Tancredo: Threaten to Bomb Muslim Holy Sites in Retaliation

[canis582]

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
America has always been overwhelmingly violent and brutal when angered. "Payback" is our middle name. Unfortunately, so is "blowback." The mess that is Iran today, and thus part of the havoc that is Iraq today, is directly attributable to our hubristic arrogance, so perfectly captured in the attitude of your post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Its directly attributable to ridiculous rules of engagement and our lack of will to win.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
America has always been overwhelmingly violent and brutal when angered. "Payback" is our middle name. Unfortunately, so is "blowback." The mess that is Iran today, and thus part of the havoc that is Iraq today, is directly attributable to our hubristic arrogance, so perfectly captured in the attitude of your post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jimmy Carter is responsible for modern day Iran. He abandon our ally the Shah and he gave us a terrorist state. As for arrogance....I have a right to be arrogant. I'm an American. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...irst/#comments

On Tuesday, Tancredo warned a group of Iowans that another terrorist attack would “cause a worldwide economic collapse.”

“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.”

Tom Casey, a deputy spokesman for the State Department, told CNN’s Elise Labott that the congressman’s comments were “reprehensible” and “absolutely crazy.”

----------

I'm obviously no fan of Ron Paul, but recall that Republican leaders around the country called for him to be barred from debates for suggesting American foreign policy influenced or motivated the 9/11 terrorists (something that almost everyone who isn't a right-wing nut job agrees is a legitimate possibility).

We can only wait and see if Tancredo, who has made this "warning" numerous times in the past, will receive similar treatment from Republican leadership (for what we should all agree is nothing more than sheer barbarism).

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe it's not only Ron Paul's comments in the debates but other things as well like the charges of racism levied against him. Tancredo has been accused of racism as well but at least he showed up at a recent NAACP convention. He was the only GOP candidate to show up btw.

Tancredo gets standing ovation from NAACP for showing up


Tancredo seems to wield more political power in Congress than Paul does IMO which may be another contributing factor. Guliani used Paul as his tool for promoting his anti-terrorist ideas in his campaign.

No doubt though that as ideas for rational discussion, Paul's ideas on jihadist terrorism are amenable to rational discussion while Tancredo's way, way out there somewhere.

Haven't watched the debates at all. Guliani's diatribe against Paul was played so many times in the media I couln't help but be aware of it.

[adios]

Perhaps interesting questions:

What would Jimmy Carter have done about 9/11? What would Dubya have done about the Iranian hostages? What would Clinton have done about either or both?

[Thug Bubbles]

[ QUOTE ]
Felix -

Although I am ambivalent on the ethics of your position, it warms my heart to know that there are still people willing to do whatever seems necessary to survival. Carry on good sir.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a position of doing whatever necessary, because if it was determined that holding back was 'necessary' he and people like him wouldn't. His is a position of anger and revenge.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
America has always been overwhelmingly violent and brutal when angered. "Payback" is our middle name. Unfortunately, so is "blowback." The mess that is Iran today, and thus part of the havoc that is Iraq today, is directly attributable to our hubristic arrogance, so perfectly captured in the attitude of your post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Its directly attributable to ridiculous rules of engagement and our lack of will to win.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean the idea of having rules of engagement is ridiculous or the specifics in ours are ridiculous?

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps interesting questions:

What would Jimmy Carter have done about 9/11? What would Dubya have done about the Iranian hostages? What would Clinton have done about either or both?

[/ QUOTE ]

Easy.... Jimmy would have called Osama over for a little rub and tug to try to make Osama like us.... Osama would demand more and more with each stroke of Jimmy's hand.

Dubya would have tried to get the hostages back, but likely screwed it up somehow, and would have most dems working against whatever he attempted.

Clinton would have found the nearest intern to choke down his "little willie"... but still never would have had a serious response to either event. (as evideced in the 1st WTC bombing, two embassy bombings in Africa, Black hawk down, and the USS Cole bombing.)

[GoodCallYouWin]

"Jimmy Carter is responsible for modern day Iran."

This is particularily niave. Go back a little earlier... 1953... the installation of the Shah... Kermit Roosevelt... yes his name was Kermit...

[Borodog]

Tancredo is a [censored] whackjob nutcase prick of the first water.

Why doesn't he suggest that we threaten that if Mexicans kept crossing the borders illegally we're going to nuke Mexico City?

[iron81]

Because who would want to sit in a country that was about to be nuked?