Congressman: 'Take out' holy sites If terrorists nuke U.S.

[Duty Honor Country]

This guy actually spoke what a lot of people are thinking in this situation.

Congressman: Destroying sites option if U.S. attacked

DENVER (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 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 Sept. 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 and had a 100% rating last year from the American Conservative Union his votes and positions on issues.

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.

USATODAY

 

[KC72]

My gran would be livid.

 

[Italian Guy]

Definitely a wrong idea.

 

[Boobies]

hehehe...

this guy is a nut ball alright. Some freaks creating some problems in my country, and we should destroy the civilization. hahhaha. Good one.

 

[Rabs]

Unless Islam straightens themselves out and starts cracking down on radicals, yes we need to take radical steps of our own. these might include internment and sezeing of oil feilds. We gave them that oil, they were rolling around in the sand tradeing camels before we showed them how to drill.

 

[Whispering Death]

Oh yeah, if the US is nuked by islamicists? I'd be all in favor of nuking Mecca.

Once the US is nuked that's it, that is the peak of the escallation, it doesn't matter who else we piss off from that point on, there are no more restrictions.

 

[Damien435]

Well, IF terrorists were to nuke several US cities they would most likely be on the eastern seaboard, definetly New York City, probably Boston and the Baltimore/Washington area, most likely leaving approx. 10,000,000 people dead? That is probably a little high because I doubt that the terrorists could get a hold of a high yield weapon(s) but it would be more than enough to make America so pissed off that we would have no problem with help Israel to tear down the Dome of the Rock, destroying the (Karballah?), and putting a stop to the pilgramage to Mecca for at least 15 years, help India in destroying Pakistan, turn a blind eye towards whatever Russia wants to do in Chechnya (Muslim rebels). Basically, punish all Muslims because it is the governments in the middle east who refuse to crack down on terror cells in their country that would ultimately be responsible.

 

[Locke]

re the article
nothing shows more ignorance, arrogance or lack of respect for others than that comment. i mean, seriously, who do they think they are to destroy major religious targets because a handful of extremist :cen: keep slipping attacks through theri defense.

so basically damien, what you are proposing is a religiuos genocide of sorts, with the purpose of making it near impossible for ordinary decent people to practice thier religion freely, as is thier birth right as a human. nice. you are almost as bad as the terrorists. there is more to the world that simple wrong and right.

 

[Damien435]

so basically damien, what you are proposing is a religiuos genocide of sorts, with the purpose of making it near impossible for ordinary decent people to practice thier religion freely, as is thier birth right as a human. nice. you are almost as bad as the terrorists. there is more to the world that simple wrong and right.

Well, it is something that almost every country would want to do in the situation, for that matter most of the countries of the world would be completely destroyed in such an attack, but very few countries in the world could in fact pull something like this off. Only a few come to mind, China, Russia and America most notably.

Then I shall turn this question around. How would New Zealand respond to such an attack? Russia? China? France, Germany Italy or the UK? India or Pakistan? Egypt? Brazil? Ireland?

 

[Redleg]

Great idea.... :roll:

Well, it is something that almost every country would want to do in the situation, for

I certainly hope not, and I don't think (hope) the US would do that either...

By doing that you are guaranteed to get WW3, and Einsteins famous quote would most probably be proved correct..

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV
will be fought with sticks and stones."

http://www.military-quotes.com/albert-einstein.htm

 

[Damien435]

Great idea.... :roll:

Well, it is something that almost every country would want to do in the situation, for

I certainly hope not, and I don't think (hope) the US would do that either...

By doing that you are guaranteed to get WW3, and Einsteins famous quote would most probably be proved correct..

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV
will be fought with sticks and stones."

http://www.military-quotes.com/albert-einstein.htm

45,000 Nuclear Warheads in the world. All but 200 reside in the US or Russia, the terrorists have already spent their's, why would the US use nukes?

I highly doubt that the US would take as radical as actions as I have just proposed. Instead what we will do is probably just like 9/11, adopt a course of action much less radical than those that fill up the history of Europe and then watch as they refuse to help and in some cases try to impede us.

 

[Whispering Death]

Alright guys, as good as ideals and moral principles are, if a high yield nuclear device where to be detonated in a major US city the civilian death toll would be at least twice as high as the soldier death toll for the entirety of American forces in the 4 years of WW2. Let that sink in for a second, twice as large as the entire KIA of WW2 in one day.

That, my friends, is extreme.

The American response would have to be equally extreme.

America invaded 2 countries in response to having 3,000 of their citizens killed, if 600,000+ where killed it would be a nuclear retalliation on anything bearing the resemblance of their attackers.

The citizenry would hang their politicians in public squares if they did anything less.

 

[Locke]

so basically damien, what you are proposing is a religiuos genocide of sorts, with the purpose of making it near impossible for ordinary decent people to practice thier religion freely, as is thier birth right as a human. nice. you are almost as bad as the terrorists. there is more to the world that simple wrong and right.

Well, it is something that almost every country would want to do in the situation, for that matter most of the countries of the world would be completely destroyed in such an attack, but very few countries in the world could in fact pull something like this off. Only a few come to mind, China, Russia and America most notably.

Then I shall turn this question around. How would New Zealand respond to such an attack? Russia? China? France, Germany Italy or the UK? India or Pakistan? Egypt? Brazil? Ireland?

tahts right, bombing public places they hold dear is going to help change thier minds about westerners.you gotta be kidding me. bombing the mentioned targets does absolutely resolving the situation, but then, you aren't talking about resolving anything are you, you just want to show by an excessive show of muscle that you can't be beaten and wont be intimitated, right?

an extreme action does not demand equal repercussions. i believe that iv world leaders were willing to put thier egos aside, they would be able so solve a hell of a lot more than they currently are. how do you plan on killing an equal number of people, when those who perpertrate these acts are shadowy people who do not expose themselves until they are ready to act, who have groups which are nigh on impossible to infiltrate, and who, while not having the support of the community they live in, are not hated or being "dobbed in" by those around them.

 

[Rabs]

Well Locke what do you think the US should do in that situation, sit on there hand and wait for more? Or do you think we should be cowards like spain and immediately withdraw, and let the arabs push the jews into the sea.

No No and No.


If we did that they would just find another reason to hate us, were never going to change that. We have to make them realize that they started a war they can not win. We have to teach them that we can and our citizens are now willing enhilate them.

Ever since the begging of time muslims have respected power, we have plenty of power and we would need to show it and in a grand scale.

 

[Whispering Death]

Locke, refer to my post above for a more pragmatic perspective.

 

[Locke]

not worth arguing, from my POV, your view is almost as extreme as thiers, just the different side of the coin

 

[Damien435]

not worth arguing, from my POV, your view is almost as extreme as thiers, just the different side of the coin

Well then what the hell are we supposed to do? "Oh, you killed millions of our people, you win, we will pull all of our forces out of the middle east, Europe and Africa, retreat behind our borders while the you do what you will." Is that what you want?

 

[vargsriket]

Well, I don't know, from one perspectie it would seem like the right thing to do, tit for tat. You killed my citizens, so I will kill yours, and take out your whole religion along with them.
On the other hand, that would put us in a very tricky position, one that would certainly make us no better than the terrorists. But then again, this is war, and war is hell, it's brutal and uncompromising, kill or be killed. So screw them.

 

[Whispering Death]

On the other hand, that would put us in a very tricky position, one that would certainly make us no better than the terrorists.

I have never agreed with this logic. So you'd rather be "better than the terrorists" while you're burrying your parents and children? Values and morals are good, but they're predicated upon the survival of the society. If you want American morals and values to continue, you can't allow your society to be destroyed.

Now you shouldn't nuke the entire middle east because of a few nuts in airplanes, but from a nuclear attack? Oh shit son, you'd better run to mongolia.

 

[C/Cpl. Chirico]

I rarely ever post here, but I couldn't resist this topic.


While I agree that nuclear retaliation is the only way to go, you guys seem to forget an alternate scenario.

If the terrorists made the threat to detonate nuclear devices in US cities, I'm pretty sure we could prevent that from ever happening if we threaten to nuke Muslim holy sites. That might be the only thing that could prevent them from doing that.