Congressman "throws out idea" for possible nuclear retaliation..why not bomb mecca?

real smart move.....i can actually hear the AQ volunteer lines growing from were i´m sitting........to say that you will respond to a possible attack from a small radical group with an attack on an entire religion strikes me as a bit nuts...is it just me?

i don´t think he is serious..(let me correct...i hope to god he isn´t serious), but to even say such a thing is shows imense stupidity and can cause serious damage...how does a moron like this get elected?

Quote:

---

DENVER, Colorado (AP) -- 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 made his remarks Friday on WFLA-AM in Orlando, Florida. His spokesman stressed he was only speaking hypothetically.

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.

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 September 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.

Mohammad Noorzai, coordinator of the Colorado Muslim Council 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.

---

link to story on CNN

Muslim response story also from CNN

So it really is a Crusade (Holy War) now then?

Probably an attention whore.

Especially during summer these kind of fools (and every Parliament has a couple of those) seem to feel the obligation to come up with some really stupid idea or comment just to remind the public that tehy exist.

It almost as good as they idea of asking the terrorist to please blow everything they possibly can.

idiot whacko...hey, there are christian extremists, let's bomb Jerusalem...

Seriously though, I see no point in his comments, just ignore them and restrain the man from such ludicrous ideas in future

Bombing Mecca wouldn't do anything good. Neither does it have any strategic value.

The best weapon against religious fanatism is media. Make sure every little muslim get real news and that daily. Cost less than arms as well.....

Al-Qaeda must love this. They can tell their followers ”this is who we are fighting, and this is why”

Yes, but, didn't the interviewer have some responsibility here? What sort of question is "how the country should respond if terrorists struck several U.S. cities with nuclear weapons." That is a pretty extreme and irresponsible scenario.

I mean, if you asked me in the pub "how should Britain respond if terrorists struck several British cities with nuclear weapons" my answer wouild be something like "find out which country gave them the bombs and nuke seven shades of **** out of it so that no bastard EVER does the same thing again" Ok, that's not quite Mecca, and a congressman on the radio needs to exercise more care than me in the pub, but I can basically see where he was coming from.

I doubt America would nuke anyone if they were nuked by terrorists. I suspect they would just annex Arabia and anyone else even remotely related to them.

That option isn't open to Britain or France though. I doubt whoever gave them any terrorists the nukes to blow up Paris or London would still be there the next morning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

Yes, but, didn't the interviewer have some responsibility here? What sort of question is "how the country should respond if terrorists struck several U.S. cities with nuclear weapons." That is a pretty extreme and irresponsible scenario.

---

He is a Congressman - surely he is meant to have some tact and political skill. What a total donut. :furious3:

Congressmen are not senators. They do not represent entire states, but small districts. There are 430+ of them, and more than a few are a little nutty as a result of block voting and apathy in this country.(no real competition.)

I do think that this would be an interesting policy to persue in an alternate universe.

If AQ really love Islam as much as they say, would they risk Mecca if GWB said he would really nuke the place?

Of course in reality its completely off the wall, but at least the guy is thinking out of the box. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dâriûsh

Al-Qaeda must love this. They can tell their followers ”this is who we are fighting, and this is why”

---

Spot on. And it isnt the only thing the US did to make Al Qaeda into what it is today...No need to look at Congressment, look at the administration. Once day Al Qaeda will give Dubya a medal for promoting their cause and making the world famous...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

I doubt America would nuke anyone if they were nuked by terrorists.

---

If it was from a fairly distributed terrorist group with no solid connection to a govt, then no...not after the first one at least. However, that is somewhat unlikely as a scenario. A nuke is not something a terrorist group is likely to get their hands on and be able to successfully detonate without the backing of a nuclear nation. So if it was tied directly to a specific nation, that nation would get nuked rather soon, and not in any small way. After all, you have to make them unable to strike again, and make an example of them at the same time.

A nuke attack would make it a survival issue for the U.S. At that point it becomes, "Do we stand here and let them kill us piecemeal, or do we kill ALL of those who back/support this attack?" You don't want to put a nuclear superpower into a corner like that.

I just hope that, if, may God forbid, it came to that, we'd have a president who'd have the guts to turn the entire country into glass, and not some sissy one who wouldn't do anything but have town meetings and talk about the need for understanding.

Crazed Rabbit

Turn which entire country into glass?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Turn which entire country into glass?

---

Ours apparently. Can't see how that's gutsy though.

Obviously, the country that attacked us.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Obviously, the country that attacked us.

Crazed Rabbit

---

we were talking about a terrorist attack......so in the majority of ocasions there is no country to "turn into a parking lot" so to speak.....

Obviously, the country that attacked us.
Or possibly some other country that you don't like , that would make an easy target and you could sell the idea to the public about ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Obviously, the country that attacked us.

---

Now let's pray that Blair isn't gutsy enough to turn the entire country where the London terrorists came from into glass. Or even Leeds. ~:)

As some people apparently cannot get over how clever they are for taking my quote out of context, I feel it is necessary to show what I was originally responding to:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

If it was from a fairly distributed terrorist group with no solid connection to a govt, then no...not after the first one at least. However, that is somewhat unlikely as a scenario. A nuke is not something a terrorist group is likely to get their hands on and be able to successfully detonate without the backing of a nuclear nation. So if it was tied directly to a specific nation, that nation would get nuked rather soon, and not in any small way. After all, you have to make them unable to strike again, and make an example of them at the same time.

A nuke attack would make it a survival issue for the U.S. At that point it becomes, "Do we stand here and let them kill us piecemeal, or do we kill ALL of those who back/support this attack?" You don't want to put a nuclear superpower into a corner like that.

---

Crazed Rabbit

We're just taking the piss ~:)

It's more aimed at people like that gun-toting 'let's nuke Mecca' congressmember.

Yes, but it gets old after a while. ~:)

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Yes, but it gets old after a while. ~:)

Crazed Rabbit

---

So does macho sounding bullsh*t spouted of the top of people's heads.

So does macho sounding bullsh*t spouted of the top of people's heads.
But Idaho , isn't your statement macho sounding bull spouted of the top of your head ?
Or did you put lots of thought into it and really mean it from the depths of your heart ? ~D

Nuke the country of the nuker.

Therefore:

Iff Timothy McVeigh had used a nuke you would nuke the country he came from.

Or if the British Terrorists had used Nukes on London, the response from the UK government would be a nuclear strike on the UK. Now that would be taking the stiff upper lip to a whole new level. :toff:

Quote:

---

If it was from a fairly distributed terrorist group with no solid connection to a govt, then no...not after the first one at least. However, that is somewhat unlikely as a scenario. A nuke is not something a terrorist group is likely to get their hands on and be able to successfully detonate without the backing of a nuclear nation.

---

Actually there was a study a few years back where reaserchers built what experts believe would be an operable nuclear weapon using parts easily obtained, the only missing part was uranium. This is not a multi megaton weapon, but a weapon maybe half the size of the Hirosmima and Nagasaki bombs, but that is enough to do serious damage.
Then there are dirty bombs, chemical weapons, and bio weapons, these are considered the same for retalitory purposes and those weapons can be gotten by terrorists without nation state support.

IMHO we have been lead astray by the slightly random nature of the congressman's target.

IF no nation could be firmly linked to the terrorist nuke, then obviously nuclear relatiation is out of the question. If the nuke comes with "a gift from pakistan" stenciled on the side then IMHO nuclear retaliation is perfectly sensible (although I admit I personally wouldn't have the, whatever you call it, to order the deaths of 100,000s of people even if I do think in the long run it would save lives. If I was PM and they ever opened the box with the secret nuclear orders in it all they would find would be a stale cheese sandwich and an old copy of the Beano.)

I'm just curious what Louis would do if he was Emperor of France & they nuked Paris, or if Idaho was made King of England, pre-magna carta limitations and the terrorists nuked London? What's more, let's say your intelligence chief came to you and said "One can never be 100% certain about these things, but we are as sure as we can be that the terrorists received the bomb, the training, and safe passage from the Iranian Intelligence Service". Make some glib jokes at your citizens that want a retaliation, as you have here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBob

Actually there was a study a few years back where reaserchers built what experts believe would be an operable nuclear weapon using parts easily obtained, the only missing part was uranium. This is not a multi megaton weapon, but a weapon maybe half the size of the Hirosmima and Nagasaki bombs, but that is enough to do serious damage.
Then there are dirty bombs, chemical weapons, and bio weapons, these are considered the same for retalitory purposes and those weapons can be gotten by terrorists without nation state support.

---

Isn't that a bit like saying we had everything we needed to make a campfire, except the wood? The control of the Uranium is how the international community attempts to restrict the access to the nuclear bomb. The general premise is actually rather simple. Take two piles of Uranium, each at less slightly less than critical mass, then at the key moment, mix them so they are now well beyond critical mass. Voila. The details aren't even all that hard to work out, and I'm not sure if this is an urban myth (i've never looked) but I've heard there's working blueprints available on the web. The big thing is getting yourself some fissable Uranium.