Please Apologize, Rep. Tancredo
This is an incredible story -- first brought to prominence by Hugh Hewitt. Rep. Tancredo, although speaking hypothetically, threatened Islam's holiest sites in a scenario postulating America's response to nuclear attacks on our cities.
Rep. Tancredo surely is aware of the first rule of political communications -- resist responding to hypotheticals . . .
That being said, it's easy (for us) to understand his motives. He was, in the context of a radio interview, trying to craft a deterrent to people who are willing, even eager, to die -- and who place no value whatsoever on innocent human life. The fact is that it's practically impossible to threaten crazies like that. They don't care if we blow up any Middle Eastern city. From their perspective, it puts the terrorists on the fast track to Paradise, and who cares about the rest?
Even so, threatening Islam's holy sites -- even hypothetically -- simply isn't right. It's like responding to a wacked out Christian militia by blowing up the National Cathedral (worse, even, given that the National Cathedral isn't really a Christian "holy site"). And it ignores the religious commitments of our Mulim allies, like the Turks -- and denigrates the (far too few) brave Muslims who are speaking out against the Islamofascists.
Second, threatening Islam's holy sites isn't even smart. It provides a propaganda victory for terrorist recruitment throughout the Middle East -- allowing the evildoers to argue that America is, indeed, in a war with Islam . . . when nothing could be further from the truth. And it offers the terrorists a tantalizing vision of what they've hoped for and are working for as we speak -- a holy war pitting the Muslim world against the West.
Please clarify, Rep. Tancredo. Please apologize.
Rep. Tancredo surely is aware of the first rule of political communications -- resist responding to hypotheticals . . .
That being said, it's easy (for us) to understand his motives. He was, in the context of a radio interview, trying to craft a deterrent to people who are willing, even eager, to die -- and who place no value whatsoever on innocent human life. The fact is that it's practically impossible to threaten crazies like that. They don't care if we blow up any Middle Eastern city. From their perspective, it puts the terrorists on the fast track to Paradise, and who cares about the rest?
Even so, threatening Islam's holy sites -- even hypothetically -- simply isn't right. It's like responding to a wacked out Christian militia by blowing up the National Cathedral (worse, even, given that the National Cathedral isn't really a Christian "holy site"). And it ignores the religious commitments of our Mulim allies, like the Turks -- and denigrates the (far too few) brave Muslims who are speaking out against the Islamofascists.
Second, threatening Islam's holy sites isn't even smart. It provides a propaganda victory for terrorist recruitment throughout the Middle East -- allowing the evildoers to argue that America is, indeed, in a war with Islam . . . when nothing could be further from the truth. And it offers the terrorists a tantalizing vision of what they've hoped for and are working for as we speak -- a holy war pitting the Muslim world against the West.
Please clarify, Rep. Tancredo. Please apologize.
2 Comments:
You want a clarification?
Holy war is back for a while. Get used to it.
No apologies necessary from the esteemed Representative from Colorado.
The terrorist extremists have no capitol or one solid base. So try to imagine what the world would be like if they did in fact set off nukes in America. Then, what our response would have to be... We wouldn't be able to just sit around and let anarchy take hold. Their whole agenda about hating Isreal is that Jerusalem contains their 4th most important holy site. I see your point too, that a politician shouldn't say it, but it's okay for a blogger to say it...unless the liberals get their way and we can't have free speech here anymore. Maybe we should nuke San Francisco!
Post a Comment
<< Home