Striking Back

[keith758]

What do you think of the remarks by Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo regarding striking back at fundamentalist Muslim terrorists? Mr. Tancredo was asked about his response to a terrorist attack on the United States using nuclear weapons, and he said that he would consider it appropriate that such an attack would result in the bombing of "Islamic Holy sites." I say, GO TOM!

I think it's time to let them, Muslim Terrorists, know that there will be a response which will hit them where it hurts.

What do you think?

[Stonie]

Tancredo was implying that we nuke Mecca.

I'm not down with that.

Surgical strikes, fine. Nuclear strikes? Umm, no thanks.

[savage4presiden]

I have no problem with it. I heard somewhere that a poll was taken by muslims and the results were that 84% disagreed with using terrorism and 16% supported terrorism. That's a hell of a lot of terrorists, or wannabe terrorists out there. I think we should bomb thost muslimists back to the stone age.

Stonie, I agree; sugical strikes not nuclear. Although I would have no problem using prolonged surgical strikes.

[keith758]

I guess that as long as the Islamo-Fascists have no problem attacking us with nuclear weapons, I'd have no problem retaliating in kind. I hope that it never comes to that, but I advocate making known the consequences.

[Stonie]

Hitting Mecca with a nuke is friggin' pointless, even if we get nuked. Talk about a sure-fire way to turn all non-violent Muslims into violent ones... You do know that Islam is the world's most popular religion, right?

[Welpe]

You do know that Islam is the world's most popular religion, right?

That's if you count each Christian sect as its own religion.

[savage4presiden]

Talk about a sure-fire way to turn all non-violent Muslims into violent ones...

There's not much keeping them from going that route now, anyway.

[raider]

Tancredo was implying that we nuke Mecca.

I'm not down with that.

Surgical strikes, fine. Nuclear strikes? Umm, no thanks.

Though some in the media have characterized Cong. Tancredo's remarks as supporting a nuclear strike on Mecca, he never implied that the U.S. nuke Mecca. He mentioned "tak[ing] out their holy sites." He said "[y]eah" to a follow-up question clarifying whether he was "talking about bombing Mecca." You could bomb Mecca with conventional weapons. You could take out holy sites with conventional weapons. The host had given Cong. Tancredo a hypothetical situation of Islamic terrorists exploding nuclear devices in six (6), seven (7) or eight (8) U.S. cities. If such an attack upon the United States seemed imminent, I would not have a problem with a threat being made by the president to use conventional weapons against Mecca if that attack occurred. Further, if that hypothetical did occur and millions upon millions of Americans were dead, I certainly would not have a problem with attacking Mecca with conventional weapons if such a threat had been given.

Here is a link to Cong. Tancredo's comments: http://www.540wfla.com/timages/page/...nts_071405.mp3 .

[raider]

What do you think of the remarks by Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo regarding striking back at fundamentalist Muslim terrorists? Mr. Tancredo was asked about his response to a terrorist attack on the United States using nuclear weapons, and he said that he would consider it appropriate that such an attack would result in the bombing of "Islamic Holy sites." I say, GO TOM!

I think it's time to let them, Muslim Terrorists, know that there will be a response which will hit them where it hurts.

What do you think?

If Cong. Tancredo were elected president, the threat from Islamic terrorists within this country would be greatly reduced. As president, Tancredo would secure and enforce our borders; deport illegal aliens, both those who enter the country illegally and those who overstay their right to be in the U.S.; and place greater restrictions on legal immigration from Islamic countries.

Several of the Islamic terrorist who killed over three thousand (3,000) Americans on September 11, 2001, were illegal aliens by virtue of having overstayed their visas. Why were they still in this country on September 11, 2001? Why hadn't they been deported prior to September 11, 2001?

Thank you for your support of Cong, Tancredo. He truly cares about the security of our nation.

[raider]

I have no problem with it. I heard somewhere that a poll was taken by muslims and the results were that 84% disagreed with using terrorism and 16% supported terrorism. That's a hell of a lot of terrorists, or wannabe terrorists out there. I think we should bomb thost muslimists back to the stone age.

Stonie, I agree; sugical strikes not nuclear. Although I would have no problem using prolonged surgical strikes.

I agree with both you and Stonie about using surgical strikes, instead of nuclear strikes.

It might be a good idea for some to go to Michael Savage's website and view the beheading by Islam terrorists of Nick Berg, as well as all the other beheading videos on the website. It is an excellent reminder of the enemy this nation faces.

Let's see if the United Kingdom gets serious about reforming its immigration policy with regard to Islamic immigrants.

[keith758]

Soleal, it is apathy and trying to make the world love us that is killing us. The terrorists know, and feel safe in the knowledge that we won't strike them where it will truly hurt them. Our culture is so worried "offending" other's that we forget about ourselves at a cost to ourselves. Also, I'm tired of hearing that the "Majority of Muslims are Peace loving people." If so, where is their condemnation of the terrorists that are, in fact, killing innocent Muslim men, women and children on a daily basis? Or, is that our fault, also?

[Stonie]

Though some in the media have characterized Cong. Tancredo's remarks as supporting a nuclear strike on Mecca, he never implied that the U.S. nuke Mecca. He mentioned "tak[ing] out their holy sites." He said "[y]eah" to a follow-up question clarifying whether he was "talking about bombing Mecca." You could bomb Mecca with conventional weapons. You could take out holy sites with conventional weapons. The host had given Cong. Tancredo a hypothetical situation of Islamic terrorists exploding nuclear devices in six (6), seven (7) or eight (8) U.S. cities. If such an attack upon the United States seemed imminent, I would not have a problem with a threat being made by the president to use conventional weapons against Mecca if that attack occurred. Further, if that hypothetical did occur and millions upon millions of Americans were dead, I certainly would not have a problem with attacking Mecca with conventional weapons if such a threat had been given.

Here is a link to Cong. Tancredo's comments: http://www.540wfla.com/timages/page/...nts_071405.mp3 .

Nuke or not, I feel that religious sites of any religion need to be left out of targeting coordinates.

[savage4presiden]

Also, I'm tired of hearing that the "Majority of Muslims are Peace loving people." If so, where is their condemnation of the terrorists that are, in fact, killing innocent Muslim men, women and children on a daily basis? Or, is that our fault, also?

In WWII the Japanese went to great pains to prove their loayalty to the U.S. They started their own, all Japanese, battalion in the Army. That battalion, or regiment (I don't know) sustained the highest casualty rates in WWII. Where is the muslim battalion over in Iraq? There was a recent poll that showed that 86% of muslims do not support terrorism (that means they don't condem it either) and 14% of muslims do support terrorism. 14% is a hell of a lot of terrorists when you consider they number in the millions.

Nuke or not, I feel that religious sites of any religion need to be left out of targeting coordinates.

I don't think muslimists will play by your rules. In light of the fact that 14% of muslims are terrorist sympathizers, I think we should consider bombing mecca as a serious alternative. We should also force, by threats or any other means, muslims in America to hand over their terrorists. How can we allow them to keep them hidden in their own mosques? Michael Savage's said yesterday that we should intern all illegal muslim immigrants. That seems like a common sense measure to protect ourselves. Of course we all know that our politicians know better than us.

[Band of Brother]

Hi people.
As a Brit whose country is now under siege (as is our American cousins) I think we have to fight fire with fire.
The Met dealt with a suspected Muslim fundamentalist today by shooting him five times in the head.
That's a pretty good way to deter would-be fanatics.

Already the civil liberties groups are jumping all over our brave law enforcement agencies for "being trigger-happy."
Where would we be as free, tolerant and liberal societies without the defence that the majority take for granted?

There are mosques in this country that preach hatred and the destruction of Western society. They also exist in New York and have been identified as hotbeds of hatred by credible American writers.

[mosetti]

In WWII the Japanese went to great pains to prove their loayalty to the U.S. They started their own, all Japanese, battalion in the Army. That battalion, or regiment (I don't know) sustained the highest casualty rates in WWII.

You are referring to the 442nd Infantry Regiment. After being rounded up into camps to "protect the US from espionage", they were allowed to form an all American-Japanese regiment within the Army. These Japanese Americans did not volunteer becasue they wanted to prove thier loyalty to America, they joined because they WERE Americans. They did not recieve the highest amount of casualties in the war, I think that honor belongs to the 29th Infantry Division (Bloody Bucket). They were the most decorated unit in American Military history. In under two years in combat, members of the 442nd received over 18,000 individual decoarations including one Medal of Honor, 53 Distinguished Service Crosses, 588 Silver Stars, 5,200 Bronze Star Medals, 9,486 Purple Hearts, and eight Presidential Unit Citations (the nation's top award for combat units).

Fortunately the US Army does not have segregated military units and there are many muslims that have volunteered for service.