Congressman Tancredo: "Bomb Mecca!"

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republican presidential hopeful Tom Tancredo says that to deter a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States he would threaten to retaliate by bombing Islamic holy sites.

The Colorado congressman says he doesn't want to attack Mecca and Medina, but believes the threat to do so -- with conventional rather than nuclear bombs -- is the only effective deterrent against Muslim radicals willing to die for their faith.

A spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations denounced Tancredo's statements as "unworthy of anyone seeking public office in the United States." Ibrahim Hooper suggested that Tancredo could be trying to win the support of "anti-Muslim bigots." The Colorado congressman proposed a similar retaliatory threat on a radio talk show in 2005.

---

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/s...?storyid=88374

Hi, welcome to last year!

Or was it? The date on the website says 6 days ago, but i recall someone in America saying bomb Mecca a few years ago.

Nah, not a good idea. All it takes is a terrorist that is willing to sacrifice Mecca and Medina for a pretty much certain Jihad.

Now why would they care about that? They pretty much hate anything to do with the majority of Islam anyway; only people this would piss off is the everyday muslims, not jihadis.

First of all, why do people even make such statements ?!
How does it come up ? "Hey, let's think of some really inflamatory and possibly open to misinterpretation stuff that we could use to stir up more antagonism!"

And second:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Article

Republican presidential hopeful Tom Tancredo says that to deter a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States he would threaten to retaliate by bombing Islamic holy sites.

---

this makes no sense!
To deter = to prevent from occurring.
Retaliate = reply to an attack (i.e., that already occurred).

So.... in order to prevent them from attacking, he would threaten to bomb them after they attack ? :dizzy2:

Finally... they nuke you and you "threaten" to use conventional bombs on them ?! What kind of wimpy weakling reply is that anyway ?? ~D

The deterrent would be the threat of retaliation.

It worked for the Cold War.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

It worked for the Cold War.

---

...which was between two relatively well-centralized states...

I believe we all know that terrorists work differently. They're born from outrage and thrive on outrage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

The deterrent would be the threat of retaliation.

It worked for the Cold War.

---

Not much of a deterrent to say "If you hit me first, I'll hit you back!"... it's like, "duh".
In the case of the Cold War, the deterrent was MAD - this is not even the case here, since the retaliation would be conventional bombs (as explicitly stated in the article).

All this seems like is one more properganda point for Osama to throw around. However this has brought up something that has been resting in the back of my mind for a while. Can we truely ever pervent a terrriorist attack? We can try to leasen the occerence and severity but it dosn't take much for a couple guys to sneak through the boarder with bomb belts or AK 47's and then just bomb a couple of crowded streets. Infact I wonder why they havn't done that yet. Think of the terror it would cause. The only reason I can think of them not doing it is they wouldn't want to bring the full wrath of the U.S. down on every Islamic state that has vaugly supported terror, not wanting to awake the sleeping giant. Under that logic is not our best defense against this a vigouous offense against those states that support terror?

Disclaimer: I'm not talking about going after anything besides Civillian targets here or attacking every nation in the middle east.

Yes fanning the flames... that will help :rolleyes:

What would this magnificent congressman say if islamic extremists threatened to bomb the Vatican, home of the Catholic church, next time some random christian offends them? :dizzy2:

This should have been done a long time ago. Dismantle the scourge.

Tancredo '08

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

This should have been done a long time ago. Dismantle the scourge.

Tancredo '08

---

:sweatdrop: :help:

What a muppet

Quote:

---

The Colorado congressman says he doesn't want to attack Mecca and Medina, but believes the threat to do so -- with conventional rather than nuclear bombs -- is the only effective deterrent against Muslim radicals willing to die for their faith.

---

...a complete loony toon .
Still its nice to have a functioning democracy where complete imbeciles can not only get elected , they can put themselves forward for president .

Quote:

---

Tancredo '08

---

whats up Panzer ? with your old sig for Bush '04 are you not happy that the idiot you wanted wasn't quite as stupid as you would have liked him to be .

Someone's read too much Nelson DeMille...

Quid

:balloon2: So if the IRA had nuked an American city, the Vatican would be nuked in return and so would Jerusalem as they are the two most holy citizens to Catholics?

Bombing century old city's is always a waste. Say what you want but it's gorgious.

http://p.vtourist.com/1357647-The_Gr..._SW-Medina.jpg

Who would want to bomb that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Bombing century old city's is always a waste. Say what you want but it's gorgious.

[Image goes here]

Who would want to bomb that.

---

Well, now that you mention it...

Looks like Bradford town hall. :laugh4:

I'd hit that.





















Wait.
Wrong thread!

I've played too much World In Conflict to answer that question honestly.

In order to deter suicide attacks in general, we need to start massacring the extended families of suicide bombers. One of the big motivators for bombers currently is to bring monetary benefits and honor upon their families. If you could assure them that once they blew themselves up there would be no family left, they would at least stop bragging about it, that's for sure.

As far as bombing Mecca and Medina..... Papewaio is right, it makes about as much sense as bombing the Vatican.

How much blood must be taken to prevent war?

The short answer would be "all of it" trying to prevent war is fallacy, trying to curtail or postpone war is not. At some point in the future Britain will fight a war it cannot win and be destroyed as a result. That is a virtual certainty. The only question is when. Hopefully my family will have died out before then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

In order to deter suicide attacks in general, we need to start massacring the extended families of suicide bombers. One of the big motivators for bombers currently is to bring monetary benefits and honor upon their families. If you could assure them that once they blew themselves up there would be no family left, they would at least stop bragging about it, that's for sure.

---

:stunned:

Dude, are you serious?

The expression fighting fire with fire comes to my mind... Also, as has been said already; why bomb centuries old cities?

They created a monster. Then he wants to destroy it by creating a billion soul stronger one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

They created a monster. Then he wants to destroy it by creating a billion soul stronger one?

---

It works in DragonBall Z, kinda.:sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

It works in DragonBall Z, kinda.:sweatdrop:

---

:sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

:stunned:

Dude, are you serious?

---

I think I am growing soft.

:stunned: indeed