Jerusalem. Destroying important religious sites will only bring more hate. :( {[b]bold{/b] by jfcjrus}
I just don't know.

For several years, even to the risk of our troops, it's been deemed absolutely FORBIDDEN for anyone associated with the USA to go anywhere near a mosque, even if it was FULL of terrorists firing RPGs at our troops.
Chip one brick with a bullet and there'll be a new International Muslin vs Christian Crusade crisis!

But, we've certainly got to notice that, in the last year or so, various Muslims seem to have no problem whatsoever with blowing up any mosque they feel like!
They don't seem to think these holy places are beyond bombing and killing many folks inside, as long as they're the ones doing it.
Is that about it?

And we've risked our warrior's fate, once again, and handicapped them from doing the job because of some <i>perceived</i> political worries?
I think it's time Politicians started doing their JOB, rather than whine about how the military should do theirs.

Just my opinion.
Regards,

[Advocat]

I just don't know.

For several years, even to the risk of our troops, it's been deemed absolutely FORBIDDEN for anyone associated with the USA to go anywhere near a mosque, even if it was FULL of terrorists firing RPGs at our troops.

Chip one brick with a bullet and there'll be a new International Muslin vs Christian Crusade crisis!

But, we've certainly got to notice that, in the last year or so, various Muslims seem to have no problem whatsoever with blowing up any mosque they feel like!
They don't seem to think these holy places are beyond bombing and killing many folks inside, as long as they're the ones doing it.

I understand where you're coming from, but you might have seen that while certain mosques are bombed, they're in Iran or Iraq (which pits Shia vs Sunni) or India, not the "holiest of holies" in Saudi Arabia. Often these mosques are held by one side or another for political/religious points, not bombed to bits... unless its by a different Moslem sect, and these guys already hate each other.

On the idea that sectarian Moslems can attack a site that Westerners can't... well, that's not really a new idea anywhere in the world, is it? We can beat up on each other, but will respond violently if an outsider jumps in. E.g. in North America different groups can use words to refer to members of said group which, if used by outsiders, would result in hate crime charges. Also, don't forget, there is a tribal mindset in Islam -- which considers itself a brotherhood -- which is summed up very nicely by the following quote: "I against my brother. I and my brother against our cousin. I, my brother and our cousin against the neighbors. All of us against the foreigner."

[Lovehound]

I shudder to think that there's a single person who thinks Tancredo's threat makes any sense. To attack a religion's holy lands or monuments would be taking revenge on all persons of that faith for the actions of a few members of that faith. To me that is just not right and would be un-American, or at least un- the kind of America that I want my country to be.

Count me out on this one. This is not my America.

[ethics]

Stio, another thing. How the hell do you defend this:

“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. “That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong, fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent, or you will find an attack.”

By saying that he MEANT this:

give us those terrorists or we will kill you, straight up. Not bombing holy sites... oh no. Bombing presidential palaces, bouncing the rubble of the homes of the ruling elite.

There's very little room for interpretation by Tancredo. Maybe YOU meant the part in blue, Tancredo didn't. He was explicit.

[John R. Beanham]

They used to call this idea 'Mutual Terror' and Mutually Assured Destruction'.


JB

[ethics]

Right, and we all know what MAD was all about right? Here it's called "Scorched Earth" policy.

[ShinyTop]

The policy has zero chance of success. Oh, I guess it would in an imaginary world where the leaders of Syria, Egypt, SA, etc. had complete control over all the terrorists in the world. But in reality this threat would guarantee attempted strikes at our most cherished locales by the insane people of the world who want to ignite that final fight between Islam and the west. Oh, and how many of our right wing nut jobs would initiate the action thinking that it would ignite the full scale attack on the holy spots of our foes.


Dumb, dumb, dumb.

[Coot]

Coot. Do you really think extremists who go against Islam and bomb little kids and women, any civilians, would really care what you do to the holy sites? US would play right in to their script.

Leon, I'm not so sure these extremists go against Islam. At any rate, I'm not so sure I care. What I do know is they exhibit/profess profound adherence to their interpretation of the religion and that's what Tancredo is attempting to manipulate. What happens to that religion when everything physical it holds sacred is gone? I'm slightly more than curious about that.

As has been noted in this thread, that entire region is, for the most part, completely inline with the extremists, at least philosphically. In fact, most muslims are inline with the extemists by simple demographics. To be perfectly honest, I don't think I care what the fallout would be from taking away their favorite spiritual mastubatory fetish would be. I'm pretty certain it wouldn't be much.

I don't see this as anything dire, in fact I don't see this as anything to be concerned about (aside from Tancredo having zero chance at being elected). I'd like to see this happen, only because it is the exact same thing as putting the various governments there on notice...only with the added caveat of "we're not only taking you out, we're taking out the tool you're manipulating to stay in power."

I know more Muslim apostates than I know followers of that religion, so my POV may be biased, but somehow, at the end of the day, I think the willingness to do this is a far heavier price to pay than the act itself.

[Kluge]

...To attack a religion's holy lands or monuments would be taking revenge on all persons of that faith for the actions of a few members of that faith... I would argue that it isn't easy to prove the actions of the few weren't in some way the will of the many. In international relations law is often in the crudest form, for instance, there is no law as far as I know that says a country cannot attack another country. Such things are merely violations of agreements that cause other countries to take sides and possibly assist the warring nation of their choice.
World relations could go back to the crudest laws of An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. This ancient principle might bee applied to the case of the multi-story statues of Budha and their destruction by the Taliban. Destruction of similar 'Taliban' artifacts, if possible, might be a loss to the world but also a tough-love policy that could teach the supporters of 'fanatics' that they too will suffer losses. After all, if I can't have my artifacts why should I allow anyone else to have theirs?

If no equally punitive or retaliatory action is taken after terrorist actions, if we simply turn the other cheek, isn't it likely that America and the west will eventually develop their own terrorist factions? How would the elections in Spain have gone if an equal number of terrorist attacks were committed by groups opposed to the groups that bombed the trains?

[Stiofán]

Stio, another thing. How the hell do you defend this:

“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. “That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong, fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent, or you will find an attack.”

By saying that he MEANT this:

give us those terrorists or we will kill you, straight up. Not bombing holy sites... oh no. Bombing presidential palaces, bouncing the rubble of the homes of the ruling elite.

There's very little room for interpretation by Tancredo. Maybe YOU meant the part in blue, Tancredo didn't. He was explicit.


It doesn't take any defense. It's simply acknowledging what many of us (but you indicate above you don't get) are the facts in this "war on terror". The Princes of Saudi Arabia, the Sheiks of Qatar and Kuwait, all fund and actively encourage the Wahhabism which has spawned and fueled this continued terrorism on innocent people of the world, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

We can not stamp it out when we allow those in power in the ME to actively earn their oil fortunes off of us, and then use the hundreds of millions to fund this hate and destruction, because that is exactly what is happening, and most of us know it. Dropping a precision guided missile on an al Qaida safe house isn't going to defeat this enemy. It's a holding action at best.

The Royals, the Pakistanis and all the rest are funding the hate of all who are not Muslim. Unless you cut the head off the beast, it will not die and you will be dealing with it for generations.

Who in this present administration has ever threatened those who are truly responsible for the terrorism's existence? What plan do most of the Republican's have? The status quo? How about the Democrats....more talk ala Bill Clinton. Turn your head and try not to piss anyone off on the planet plus run around apologising for our existence?

If one is thinking in terms of just Iraq or Afghanistan they are thinking too small. The battlefields are world wide, from Bali to Europe to North America to the madrassas financed by the Saudis in Pakistan (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/Saudi/analyses/madrassas.html).

Perhaps what Tancredo and Obama are saying is just what is needed now, threaten those who are really responsible.

Back in the 70s it was well known terrorists could kill westerners with impunity, but that they would stay away from the Soviets who wouldn't posture or complain, they'd simply send in the assassins. A by product of a dictatorship no doubt, but effective.

In Viet Nam we sacrificed American and allied lives, but bomb Hanoi and all the jelly spines would start to scream and wail. Excuse me but that's just what is happening now. Yo don't fight a "WAR" on terror by defensive actions. You have to take it to those responsible.

Doesn't mean you have to nuke anyone, so Tancredo and Obama were clumsy in their statements. But you do have to put public pressure on the funders of this crap or it will never end. And by public I mean call them out and tell then in no uncertain terms what will happen if they keep doing this stuff.

So, let me ask you. Forget Iraq and Afghanistan. How does the west win the war on terror? The bigger war. Or have we already surrendered?

[ethics]

So, let me ask you. Forget Iraq and Afghanistan. How does the west win the war on terror? The bigger war. Or have we already surrendered?

Ah, my friend, this is a difference in perspectives. We haven't had an attack here since 2001. Terrorism has been with us since the dawn of man and will be with us till all mankind is extinct on this planet.

We didn't surrender, we didn't win, but in my estimates we ARE winning. You want to start losing, go and bomb their holy sites. Itch that primitive scratch and see where that gets you. You think America is hated now? It's a love-fest in comparison to how America and Americans would be perceived.

And honestly? I would seriously think about getting the fuck out of here. This country would stop being what my parents came for.

But this is OT. I still don't see how what Tancredo explicitly stated and how you think he meant something else. Wishful thinking, perhaps? It's so damning.

[Copzilla]

In international relations law is often in the crudest form, for instance, there is no law as far as I know that says a country cannot attack another country. Such things are merely violations of agreements that cause other countries to take sides and possibly assist the warring nation of their choice.

This is true, but it even goes one step further. There really is no such thing as "international law." It simply does not exist. Every time you hear those two buzzwords, ask yourself "WHAT law? Where is it written?" The answer always takes two forms - 1) either nothing exists at all that says it cannot be done, or 2) a treaty or agreement said it should not be done.

A "law" per se has to have a written set of circumstances in order to be broken, a penalty for breaking those circumstances, and an enforcement body to insure those penalties. International agreements are lacking in the last two, usually.

A treaty is something that has to be entered into voluntarily, and is always subject to being broken or expiring. A treaty is not law. It's not really even binding, as countries do break treaties; all countries, even the US.

The UN is sometimes held by lefties as an enforcement body, but since it has no enforcement arm of its own, it's subject to whether its members want to enforce it, and so it's not an actual enforcement body, but simply a diplomacy body. Basically useless when it comes to keeping world peace.

[ethics]

Copz, and others, the best way to fight terrorism is right here at home. I've said it a million times of how we need to stop being puppets to Middle East (and soon Russia). Bombing Holy Sites? How about creating and innovating here at home where we can finally wean off the black blood sucking?

Hell, I am not the only one who thinks this (http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/08/03/newt0803.html).

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Thursday the Bush administration is waging a "phony war" on terrorism, warning that the country is losing ground against the kind of Islamic radicals who attacked the country on Sept. 11, 2001.


A more effective approach, said Gingrich, would begin with a national energy strategy aimed at weaning the country from its reliance on imported oil and some of the regimes that petro-dollars support.

[Lovehound]

A more effective approach, said Gingrich, would begin with a national energy strategy aimed at weaning the country from its reliance on imported oil and some of the regimes that petro-dollars support.
Bingo.

[Stiofán]

Copz, and others, the best way to fight terrorism is right here at home. I've said it a million times of how we need to stop being puppets to Middle East (and soon Russia). Bombing Holy Sites? How about creating and innovating here at home where we can finally wean off the black blood sucking?

Hell, I am not the only one who thinks this (http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/08/03/newt0803.html).

They've been calling for that since before you were here. Nothing has ever been done and nothing will. Why? $$$

Newt really wants to be Prez. Too many hate him on the left and the middle will listen to them.

Now I've said a number of times calling for nukes isn't the thing to do, and Tancredo shouldn't have said it. So stop bringing that up in your reply to me. I'm talking about dealing with the money in the ME, so is Tancredo, but he's too blunt about it. I'm talking about doing something to stop the hate, not some pie in the sky weaning off of the oil stuff. How many times has that been said here, and will it ever happen? Remember $$$

[Copzilla]

Leon, I've been a pretty vocal supporter of alternative fuels. I don't even think they have to be green fuels right now, so long as they're not oil.

We've got to go nuclear fuel, mass transit and bio fuel in a huge way, and the sooner the better. I like the idea of crop alcohol, with massive amounts of farm land sitting idle, get it to work. It doesn't even have to be a 100% conversion. Just altering 20% would be huge... just huge!

[Violet1966]

With all the money we're pissing away on this war after Saddam removal, we could have made a serious dent in the alternative fuels advancements. We need to lead the world away from oil. I've been saying this forever. We need to hit them where it hurts, their bank accounts.

[ethics]

They've been calling for that since before you were here. Nothing has ever been done and nothing will. Why? $$$

Ok, let's stop calling for it then.

Newt really wants to be Prez. Too many hate him on the left and the middle will listen to them.


Ok, let's stop listening to him.

[Sierra Mike]

I understand where Tancredo's coming from, but operationally, a response like this would not do much to uncomplicate things. Whether the U.S. continues trying to engage the ME or it totally washes its hands of it, the ME will continue to be fxcked up and will continue to hate all things U.S.

I'm not sure nuking Mecca and Medina would be the best courses of action.

SM