Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Some thoughts regarding Rep. Tom Tancredo's remarks about bombing Mecca

First off, if Allah can't protect Mecca, he probably won't be able to give anyone 72 virgins and a bag of goodies for blowing themselves up.

Thinking on it a bit more, perhaps a better way would be:
Another 9/11 attack -- Dome of the Rock is leveled
First nuclear weapon in U.S. -- Medina destroyed, after giving a week or so to evacuate.
Second nuclear weapon in U.S. -- Mecca destroyed, no warning. Okay, so that would definitely be evil, we should at least give them time to get out of the blast zone. Destroying a bunch of building is still better than destroying a bunch of lives in addition to the buildings.

Or we could tell them to evacuate, and then fake them out and drop in Marines rather than bombs to secure the perimeter. Barbed wire, minefields, machine gun emplacements, no-man's-land, the whole nine yards. Every pilgrim coming in has to be fingerprinted and suspicious ones DNA-tested. Innocent lives would be saved, and with a well-fortified perimeter and a few massively-armed checkpoints (or chokepoints), Americans wouldn't even need to step inside the "holy" city.

I think Bush should come out on national TV and clearly say "The United States will never, under any circumstances, attack non-militarized Islamic holy sites in response to a conventional attack on the U.S."

When the press hounds him about "What about a nuclear attack?" he should just say "Look, I don't want to get into hypotheticals here." President Bush is pretty good at repeating things over and over, and sooner or later reporters will have to leave.

More seriously, someone in the government had darned well better be deciding exactly how to respond to both conventional and nuclear/biological/chemical/unconventional attacks on the U.S. The best time to be making decisions on what stuff gets snuffed out of existence is probably not in the heat of anger after the bombs explode.

Finally, if the Left wanted to make a more persuasive argument, they probably should say something more convincing than "he's a dangerous moron who should apologize and resign immediately." Something like
If a nuclear attack were to be carried out on the U.S., all resources of the U.S. military -- including our nuclear arsenal -- should be available to the President to permanently remove the ones responsible. That having been said, such weapons are too horrifying to release upon innocent people, and under no circumstances should someone be targeted simply because they share the same race or religion as the perpetratrors."

Or something like that, I'm not much of a speechwriter. It does seem to me that if hundreds of thousands of Americans were to die in an attack, they should preach precision payback rather than holding hands and singing kum-ba-ya.

As a side note, someone complained that such an attack would alienate a billion Muslims, to which I responded with a few key words changed:
Osama, there is no justification for dropping a bomb on New York, the focal point for an entire country of 300 million farking people, you seem to think you can pacify a colony of bees by whacking a hive with a stick, are you truely this dumb, or are you just trolling?, there are 300 million Americans in the world if we piss them all off, this is a really bad thing, their nuclear weapons outnumber those in the muslim world 400 to 1, get some knowledge, you ignorant fool.

What I think is odd is has not a peep about this story (at least nothing comes up on a search for "tancredo" on their site).

Article matches for tancredo on
Results are sorted by date.
Results 0-0 of 0
No document found

Now, I *know* they don't ignore things just because they make the U.S. look bad. I wonder why they did so in this case?


Post a Comment

<< Home