Tancredo's Anger
Atrios kicks up more dust that Howard Dean raises in response to Tom Tancredo's idiotic "raising of possibilities" that the US should be able to nuke Mecca and other Islamic holy sites if threatened with nuclear terror. Dean:
This is exactly right. Tancredo is advocating terrorism against civilian targets in the case of a threat that does not particularly, in any credible form, exist. Of course, since the Clinton years, when the Soviet nuclear facilities fall apart, a nuke in the hands of determined terrorists or foolish rogue nations has, and should be, the primary concern of anti-terror efforts. There is little worse for all of humanity than the experience of a nuclear bomb, as the US has demonstrated exclusively upon the Japanese.
And, as Atrios points out, Tancredo's idea is one of ridiculous parallel to the exact thing that They want to do to Us.
What I want to add to all of this:
While certainly the great majority of Muslims who read or hear Tancredo's remarks will simply dismiss him as a "Typical, Rich, White, American Christian Extremist." There won't be much thought that goes through their minds beyond that. There is, however, a serious risk in what Tancredo says and does. He, in effect, walks a line of threat escalation. He believes that what he's doing is proposing alternatives, actions, responses. But what American's should consider him to be doing is coming dangerously close to TRIGGERING those very threats he proposes against. The more we talk about nuking Mecca, the more ideological Islamofascists take offense to American ideas; and the more they pursue nukes to inflict upon Americans.
I don't know that this is the case at all, but look at how inflamed Americans were at a Chinese general who "propsed" the same scenerio as Tancredo. Many Americans took it as a threat. What's to stop the terrrrists from having the same reaction?
Good work, Tommy. I want to come over to your house and plant chrysanthemums in your garden. Check out ProgressNow.Org for some regional Colorado talk about Tancredo. [Also, check out their excellent podcast interview with CO Supreme Court Justice Jean Dubofsky and her... interesting... interactions with Antonin Scalia]
"Tancredo's statements go against the very message America is trying to send to the world, that the war against terrorism is not a war on Islam. 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.Atrios:
Congressman Tancredo certainly owes Muslims around the globe an immediate apology for his offensive remarks. At the same time, he also owes Americans an apology for projecting a message that goes against our values. With these remarks, Tancredo has been utterly careless with his responsibility for shaping our foreign policy. Tancredo's continued refusal to apologize poses a very real danger to our troops. President Bush should strongly condemn Tancredo's statement."
All the Republicans who went after Dick Durbin care nothing for our soldiers or even national security. They only care about preserving the power of the Republican party.GS:
Nor will our press put the Republicans through the disassociation gauntlet as they did Democrats. Collective punishment based on religious association using the ultimate weapons of mass destruction is certainly a-ok for our media.
Note, of course, that Tancredo is advocating terrorism against civilian populations. His reasoning is exactly that of those who bomb targets in London and Madrid, only he potentially has a bigger arsenal available to him.
This is exactly right. Tancredo is advocating terrorism against civilian targets in the case of a threat that does not particularly, in any credible form, exist. Of course, since the Clinton years, when the Soviet nuclear facilities fall apart, a nuke in the hands of determined terrorists or foolish rogue nations has, and should be, the primary concern of anti-terror efforts. There is little worse for all of humanity than the experience of a nuclear bomb, as the US has demonstrated exclusively upon the Japanese.
And, as Atrios points out, Tancredo's idea is one of ridiculous parallel to the exact thing that They want to do to Us.
What I want to add to all of this:
While certainly the great majority of Muslims who read or hear Tancredo's remarks will simply dismiss him as a "Typical, Rich, White, American Christian Extremist." There won't be much thought that goes through their minds beyond that. There is, however, a serious risk in what Tancredo says and does. He, in effect, walks a line of threat escalation. He believes that what he's doing is proposing alternatives, actions, responses. But what American's should consider him to be doing is coming dangerously close to TRIGGERING those very threats he proposes against. The more we talk about nuking Mecca, the more ideological Islamofascists take offense to American ideas; and the more they pursue nukes to inflict upon Americans.
I don't know that this is the case at all, but look at how inflamed Americans were at a Chinese general who "propsed" the same scenerio as Tancredo. Many Americans took it as a threat. What's to stop the terrrrists from having the same reaction?
Good work, Tommy. I want to come over to your house and plant chrysanthemums in your garden. Check out ProgressNow.Org for some regional Colorado talk about Tancredo. [Also, check out their excellent podcast interview with CO Supreme Court Justice Jean Dubofsky and her... interesting... interactions with Antonin Scalia]
posted by General Stan at 12:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home