| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Politix | |
| Tancredo's threats against Muslim holy sites spark criticism | |
| 2005-07-21 | |
| First to apologize for being a day late with this post, I didn't get back to my home computer until too late for eastern time. I've been itching with this article all day! I won't be able to visit the site until late tomorrow either damn WASHINGTON - From Turkey, from Russia and from the desk of Howard Dean - angry reaction to Rep. Tom Tancredo's threat against Muslim holy sites came from around the world Tuesday. Ain't it grand being PC especially to folks that hate us In Ankara, Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul blasted Tancredo's comments suggesting the United States could "take out" holy sites, including Mecca, if Islamic terrorists detonated nuclear bombs in U.S. cities. "This was nothing but a fanatic speaking completely personally, irresponsibly and without thought of how far his statements would reach or what kind of problems they would create," Gul said, according to an Anatolia news agency report quoted by The Associated Press. Yeah our Tancredo is the fanatic one. Despite an international outcry, the Colorado Republican continued to stand by his comments Tuesday, saying he did not intend to offend moderate Muslims during last week's interview with Florida radio talk show host Pat Campbell.
"You're talking about bombing Mecca," Campbell said. "Yeah," Tancredo responded. HELL YEAH Does anyone remember how the cold war MAD policy "mutually assured destruction" worked to preserve the peace? Or do some have selective memory here He went on to say that he was "just throwing out some ideas" but that an "ultimate threat" might have to be met with an "ultimate response." In Moscow, Russian parliament member Konstantin Kosachev denounced the remarks during a news conference. "It's quite obvious that statements like the one just made by the U.S. lawmaker play into the terrorists' hands as they stir international strife and may lead to the emergence of new . . . suicide bombers," Kosachev said, according to the Russian news and information agency, Novosti. In Washington, State Department spokesman Adam Ereli called Tancredo's remarks "insulting to Islam" and said they do not represent the U.S. government position to "respect the dignity and sanctity of other religions." Yeah like we need to respect the dignity of the law to kill all infidels The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the Interfaith Alliance added their own denunciations. Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, issued a statement calling Tancredo "utterly careless." "Remarks threatening the destruction of holy sites akin to the Vatican or Jerusalem do nothing to win the hearts and minds of Muslims in the United States and abroad," Dean said. Several groups have demanded that Tancredo apologize, but he rejected that call again Tuesday. Thank God He didn't apologize "One of the things I rail about quite often . . . is this sort of slavish adherence to political correctness that prevents us from talking about the world in which we live in real terms," Tancredo said. Well said On a day when he had hoped to be spreading the word about his new immigration reform legislation, he hunkered in his Capitol Hill office writing a lengthy talking-points memo explaining his Mecca comments. "Call me a cockeyed optomist, ... not a cross eyed optomitrist ... but I believe something good can happen" as a result of the dialogue, Tancredo said. "As we begin to discuss this issue forthrightly and realize the horrendous consequences of continuing on the confrontational path we are on, perhaps we can use this to begin steps in a different direction." He hopes his remarks spur moderate Muslims to identify and stop radicals before they get involved in terrorism. Ironically, on the day Turkey's foreign minister was blasting Tancredo in Ankara, ... The terrorists were making hay in Turkey ... his country's U.S. ambassador, Osman Faruk Logoglu, had a prearranged meeting to talk to Tancredo about legislation pending in the International Relations Committee. They touched on the Mecca comments only briefly, Tancredo said. "The guy said, 'You know how these things get spun in the press,' " Tancredo said. "He was being very diplomatic." The ambassador's office did not return phone messages seeking comment. By the time the day was over, Tancredo had done numerous radio and cable television interviews. While he defended his comments on Fox News, black and white pictures of atomic blasts were shown on the screen. I just love the media slants. Listening to talk radio on my way home I was listening to an interview with Tancredo and he stood his ground very well. Tancredo spokesman Will Adams celebrated his birthday Tuesday while fielding dozens of phone calls from reporters as far away at the United Arab Emirates. Again, his boss was unapologetic. "He signed up," Tancredo said. "He's in for the duration." Others who have criticized Rep. Tom Tancredo's remarks about Muslim holy sites:
Big surprise here I often wonder why we allowed Osama Bin Laden's family to leave the United States, as maybe threats toward his family would have been a deterrent as well. It wouldn't have anything to do with being buddies with Bush now would it | |
| Posted by:Jan |
| #18 I like Vatical. The administration building at Berkeley? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-07-21 14:36 |
| #17 Sorry, VATICAN |
| Posted by: milford421 2005-07-21 13:36 |
| #16 The muzzies have already tried to "off" the Pope and have already threatened to blow up the Vatical. |
| Posted by: milford421 2005-07-21 13:35 |
| #15 I'm soooo glad he is from my state. Gives me a warm fuzzy.... |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-07-21 09:58 |
| #14 Thanks for the update SR-71 (cool handle by the way!) |
| Posted by: Tony (UK) 2005-07-21 09:49 |
| #13 TW wonder if there would have been a return of the tribes if Jerusalem was a crater.... Maybe, maybe not. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-07-21 09:47 |
| #12 So easy to condem what someone else said. Did any of the complainers voice an opinion on how they would do it better? If several nukes went off in US cities, what would YOU do, Howie? Oh, nver mind...Blame Bush. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-07-21 08:39 |
| #11 Gee, he really hit a nerve with that one didn't he. Everyone was thinking it, he just had the balls to say it on TV. Tancredo for President!!! |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2005-07-21 08:22 |
| #10 Bravo to Rep. Tancredo for refusing to apologize. Now we just need some others to repeat the message so that it sinks in and is not dismissed as a total aberration. |
| Posted by: Neutron Tom 2005-07-21 08:22 |
| #9 Let's hope, for all our sakes, that they take Tangredo seriously. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2005-07-21 08:20 |
| #8 Judaism survived the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem -- twice. In fact, the destruction of the Second Temple accelerated the evolution of the religion from emphasis on sacrifices by the priests to individual prayer and actions, a very good thing, in my opinion. And we still face toward Jerusalem when we pray. Islam could well benefit, as a religion, from that kind of forced evolution, if it is flexible enough to make the change. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-07-21 07:56 |
| #7 Tony - GWB was talking about military action against Iran in that statement. He had just been asked about the EU dwarfs negotiatons to limit Iran's nuclear program. |
| Posted by: SR-71 2005-07-21 06:46 |
| #6 SPoD, when did GWB say that? It seems like he's prevaricating a bit there "I think" "ought to be on the table". Whereas if he had said "All options are on the table", then it would have been unequivocal (and of course the MSM would have had the vapours!) |
| Posted by: Tony (UK) 2005-07-21 06:34 |
| #5 "I think all options ought to be on the table." GWB I do to, and this is one we need to be open about. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-07-21 03:57 |
| #4 Yeah. I applaud Tancredo. Enough with the sensitivity to Moslem demands. If they can't take care of the Islamofascists they are breeding, they need to understand that there is a cost associated with their passivity (or support, as most polls show majorities of Moslems support Bin Laden). We will not win this war if we keep pretending that there is no problem inherent to Islam, that Moslems must fix. Telling them that their tacit support of Islamofascism may lead to the total destruction of their "holy" towns is legitimate and necessary. It should have been said on 9/12. The choice is entirely theirs. |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-21 03:43 |
| #3 Tabling retaliation scenarios, makes the enemy think. Tancredo did us a favor, even if their is no current political will to fry the central Muslim cess pools. |
| Posted by: Vlad the Muslim Impaler 2005-07-21 03:36 |
| #2 If the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor I'd feel the need to retaliate against Japan. Oops, that one already happened didn't it? If Islam continues to attack the west, retaliation against the Islam itself may well be in order. Removing the sources and focal points of Islamic ideology might well be a very productive lesson. While many are quick to point out the potential dangers, few are yet willing to admit that such actions, if they force Muslims to choose sides, will have the effect of more clearly defining the enemy in this conflict and that will be both a welcome and positive development that will greatly shorten the war. Alternatively think of it this way: Islam reached into the heart of capitalist America and struck down one of capitalist America's enduring symbols; it reached into the heart of American political power and struck at one of the symbols of American political power. But do all capitalists or all Americans now rabidly support unrestricted warfare against Islam? If not why not? Are we not all people and as such should we not all respond the same to similar provocations? If so, is it not the height of bigotry to presume that Muslims will be unable to exercise the same sort of self-control exercised by most non-Muslim Americans following the events of 9/11? If Tancredo's goal is to open this line of debate then bravo as it's well past time for it to be discussed. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2005-07-21 01:03 |
| #1 If it were proven that the Swiss Guards bombed your city would you feel the right to bomb the Vatican in response? He was talking about sites not people. |
| Posted by: Jan 2005-07-21 00:28 |