Republican Congressman Angers Muslims - Has A Point?

[iamjoy]

This is very interesting, apparently Tom Tancredo of Colorado indicated that if radical Muslims ever attack the U.S. with nuclear weapons, we should respond by nuking Muslim holy sites. Of course, around the world Muslims are outraged and demanding an apology, but the Congressman insists saying his remarks were taken out of context. Now I have several opinions on this, but have to admit a grudging respect for him not backing down as so many Democrats do when something they say causes a controversy.

Don't get me wrong, I think it is a horrible idea. I think statements like this fuel Muslim fear and hatred of America and show us as a bully. But, I have to wonder if he is on to something. Think about the Cold War. The Soviets had nukes, we had nukes. While we feared some crazy maniac getting the codes, we also kind of all knew that any nuclear attack would be met with equal force. Mutually Assured Destruction. MAD had its own bizarre sanity and logic. And to an extent, the same is true today with North Korea and China. But what about Muslim radicals? They are not world powers in the traditional sense and they have a lot less to lose. What threat do you wield against some one willing to die for their religion? You tell Muslim extremists that if they launch a nuclear attack in the United States (or our allies) we will retaliate with a nuclear strike. And what is valuable to them? Mecca.


I promise I am not a troll, but know this idea seems more like something a freeper would post. I hope you don't flame me, but point out true flaws in my logic.

edited to add link:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/07/20/muslims.congressman.ap/index.html

[geek tragedy]

1. The Soviets were rational. The US government was rational.

And we STILL almost nuked each other.

Exchanging outrageous threats with a bunch of fundie freakazoid psychos is a recipe for disaster.

[davidinalameda]

2. it's faith

there is nothing logical about it

destroying Mecca and the other Muslim holy sites would only serve to make radicals out of the rest of the Muslims

[iamjoy]

3. We Wouldn't Do It Though

The point is not to nuke Mecca, that would be unforgiveable.

The point is to deter Islamic radicals from any plan to put together a nuclear strike in the U.S. by threatening them, "If you attack us with nukes, we'll nuke Mecca." The idea being, such a threat would keep, or prevent these radicals from using nuclear weapons here. Thus, we would never have to nuke Mecca, just as we never nuked Moscow.

[MsUnderstood]

6. If we wouldn't do it they why threaten it?

empty threats don't work.

[iamjoy]

29. I Was Trying To Remove That From The Equation

for purposes of this discussion.
I didn't want anyone to think I actually thought nuking Mecca was a good idea.

Some people still posted as if debating whether we should respond to a nuclear attack in such a manner, rather than the points of whether using Cold War tactics would work against terrorists.

But of course, one must wonder, if the U.S. made such a threat, would there be some radicals who would test it - putting us in a position of starting WWIII (which may be the ultimate goal of some religious* fanatics) or not living up to our threat which would only make us weaker and more vulnerable.

* note I did not say Muslim.

[atreides1]

10. Punish a whole group of people for the actions of a few?

Exactly how would, for example, the Saudi government prevent an Al Queda operative from Yemen, from deploying and setting off a nuclear device in downtown Manhattan?

The Yemeni has no obligation to a Saudi princling, he is doing this job because of his faith in Allah, not a secular government.

And what happens if a nuke does go off in D.C., and we don't bomb Mecca or Medina, we become paper tigers. If we do bomb their holy
sites we then become a pariah, not only with Muslims nations, but the
rest of the world as well.

The one thing that kept the U.S. and the USSR from launching was MAD,
Mutually Assured Destruction, and neither country wanted to die.

And with this administration and the neocon nazis in general, how do you know we wouldn't do it?

[Pobeka]

4. How about if we got REALLY serious about terrorists instead?

Nuking mecca punishes all muslims, not just the terrorists.

What if, (call me crazy), we instead said, and did, make the best of relations with all countries on the earth, and then using all of our combined resources, found the leaders of every terrorist group, or cell, and had covert ops slit their throats in the night?

This would be the type of response that would truly frighten the leaders of terrorist groups.

And the leaders are just like most cult leaders, they glorify themselves in the power, but sure as hell don't want to die -- that's for the underlings to do.

[MsUnderstood]

5. My thoughts on the logic

Do you think only muslims live nearby muslim holy sites? Nuclear bombs are not nice and tidy packages that select who lives, who dies and who wastes away under radiation sickness.

[iamjoy]

9. I Am Not Asking To Debate Nuking Mecca

I would NEVER advocate that.

I am just saying, do you think the threat of equivelent retaliation is an effective deterrent in the war on terror?

[noiretextatique]

7. IF

his statement is pure, idiotic bravado...nothing more...based on a hypothetical situation.
he should apologize...and shut his stupid mouth in the future.

[niallmac]

8. Don't play that game.

MAD meant that our mutual civilizations would be vaporized and or contaminated. Nuking Mecca would be the ultimate fantasy wish come true of OBL. To be the equivalent of nuking Russia we would have to nuke the earth as 'the nation of islam' as it were is world wide. There would therefore be no return from a world religious war. We would militarize even the beaver cleaver families of Islam. We would be beyond doubt the devils.
This is a class war. This is a war of the haves refusing to give an inch to the have nots. We won the gold ring way back in the beginning. The third world will never be allowed to get up from under our boots if we have anything to say about it. We own the worlds resources one way or another. My point here being that it is very hard to bomb people who have nothing to begin with materially (relative to the western powers) into a worse hurt. It is the abject hopelessness that already exists whether or not we bomb, torture, sanction, embargo, napalm, radiate or otherwise spread democracy with a vengeance one iota more.
Bomb Mecca. "Oh no, please don't throw me into that briar patch" say the fanatics on both sides.
Mecca is not visited by terrorists. It is visited by the poorest of the poor in the majority. To consider what Tancredo proposed is to erase any pretense one might have of being somehow worthy of surviving this situation. The world does not need one more bigot. We are killing innocents every day. We are not the good guys any more than the IRA or Islamic bombers of civilians are good guys. Violence will breed violence. We have much much more to lose than the poor who we choose to victimize. Our history in the third world is not just one Good Ship Hope after another.

[iamjoy]

13. But The Radicals Care About Mecca

They do not really care about the poor or oppressed. Like most people in the U.S. (including our government), they enjoy making a show of it. However, despite some of our sickening policies, over all we care more about human life than the radical terrorists.

So, they know they can set of a nuke in any U.S. town and really hurt us. And how can we retaliate? Pretty soon we will run out of countries to invade and take over, but there will still be terrorists who hate America, and they will find shelter with evil despots or in chaos (caused by our invasion). So, what threat will work with them? It has to be something they care about. They wouldn't care if we killed their loved ones or friends, martyrs to the cause.

I am not advocating attacking Mecca, I am saying can the threat work the same way M.A.D. did during the Cold War?

[fujiyama]

17. I agree

except about the cause of radical Islamism being poverty. Many of those that have attacked either London or the US were not poor. In fact many were pretty well educated and came from middle class families.

This doesn't mean we aren't contributing to the problem (like by invadinG Iraq or giving Israel a blank check), but poverty isn't an excuse that flies considering there are many other poor people around the world that aren't blowing them selves up to kill innocent people.

[niallmac]

28. poverty out of the equation?

The signers of the Declaration of Independence were highly educated people. I doubt they reflected the average American agrarian. When you say other poor people are not blowing themselves up are you saying by inference that it is specifically only the muslims who are?
They are somehow more violence prone? Living over our oil does not help there plight and our being the cheer leading team for Israel does not help either thank you for mentioning it first. My sensitivity here is with what I sense as an easy trap of ethnocentrism where a people by virtue of their religion say are less human than the rest of us. In that case the same could be hinted about we nuclear bomb using christians. Bombing Mecca and 'I don't see any other poor people (the poor who are happy with their christanity?) blowing themselves up' statements make me wonder if we don't feel that somehow, some way, we really really are just better than everyone else. With that in mind, why teach islamic history in our schools or truly understand the history of the crusades that is so part of the fabric of the middle eastern mind set? Relatively speaking Americans do not know or really give a shit about the rest of the world. This is a problem.

[fujiyama]

11. The problem is

radical and extremist Islam is not rational in any sense. The Soviet Union was not willing to die for its beliefs.

That's what makes Tancredo's statement so idiotic. This "war" can't be fought with physical force alone (which is where the right is completely clueless when it comes to terrorism). This is a matter of diplomacy with other Muslim nations because without their cooperation (or atleast the cooperation of their leaders), it makes it all the more difficult to prevent these attacks from happening. This makes it difficult for even moderate Muslim leaders (like say King Abdullah of Jordan or the leaders of Turkey) to cooperate, because the people will inevitably see the US as a threat to all of them.

I recall hearing how the statements by any preacher - let alone a congressman - in the US is blown out of proportion in the ME.

I don't see how this helps in any way. It will just put the troops in even more danger. This is a million times more inflamatory than Bush's idiotic and childish "Bring it on" statement.

[iamjoy]

16. They Are Willing To Die For Their Religion

But not to allow their religion to be desecrated.
They wouldn't care how many Muslims died (other than as a rallying cry), but they would care if their holy sites were destroyed.

[fujiyama]

19. The holy sites

are ultimately of the material world. They are merely symbols. Remember, with religion and to the extremely religious, it's really not about what happens in this life that counts.

[Igel]

18. I don't know if I agree with your basic premise.

I.e., that "radical and extremist Islam is not rational in any sense" (viz., radical and extremist Muslims).

I think they make sense on their own terms. Just not on ours. This means we have to figure out what those terms are.

[fujiyama]

26. Well in my mind

religious zealoutry doesn't make sense. Period.

But I think you have a point in thinking the same way the enemy does. In a way that's what's disturbing about Tancredo. He's closer to them than he thinks. A disregard for human life is a trait shared both by hateful rightwing religious fanatics of all stripes.

[JDPriestly]

12. It really isn't necessary to say it.

The terrorists certainly know that, regardless of what those of us who are moderates think about it, if they cause too much damage in the west, westerners will attack Muslim countries, shrines and all. The terrorists don't care. Every society has its percentage of criminal socio- and psychopaths. Muslim society is no different. That's how I see the terrorists. They are aberrants, psychos. People who love their families and homes don't kill other people. These are simply lost souls. They really don't care about anything but the anger that has completely devoured their souls.

Terrorists claim to be making a political statement, but that is just an excuse. This applies to terrorists of all persuasions. Think Eric Rudolph and the Oklahoma City bombers. Violence is what gives them their kicks. They don't really care about religion.

Whether you and I agree with bombing Muslim shrines in revenge for terrorist attacks doesn't make any difference. Revenge will be taken even though it will only harm innocent people. That's simply how things work.

[Tsiyu]

14. I guess you don't care about soldiers? Just a guess.

Could be wrong.

But you don't stir up that shit while our family members are on their turf. Unless, like Tancredo, you are a pinhead.

He's talking about persecuting people of a particular faith because of what radical terrorists also of that faith might do.

So, will he next claim to want to blow up Baptist Churches if there's another abortion clinic bombing? Didn't think so. And if he did say something so rash and violent and bigoted, no "manly man" would think he was some sort of hero for failing to apologize.

My $.03

[iamjoy]

20. Good Point

of course, no one jumps on Republicans when they say things that inflame Muslims and endanger our troops, only Democrats get attacked.

And, I am speaking theoretically, not agreeing with or advocating what he is saying. I still wish our (Democratic) leaders showed a little more backbone about controversial comments.

added on edit:
Anyway, Christians who blow up abortion clinics aren't labeled terrorists - they're seen as good Christians doing God's work, or at worst, misguided. And our country would never make the mistake of confusing all Christians for the actions of a few radicals the way we (America) do with Muslims.

[Tsiyu]

23. Many Democrats DO show backbone

but the MSM isn't interested in integrity. They are saving their asses, while Repukes are spewing this sort of crap on a daily basis.

I guess everyone has forgotten our soldiers. Do whatever. Fuck it up good for them, Tancredo. Get a few more killed. Stir up the hatred.

There is no honor in having backbone in his case. None.

[iamjoy]

27. You Are Correct

As I stated in my original post, I think it is a horrible idea that only stirs up Muslim fear and anger towards the U.S. And yes, as you point out, it places our troops in more danger.

As I can see from many other posts, theories that worked in the Cold War would not work with Muslims.

The news cycle is just so full now with Rove/Plame and the Roberts nomination, that most people in the U.S. aren't paying attention to what Tancredo said. But I must wonder, if we weren't so distracted, would there have been outrage here against his statement? Or would it be okay because he is a Republican?

And you are right about there being no honor in having backbone for such horrible statements, I am just so tired of cheering every time a Democratic leader makes a good point in a controversial way, only to be disappointed when they backpedal. But, that's another thread.

[Kraklen]

15. It's the same kind of logic...

that inspired people to fly planes into buildings.

"Put your troops in my holy land, will you? I'm going to knock down your giant phallic trade centers. That will teach you to mess with us."

[iamjoy]

22. So, You're Saying They Understand It?

I mean, if it is the same kind of logic...

[Kraklen]

24. The radical extremists?

They understand the logic when they apply it.

That's why nuking mecca would only encourage more retaliation.

[tsuki]

21. Muslim holy sites, let's see. Would you rather bomb Israel (Jerusalem)

or Saudi Ariabia (Mecca & Medina.) Both are "supposedly" allies. Interesting choice, don't you think?

[iamjoy]

25. Very Interesting

And if such a situation as Tancredo suggests really comes to be, it means any nuclear attack in the U.S. by an Islamic extremist would start World War III.

[warrens]

30. I dunno, I disagree with it on the whole, but it has attractive parts

If you say, you bomb us, we take out Mecca and you get four hours to leave, that might have a unique deterrant effect. It's not a stupid idea. HEY, My FRIEND MILFORD PREWITT IS ON NPR RIGHT NOW (he's a reporter for Nation's Restaurant News and they have a story about people actually breaking into Quizno's and stealing the meat slicers, which go for $900 used). Cool.

[Yupster]

31. This is the problem though

These guys can hurt us, and hurt us very badly, and horrifyingly badly in the future, and there really isn't much we can do to them.

It is a real quandry.

They drop a $ 200 bomb and we spent $ 40 billion of homeland defense dollars as a response.

It's reminiscent of the using million dollar missiles to blow up a $ 5 sampan in Vietnam.

I don't have any good answers.

I don't think appeasing them works because the radical guys won't be appeased until the world is a Dar Es Salaam.

Maybe they will win and in 200 years the whole world will be "Among the Converted."

I don't think it's all our fault because it's going on all over the world, and I doubt if we're to blame that Budhists are getting their heads chopped off in Thailand.