Get It Right (UPDATED)

Even hawks are distancing themselves from the remarks of Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) regarding a theoretical nuclear strike on Islam’s holy sites and a theoretical nuclear strike on our soil by Islamists. It shouldn’t surprise readers of this blog, however, that I disagree. First, let’s examine what I'm disagreeing with; I do not disagree with Mr. Tancredo's remarks, but the characterization of them. Let's see what he said on the radio show in question, the Pat Campbell show.

PC: …what would our response be [ as a result of a nuclear attack on our soil by Islamists]?

TT: Um, you know, there are things that you could threaten to do before something like that happens and then you may have to do afterwards that are quite draconian.

PC: Such as, such as?

TT: Well, what if you said something like, um, if this happens in the United States, um, and we determine that it is the result of, um, extremist fundamentalist Muslims, um, you know, you could take out their holy sites.

He did not say that’s what we should do in all cases; he said that’s what we should threaten to do before it happens and what one of our options would be afterward. If you listen to the rest of the audio, he also gives the other option of merely tightening up security.

As for a real nuclear option, for knowledgeable commentators to act as though such options haven't been considered and that everyone in the world doesn't know it, is--to be kind--naive.

Hugh Hewitt is setting up the comments as though the congressman is calling for the nuking of Mecca. Sorry, but it isn’t what the congressman is saying. Mr. Hewitt says also that nuking Mecca would hurt us in the War on Terror with peace-loving Muslims. That is, however, true.

Problem is that, in such a situation, many Americans would be past the point of caring. And we have a lot more nukes than any entity on Earth, governmental or otherwise. And that is why a dirty nuke in DC, New York, here in LA, etc. would hurt Muslims far more than it would hurt Americans.

Both Hugh Hewitt and Captain Ed are mischaracterizing Representative Tancredo’s words. Unfortunately.

(Thanks to Northeast Intelligence Network)

UPDATE: I wonder what the black Sudanese Christians, Animists and Muslims said to make the Islamists mad?

UPDATE: Belmont Club, two years ago:

The terrorist intent to destroy the United States, at whatever cost to themselves, has been a given since September 11. Only their capability is in doubt. This is an inversion of the Cold War situation when the capability of the Soviet Union to destroy America was given but their intent to do so, in the face of certain retaliation, was doubtful.

I think we have it worse now.

And, also from the Belmont Club, this is what one finds when one is looking:

"The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force — including potentially nuclear weapons — to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies."

Mr. Tancredo said nothing new or unknown or classified.

(Thanks to Donald Sensing, who, nonetheless, disagrees with me.)

UPDATE: See Froggy's missive.

Comments

[Dave Munger]

This is almost as bad as if during the Cold War we'd aimed missles at Moscow, and then been so irresponsible as to TELL them so. Pravda would have been all over it and they'd have USED IT AGAINST US!

[baldilocks]

So what would be the result? Would they start blowing us up? (Or maybe you're being snarky. Good.)

I think that we are looking at these words from our own prism here. Remember that the Osamas of the world do not respond to sweet-talk except in a 9/11 type manner. (And no, I do not think all Muslims are Wahhabists/Islamists.)

Let's hope that we never have to weigh these options.

[Jeff Durkin]

I think the Congresman is spot-on. Rather than re-write what I posted on my site, here's what I had to say about this a bit earlier

"Well, what is wrong with that? Seriously; we are dealing with a religiously based ideology, one that holds certain sites as central to the proper practice and maintenance of the faith. We are also facing an enemy that does not hold the lives of themselves or, apparently, anyone else to have any value; however, they do value their religious ideology and the components of that ideology. Doesn't it make some sense to keep open, as a retaliatory option, those sites that are critical to the enemy cause? In this case, those sites are not, as in other, more conventional wars, factories or oil refineries or government centers; they are a few religious sites. Why not let the enemy know that if they use the ultimate weapon against us, we will expunge their faith from the face of the Earth?

She [Michlle Malkin]had this to say;

"Rep. Tancredo's remarks were most certainly unwise, and he should do the right thing and retract them quickly..."

She does not explain why she believes they are unwise. Although normally I agree with what Malkin writes, in this case she seems to be missing the point; we are facing an enemy that is, by our standards, irrational. Therefore, non-traditional methods of deterrence are needed. If that means having a SIOP that lists Mecca and Medina as primary targets for a nuclear barrage, then that's what we need to do. The enemy has shown their mettle; they created a rain of bodies in New York. Why should we falter in telling the Muslim world that we'll burn their holiest sites from the face of the Earth if they hit us with WMD?"

I would also add that the Administration needs to be much clearer about what our retaliatory posture is vis-a-vis a Muslim terrorist strike against the US. Since any such attack would almost certainly involve some state support (even if it were limited to the transfer of resources to a terrorist group without involvment in operational planning) deterrence based on a comprehensive retaliatory posture against hostile states would be feasible, even if deterrence is not possible towards terrorist groups.

A secret or implied deterrence is, I believe, less effective than a public policy.

[Dave Munger]

If snarky is the same as sarcastic, I was being that. Actually blowing up Moscow would have had a lot of undesireable effects, but letting them know that we were prepared to do so as an act of retaliation was an effective deterent. Someone's got to go on the record with it, at least.

[Captain Ed]

Dave,

Two differences. Moscow had rational people in charge who cared whether or not they got blown up; that's why MAD worked. It requires both sides to have a rational interest in survival. If one side thinks that obliteration means 72 virgins and lunch with Allah, MAD doesn't have as much impact.

The second difference is that Moscow was actually a vital strategic target, like Washington DC is. When we bombed Japan, we stayed away from Kyoto and its religious shrines -- although the Japanese knew we could hit it if we wanted to. Mecca has no strategic or tactical value. If we wanted to take out the House of Saud, we'd be better off attacking Riyadh and their air force bases.

[baldilocks]

Captain Ed: True, but I know Dave a bit, that's why I suspected that he was being sarcastic.

[AH·C]

What's irrational about leting the moderates know that if they let the radicals speak for them, then Mecca is on the table.

Also, don't forget, as Baldi pointed out, part of the Japanese fanacticism was based on a belief in their emperor as the sun god. When we disabused them of the notion their almighty god being more powerful than us, things got tamed in a hurry. Likewise, Islamists believe that Mecca is inviolate by the hand of allah.

If Mecca gets moab'd, what does that say about their almighty allah? Asleep/impotent while the infidels tore his house down? More than enrage, I think it would demoralize. For most moderates, the threat of hitting Mecca, a la JFK's Cuba nukes us, we nuke moscow, would be the trump card for the radicals to get marginalized in a hurry.

Deep down inside, I don't think any of them want to test and see if allah is indeed mightier than the US in this manner. Granted, it's our final option, if ever, nevertheless it remains on the table as a very big chip.

[Cindi]

Nor do I disagree with the Congressman. Someone with standing finally said what many of us, and probably some in the Administration, are thinking. It needed to be said because the Islamicists need to know it's on the table as an option. Enough with the pussyfooting. They've told us and told us they want to destroy that which is dearest to us; if that should come to pass, the gloves come off.

[StinKerr]

There is no reason to go nuclear, even in retaliation for a dirty bomb. We have sufficient conventional weapons and the means to deliver them anywhere in the world to flatten any target.

Being a civilian of no particular note, I have the luxury of opining that this threat could be made for the next terrorist act perpetrated in any western city.

Perhaps a demonstration thrown in to enhance the meaning of the threat. Say, blasting a perfect circle around one of their holy sites/cities. Medina or Mecca would be ideal, I suppose.

Sort of a "next time we won't miss" message. This should guarantee some serious anti-terror work on the behalf of the Moslem leadership.

Yes, I suppose that turning the Ka'bah to a pile of gravel would inflame the entire Moslem population, but I believe that the threat of such a thing and knowing we could and would do it sould jerk them back to the reality so many seem to deny.

We know where it is and we have the means to destroy it. Don't make it come to that.

[pab]

This is the first time I've ever posted here so, first of all, I'd like to thank you for creating a tremendously engaging and thought-provoking blog. Granted, it's more personal opinion than serious analysis. But you know what? Your 'gut reaction' is usually so on-target that you get it right just as often as the policy wonks do! (And, unlike the wonks, you manage to make me laugh/cry/rage right along with you!)

Getting back on-topic..your analysis of Mr. Tancredi's remarks was the best I've read. (Okay, maybe I have to back off that remark that you don't offer 'serious' analysis. :) ) Everybody else "interpreted". Everybody else extrapolated and interpolated and went ballistic. You just pointed out what he actually said. Thanks for a dose of sanity!!

(Our second 'dose' for the day. I believe Mr. T gave us the first.)

pb

[doright]

My first time on a blog. I like the idea of showin' 'em what we could do if we wanted to...problem is, it won't impress the 72 virgin crowd. They'd welcome the opportunity to shag some nook courtesy of Allah and take the local homies with 'em to Nirvana..or whereever it is they go to try out all that sex stuff they have been practicing on each other all these years.

[torchy]

Unfortunately many of the "holy sites" of Islam are shared by moderate and "extremist" alike. Perhaps Tancredo's referring to "holy sites" revered by "extremists" alone. His rhetoric is careful to not name specific "holy sites" in his hypothetical "could" nor even the method of destruction. I doubt the opposition will be as careful in the parsing of his words. I see few options for halting the spread of terrorist inspiring rhetoric other than denying them the pulpit from which to preach it. Either shutting down the mosques, the madrassas, the websites; every broadcast vehicle available by either legal or military means. We should be that aggressive now.
To those who read a nuclear tit for tat into his remarks be warned, nuclear weapons don't disciminate between friendlies and enemies and unless the target is surrounded by 20 miles of uninhabited wasteland its military effectiveness is problematic. We no longer live in a world of detentes between superpowers or doctrines of mutually assured destruction. How do you threaten an enemy that glories in their own destruction, who would relish the propaganda victory of a nuclear holocaust against Islam.

[JR]

Von Clauswitz taught us war is an extension of politics. WWII taught us, over years of Axis power atrocities, what "total war" is; to attack an enemy's infrastructure and will to wage war. Hence, the fire bombing of industrial centres and, ultimately, the use of atomic weapons. Just as Egypt understands Israel will atomic bomb the Aswan dam when the next Egyptian soldier crosses the Israeli frontier (a brilliant deterrant strategy), a case would need to be made against Mecca; a case that has not been made. The fact that it is being discussed speaks of the West's growing impatience with Islam in general. (Perhaps the threat of Mecca's obliteratoin might cause civilization loving Moslems to join the fight against those who, they say, have hijacked Islam.) If destroying Mecca would stop radical Islam's assault on the civilized world, it is on the table. However, I suspect more potent weapons and targets are in play, such as the internet and the exposure of these countries lost in the 14th century to 21st century freedom. the Bush Doctrine merits a fair trial in Iraq (and Siria, and Iran, and China). We must be patient, and continue to hunt down and kill the uncivilized, and leave the harmless to their traditions.

[Dman]

There would not have to be a single civilian killed if we decided to retaliate against a holy site if our goal is soley to demoralize them into peace. We can afford to give a one week warning to vacate the area before any action is taken. The greater point is that the moderates must fear us more then they fear their terrorist brothers or the moderates will never have a reason or motivation to clean up their own house.

[justin]

Wow, conservatives really are nuts ;)

Do you really think that it's in any way appropriate or responsible for an elected official to threaten to blow up holy sites in retaliation for a terrorist attack? It's hard to even know where to start with that, but I'll just make the obvious point: saying that has absolutely no positive or deterrent effect whatsoever, and it only makes our relations with the Muslim world much worse. Do you really think a moderate Muslim in the middle east is going to sit there an think "gee, they may bomb Mecca, I'd better turn in my local terrorist cell."?

And, Islamo-fascists would like nothing better than for the US to blow up Mecca. Complain all you want about Dick Durbin's comments, but this is perfect propaganda for Islamo-fascists, even if taken slighlty out of context. It's human nature to defend your own, even if you disagree with it.

[beaupeep]

It would appear that Representative Tancredo possesses not only a pretty good understanding of human nature, but also knows some history. If an Islamist nuclear device were to destroy an American city does anyone seriously doubt there might be just the sort of retaliation the Representative describes? One need only look back to Dresden and Hiroshima to see what happens when the veneer of civilization is rubbed sufficiently thin. Most people have yet to reach that point of thinking about retaliation, but to pretend that it would not happen given sufficient provocation serves no good purpose. Stating the unpleasant truth, on the other hand, may well do so--assuming there are moderate Muslims courageous and determined enough to alter the destructive course the Islamists have set us upon.

[justin]

Uh, but when we bombed Dresden and Hiroshima, we were at war with Germany and Japan, who could surrender and be bombed into submission. Forgive me, but I wasn't aware that we were at war with Saudi Arabia (maybe we should be). I'm still not clear how bombing a holy site and possibly killing millions in retaliation for an act of international terrorism is in our national interest. Are the fascist murderers going to surrender after we bomb Mecca? I'm all for killing terrorists, but come one, let's use a little common sense.

[Kevin]

"Wow, conservatives really are nuts ;)"

Wow, liberals really all are clueless, weak-kneed cowards ;)

"Do you really think a moderate Muslim in the middle east is going to sit there an think 'gee, they may bomb Mecca, I'd better turn in my local terrorist cell.'?"

Gee, who, exactly, are these two moderate Muslims in the Middle East? They friends of yours? That gay couple, Hamid and Ahmed, in Beirut? They don't count.

If you think that Tancredo's words are going to make a Muslim in the Middle East hate the United States more than he or she already does, you're deluded. The Islamo-facists (i.e., devout Muslims) already possess all the porpoganda they need: The Koran. The rest of it is a sideshow, and any event or statement can be, and has been, twisted to "ignite the Arab Street."

Osama's right about one thing: it's a war of cultures.

[justin]

Kevin,

Have you ever been to the middle east? There are plenty of moderates in the middle east who do not support suicide bombers or terrorism, even if they do not like the US. And, as the London bombings show, even second generation European Muslims can turn into murderers. And yes, there are "moderate" Muslims in London. To win the war on terrorism, we both need to kill terrorists and make sure that others do not become terrorists. Nuking Mecca certainly won't help the latter

[beaupeep]

I'm still not clear how bombing a holy site and possibly killing millions in retaliation for an act of international terrorism is in our national interest.

How is it in our national interest to pretend we are not at war and that we are not at war with Islamism? Please remember who started the present hostilities. If it comes to it, obliterating Mecca and Medina in retaliation--though absent, one hopes, 'killing millions' that would certainly occasion the obliteration of an American city--may not cause a single Islamofascist to surrender, but it's not we who are calling for surrender, is it? Our purpose is peaceful co-existence, but if the Islamists can't abide that, then I will leave it to you to continue to pretend that destroying their ideology before they destroy us is somehow not in our national interest.

[Kevin]

"Have you ever been to the middle east?"

Yeah, I have. In addition, I've seen London, I've seen France, I've seen Saddam in his underpants. So what?

You "say" there are "plenty" of moderate Muslims. Based upon what? You saying it? If there are so many of them, why aren't "they" in control of their religion, as moderate Christians are of theirs? It's not wild-eyed Jesuits, strapped with vests of C-4, running into Mosques and blowing Muslims to Paradise. The "plenty of moderates" better get busy stamping out the virus in their religion before they become consumed by the "medicine" employed by the rest of us to eradicate that virulent strain. Don't hold your breath.

There is nothing that "we" can do to stop Muslims from becoming terrorists. They are terrorists because they choose to be terrorists, or don't you believe that Muslims are anything more than reactive retards who are manipulated by us into becoming terrorists? They make choices to kill innocent men, women and children based upon their "value set" and then they act upon the choices they make. If the "value set" is defective, they make bad choices, which many have made so far, which, in turn, lead to bad acts.

I agree, however, that nuking Mecca will make no difference over the long run. Sooner or later, Muslims will have to become "less Muslim" or die, regardless of whether Mecca does or does not glow in the dark.

[Xrlq]

What's irrational about leting the moderates know that if they let the radicals speak for them, then Mecca is on the table.

The same thing that would have been irrational if, a decade or two ago, Great Britain had threatened to bomb the Vatican unless all those moderate Catholics found a way to rein in the IRA.

[SCSIwuzzy]

Wow. Justin, torchy, et al
While the radical muslims may not be the only ones hurt, the whole point of such a threat is to get the so called moderates to take a side. To stop harboring the bin Ladens, to stop funding whahibism, to stop turning a blind eye to the cancer in their community. If they don't want to stamp out the al Queda and other terrorist groups that hide behind them, it's time to let them know there are consequences.
When you allow yourself to be a shield, you will get hit when the attacker wants to hurt his target more than he cares about you.
The message is pretty simple: deal with them yourselves, or turn them over to us. But if we have to come in after them and you make it so we can't tell you apart...
The message of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was just as simple: We don't want to fight you in the streets, and on the beaches, or at all. So you either back down, or we will hit you so hard you can't get up.
Yeah, it may not stop the nuts, but they aren't the target audience.

[justin]

See Xrlq's point above, it's a good one. I'm catholic (not Irish), but if someone had threatened to bomb the Vatican unless we reigned in the IRA, my first reaction would be to want to fight whomever made that comment. I can't stand the terrorist IRA, but when you lay down a threat like that, you'd better expect strange allies and a lot of irrational rage.

Or, what if Turkey threatend to bomb Christian churches unless Christians reigned in the Serb genocide of the Mulsim Bosnians?

And yes, liberals understand that we are at war with islamic terrorists. I think the difference is that liberals actually want to take steps to win the war, while conservatives seem more interested in lashing out even if it's not in our interest (and by convervatives I'm referring to commenters to this particular post, I know many conservatives have distanced themselves from the comment).

[baldilocks]

XRLQ: That analogy was brought up by another at Captain Ed's place and I said this:

"Right analogy, wrong scope; Catholic extremists weren't blowing up Protestant sites all over the world or vice versa. Islamists, on the other hand, are."

Additionally, as someone else pointed out, the Vatican did not support the IRA or its purposes.

For the record, I don't think that nuclear weapons can be great strategy in any case anymore--last time for that was when they were actually used--and I don't think Mr. Tancredo was saying that it was. Pointing out options doesn't imply that all or any of them are good ones.

[wheels]

It seems to me that there's still some misinterpretation of Tancredo's remarks. I haven't heard the show, but just looking at the excerpt above, I see:

"...there are things that you could threaten to do before something like that happens and then you may have to do afterwards..."

To me, that parses to: "If you make threats beforehand to do something, you may have to follow through."

I don't see it as saying that we should bomb Mecca, but as saying that if we threaten to do so in response to another terrorist attack here, then we may have to follow through on the threat.

[justin]

Sorry about the snide comment about conservatives being more interested in lashing out. I don't want to turn this discussion into throwing insults around.

[baldilocks]

wheels: Exactly.

Justin: Thank you, sir.

[Michael]

Faries, unicorns, and moderate muslims.

Beings much discussed but rarely seen.

There are no moderate muslims, only muslims waiting to see which way the wind will finally blow. Will not be until extremest muslims have been eliminated.

Alas that is out job.

Then moderate muslims will appear in droves as if by magic.

Who knows, perhaps a few unicorns too.

[justin]

Doesn't the whole point of spreading democracy in the middle east depend on there being moderate muslims? I would consider the 99.9% of Iraqis (the ones not blowing up children and killing our troops) to be moderate and to be thankful to be rid of Saddam. I would hate to think that we handed a democracy over to people who are incapable of being moderate, because otherwise we just gave a country to our enemies.

[Michael]

Agreed.

And they will support the winner with the greatest of ferver.

I have no doubt that the average Mohammad wants no more than to be left in peace to live his life and raise his children just like the rest of us.

I'm sure that most want us to "win", just as I am sure that most will not lift a finger to help because of fear that we will not.

I have nothing against muslims as as individuals as I have no doubt that as individuals most are just as good as me, some better, some worse; but as a whole I think they are a small and silly people who live in terror of their religious masters.

Reform will not come from within, but from without.

And for the record, I am opposed to nuking anyone, no matter what the provocation; it would be the wrong thing to do. Besides we have better ways to retaliate. Nukes may have their purpose in life, but not by our team in this war.

[wayne]

I have a compromise here. If a nuke, dirty bomb, or a biological is used against us, we incinerate Medina, and remove everything on the Temple mount.

We leave them Mecca with the caviat that Allah hadn't stopped us from doing this and they are on their last chance. If Islam doesn't reign in their fanatics everywhere after this step then we will remove everything else they hold dear. For every strike we hit them 10 times as hard until they quit or we run out of targets. We certainly won't run out of nukes.

If deterrence is no longer working then we need to remind people why we built it and what happens if they fail to be deterred.

[Michael]

Aye. Running out of targets.

There's the rub.

[beaupeep]

Reform will not come from within, but from without.

That seems a rather specious contention. The West may certainly hope to encourage an Islamic reformation--by, among other things, encouraging Muslims to consider the possible consequences awaiting otherwise--but the responsibility for reform lies with those of the faith. It will either happen or it won't. But in no way is the responsibility ours.

[Morenuancedthanyou]

I think that it was not Tancredo's place to refer to attacking Mecca. That was Bush's line, whether to be said privately to ME leaders or publicly after a WMD attack in the US.
That said, it is useful if the moderate Muslims understand that not only their own lives, but the future of their religion (see Wrechard's Three Conjectures), are on the line. They are the ones currently in control of the situation. It is entirely up to them, especially, but not only, their mullahs, to bring the jihadists under control. (Some of) The jihadists will listen to them; they will listen to no one else.
There is a paradox here. What Tancredo said needs to be understood by the moderate Muslims, but a US politician saying it out loud is probably destructive to the PR part of this war. I think that the PR part will dominate our conduct of this war until a second WMD goes off in the US. (I assume the US public would tolerate, if barely, one attack without demanding an equally devastating response, but not two.)

[Shaitan]

Turn in your Korans to Sura 9, the title of which is commonly translated as "The Immunity" or something similar. The signature verse of Sura 9 is verse 5, the one bin Ladin and friends quoted in their fatwa in the late 1990s; however, the rest is no friendlier. The religious duty of good muslims toward us unbelievers is ambush and murder. If an unbeliever is being hunted down and he begs a muslim to take him in, he's to be taken in and then be allowed to choose between converting and being given over to his hunters. It's true that at the time, there were treaties in place with some of the unbelievers. Sura 9 explains that only the treaties made in the Great Mosque needed to be observed. Even those were to be held nullified if the unbelievers failed at all to be on their best behavior. And Sura 9 put the Great Mosque off limits to unbelievers; so much, then, for the very possibility any further treaties.

Whenever someone starts going on about the moderacy or peaceableness of Islam as a whole and says that our war isn't, or isn't properly, against the Islamic religion itself, I very simply have recourse to the muslim holy book. Sura 9 is an antidote to all such foolishness, provided that one takes the time to read it.

[Michael]

"Reform will not come from within, but from without.".... "That seems a rather specious contention."

Not really. My wording was a bit imprecise. What I should have said is ""Reform will not come from within, but forced from without."

Islam will not change unless it is forced to do so from the outside; their inertia is simply too great, in the fashion of a delinquent who can/will change if appropriate outside influence is brought to bare, else he ends up in prison.

If it does not change Islam will be disappeared, so it behooves us to work very hard to make sure change happens. Work hard....not baby monsters.

And yes, I believe that the responsibility ours. Not because I want the responsibility, I most certianlly do not, but because I believe that we are indeed our brother's keeper and because I believe that the consequences will be very sad indeed if we fail.

[Bill O..]

Essentially what I read being said here is that since "moderate Muslims" can't control "their own" that we go in and "lynch us some A-rabs". Remember when all Black people regardless of how much good they did were made responsible for the violent acts of a minority of deranged criminals? I guess the more historically appropriate 20th century analogy involved killing 10 - 50 villagers for every one murdered soldier. And we can now see that did not exactly work out. But if you want to see the results of the most recent fruits of this school of thought read the findings just released separately by an Israeli think tank and the Saudi government:
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/07/17/study_cites_seeds_of_terror_in_iraq/

[Michael]

Suggest you might wish to get whatever you be smokin' out of your system and re-read.

Might help.

[beaupeep]

Bill O.. I'll try to make it simple enough so that even you can understand. The question of the day is: What happens if an Islamic bomb destroys an American city? Presumably, we might retaliate, eh? Now, can you think of a threatened response that might deter such an attack?

No one is looking to go in and, to use your delicate phrase, "lynch us some A-rabs". Fact is, the whole purpose of suggesting a deterrent is to, um, deter--you know, keep bad things from happening.

Hope this explanation helps.

[Right in Florida]

Thanks, Baldilocks, for your post. I followed your link from Michelle Malkin's blog. I agree with you. We must be realists and understand that certain thoughts must be thought and certain actions must be considered. Tancredo answered honestly to a hypothetical, which we know may well happen some day.

[Tony Miller]

"Mr. Hewitt says also that nuking Mecca would hurt us in the War on Terror with peace-loving Muslims. That is, however, true."

Since "peace loving" Muslims have been ineffectual in the war on terror, why should we worry about them? If we piss them off, well, they're "peace loving" after all, right?

In the wake of Muslim terror attacks, the silence from the "peace loving" Muslims has been deafening.

[Bill O..]

beaupeep and Michael:
I am clear on the opinion that was stated: To deter some insane, homicidal, deranged, sick criminal who is Muslim from attacking a US city the US should threaten retaliation on the entire Islamic world by using nuclear weapons on one of "their" cities essentially killing tens of thousands of random people because they also happen to be Muslim. Oh and threatening to destroy their most revered holy site is supposed to make moderate Muslims apply more control over these same insane, mass murdering maniacs. Please feel free to post where I got it wrong. But again, how is this any different from how random Blacks were lynched for the alleged crimes of other Blacks? When the deranged lunatic, maniacs attacked NYC on 9/11 did it make you more "moderate" about how you wanted America to deal with Al Qaida? Since you say this is hypothetical how do you think the West should respond if the terrorist threaten to blow up the Vatican? Or even better -hypothetically why don’t we implement this practice into US domestic law. If someone in Peoria commits murder we should just bomb all of the murderer’s neighbors within a 10 block radius. You think that would reduce crime?

Read the link/URL I posted and you can see what I mean:
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/07/17/study_cites_seeds_of_terror_in_iraq/
Since I last posted the UK government announced their findings which matched the Israeli and Saudi Government finding on what is presently the biggest cause for Muslims to become terrorists.

[beaupeep]

Bill O.. Your lynching of blacks analogy fails for the simple fact that the whites doing the lynching were themselves acting in the name of a detestable ideology, much as the Islamists are today. The whole point of this discussion is to consider the possibility of events coming to a point where the West will eventually perceive a need to destroy this latest detestable ideology as a matter of survival, but only after all other options have been explored and found wanting. Unfortunately, that is the thing about wars, they often lead us to places no-one would have imagined at the outset. Could the Japanese and Germans foreseen Hiroshima and Dresden they might have been less enthusiastic about pursuing their ideology of world conquest. Unfortunately, they couldn't. In this respect the Muslims of the world have been given an opportunity the Japanese and Germans of that earlier conflict didn't have--the opportunity to consider a future they may still avoid.

[Brian H]

I agree with the commenters who have implied that a threat to Mecca would not faze the terrorists. But it would, perhaps, motivate the "moderated majority" to clamp down on the nutbars.

Basically, I think the Ts are in love with the violent struggle to form a Caliphate (which they will rule, of course), not with the religion they use as a justifier and recruiting tool.

[Brian H]

**moderate majority**, of course.

[Bill O..]

beaupeep:
"Your lynching of blacks analogy fails for the simple fact that the whites doing the lynching were themselves acting in the name of a detestable ideology, much as the Islamists are today"

You should google around and read some of the reasonings why lynchers told themselves to murder innocnent people. In a good number of cases these people that often times had picnics under the hanging bodies with their children and wives had convinced themselves that they murdered to protect themselves and their families.

I will just point out the obvious.
Tom Tancredo and his really ignorant comments just helped recruit even more terrorists than the Iraq war already has. He has made us less safe in exchange for cheap applause from the Solider of Fortune and Guns and Ammo crowd.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/07/17/study_cites_seeds_of_terror_in_iraq/

[beaupeep]

Bill O.. I'm sure the Islamofascists think they have at least as many good reasons to murder innocent people as any group of people ever had. So what? They would still have those reasons absent Tancredo or Iraq or Israel or any other supposed justification you might like to cite. And that is the big difference between us and them. We would just as soon live and let live. They, apparently, can not and will not. They say we must be destroyed and you apparently think we should do nothing to antagonize them. Problem is, our very existence antagonizes them and the only thing that will placate them is our disappearance or total submission. Sorry, but that doesn't sound like a winning proposition.

[Stephanie]

Nuclear retaliation should be our last and final option. However, North Korea and IRAN have been forgotten in this hypothetical situation.

Once we retaliate on a nuclear scale North Korea and IRAN (particularly Iran would ratchet up their nuclear arms programs. They would swear that they would be next on the so-called list of targets.

The Cold War between the former USSR and the US was tempered between wisdom and the dark, stark reality that nuclear warfare meant the near end of civilization.

Honestly, I don't think that we need to discount Russia. I don't trust Putin. We do need to be concerned about Russia's and Putin's position if this should ever happen.

North Korea and Iran are not the USSR. I'm afraid common sense would not prevail if we were to retaliate.

[Froggy]

I am most certainly not breaking off a "chickenhawk" argument here, but it seems that civilians by and large do not have the stomach to contemplate responses to WMD attacks on the US mainland. I am having this discussion today at my site, and readers that are vets understand that a nuclear attack on the US raises the stakes to an incalculable level. Old paradigms relating to terms like "indescriminate", "bigotry", "hegemony", and "genocide" would no longer carry any significance if 1,000,000+ US citizens were dead and large metro areas uninhabitable for 10,000 years.