Thread: Tancredo: If They Nuke Us, Bomb Mecca

Doesn't appear Tancredo is going to offer any apologies.

rockymountainnews.com

Tancredo: No apology
He believes bombing of Muslim holy sites has been discussed

By M.E. Sprengelmeyer, Rocky Mountain News
July 19, 2005

WASHINGTON - The remarks were hypothetical but the outrage was real.

Facing mounting criticism, Rep. Tom Tancredo on Monday refused to apologize for suggesting the United States could target Muslim holy sites if radical Islamic terrorists set off multiple nuclear attacks in American cities.

"It's a tough issue to deal with," Tancredo told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference. "Tough things are said. And we should not shy away from saying things that need to be said."

Tancredo is known for his fiery rhetoric on immigration and other issues, but his words are coming under more scrutiny because he has started traveling to test the waters for a possible presidential candidacy in 2008.

A spokeswoman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called Tancredo's remarks irresponsible.

"They do nothing to advance our national security and protect Americans from terrorists," Pelosi spokeswoman Jennifer Crider said.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which calls itself the largest Islamic civil rights group in the United States, demanded an apology Monday, after the Rocky Mountain News published an account of his Friday interview with WFLA radio in Florida.

In the interview, talk show host Pat Campbell asked Tancredo what the United States should do if terrorists were to strike 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.

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."

Tancredo later said he was not advocating such a response, but merely discussing what could happen in a hypothetical situation.

"I was talking about what we could maybe do as a preventative," Tancredo said. "I simply throw that out there as a thing to think about, although it is horrendous to think about. So is having one or more cities destroyed in the United States."

CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper called Tancredo's remarks irresponsible, inflammatory and "unworthy of an elected official."

"These kinds of . . . comments just serve to fuel negative perceptions of the United States in the Muslim world that create a downward spiral of hostility," Hooper said.

"He needs to go far beyond a clarification and apologize, not only to the people of Colorado, but to the American-Muslim community."

Tancredo rejected the idea of apologizing at his news conference, where the controversy overshadowed the topic he wanted to address, his introduction of comprehensive immigration reform legislation. His bill would create a limited guest worker plan for immigrants but only after beefing up border security.

Last week in Iowa, home of the nation's first presidential caucuses, he pressed his immigration reform agenda to members of the Christian Coalition. At each stop, he also spoke briefly about what he sees as a clash of civilizations and war against "radical Islam."

Hooper said it was a "quantum leap" for Tancredo to go a step further and suggest destroying Muslim holy sites that are at the center of a faith for one-fifth of the world's people.

"Unfortunately, there's a veritable cottage industry of anti-Muslim rhetoric now in our society, and it seems to be growing," Hooper said. "I don't know where it's taking us, because if people really do believe we're in conflict with the faith of Islam, what does that mean? What are the implications of that? Unending civilizational and religious war? It's too much to contemplate."

In an interview, Tancredo said he did not intend to offend moderate Muslims, whom he calls the "best hope" of bringing terrorists to justice.

"When we bombed Hiroshima, when we bombed Dresden, we punished a lot of people who were not necessarily (guilty)," Tancredo said. "Not every German was a member of the Nazi Party. You do things in war that are ugly."

He stressed that he was not advocating an attack on Islamic holy sites, but that counterattacks had to be considered - and perhaps telegraphed ahead of time. That way, he said, both sides would know the stakes under a worst-case scenario, much as they did under the Cold War theory of "mutually assured destruction."

Tancredo believes government officials already have considered such a scenario.

"Do they think, honestly, if I never said that, it wouldn't be contemplated?" Tancredo said. "Of course, things are contemplated, and I certainly wouldn't be the only one. Not saying it does not mean it doesn't exist in the minds of people."

Late Monday, CAIR officials said they were trying to arrange a meeting between Tancredo and Colorado Muslim leaders. Tancredo spokesman Will Adams said he had not received the invitation but that the congressman would be willing to meet with moderate Muslims.

Proposed immigration legislation

Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., on Monday proposed comprehensive immigration reform legislation that's intended as an alternative to other proposed guest worker proposals pending in Congress. Tancredo admits that it's "highly improbable" that his version will be approved in its entirety, but he hopes key provisions are included in legislation the U.S. House could consider this fall. The following are some elements of Tancredo's bill:

• Increases number of Border Patrol agents.

• Toughens enforcement against businesses that hire illegal immigrants.

• Makes it a felony to be in the country illegally, punishable by fines, imprisonment and forfeiture of assets.

• Creates a temporary guest worker plan, but only after the president certifies that border security goals have been met. If so, foreign workers would be certified in advance and could be in the country 365 days every two years. They could not bring families.

• Children born to guest workers would not be U.S. citizens unless one parent is American.

uhg. This is really really bad

Here is what the Denver POST says:

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_2869419#

Tancredo won't back down
No apology for discussing retaliation on Muslim holy sites
By Mike Soraghan and Anne C. Mulkern
Denver Post Staff Writers

"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.
Rep. Tom Tancredo (AP)


Washington - Rep. Tom Tancredo refused Monday to back down from his statement Friday suggesting that the United States might respond to a radical Islamic terrorist attack by bombing Muslim holy sites.

Muslim groups earlier Monday called on Tancredo to apologize and said they want to meet with the Colorado Republican.

"I'm not suggesting we do it. I have nothing to apologize for in that respect," Tancredo said. "I'm simply saying to have a good discussion on this issue, a thorough discussion on what is perhaps the most serious kind of possible situation we could face as a civilization, that you cannot simply take things off the table because they are uncomfortable to talk about."

Tancredo, a Littleton Republican, made the statement about bombing Muslim holy sites, including the Saudi Arabian city of Mecca, on a Florida talk-radio show.

Besieged by reporters for the first time Monday as he unveiled an anti-amnesty immigration bill, Tancredo said the terrorism issue was a very tough one to deal with and that "tough things were said." He said he stood by his remarks.

The reference to bombing holy sites, he said, came up in a discussion about possible ways the U.S. could respond to nuclear strikes against its cities by terrorists.


"I simply throw that out there as something to think about, although it is horrendous to think about, I understand that," Tancredo said. "So is having one or more cities destroyed in the United States. And that's all I did."

Muslim leaders disagreed.

"When he makes such a statement he should have the courage to go back and apologize," said Rafaat Ludin, president of the Colorado Muslim Society, an organization that includes a mosque and represents 15,000 Muslims in the Denver area. "He is trying to provoke these terrorists who are making our lives miserable, here and across the world. How can you in your right mind call for something like that?"

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Washington, said, "People outside the United States will take this as representative of the United States. It makes the war on terror that much harder."

Asked Monday whether he was concerned about inflaming terrorists, Tancredo said, "You've got people telling us that they're going to bomb our cities and kill however many millions of people that they can. You're telling me there's something more hostile than that?"

Tancredo made the comments Friday in a conversation with talk-radio host Pat Campbell at WFLA in Orlando, Fla. They were discussing an article on the conservative Internet site WorldNetDaily that said Islamic terrorists have brought nuclear devices across the Mexican border, preparing for an attack on the interior U.S.

Asked how the United States might respond to such an attack, Tancredo said, "You could take out their holy sites."

Campbell said, "You're talking about bombing Mecca." Tancredo replied, "Yeah." Tancredo is a member of the House International Relations Committee.

A fervent opponent of illegal immigration, he has begun an insurgent bid for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination that he says is designed to force a more serious candidate to take a hard-line stance on immigration.

Tancredo said he was not worried about the comments hurting his chance at the presidency.

"I'm not going to couch my words based upon some bizarre hope of, you know, running for president," he said.

Rafaat and Ludin said Colorado Muslims are seeking a meeting with Tancredo to discuss his comments. Tancredo spokesman Will Adams said he was not familiar with the request.

Staff writer Mike Soraghan can be reached at 202-662-8730 or msoraghan@denverpost.com.

Staff writer Anne C. Mulkern can be reached at 202-662-8907 or amulkern@denverpost.com.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The following is a transcript of a portion of U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo's conversation with talk-radio host Pat Campbell on Friday:

Campbell: Worst-case scenario - if they do have these nukes inside the borders and they were to use something like that, what would our response be?

Tancredo: What would be the response? (pause) Um, you know, there are things you could threaten to do before something like that happens and you may have to do afterwards (unintelligible) draconian.

Campbell: Such as?

Tancredo: 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 could take out their holy sites.

Campbell: You're talking about bombing Mecca?

Tancredo: Yeah. What if you said, "We recognize this is the ultimate threat to the United States, so this is the ultimate response." I'm just throwing out some ideas because you would be talking about taking the most draconian measures you could possibly imagine. Because other than that, all you could do is, once again, tighten up internally.

U. S. doctrine is that the U.S. would respond to any attack with unconventional weapons with a massive retaliation in kind. You nuke us, we nuke you.

However, the military rules of engagement generally prohibit attacking hospitals, religious buildings and cultural property such as historical or architectural monuments.

Originally Posted by JohnB2012

U. S. doctrine is that the U.S. would respond to any attack with unconventional weapons with a massive retaliation in kind. You nuke us, we nuke you.

However, the military rules of engagement generally prohibit attacking hospitals, religious buildings and cultural property such as historical or architectural monuments.

Does this exempt an entire city from being chosen as a possible target for retaliation? I do not think so, personally. Besides, when a city gets nuked, be it theirs or ours, there will be plenty of holy sites getting nuked.. every church or mosque within the cities, as well as other sites which are usually exempted, such as hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, etc. A nuke does not discriminate.

As far as that all goes, Muslims view not just those cities, but all of Saudi Arabia as holy land.. does that mean the entire country is exempted?

When nukes go off, the time for "civilized" warfare is long past. I will go a step further than Tancredo... when they set off nukes in our country, it is time to find out who hit us, and hit them with EVERYTHING we have, as often and wherever necessary, to prevent them from hitting us again. I would see EVERY city in the middle east, if necessary, reduced to ash before I will sacrifice ONE American city. If we cannot identify precisely which ones hit us, and only know it was middle eastern terrorists.. I would kill them ALL and let God sort them out. When it is a choice between American lives and theirs.. sorry, they lose.

Just my personal opinion.

I just don't think an entire religion should suffer for the acts of extremists.

I am not saying I would like it or it would be my first option. I am saying that in the EXTRAORDINARY circumstances whereby we could not identify a target.. well, I am not ready to sacrifice millions of american lives letting them nuke us just because your sensibilities would be offended.

When it DOES come down to us or them.. they lose.

Let those who are "innocent" ponder this, and contemplate the wisdom of allowing terrorists to live among them.

Originally Posted by BobC

I just don't think an entire religion should suffer for the acts of extremists.

If a region is going to suffer for terrorism, let it be theirs rather than ours.

Lemme pose a question for ya, BobC. A moral dilemma.

Imagine your family was standing behind you.. spouse, children, whatever. In front of you is 10 people, and 2 of them plan to kill your family. You have NO WAY to find out which 2, and if they are not stopped, they WILL succeed.

Would you kill all 10, knowing that 8 are innocent? Or allow your family to die?

Personally, I would save my family, kill the 10, and try to live with my conscience later. But my family will be alive.

That's not a fair question. Because if it was my ex-spouse, I'd urge them to open fire

Originally Posted by Sindawe

I'm darned glad that Mr. Tancredo is one of MY CongressCritters.

Nuking Mecca and Medina would be a tad bit extream I will admit. I think a wiser response would be to invade and CLOSE the cities to all nationalilties that support or habor the rabid Islamists.

" Your .gov supports terrorists. No Hajj for you."

After a few years of a Tancedo presidential administration, our country would be far less likely to suffer a nuclear attack within its borders by Islamic terrorists. President Tancredo would enforce the borders, deport illegal aliens and make it far more difficult for Islamic terrorists to come to this country legally.