Saturday, July 16, 2005

Tancredo clarifies 'ultimate response'

Should U.S. bomb Islamic holy sites after nuke terror attack on America?

Clarifying remarks from a radio interview that drew praise from some supporters, Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., said he was not suggesting that the U.S. should nuke the Islamic holy site Mecca as a response to a nuclear homeland attack by al-Qaida.

The congressman's press secretary told WorldNetDaily the comments were an off-the-cuff response to a hypothetical situation.

"He doesn't believe that we should go out and threaten to bomb anybody's holy city," said spokesman Will Adams.

In the interview this morning with Pat Campbell of WFLA radio in Orlando, Tancredo discussed his request for a briefing from the Justice Department on information it has on plans revealed by WND this week for a nuclear attack on the U.S. by al-Qaida terrorists.

Campbell noted that just after the London bombings last week, former Israeli counterterrorism intelligence officer Juval Aviv predicted an attack in the U.S. within the next 90 days. Aviv believes the plan is to attack not one big city, like New York, but half-a-dozen smaller ones, including towns in the heartland.

The host asked Tancredo, "Worst case scenario, if they do have these nukes inside the border, what would our response be?"

The congressman replied: "There are things you could threaten to do before something like that happens, and then you have to do afterwards, that are quite draconian."

"Well," Tancredo continued, "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 that this is the ultimate threat to the United States, therefore this is the ultimate response."

Read the rest of the WorldNetDaily article HERE.

See what they were saying about Tancredo's comments on HERE.

HERE'S what they are saying about the clarification.


At 8:42 PM, Blogger Sick Boy said...

Ok, maybe the SAS should help out the U.S.?

UK: Police snipers track al-Qaeda suspects

From the
Block quote start
UNDERCOVER police sniper squads are tracking as many as a dozen Al-Qaeda suspects because security services fear they could be planning more suicide attacks,
writes David Leppard.

The covert armed units are under orders to shoot to kill if surveillance suggests that a terror suspect is carrying a bomb and he refuses to surrender if

The deployment of the teams in the past week signals the huge “intelligence gap” that has opened up since the London bombings.

Police fear the suspects could be planning a further wave of attacks but do not have enough evidence to arrest them, or place them under the government’s
new anti-terror control orders.

Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan police commissioner, warned last week that there was a “very strong possibility” of more terrorist bombings.

Scotland Yard and MI5 say there may be more “bomb factories”. However, officers admit that they have no idea which suspects could be planning the next attacks
so they are deploying the sniper squads as an emergency measure...
Block quote end

At 11:28 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with the Congressman, but let's be consistent here...

Any religious organization that inspires violence should be "taken out."

Who encourages bombing of U.S. Federal Government offices?

Who encourages bombing of abortion clinics?

Let's get rid of ALL the fundamentalists... I'm not trying to be sarcastic here. I'm tired of ALL fundamentalists... extreme religions, extreme environmentalists, extreme politcal organizations, all of them!

At 4:22 PM, Anonymous Stanton Fink said...

The Al Aqsa is a very important site to Muslims: why don't we nuke Jerusalem, then? That'll teach those Hamas bastards.

At 5:38 PM, Anonymous Lorenzo said...

Tancredo spoke of threatening to bomb holy sites if America is nuked by the Islamofascist jihadists, sites such as the Ka'abah in Mecca (a rock), not the whole city. A small nuclear device could do the job nicely, and threatening its use should not be dismissed out of mind so quickly. The world is experiencing not a series of isolated gang wars. We are in a war between two civilizations that has been raging for decades if not centuries. This is World War III. As in World War II, where there were "good" and "moderate" Germans who suffered under Hitler, many of whom died as innocent civilians during Allied bombings. But the practical fact was that all of Germany was the enemy. Because the Nazis had hijacked Germany and were able to make the entire country subservient to its aims. In the same way, we are now in a war against all of a hijacked Islam, we just don't want to face up to that fact. Yet.

Meanwhile, Congressman Tancredo's strategy may be right. But as in all things that ire Al Jazeera and the America-hating Left these days, his musing just happens not to be Politically Correct. Threatening Mecca may be just the kind of psychological A-Bomb of sufficient shock value to get Islam's attention. All Muslims would be affected, because it is the duty of all male Muslims capable of doing so to perform the "hajj," i.e. to visit and perform rituals at the holy Ka'abah rock in Mecca. Maybe the "moderate" Muslims would have second thoughts about honoring and supporting the murderous jihadists if they in fact feared their collaborations or acquiescence could conceivably lead to a Ka'abah reduced to highly radioactive glass. That fear may possibly be the only deterrent in our arsenal against fanatics who otherwise fear nothing. It took an atomic bomb to stop die-hard Japanese military fanatics from forcing every Japanese solider to fight to the death, down to the very last man. This time it might not take the destruction of two cities to end a war driven by fanatics, just a threat against a single rock. Tancredo may be on to something.

At 11:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wish our leaders and PC crowd would finally wake up and realize that the Muslim religion is at war with the west. They preach their hatred in the mosques, recruit their murderers in the mosques, their religion and governments financially support the terrorists, etc. Every time a terrorist strikes, the "mainstream" Muslim community remains silent or half-heartily condemns the bombing while loudly worrying out loud if their will be a "backlash".

I agree with Congressman Tancredo that we should nuke the Muslim holy sites, especially Mecca, if we are nuked by these Muslim terrorists. Personally I think right now we should also target these clerics that preach this hatred and recruit these terrorists. We should target them for assassination no matter what country they are hiding in. I also think our government should target the families of these terrorists and clerics. For example, one terrorist in London had a wife and newborn baby. Some of the 9/11 terrorists had wives and children here in the USA. They should not be allowed to live and the terrorists given notice that their families are not safe from us. Cruel, yes, but our enemy is much crueler and personally I don't think they should be allowed to reproduce. This is a brutal war after all.

Be safe and be well

At 8:50 AM, Blogger Sick Boy said...

The Fourth World War will be fought with sticks and stones. A. Einstein.

At 2:47 PM, Blogger Editor Choice said...

Excellent and original blog. I will comeback.
I wanted just to mention an interesting site regarding: Religions, with more than 500 pages, Religion News and Articles Religion Universe: Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Taoism (Daoism) and many others

At 11:46 AM, Blogger FlyingMonkeyWarrior said...

Pat, off topic, but you do not hava an open thread.

At 11:48 AM, Blogger FlyingMonkeyWarrior said...

Pat, off topic, but you do not hava an open thread.

John Loeffler
January 19, 2007

Senate Bill 1 and House Resolution 4682 under Fire

Bad things often come in good packages. Currently both houses of congess are considering ethics bills to provide for much-needed lobbying and earmark reform. However, buried in one section of both house and senate bills are provisions to severely restrict the ability of grassroots organizations to monitor the actions of their elected representatives and report on these to their clients. In reality, it will achieving exactly the opposite of ethics reform because it allows for more congressional acvitivty away from public scrutiny.

The advent of alternative media has had a major impact on U.S. politics for the last twenty years. Slowly but surely the exclusive chokehold the country's national information gatekeepers -- major radio and TV networks plus the major newswire services -- previously held on the flow of news has been eroded by talk radio, both on-air and internet, weblogs and online newspapers.

A decade ago politicians discovered with much chagrin that this "alternative media" was actually affecting the outcomes of elections and limiting what they could get away with once in office. Statements and actions by politicians which the mainliners left unchallenged were examined minutely in the alternative media. Even small sections of pending bills lawmakers hoped wouldn't be noticed have made it into blogs and on the air in record time, resulting in angry calls to force removal of the offending provisions. There are too many people watching them carefully and reporting through the relatively inexpensive medium of the internet.

Now it seems some congressmen want to fight back. Buried within Senate Bill One, which as we pointed out promotes long-sought lobbying reform, exists Section 220 defining individuals or organizations reaching more than 500 people on a grassroots level with information about political issues as lobbying organizations, if the information can be construed as urging people to contact congress.

These individuals or groups would be required to register and subsequently file unwieldy amounts of paperwork, whenever they transmit political information to their subscribers. Failure to do so would result in $50,000-$100,000 fines per violation plus jail time for willful failure to comply. This would be a staggering burden of proof and compliance to small grass roots individuals or organizations affected by the new requirements.

Depending on how the language of the bill is interpreted, groups affected by this opprobrious legislation includes publishers of small newsletters and financial publications, websites, broadcast and internet talk show hosts, alternative radio shows, public interest organizations, civic organizations, even churches and religious denominations, and other nonprofit groups. The definitions include even private individuals, who might voluntarily pay for media space to distribute important messages to the general public on political matters with which they are concerned.

Under Senate Bill One and its House companion bill H.R. 4682 an organization is classified as a “grassroots lobbying firm” if it attempts to influence the general public to contact federal officials in order to express their own views on a federal issue. It must spend only only $50,000 ($25,000 under the House bill) for such efforts in a quarterly period, it will be required to register as lobbyists. Many radio programs and websites easily spend that amount of money in the course of their activities.

This is not the first time Congress has sought to impede freedom of speech. Every so often an attempt is made to revive the Fairness Doctrine, which requires broadcasters to provide equal time and balanced viewpoints for political and social issues. While this sounds fair, and it worked when only editorials were involved, in reality it creates a nightmare for radio and TV station licensees that engage in talk formats, because the paperwork and logistics required to comply with such a law make it impossible for the stations to function. As such the Fairness Doctrine is a stealth way to surpress free speech on radio stations by making it very difficult for them to function. As such, even the Financial Sense Newshour might be forced "off the air."

Providing this type of compliance for talk shows is impossible and the risk of large fines for violations of arbitrary stipulations is so great, that stations tend to cancel talk shows and run programming they consider to be less "risky." In essence the talk shows can be chased off the air just with the threat of arbitrary fines and penalties. Senate Bill One will have the same effect on small grassroots publishers, websites, radio shows and organizations if it passes as is. Remember, failure to jump through all the paperwork hoops properly for Senate Bill One could result in $50,000-$100,000 fines per violation!

Currently, an amendment to Senate Bill One been proposed by Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT) to remove Subsection 220 from the bill, which includes grassroots organizations among those classified as lobbying organizations. Persons concerned about the loss of alternative media and the danger to free speech should contact their senators and urge them to vote for the Bennett amendment. Members of the House should be urged to vote against provisions in House Resolution 4682, which included grassroots organizations.

It's interesting to note that if Senate Bill One were currently law, writing this would be illegal because we had not filed the proper paperwork with the federal government. Assaults like this on the First Amendment and the right of the people to have free speech and seek redress must not to be tolerated in whatever form they appear.

There is debate among legal experts as to exactly how the provisions of Senate Bill One could ultimately be interpreted and applied, which brings us down to a rule of thumb: If we can't agree what this means as a bill now, we definitely don't want it as law later.

© 2007 John Loeffler - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home