Via CNN: Tancredo: Threaten to bomb Muslim holy sites in retaliation «
Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo’s campaign stood by his assertion that bombing holy Muslim sites would serve as a good “deterrent” to prevent Islamic fundamentalists from attacking the United States, his spokeswoman said Friday.
“This shows that we mean business,” said Bay Buchanan, a senior Tancredo adviser. “There’s no more effective deterrent than that. But he is open-minded and willing to embrace other options. This is just a means to deter them from attacking us.”
[...]
“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.”
This is the kind of logic commonly deployed by semi-drunk morons shooting the bull over some beers rather than the kind of reasoning one would want from a president (or, really, a member of Congress). The number of ways that this is an asinine policy are legion, but here are a few:
1. The residents of Mecca and Medina would have nothing whatsoever to do with an attack on the United States of America. As such, Tancredo would punish innocent persons for the crimes of other.
2. The fact that Mecca and Medina aren’t in the possession of al Qaeda or any other terrorist group would mean that even apart from the question of punishing innocents for the acts of others, the fact of the matter is that while these cities are holy to Muslims, there is nothing about destroying them that would be a deterrent, per se. Tancredo makes it sound like Mecca is the capital of Qaedalandia (and even if it was, wiping out cities wily-nily tends to be rather lousy foreign policy).
3. Could there be a better recruitment tool for jihadist worldwide than “The Great Satan destroyed Mecca”?
4. In case Tancredo hasn’t noticed, Saudi Arabia is officially an ally of the United States. I am pretty sure that it is the standing policy of the United States not to nuke our allies.
Sphere: Related Content
August 3rd, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Yes, that’s a terrible idea. The afflicted country might get the crazy idea to retaliate in some way.
August 4th, 2007 at 1:20 am
How can an idiot like this still be in Congress. This guy is a bigot, and obviously needs to be removed. His peers need to abandon him. These are the fundamentalists we need to remove from our government, we must make it known http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=279
August 4th, 2007 at 10:15 am
It’s too bad that candidates don’t have to pass some kind of intelligence test, or just a polisci test, before taking office. Wow, this guy is a nut-job.
August 4th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Lol. Good stuff!!! Let’s see if his ratings go up. I bet they do…
Best regards.
August 4th, 2007 at 11:43 am
If it makes you feel any better about US politics, James, Tancredo is at 1% in the polls and likely to stay there.
August 5th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Now, the Professor might want to consult with an expert on Islam. I’m certainly not one, but I don’t think he can say with certainty that #3 is correct; for all I know destroying Mecca might cause many to doubt their religion. The Professor also fails to note the “strong horse” effect.
And, the key word in #4 is “officially”. Considering what they fund and the links they have, they aren’t a friend.
And, the Professor fails to note who would be most scared by this threat: the “moderate” leaders who’s lose their grip on power and their money if something like this happened. A threat like this might cause them to actually become moderate.
August 5th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Actually, the Professor doesn’t find any arguments about nuking either of these cities compelling, strong horses or no.
August 6th, 2007 at 3:46 am
[...] Original post by Dr. Steven Taylor [...]