THEOCACY WATCH: Rep. Tancredo, R-CO: "...take out their holy sites"

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Irvine511

Blue Crack Supplier
Joined
Dec 4, 2003
Messages
34,498
Location
the West Coast
Congressman suggests way to retaliate for nuclear terror

Spokesman: Tancredo was speaking hypothetically

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."

Spokesman Will Adams said Sunday the four-term congressman doesn't support threatening holy Islamic sites but that Tancredo was grappling with the hypothetical situation of a terrorist strike deadlier than the September 11, 2001, attacks.

"We have an enemy with no uniform, no state, who looks like you and me and only emerges right before an attack. How do we go after someone like that?" Adams said.

"What is near and dear to them? They're willing to sacrifice everything in this world for the next one. What is the pressure point that would deter them from their murderous impulses?" he said.

Tancredo is known in the House for his tough stand on immigration.

Mohammad Noorzai, coordinator of the Colorado Muslim Council and a native of Afghanistan, said Tancredo's remarks were radical and unrepresentative but that people in Tancredo's position need to watch their words when it comes to sacred religious sites and texts.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/18/congressman.muslims.ap/index.html
 
nbcrusader said:
Again, where do we get the theocracy?



Holy War mentality.

if they bomb our country, we blow up their religious sits. note that he doesn't want to bomb, say, Riyadh. he wants to nuke Mecca.

big symbolic difference.
 
^ Agree. I don't know Rep. Tancredo, and this article doesn't reveal any religous beliefs he might have. I doubt highly that he's Muslim, but he could be an agnostic or atheist.
 
2Hearts said:
^ Agree. I don't know Rep. Tancredo, and this article doesn't reveal any religous beliefs he might have. I doubt highly that he's Muslim, but he could be an agnostic or atheist.

Exactly.
 
2Hearts said:
^ Agree. I don't know Rep. Tancredo, and this article doesn't reveal any religous beliefs he might have. I doubt highly that he's Muslim, but he could be an agnostic or atheist.



aside from the utter insanity of bombing a country for the acts of terrorists who do not act in the interests of their nation states, why would you attack Mecca and not Riyadh unless the point was religion?
 
The "point" is the attempt to hurt the "enemy". Tancredo has built in a couple of assumptions that would make this unfeasible.

The military value of Mecca is negligble and would create more problems than it solves. That's why Tancredo is a Congressman, not a General.
 
Irvine511 said:




aside from the utter insanity of bombing a country for the acts of terrorists who do not act in the interests of their nation states, why would you attack Mecca and not Riyadh unless the point was religion?


this is one person
but he is a u s congressman
that represents this country
this is terrible

Irvine,

the fact that many don't seemed to "get it" is amazing.
this adds fuel to the argument that it is a war on Islam
a 'crusade" in the worst sense of the word.
 
nbcrusader said:
The "point" is the attempt to hurt the "enemy". Tancredo has built in a couple of assumptions that would make this unfeasible.

The military value of Mecca is negligble and would create more problems than it solves. That's why Tancredo is a Congressman, not a General.


in the view of this congressmen, the "enemy" is Islam itself.
 
deep said:


this adds fuel to the argument that it is a war on Islam
a 'crusade" in the worst sense of the word.



precisely.

and there's an assumption, too, in his statement -- if "we" are crusading against Islam, what religion, then, is the USA fighting for?
 
Ah, Tancredo.

He is an egotistical wacko. I'm not sure anyone in Colorado likes him, he's always embarressing us with comments on immigration or religion.

He plans on running for the presidency. He's declared that a number of times. He thinks so highly of himself it's disgusting.
 
Irvine511 said:



in the view of this congressmen, the "enemy" is Islam itself.

Exactly and this idea runs rampant through this entire forum, not just FYM, of course many do well in thinking they disguise it.
 
Tancredo has voiced what I have often felt in my weakest moments. Moments of fear and hatred. Moments of seeking revenge and inflicting pain. Moments when I turn away from the hard choice to follow my faith or not.

Moments like the morning of the London bombings.

Dammit and I am wrong, of course.

I can only hope that the Muslim world that does NOT subscribe to the Islamists will someday say "Enough!"... and will make a difference.
While I know that many Muslims are active in opposing the Islamists (like the many Gov't Officials that are being slaughtered daily in Baghdad), I can't help but think, "Where are the other billion voices??".

And I remember how I sat on my hands as Iran and Iraq sent their young men against each other to slaughter each other for ten years.

there are no answers, are there?
 
Landslide said:



And I remember how I sat on my hands as Iran and Iraq sent their young men against each other to slaughter each other for ten years.



really?

i recall many clapping and dancing

as we suppiled Iraq with arms
to offset the arms we had sold to Iran ( Shah Reza)
 
Se7en said:
perhaps the enemy is religion itself.



or, specific practices of any religion.

once again ...

"From the first moment I looked into that horror on Sept. 11, into that fireball, into that explosion of horror, I knew it. I knew it before anything was said about those who did it or why. I recognized an old companion. I recognized religion. Look, I am a priest for over 30 years. Religion is my life, it's my vocation, it's my existence. I'd give my life for it; I hope to have the courage. Therefore, I know it.

And I know, and recognized that day, that the same force, energy, sense, instinct, whatever, passion -- because religion can be a passion -- the same passion that motivates religious people to do great things is the same one that that day brought all that destruction. When they said that the people who did it did it in the name of God, I wasn't the slightest bit surprised. It only confirmed what I knew. I recognized it.

I recognized this thirst, this demand for the absolute. Because if you don't hang on to the unchanging, to the absolute, to that which cannot disappear, you might disappear. I recognized that this thirst for the never-ending, the permanent, the wonders of all things, this intolerance or fear of diversity, that which is different -- these are characteristics of religion. And I knew that that force could take you to do great things. But I knew that there was no greater and more destructive force on the surface of this earth than the religious passion.

My friends in the business, religious leaders, we all took to the streets to try to salvage something of it. Funny, suddenly every government official became a religious leader, reassuring us that all religions are for peace. I understand. It was embarrassing. And now I think we have a religious duty to face this ambivalence about religion, and to do something about it. To promote that which makes it a constructive force and to protect us from that which makes it a destructive force. ..." -- Monsignor Lorenzo Albacete
 
Se7en said:

religion along with nationalism are two of the great plagues of humanity.



i'd agree with that.

but i'd also argue that they can be great creative forces, when practiced correctly.
 
Se7en said:


honestly, i don't see how.



i think that belief in something "greater" than the individual -- working towards a spirit, or an idea -- can push man himself to greater heights if he works towards this ideal and tries to make it real. one may never realize the ideal itself, but what counts is the work and improvements made.

i know that's very vague ... let me give you an example: one thing that i think is great about the United States is that citizenship does not imply a specific race. truly, anyone can become a citizen of the US, and be culturally and legally and ethnically "American," whereas i'll never be ethnically Chinese. to me, that's a wonderful ideal, particularly in contrast to European nation-states that only just now are beginning to view themselves as having a sprit or essence that is independent of race. therefore, what is unique about American nationlism is that it is not inherently racist, whereas you could argue that nearly every other form of nationalism (at least in the near past) is, by definition, racist.
 
Irvine511 said:
i think that belief in something "greater" than the individual -- working towards a spirit, or an idea -- can push man himself to greater heights if he works towards this ideal and tries to make it real. one may never realize the ideal itself, but what counts is the work and improvements made.


i would have to argue that there are a variety of more worthwhile things to work toward than religious fulfillment no matter its nature. why must man invert his reality, place all qualities he would like to have himself into a perfect diety instead, and then subjugate himself to said deity? you either end up with a club that just makes people feel better about themselves or a hierarchial authoritarian system interested in wealth and behavioral control. man does not need god or religious texts to work toward something greater. we are perfectly capable of finding our way ourselves.

what is unique about American nationlism is that it is not inherently racist, whereas you could argue that nearly every other form of nationalism (at least in the near past) is, by definition, racist.

this may not technically qualify as racism but it is very similar. the u.s. is the greatest country in the world so therefore its citizens are the greatest group of people in the world. anytime a group of humans are seen as superior to another we're going to have trouble.
 
It would sure make any prospective terrorist think twice ~ the problem is that nuking mecca would accomplish exactly the type of apocalypse that they seek to bring about and they would opt for an attack hoping for a worldwide nuclear war.
 
A_Wanderer said:
It would sure make any prospective terrorist think twice ~ the problem is that nuking mecca would accomplish exactly the type of apocalypse that they seek to bring about and they would opt for an attack hoping for a worldwide nuclear war.

So that would be playing right into their hands, so to speak. They'd follow that by attacking Rome, perhaps.
Gosh, I'm glad this guy is a Congressman and not a General.
 
nbcrusader said:


It seems we all disagree with Tancredo.

However, who would you define as the "enemy"?



i don't think "the enemy" can be summed up succinctly. "the enemy" can appear in the form of Saudi Arabian hijackers, or homegrown first generation Anglo-Pakistanis with bombs in their backpacks. this is a war of ideas, not of territory.

i think there are myriad causes that help create the conditions that create "the enemy" -- the two most important is the strong sense of humiliation felt by many who broadly identify as Muslim, and the second has been the radicalization of certain elements within Islam.

when you've got a 20 year old kid who hates himself and sees no future and then attach him to the sense of the absolute that only religion can provide, it transforms his world into a rigid black-and-white world where good is good, bad is bad, there are believers and there are infidels, and he is not of that world. so he can blow it up.
 
Se7en said:


i would have to argue that there are a variety of more worthwhile things to work toward than religious fulfillment no matter its nature. why must man invert his reality, place all qualities he would like to have himself into a perfect diety instead, and then subjugate himself to said deity? you either end up with a club that just makes people feel better about themselves or a hierarchial authoritarian system interested in wealth and behavioral control. man does not need god or religious texts to work toward something greater. we are perfectly capable of finding our way ourselves.



this may not technically qualify as racism but it is very similar. the u.s. is the greatest country in the world so therefore its citizens are the greatest group of people in the world. anytime a group of humans are seen as superior to another we're going to have trouble.


hey, i generally agree with you. i tend to despise most nationalism, and i'm growing increasingly intolerant of the encroachment of highly subjective religious beliefs on a secular society (gosh, just look at the Harry Potter thread ... i removed myself once i started being told that the Devil wants to tempt me).

you bring up a good point about US nationalism, but all i was pointing out was the good thing about US nationalism is that it pretty much cannot be racist. not that it is, objectively, a good thing, but that this aspect of it is a good thing.

i think that both religion and nationalism have the potential to be forces for good, but too often in the hands of men they are negative forces.

maybe it's the heat, but i've really seen most of the good will i had felt towards the outwardly devout on this forum dissipate.

several people -- through their sanctimony, coupled with a whole "i'm just the messenger!" cop-out -- in here make great cases for Atheism.
 
Back
Top Bottom