Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Stephen





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 645
Reputation: 72.9
votes: 5
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:46 pm    Post subject: Tancredo says bomb muslim holy sites first Reply with quote

Woah Nelly!

From CNN: http://politicalticker.blogs.c.....tes-first/

Quote:
WASHINGTON (CNN) Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo's campaign stood by his assertion that bombing holy Muslim sites would serve as a good "deterrent" to prevent Islamic fundamentalists from attacking the United States, his spokeswoman said Friday.

"This shows that we mean business," said Bay Buchanan, a senior Tancredo adviser. "There's no more effective deterrent than that. But he is open-minded and willing to embrace other options. This is just a means to deter them from attacking us."

On Tuesday, Tancredo warned a group of Iowans that another terrorist attack would "cause a worldwide economic collapse." IowaPolitics.com recorded his comments.

"If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina," Tancredo said. "That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong, fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent, or you will find an attack."


Yowza.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What can I say, eye for an eye might be the only thing that has a chance of working. It would have to be a pretty serious attack though, in order for that kind of action not to be an escalation.
Stephen





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 645
Reputation: 72.9
votes: 5
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
What can I say, eye for an eye might be the only thing that has a chance of working. It would have to be a pretty serious attack though, in order for that kind of action not to be an escalation.


Except that we're not fighting the "republic of terror" and Mecca is not a city in the "repulic of terror". We're fighting a group of radicals without state nationality that do not represent millions of muslims who consider those sites holy.

That would be some sort of unfair collective punishment to hand down to an innocent group of people...
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know about the whole war on terror thing. First, terror is a tactic. Second, there are state sponsors, it is just that we in the West pussy foot around the whole thing. Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are the big financiers, trainers, and exporters of terror worldwide.

As for bombing their holy sites, I suppose it is an option, but the more I think about it, the more I question what it accomplishes? It would probably be better to bomb a revolutionary guard barracks in Iran, or something like that. Something that would destabilize one of the un-mentioned state sponsors of the stateless terror.

I have thought a lot about fighting terrorists, and I invariably come to the conclusion that the only way they could be decisively beaten is if we became them. Every act of depravity was doubled by us type of thing. We would have to spill enough blood, in such a way that they forever give up the notion that we can ever be beaten by such tactics. But then, who really wins? On the other hand, there is Ireland. They beat the IRA by battling to a perpetual state of stalemate (not by negotiating). Eventually, the IRA signaled that the war was over. I don't know if stalemate is possible with stateless actors though.
PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I kinda agree with him but then again, I don't think it is a wise thing to say.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stephen wrote:
kwlafayette wrote:
What can I say, eye for an eye might be the only thing that has a chance of working. It would have to be a pretty serious attack though, in order for that kind of action not to be an escalation.


Except that we're not fighting the "republic of terror" and Mecca is not a city in the "repulic of terror". We're fighting a group of radicals without state nationality that do not represent millions of muslims who consider those sites holy.

That would be some sort of unfair collective punishment to hand down to an innocent group of people...


Most Germans weren't evil.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Most Germans were irrelevant, because they were unwilling to take action.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So, is this comment getting lots of negative play? Is it sinking him? Is it being ignored? Did he just say out loud what a lot of people were afraid to?
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Does anybody have any idea why he said it? Did it slip by the thought filter, or is it a calculated move; shoot to the top or flame out without wasting anymore time or money?
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think it's a good idea either. How many Muslims wanted to attack us prior to 9/11 (and prior to the Iraq invasion)? A small percentage? If we bomb their holy sites, how many Muslims will want to attack us then? Probably a heck of a lot more...
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know why he said it, but my thought is that he's making a play for the ultra-religious right in the primaries. It's safe to say crazy things like that right now because of the distance from the presidential election... not that it matters. Tancredo won't secure the nomination, and no one's likely to choose him as a running mate either.
triple M





Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 83
Reputation: 54.2

PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you attack the holy sites you would just give radicals more influence the avg muslim would be swayed to take drastic actio. I can't even believe people are saying these type of things it would lead to so much violence it is really a scary thought.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
Most Germans were irrelevant, because they were unwilling to take action.


As opposed to Muslims who are lining up by the millions to fight terrorism???
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
How many Muslims wanted to attack us prior to 9/11


Enough to commit 9/11. How many 9/11s have there been since the invasion of Iraq. In other words, I'm not sure what your point is.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
Enough to commit 9/11.

How many was that? Hundreds? Thousands at most? Imagine one BILLION muslims as pissed off at America as the 9/11 hijackers...
Quote:
How many 9/11s have there been since the invasion of Iraq.

I don't see what your point is.
Quote:
In other words, I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is that bombing muslim holy sites will only create more terrorists.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2

Goto page 1, 2  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Tancredo says bomb muslim holy sites first

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB