A US Congressman, Tom Tancredo, has been making waves by suggesting in a radio interview that the US should respond to terrorist nuclear attacks on her soil by bombing Muslim holy sites.
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.
Methodist blogger Donald Sensing, by no means a liberal, rightly points out the stupidity of these remarks.
That Tancredo does not set US policy and was speaking only for himself will be completely unknown to al Jazeera’s Muslim viewers and readers of Arab newspapers. Al Qaeda has an effective propaganda machine already, and stupid members of Congress like Durbin and Tancredo make their job all the easier and more effective. Idiocy, it seems, knows no partisan boundaries.
Even if such talk could be justified on any moral grounds — very hard to imagine, but I’ll let it go — given the importance of the media in the world today, I’d say that Tancredo made an effective recruiting officer for the suicide bombers.
Blogger La Shawn Barber, who is moving so far to the right she’ll fall off the scale soon, strongly disagrees.
Most politicians are faint-hearted, weak, ineffectual, disconnected, and desensitized pencil-pushers, so when one comes along and says what should’ve been said eons ago, his own party wants to see his head on a platter because he dared “offend†someone. Numbskulls.
Don’t hold back, La Shawn. Tell us what you really think. 
Sadly, even this is mild compared with the views of a commenter
Islamists infest the planet. There are billions of them, either fully formed or in the making, and there’s not a damn thing we can do to “change their minds†without making them to become something they are not and will never be: non-Muslims. You don’t destroy them by destroying only military targets and states. You destroy them by killing human beings, the physical infrastructure that supports them, and the symbols that support their beliefs. You destroy them and their culture as the Spanish destroyed the Aztecs. You wipe them from the face of the planet. Or, ultimately, they destroy you. They’re not going to leave us a choice. It’s not a question of “if,†just “when.â€
It is a very strange reading of history that produces a view like that, and so far adrift from any recognizable Christian morality it is hard to know where to begin to connect with it. La Shawn is generally quick to remove the wilder ravings from her comments section, it really surprises me that she has let this stand.
{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }
John 07.19.05 at 5:18 pm
On a related note, we should have some non-lunatic contingency plans for a response to nuclear terrorism.
Barber is just plain weird. She’s hypersensitive to any sort of disagreement, political or theological.
Steve 07.19.05 at 6:36 pm
So when the IRA were bombing, we should simply have aimed our weapons at the vatican. Hmm.
I can only think that once you move so far to one side of an idea or political principle, so extreme, that everyone on the other side simply blurs into one big mass of in-human blur.
Very scary stuff. Nick Griffin on the radio the other day sounded very similar in principle - one big blur which needs to be isolated and presumably destoyed - I wonder whether he and Shawn La Barber are that far apart in many ways?
Steve
DH 07.19.05 at 7:07 pm
While I wouldn’t nuke Mecca and I feel this is extreme, I do think that we must resopnd with quick decisive action toward terror and not just sit back and wait for another nuke to fall or another invasion There must be prevention of these types of acts from occurring. I will say that if a particular government nuked one of our cities that war must result and in such a way as to prevent that in the future. That is one of the reasons I’m for the War in Iraq.
There is a balance we must not respond with action and that action shouldn’t be hate. I like what Pres. Bush said (this would disagee with the Senator posted) “that the majority of Muslims are caring, friendly and loving people.” We must remember this and address only those who promote or support terror. If we know a terror site that will or has killed innocent people it should be “taken out”. (period) Beyond that it is hypothetical , red-herrings (extreme for the other side) or hate, rascist or etc. (extreme on my side). There is a balance we must find on this issue.
John 07.19.05 at 10:43 pm
It’s rather unclear how the US will respond, if at all, to nuclear terrorism. I think that this uncertainty fuels Iranian thinking that it is possible to nuke the US and get away with it.
So the President should make a statement like this:
“As during the Cold War, the policy of retaliation is still in effect in the result of a nuclear attack against the US. Allow me to be clear on the matter: in the event of a WMD attack against the US, the offending nation will be exterminated with massive nuclear strikes. The state sponsoring the relevant terrorist group and manufacturer of the WMDs used against American cities will suffer total annihilation.”
I think that such a statement would give the Iranians (or any other nation in the Middle East) pause for thought about their actions. I think that in spite of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, much of the Islamic world still thinks of us as a bunch of sissies. Cultivating an image of America as an easily provoked, war-loving nation could deter Middle Eastern states from supporting terrorist groups with such enthusiasm.
DH 07.20.05 at 8:42 pm
Amen John in everyway except for the “war-loving” part. Other than that I couldn’t say it better than yourself.
luurum 07.21.05 at 2:26 am
I am gonna have to say that shame on you, human race! Absolutely no problem solving skills whatsoever, especially when long term perspective is needed. Not only should US Congressman have more wisdom, but the voters who voted for him should note the obvious problems with statements like that.
Bomb Mecca.. now _that_ would solve the problem and be an appropriate response.
A little bit better, but still a puzzling statement: “I will say that if a particular government nuked one of our cities that war must result and in such a way as to prevent that in the future. That is one of the reasons I’m for the War in Iraq.”
So what bombing or deed is US responding to in Iraq? Logically from this statement it should follow that there must have something happened in the past that we are trying to prevent in the future by being in currently Iraq.
Clearly it’s not the protection for Kuwait since a large part of Iraq’s army was lost during the first Gulf War and there are better ways to protect a country than all out invasion. WMD’s? As much as those weapons would have made the war legitimate, they are not there. The weapons inspection was effective afterall. Insurgents and terrorists? That was not the premise of the war when I listened Powell speaking to UN, nor was suicide bombing a daily issue before the attack. But this is past.
What does the war in the Iraq accomplish? It has killed roughly more than 100,000 Iraqis. While nobody cares about this number so much to as to get somekind of decent estimate it is what will create problems down the road. Do you think that Iraqis won’t remember? This a culture that does not forget or forgive things 200 years ago, let alone a decade or couple of years. And they don’t believe in the Golden Rule or Pray For Your Enemies kind of idea.
Iraqis widely understand that the longer US sits in Iraq the more Iraqis are going to die from suicide bombs. For Americans fighting terrorism is a great sound bite to repeat, but being a human shield in between the real terrorists and US soldiers does not hold quite the same aura.
What is then to be done? Not only Iraqis, but most of the Arabs in general would like Americans to leave them alone. And that entails taking military bases out of the Saudi Arabia, ending the Israeli welfare shipments, etc. One can’t have the two things at the same time - no Arab was the enemy of Americans before 1940s.
DH 07.21.05 at 3:35 pm
Some of those Iraqi’s mentioned in the 100,000 were part Saddams military. The Iraqi’s seperate this out and the resolve is high for they would rather be in this current situation than be tortured, killed and persecuted by an evil dictator in Saddam.
It has accomplished not having av evil dictator. I guess I’m the person if I were in their shoes who would believe like Patrick Henry “Give me Liberty or give me death.” This type of concept within the US and some Western countries is forgotten in relation to our own freedoms.
How about Hammas? Aren’t we to come to Israel’s defense or let Hammas continue their terror campaign? We forget that the Israeli’s pulled out and as they were pulling out got attacked by Hammas. The Israeli’s can’t even pursue the peace process fully because the other side will never pursue it but we by some are called to sit back and do nothing in response. Absurd. They might not have been enemies of the US but they have always been enemies of Israel. Look at the geography, the number of Arab nations in relation to one nation of Israel.
I guess we should repeat the Six day War or the Yom Kippur War only with no US and UK military weapons unlike before. If that would have been the case Israel would be Palestine as a whole and we would be in much worse shape than now with one unified Arab nation in North Africa and the Middle East. We must look at the ramifications rather than be so short sighted. This “Operation” for Freedom takes time and we must destroy the terrorists (the extreme minority within Islam) before they terror us.
DH 07.21.05 at 3:38 pm
the Arab nations and people who are for freedom and the Israeli people.
luurum 07.22.05 at 3:15 am
True, lots of soldiers got killed in Saddams military. How does that make the situation better? The point is that those were Iraqies who died and their families mourn and remember who killed them. The soldiers in Iraqi military were not there by their own choice for the most part and they were not bad and evil people so as to justify their death and destruction. Let’s remember that Iraqi military was not a bunch of terrorists, but largely a conscript army who were there because by law they were required to be there and serving their country like in any other state.
Of course it got rid of Saddam, and that’s a good thing by all accounts. But that was not the reason for going to war and there are plenty of other countries whose leaders are worthy of rough treatment and who have more dangerous weapons than Saddam had. Why was Saddam chosen over them? Just because one good thing has come out of Iraq War does not yet mean that it was the right thing to do.
Since in western civilization we deem ourselves to be orderly and law abiding, we must hold ourselves to a little bit higher standard than ‘first we say one thing and if that later turns out false we find something else to make our actions more positive’. The problem is simple - actions need a reason. The reason is something that if there is a certain condition and one would perform a defined action, the result would provide a desired effect. But in this case the condition has proven to be not true (no WMD’s, etc). Hence the reason was flawed - we can’t say anymore hat we have reached a desired effect. Furthermore, since we got the condition wrong (bad intelligence) how do we know at all that any of our actions would give the result that we would desire? Sure, another good thing was achieved with the action but what negative or bad things did our action result since it was performed on a falsely percieved condition? What is the plan to do as little damage as possible? There has been very little sign of talk about that.
This kind of obliviousness to the results of our actions is what creates the problems that ultimately may destroy the human race. But as intelligent beings this would be a shame.
In case of Israel and Hammas there is the chicken and the egg problem. Who did start with the violence? It wasn’t Hammas or Arabs for that matter. To only look at the current situation to understand the problem is very shortsighted and will not result a successful solution. Of course by now nobody in that region is a peace dove. Both parts have their enemy’s blood on their hands. The question is why do we favour one side with bloody hands over the other side with bloody hands?
And why would we be in the worse shape in case of an hypothetical unified Arab nation? (I don’t think Arab nations would have become one nation.) There is very little evidence or reasoning to suggest that this would be something detrimental for US or other western countries. Arabs are reasonable people and have been able to govern themselves for long time. We don’t have to assume that they are a threat unless we put ourselves into a position that would make them to be a threat. The world is not out to get us by default and we don’t have to hold them in check ‘just in case’.
If we close mindedly keep repeating that ‘must destroy terrorists’, there is little chance it will happen. In fact we ourselves have a danger to fall into radicalism that others need this Freedom and must have it like we do, or else…!
I think it would do well if we would look into mirror to find solutions to those terrorists and their origin.
DH 07.22.05 at 6:51 pm
Sorry but in 1967 and 1973 it was the Hammas and there was a unified allied attack among the Arab nations. If they would have been successful in ‘67 or ‘73 Israel would have been wiped out and would be totally Arab and that would make our current situation worse. So we let Israel be terrorized. I think I would rather have a Democracy in Israel than a dictatorship or monarchy. That is not being short sited that is accurately addressing the rational realities and the implications.
Let’s just sit back and do nothing. There were more good things than bad things. If you want to look at short sitedness, to say that a free independent Iraq is bad I take issue with. Any country that is able to be like the current gov’t’s of Iraq and Afghanistan, if supported by other democracies, can be successful. If we sit back and do nothing the insurgents and the terrorists will continue their attacks. If we show weakness then they will attack. Look at 9/11, we weren’t doing anything in relation to the Arabs in fact we were helping them to have Palestine. It was because of perceived weakness that 9/11 happened and that weakness must not be shown.
However, I will agree we must not have hate but focused. Destroying a terrorists cells (not Arabs because 95% are not in these cells) is not having “blood on our hands” it is preventing future blood from occurring. Kind of like 1938 when the West (that includes the US) sit back and let Germany roll over them after Czech, Austria and Poland fell and at each time we told the dictator don’t attack and he did anyway.
On a side issue, Arabs though need to police those minority groups and stand up to them and the UK and the US is assisting in this and preventing at the same time.
I won’t get into a discussion about WMD there was WMD found but the definition of what WMD is was changed by the UN after the fact. Under the resolutions of 1992 WMD was found in accordance with those resolutions. Hence the response.
Baklava 07.22.05 at 10:22 pm
Just letting you know that I responded to your post at La Shawn’s concerning Britain and guns.
Richard 07.23.05 at 7:56 am
Thanks - I won’t reply at La Shawn’s place, because I know she doesn’t like OT discussions in the comments. Needless to say, I reckon the “facts” quoted in the article you mentioned are very disputable! For example, a large proportion of recorded firearm offences in Britain are committed with air weapons (43% for Scotland in 2003). The largest category of firearm offences is vandalism. And though violent crime is increasing, there were reductions in the year to Mar 2004 in both homicides and robberies involving firearms.
And murder rates, are still much higher in the US than in Britain. The difference is greater still if you only include murder involving firearms.
Joel Thomas 07.23.05 at 8:07 am
La Shawn does make Ann Coulter and Michael Savage look rather Communist by comparison.
luurum 07.27.05 at 2:00 am
In 1967 or 1973 it clearly was not Hammas since Hammas didn’t receive its miliraty wings until mid 80s. And let us not forget that Hammas originates mainly from Gasa and West Bank while in ‘67 and ‘73 the main players were external. Of course we shouldn’t forget the 1949 armistice between Israel and Arab countries and open act of war by Israel starting Suez War. There is still room left for Qibya and Kafr Qasim massacres commited by Israeli miliraty killing innocent civilians.
Either way there is nothing to suggest that total Arab state would have made the situation worse.
It is not about showing weakness, it’s about letting all people be able to determine their own future on their own. The Palestinian people have right to establish their own state and should have been able to do it. No amount of reasoning and excuses make suddenly appearing Jewish immigrants more important.
I am surprised though, that there is a constant and anxious mindset in people that ‘we were/are not doing anything’. This mindset has created more problems than we need to have. Rushing into some action without thinking through the effects is a recipe for mistakes. How so we were not doing anything about Arabs while there was continual financial and military support to Israel. Many innocent Palestinians and Israeli citizens have died as a result.
Jet let Iraqis to be alone, now that we have done good by getting rid of Saddam. There was just one Saddam, nobody else to get rid of anymore.
DH 07.28.05 at 7:56 pm
You are right but the Arab nations were looked at as coming to the aide of Palestine and were demanding Palestine. Also you forget that as troops were pulling out of Gaza recently that they got attacked. I understand the 1973 response but that was due to the build up by the Arab nations against Israel. If Israel wouldn’t have attacked the Arabs would try to repeat their own attack commited in 1967. The fact remains Israel must have protection based on their size in population and geographically in relation to the Arab world. The fact remains historically Jordan is Palestine. I feel that they have their own nation if they want it. King Hussein even stated that he would be open to open his borders to the Palestinians but EVERYONE of them refused. I want to be a defender of God by defending Israel just like the bible says. Why do the Arabs demand ALL of Israel? Israel gave the Gaza stip and the West Bank and they still attack after the withdrawl. The forces by the Palestianians are giving them a bad name and must be in check and reasonable to even consider at this time a truce or giving of land. The fact is more attrocities have been committed by the Palestinian army (all of the factions other than the peace loving civilians) than by the Israeli’s. Give Israel a bigger area than 1 mile between East and West from the “Great Sea to the Western extent of the West bank or the Arab nations will attack this weakness once built up.
DH 07.28.05 at 7:57 pm
We must give the Iraqi’s the ability to defend themselves against the insurgents who are commiting the atrocitiies. They want us to help them to defend themselves. We can’t let them down when they have asked for our assistance.