Tancredo: If They Nuke Us, Bomb Mecca - Writers Forum

freebird · 07-26-2005, 09:39 PM

Controversial Subject "Tancredo: If They Nuke Us, Bomb Mecca"

This comment from a hypothical comment from US Representative Tom Tancredo from Colorado has sparked much debate. It has made some interesting alliances. What do you think?

Tancredo: If They Nuke Us, Bomb Mecca

DENVER — A Colorado congressman told a radio show host that the U.S. could "take out" Islamic holy sites if Muslim fundamentalist terrorists attacked the country with nuclear weapons.

Rep. Tom Tancredo (search) made his remarks Friday on WFLA-AM in Orlando, Fla. His spokesman stressed he was only speaking hypothetically.

Talk show host Pat Campbell (search) 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.

Tancredo is known in the House for his tough stand on immigration and had a 100 percent rating last year from the American Conservative Union (search) his votes and positions on issues.

Mohammad Noorzai, coordinator of the Colorado Muslim Council (search) and a native of Afghanistan, said Tancredo's remarks were radical and unrepresentative but that people in Tancredo's position need to watch their words when it comes to sacred religious sites and texts.

Source: AP

Kane · 07-26-2005, 09:44 PM

What would be next, burning down churches the next time a Christian commits a crime?

ThatWierdGuy · 07-26-2005, 09:48 PM

No.

If a christian were to nuke an Islamic country, would it be right to nuke Rome?

journyman161 · 07-26-2005, 09:51 PM

I'll go along with it provided it stays politically correct. You just can't single out one religion these days without displaying prejudice, so if they bomb Mecca, they should apply PC mthods & also take out Jerusalem, Rome, Salt Lake City, Tibet, most of India, and of course, New York, where the supreme deities of the religion of Capitalism have their shrines.

The other minor religious sites can be mopped up in a cleansing operation after the dust from the main attacks has settled.

freebird · 07-26-2005, 09:55 PM

Some would argue that is why New York was targeted Journey.

Man, I have heard some strange comments from people on this already. I want to stay out of this thread and see where it goes.

ThatWierdGuy · 07-26-2005, 10:16 PM

Islamic extremists represent a very small minority of the muslim population. I have a friend who is Muslim and he says a lot of muslims don't support the actions of Osama and other groups like him. So the innocent people in Mecca deserve to die because of a handful of individuals?

journyman161 · 07-26-2005, 10:35 PM

never mind the innocent people in Mecca - if anything would be guaranteed to set of a worldwide jihad of ALL muslims against the west, (or the US) that would be it.

And to be honest, if the yanks bomb mecca as a result of their own dealings & failures to deal with the world that have been the theme of the last 30 years (or more if you include Vietnam) I would be VERY unsure as to which side I would pick.

If the US hadn't been such a hopeless provocateur I would have no hesitation in having sympathy for them, but as it is, with the US being the main culprit & seeing the attitudes of some of them, it's hard to avoid the feeling that, while a nuclear attack on US might be overkill, the US would be reaping the crop they have been sowing everywhere else they find resources.

The US can't just wash it's hands of the horrors it has committed on the populations of countries & try to claim any moral high-ground. Even though most US citizens can't understand or remember it, the rest of the world does remember the list of atrocities in South America, the Shah, Saddam & slave labour for US corporations.

Each event has sullied the once-clean reputation of what once was the showcase of freedom, & eroded the tolerance all sane nations once felt for the US.

To bring all this together, if the US were to bomb mecca because of a terrorist action, I think most nations would join the Islamists & present a united front. It would be the single best thing the US could do to bring about world peace (once the US was permanently off the scene)

Despite the trillions the US spends on its War machine, I don't think it would stand for long against a united world, & let it fall just once & you'd have 500 petty fiefdoms centred around gun-toting crazies. If it survived, it would be a very long time before the US could threaten world peace again.

freebird · 07-26-2005, 10:43 PM

I would say a member of Congress should not be giving out readymade propaganda to terrorist-recruiters. He could have said, "I'm sorry, I'm not getting into hypotheticals."

You know his quote isn't going to end up in context in terrorist propaganda.

But this isn't just for America. What if it were Melbourne or Toronto or London? Would this be an appropriate response?

I do not for a second believe Muslim Terrorist care whatsoever as to whether Mecca gets blown to pieces or not.

Hodge · 07-26-2005, 10:44 PM

Not Tibet, Journey. Buddhists don't turn into terrorists (although the tribulations.net forum would have you believe otherwise—I got told to shut up for calling out their BS). A fanatic Buddhist is someone who believes that everyone's life is their own.

journyman161 · 07-26-2005, 10:55 PM

If they hit melbourne I'd drive straight to Canberra & shoot little johnny before he can have another of his infamous 'knee-jerk' reactions that would get us all killed.

We would find out who did it, then go remove them from planet.

Australians are pretty laid back about most things, but we've never had war brought to us at home, apart from a brief foray by the japs at Darwin. But all theatres to which we have sent soldiers will tell you they'd rather have aussies fighting with them, not against them.

I think we'd probably send the SAS after them, but if little johnny's still in charge he'd run to Georgie first to ask if he should be upset at losing melbourne.

(If it was Sydney, you'd all be invited to the barbie, & if it was Canberra, the average aussie would figure if he was that lucky it might be time to buy a lotto ticket) -

ThatWierdGuy · 07-26-2005, 11:14 PM

Quote:

To bring all this together, if the US were to bomb mecca because of a terrorist action, I think most nations would join the Islamists & present a united front. It would be the single best thing the US could do to bring about world peace (once the US was permanently off the scene)

That is exactly how nuclear holocaust starts. Unfortunately, the US has more than enough nukes to take out the world, once they see multiple nations firing on them, out of desperation they fire back, and whoever they suspect might be firing on them. Next thing you know you have 75% of the world population killed, they rest dying from nuclear fallout, and bacteria are now on top of the food chain.

I hate nukes.

journyman161 · 07-26-2005, 11:37 PM

That's IF any nation would fire off nukes at them. I'd think the scenario would be all non-US ships turn around & head home, all flights cancelled, no oil deliveries, all US TV programs/films banned, nationalise all the fast food chains, all US bases emptied & returned to the host-nation, no docking or landing for US transports, all US holdings frozen & NYSE removed from contact.
Also, all products from US corporations banned or nationalised, & countries neighbouring those where the US have their fashion sweatshops would ensure compliance that no products leave for the US.

The US would have no targets to attack (or rather everywhere would be targets) & the 'threat' would not rise to imminent fast enough for the fear mongers to rouse the US population. In a week without oil, the US economy would stop dead in it's tracks, as the reserves would immedaitely be seized by the govt & military.
Within a week after that, you'd have hundreds of tinpot american dictators starting to form their own enclaves & that should put a stop to further imperialism for a while at least.

And that's ignoring the pressures everyone from hollywood to the corporations would bring to bear on the US govt.

We all know the US as an organism is insane. The question is, is it insane enough to blow apart the planet when nobody starts an attack against them. (Interestingly, I assume automatically that should anyone attack the US with nukes, the US would have no hesitation in killing the planet to ensure nobody could say they beat them)

Kane · 07-26-2005, 11:38 PM

This is why I like writing fantasy. Killing should be done melee style, so mean have to look each other in the eyes when they are killing each other.

freebird · 07-26-2005, 11:55 PM

Fantasy. Which reminds me Kane...

LensmanZ313 · 07-27-2005, 08:57 AM

No. Tancredo is a paranoid bastard. If anything, this would incite Muslims to jooin the terrorists--and I wouldn't blame them if they did.

Bad bad idea.