Tancredo hits a homer
Jack Kelly, Captain Ed and Hugh Hewitt respond. Hugh says Tancredo's statement "is the most irresponsible statement any American official can make."
Irresponsible? To say we will hit jihadist hard , and hurt them if they were to launch or activate a nulear bomb on U.S. soil. Definately not irresponsible but a dtertermined defensive measure.
What has these turn coats in the blogging and talk show areana turning and cowering in fear. The fact an elected represenitive has said out loud what many think is right and not part of their ( their being talk shows ) agenda.
If so called true Islamist and Muslims will not condem and real in those extremist killing people in their name, and plan to launch a nuclear strike against the United States should we not hit back hard and where it will hurt.
As reporteed by G-2, intelligence believes that these radicals may have any where from 4 to 70 nuclear weapons , some of which may have already been brought into the United States and planted in major cities.
[ War on Terror
Nunn: Terrorists are winning the race to acquire a nuclear weapon
By Jeffrey McMurray
ASSOCIATED PRESS
1:50 p.m. June 27, 2005 ]
In captured papers of Al Que'da a plan for what is named "American Hiroshima" the idea of setting off several nuclear devices in large cities to kill [and I quote} at least 4 million adults and 4 million children" [ children being outlined as a must for this plan to work] is called for.
If these maniacs plan to kill and target 4 million children then why not let the Islamic worlds know that retaliation will be swift , harsh and not forgiving.
Here is what Hugh Hewitt had to say :
Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo's speculation about using nukes on Mecca following an act of nuclear terrorism in the United States is the most irresponsible statement any American official can make. It will be on al-Jazeera within the hour, and it will be used by jihadists against us. Such speculations send the message that we are at war with all of Islam. We are not. We are at war with a slice of Islam that is radical and violent. Statements like Tancredo's invite all of Islam to think they are our enemy.
Every media voice that was raised against Dick Durbin's asinine comparison of Gitmo practices to those of Nazis and Pol Pot should speak with equal pointedness against Tancredo's speculation. There is no defending this type of speculation, and no excuse for airing it. Congressman Tancredo has been a guest on my show, and his account of his travels to Beslan and account of the massacre there is some of the most moving talk I have heard on the subject. But this response was incredibly stupid, and his apology --unlike Durbin's-- should be immediate and complete.
UPDATE: To be fair to Tancredo, he didn't say "nuke." he said "ultimate response" to "ultimate threat." I read it as "nuke Mecca," but he might want to say he meant precision strikes that wouldn't do more than permanently enrage the world's 1.1 billion Muslims.
For Hugh Hewitt credit he does make a good point. We are not at war with Islam , YET.However their constant turn the cheek and say nothing about extremists says lots on how they feel. They still celebrate acts of atrocity by giving maryteredom to suicide bombers.
Captian Ed says the following:
Tancredo Fouls The Water (Updated)
We have enough problems fighting the war on terror in the measured, strategic method used by the Bush and Blair administrations without Republican Congressmen recommending the bombing of sites held sacred by Muslims across the political spectrum. Yet today, Tom Tancredo (R-CO) suggested that a nuclear attack on an American city could result in a bombing run on Mecca:
I think the "ultimate response" to Tancredo's apolcalyptic fantasy is that we don't bomb civilians in response to terrorist attacks, no matter how seductive such a response might seem. The idea that the US would retaliate in such a manner should be repulsive to any rational person, no matter where they fall on the political spectrum. The war on terror targets the terrorists and the governments which fund and/or shelter them, not the civilians who happen to live there.
Besides, who is Tom Tancredo to make these threats anyway? He doesn't have anything to do with the military chain of command or the national security systems that would make those kinds of recommendations. He certainly doesn't speak for the President, who has to make the final determination in loosing those weapons on any target. Tancredo does, however, lend a false sense of credibility to such threats in international circles, thanks to his position as an elected Republican official.
The GOP needs to remind Tancredo of the wisdom of silence in some issues
Let me remind Captain Ed of who Represenative Tom Tancredo is. Rep. Tancredo is an elected official of Colorado, the congressman who is leading the charge against ILLEGAL immigration, and also a citizen of the United States. An active member of the Congress who is trying to figure out how to protect this country.
The fact he spells out in somewhat cloudy terms of what a response should be when these murderouse thugs attack and kill innocents. The fact that targeted will be Churches, schools, shopping malls, and Children Captian Eddie. All of which are not combat targets under the Geneva convention, oh and by the way Islam is not a signed member of and obviously do not hold respect for when they torture and behead combat captives.
What these bloggers and talkshow hosts fail to realize is that despite their claims of acknowlegdment this is not a conventional war. They clearly do not understand terrorism.
If they would take the time to get off their high and mighty backsides and read and study. They will see that a terrorism campaign is designed to kowtow the masses into thinking as the terrorists. To bring fear and humiliation upon those who are not in the same like mind of thinking. It is designed to force political action by the masses into coming around to their way of thinking.
By assasinating, bombing, blackmail terrorist strive to change our beliefs and morals. To make us nothing more then a huddled mass of cowarding people under their thumb and leadership.
Now lets look at what Rep. Tom Tancredo actually said:
Congressman suggests way to retaliate for nuclear terror
Spokesman: Tancredo was speaking hypothetically
Monday, July 18, 2005; Posted: 12:44 p.m. EDT (16:44 GMT)
[http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/18/congressman.muslims.ap/]
What Is This? DENVER, Colorado (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, Florida. 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."
There you have it all he said was to suggest that if these extremist hit us with a nuke we may consider a nuke in retailiation.
Irresponsible? To say we will hit jihadist hard , and hurt them if they were to launch or activate a nulear bomb on U.S. soil. Definately not irresponsible but a dtertermined defensive measure.
What has these turn coats in the blogging and talk show areana turning and cowering in fear. The fact an elected represenitive has said out loud what many think is right and not part of their ( their being talk shows ) agenda.
If so called true Islamist and Muslims will not condem and real in those extremist killing people in their name, and plan to launch a nuclear strike against the United States should we not hit back hard and where it will hurt.
As reporteed by G-2, intelligence believes that these radicals may have any where from 4 to 70 nuclear weapons , some of which may have already been brought into the United States and planted in major cities.
[ War on Terror
Nunn: Terrorists are winning the race to acquire a nuclear weapon
By Jeffrey McMurray
ASSOCIATED PRESS
1:50 p.m. June 27, 2005 ]
In captured papers of Al Que'da a plan for what is named "American Hiroshima" the idea of setting off several nuclear devices in large cities to kill [and I quote} at least 4 million adults and 4 million children" [ children being outlined as a must for this plan to work] is called for.
If these maniacs plan to kill and target 4 million children then why not let the Islamic worlds know that retaliation will be swift , harsh and not forgiving.
Here is what Hugh Hewitt had to say :
Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo's speculation about using nukes on Mecca following an act of nuclear terrorism in the United States is the most irresponsible statement any American official can make. It will be on al-Jazeera within the hour, and it will be used by jihadists against us. Such speculations send the message that we are at war with all of Islam. We are not. We are at war with a slice of Islam that is radical and violent. Statements like Tancredo's invite all of Islam to think they are our enemy.
Every media voice that was raised against Dick Durbin's asinine comparison of Gitmo practices to those of Nazis and Pol Pot should speak with equal pointedness against Tancredo's speculation. There is no defending this type of speculation, and no excuse for airing it. Congressman Tancredo has been a guest on my show, and his account of his travels to Beslan and account of the massacre there is some of the most moving talk I have heard on the subject. But this response was incredibly stupid, and his apology --unlike Durbin's-- should be immediate and complete.
UPDATE: To be fair to Tancredo, he didn't say "nuke." he said "ultimate response" to "ultimate threat." I read it as "nuke Mecca," but he might want to say he meant precision strikes that wouldn't do more than permanently enrage the world's 1.1 billion Muslims.
For Hugh Hewitt credit he does make a good point. We are not at war with Islam , YET.However their constant turn the cheek and say nothing about extremists says lots on how they feel. They still celebrate acts of atrocity by giving maryteredom to suicide bombers.
Captian Ed says the following:
Tancredo Fouls The Water (Updated)
We have enough problems fighting the war on terror in the measured, strategic method used by the Bush and Blair administrations without Republican Congressmen recommending the bombing of sites held sacred by Muslims across the political spectrum. Yet today, Tom Tancredo (R-CO) suggested that a nuclear attack on an American city could result in a bombing run on Mecca:
I think the "ultimate response" to Tancredo's apolcalyptic fantasy is that we don't bomb civilians in response to terrorist attacks, no matter how seductive such a response might seem. The idea that the US would retaliate in such a manner should be repulsive to any rational person, no matter where they fall on the political spectrum. The war on terror targets the terrorists and the governments which fund and/or shelter them, not the civilians who happen to live there.
Besides, who is Tom Tancredo to make these threats anyway? He doesn't have anything to do with the military chain of command or the national security systems that would make those kinds of recommendations. He certainly doesn't speak for the President, who has to make the final determination in loosing those weapons on any target. Tancredo does, however, lend a false sense of credibility to such threats in international circles, thanks to his position as an elected Republican official.
The GOP needs to remind Tancredo of the wisdom of silence in some issues
Let me remind Captain Ed of who Represenative Tom Tancredo is. Rep. Tancredo is an elected official of Colorado, the congressman who is leading the charge against ILLEGAL immigration, and also a citizen of the United States. An active member of the Congress who is trying to figure out how to protect this country.
The fact he spells out in somewhat cloudy terms of what a response should be when these murderouse thugs attack and kill innocents. The fact that targeted will be Churches, schools, shopping malls, and Children Captian Eddie. All of which are not combat targets under the Geneva convention, oh and by the way Islam is not a signed member of and obviously do not hold respect for when they torture and behead combat captives.
What these bloggers and talkshow hosts fail to realize is that despite their claims of acknowlegdment this is not a conventional war. They clearly do not understand terrorism.
If they would take the time to get off their high and mighty backsides and read and study. They will see that a terrorism campaign is designed to kowtow the masses into thinking as the terrorists. To bring fear and humiliation upon those who are not in the same like mind of thinking. It is designed to force political action by the masses into coming around to their way of thinking.
By assasinating, bombing, blackmail terrorist strive to change our beliefs and morals. To make us nothing more then a huddled mass of cowarding people under their thumb and leadership.
Now lets look at what Rep. Tom Tancredo actually said:
Congressman suggests way to retaliate for nuclear terror
Spokesman: Tancredo was speaking hypothetically
Monday, July 18, 2005; Posted: 12:44 p.m. EDT (16:44 GMT)
[http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/18/congressman.muslims.ap/]
What Is This? DENVER, Colorado (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, Florida. 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."
There you have it all he said was to suggest that if these extremist hit us with a nuke we may consider a nuke in retailiation.
