home

Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 07:58:40 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

In the "you can't make this up" department, Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo, who will try and run for President in 2008 on his illegal immigration plank, made an utter fool of himself on the radio Friday while discussing the possibility of future terror attacks. Crooks and Liars has the audio.

The Rocky Mountain News has the transcript, here's a snippet:

Campbell: Worst case scenario, if they do have these nukes inside the borders and they were to use something like that — what would our response be?

Tancredo: ....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, um, you know, you could take out their holy sites . . .

Campbell: You're talking about bombing Mecca.

Tancredo: Yeah. ..... I mean, I don't know, I'm just throwing out there some ideas because it seems to me . . . at that point in time you would be talking about taking the most draconian measures you could possibly imagine and because other than that all you could do is once again tighten up internally.

What a jerk.

Jason Bane, who has a good grasp on Colorado politics, wrote over at 5280.com,

Tancredo’s office tried to clarify those remarks on Sunday with the same line that he was “just throwing out ideas,” as though that excuses the comment in any way. The White House already doesn’t like Tancredo for openly challenging the Bush Administration on illegal immigration, and comments like this go even further in threatening U.S. diplomacy efforts. While Tancredo is in a safe Republican district, if he continues to cause trouble for the White House they may decide to seek out a primary opponent to take him out. If that happens, Tancredo will need to win the Presidential nomination just so he can have a job.

You can read about Tancredo's explanation here.

< BOP's Early Release Drug Program | Bush May Announce Supeme Court Pick in Next Few Days >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio | 79 comments (79 topical)
    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:22 PM EST
    He just got the wingnut vote.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#2)
    by MikeDitto on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:22 PM EST
    Oh he's always had the wingnut vote...

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:22 PM EST
    Thats beyond jerk. That's asking the base to support violence measures. When leadership can speak like that it's chilling

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:22 PM EST
    Republicans like Tom Tancredo are coming out of the woodwork, emboldened by the RNC's proven ability to persuade much of the American public that wrong is right. Most Republicans probably would be satisfied that Tancredo was only "just throwing out ideas." We should expect more of this, as Republicans continue to test what they can get away with.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:22 PM EST
    The White House already doesn’t like Tancredo for openly challenging the Bush Administration on illegal immigration And the "liberals" are on the same side as the Bush administration... I'm sure many "liberals" were opposed to MAD as well. Thankfully, there are responsible adults to think about horrific scenarios. You might also want to see this article from January. "Israel … recognizes that the Aswan Dam is Egypt's Damoclean Sword," writes Wheeler. "There is no possibility whatever of Egypt's winning a war with Israel, for if Aswan is blown, all of inhabited Egypt is under 20 feet of water. Once the Israelis made this clear to the Egyptians, the possibility of any future Egyptian attack on Israel like that of 1948, 1967, and 1972 is gone." Does that make sense to you? Now, you make it clear to Muslim moderates that if we get nuked, they get nuked times ten. That will encourage those moderates to get rid of the extremists. I'm sorry this might offend "liberal" sensibilities, but war is hell.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    War IS hell, but racism is just racism. A lot of liberals are on the same side as Bush? On what planet. Bush has signed a bill allowing Mexican trucks on the nation's highways by next year, with a plan to inspect TWO PERCENT. That two percent keeps coming up, because that's how many of our soldiers' vehicles had armor during the invasion. What power do the 'moderates' have to stop extremists from committing horrific acts? Who gives a damn, nuke them all, according to BigMediaBlog, the racist. And it's MADD. You have to be a real fool to think that MADD has any relevance in this discussion about the advisability of US SENATORS threatening to nuke Mecca. The suggestion is so filthy with racism that it deserves censure. But the Thug Party can't think that high up on their spines.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#8)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    Yeah, BigMediaBlog, I'm sure it will work just like that. Brilliant. Must have taken a long time to come up with THAT original observation. One question, though. What if they call the bluff?

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#9)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    Oh, right, silly me - we just nuke the entire Middle East. I'm sure nobody will mind a second Holocaust. Well more like a hundred Holocausts. Whatever, nobody ever said freedom wasn't messy!

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#10)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    Will radioactive oil make my car run better?

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    You know, we ought to require wingnuts to 'adopt' Iraqi orphans as penance for their illegal, immoral, unconstitutional invasion-for-profit. Not actually raise the children whose parents they helped kill. That would be cruel -- those children have already been through having dead parents, without getting a second set JUST AS DEAD, though in this case morally, but which doesn't love them, since they are INCAPABLE of loving children other than their own (and even that's a toss-up).

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#12)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    Paul in LA: All right, I'll bite. Which of Tancredo's stupid statements were racist?

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    MediaBlog, The whole cold war, you hit me, I reduce you to smoking rubble game presupposes an enemy whose actions are dictated in part by concerns for his own safety. Mutually assured destruction (which even Herman Kahn, "the heavyweight of the Megadeath Intellectuals," according to the New Yorker, regarded as pretty crude and unlikely to prevent an attack) assumes that the person you are destroying isn't willing to be destroyed. The system collapses when you are dealing with people whose plan is already to kill themselves in order to harm you. Plus, as Paul notes, the moderates can't stop the jihadists. It's not like they all relax at the same bar together after work: Moderate: "Oh hey, before I forget: you guys can't blow anything else up or the U.S. is gonna nuke mecca, okay?" Jihadist: "Aw shucks, what am I going to do with this suitcase nuke? This thing cost a fortune!"

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#14)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    c-law - You are correct, MAD assumed a rational enemy, and an enemy that was a nation state, and a military with command and control functions. That doesn't match what we have today. But, in the long run the moderates, who may not have a drink after work with the terrorists, must identify and stop the terrorists. They are the only group that can do that. Unfortunately, what happened in London doesn't bode well for the future. Worse, the main response from the Moslem community continues to be concern over backlash, rather than a proactive, “What can we do?” So we can expect the current cycle to continue. Sooner or later the west will have to decide if it is willing to use its over whelming military power, or suffer ever bigger and deadlier attacks. That's a sad thought.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#15)
    by theologicus on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    An even sadder thought is that some people will apparently never get it. I guess it's a really, really difficult thought that using our overwhelming military power -- in ways that we have already done in Iraq and may soon do elsewhere in the Middle East -- will cause us to suffer ever bigger and deadlier attacks. But this is not speculation. It's a moral certainty. I would ask to be spared the usual wingnut retort, but I know that's futile too.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    But, in the long run the moderates, who may not have a drink after work with the terrorists, must identify and stop the terrorists. They are the only group that can do that.
    ppj, I agree. But a key phrase here is "in the long run." I think many moderates are almost as confused as we are about what the hell to do. The idea that I was really taking issue with was that you can threaten these people (with threats of bombing holy sites, say) into submission. Scaring the hell out of the general middle east will only serve to unite the moderates with the jihadists in the belief that the U.S. is a lunatic, warmongering empire, that won't stop until it has conquered (read eradicated) Islam. Mediablog's post doesn't offend liberal sensibilities, it offends common sense.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    Sorry to be chatty, but I thought I'd add this as well: I really do think that our intelligence, OUR ability to fight jihadism, will improve greatly once politicians and public officials stop going on radio shows, news shows, etc., and suggesting things like nuking Musilim holy sites. I realize this is an extreme example, but in the context of current discourse, it isn't nearly as extreme as it ought to be.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#18)
    by John Mann on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    Jim said: "Sooner or later the west will have to decide if it is willing to use its over whelming military power, or suffer ever bigger and deadlier attacks." Against whom, Jim? And what makes you think Joe Muslim knows who these terrorists are? If the CIA and the military can't root 'em out and get rid of them, how can the "moderates" be expected to do it? The problem is and always has been American presence in the Middle East and virtually unqualified American support for Israel - and lately, the attacks on Iraq. The Crusade is all about imperialism, domination and oil, Jim, and only someone with head firmly planted up a$$ will argue this. Oh, and here is an article in which "radical Muslims" condemn the killing of civilians by terrorists.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    PPJ...how have we made the terrorism problem better by pulverizing Iraq with our military might? It appears to me that Tancredo et al are not interested in anything except making sure the "peace dividend" from the Soviet Union's demise never materializes. Our industries need enemies and so our friends of industry have to create them. Funny how the tool we used to defeat the Soviet menace (the radical Muslims) then turned around and became that menace, isn't it? And we never got to cut the military budget or even hold it steady. Whose interest does it serve for their to be a threat to our security? Think about that for a bit...

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    John Mann, a minor point, but the problem isn't just our Middle East presence, support for Israel, or Iraq. It's also just the fact we exist. They have legitimate reasons for being pissed at us, but not pissing them off doesn't mean you'll be left alone -- just that they'll kill you last. The radical Islamists we're talking about don't believe in live and let live. That's something we'd have to deal with regardless of our actions around the world. Of course the CIA and military can root them out -- we'd just have to kill everybody around to do it effectively. I know the liberal view is we indiscriminately kill women and children, target civilians everywhere; I don't think it's true. We're the American military, the best-trained, certainly the best equipped killing machine on the planet. We could turn Iraq into a parking lot -- actually a gas station would be a better analogy -- in about ten minutes. But that would be stupid and abhorrent. For all the talk about what amoral murderers we are, it's obvious we've taken many casualties in our attempts to spare life. If we targeted civilians and didn't care about loss of innocent life, why'd we lose so many lives fighting house to house when we could just blow them all up?

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    Scott...of course we could have spared a lot more lives by not invading Iraq in the first f-ing place. Jeeeezus, man what makes you guys tick anyway?

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    Ernesto, true, but so what? It's got nothing to do with my point.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#23)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    Interesting case in Malaysia. An offshoot of Islam erected a giant teapot on their grounds to symbolize the healing wonderfulness of pure water. The local Muslims, feeling aggrieved, sent thirty men with Molotov cocktails to attack the apostates. There are two lessons: One is that's more crazies in one place at one time than American Christians have been able to manage in thirty years. And the other is that trying to figure out a way to be safe by not offending these guys is going to take a lot of time.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    p.s. what do you mean by 'you guys'. I take it you mean supporters of the war. Where did I say I supported the war? I simply commented on (1) one of the facets of radical Islam and (2) our ability to root out terrorists.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    Scott, It has everything to do with your point. And by "you guys", I mean all those that have used this BS talking point before. So if I break into your house to rob it then hold you and your family hostage, do I expect kudos from you for not killing you all in the process?

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    I listened to the link & I fail to see where he 'self destructed'.... He's just talking about fighting fire with fire. Too bad we can't get some crazy to fly a plane in there (Mecca) during the prayer hour! wg.... Good job of quoting Randy Newman. Good song and even more on the money now then when it was written in the 70's! bigmediablog... Good post... makes too much sense for most on here to comprehend. As an ex member of the Strategic Air Command, I realize that MAD did work. Our enemies knew that if they F-ed with us... they'd die. Paul in LA LA ...Everyone that disagrees with you isn't automatically a racist! And... no mention of GW stealing the election this time. Good job ...keep on those meds. BTW - MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) and MAD - (Mutually Assured Destruction) are two different things. Try reading up before you blog. And as far as some of us taking care of orphaned Iraqis goes... I'll be for that as soon as you & your kind agree to take those prisoners we treat so badly at Gitmo into your house...deal? John Mann -- And what makes you think Joe Muslim knows who these terrorists are? I'm sure many do. It would be pretty hard to have a group of radicals meeting next door and you not know about it...wouldn't it?

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    Ernetsto... uh, it's not a talking point. John Mann made a comment that the CIA and military can't root out and get rid of terrorists; I responded that we could, but we'd have to level neighborhoods to do it, and we don't. Now, if you break into my house to rob it then hold me and my family hostage, you shouldn't expect kudos from me for not killing us all in the process, but if I say you did, feel free to contradict me.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    It would be pretty hard to have a group of radicals meeting next door and you not know about it...wouldn't it?
    Are you saying Bush is incompetent for not catching the 9/11 hijackers while they were in the U.S.?

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    Ernesto... No...I'm not. First of all... They weren't LIVING 'next door' to Bush. And secondly... they arrived here & were training under Clinton's watch! Any more questions?

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    Scott...I have heard your argument several times before so it one of the talking points that Iraq war supporters have used. What it is saying is that we should be commended for not killing everyone, since we could, and since that would be an effective means of "rooting out terrorists". The fact is we pretty much did this in Fallujah and didn't accomplish much except to probably motivate more people to take up arms against us.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    And secondly... they arrived here & were training under Clinton's watch!
    August 6, 2001 was more than six months after the current regime claimed power.
    Any more questions?
    From the 2001 memo: After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington... Nope, no more questions...it's all Clinton's fault. Let's nuke him along with the ragheads. I see the light now.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    It's also just the fact we exist
    Odd, I don't remeber us ever having problems w/ Middle Eastern muslim terrorists prior to WWII, and the start of our aggressive cold war foreign policies and the formation of Israel. The radical muslims never seemed to mind our existence for the 150+ years prior to then. I don't buy it Scott. Fundamentalists of all stripes hate freedom, yes. But our freedom (whats left of it), or merely our existence, isn't the cause of the terror problem. It's our foreign policies of the last 50 odd years, and the bloody thirst for power of the ME/muslim crazies and the american/neo-con crazies. 99% of the world just wants peace and prosperity. It's the greedy 1% who want more money, more power; and will kill thousands in a blink to get it. As for Tancredo, put him in with the crazies. Nuking solves nothing, ever.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    Thankfully, there are responsible adults to think about horrific scenarios.
    When you qualify that sentence with the phrase responsible adults, you exclude Tancredo from consideration. As noted elsewhere, MAD is a game with rational players who are assumed to want to survive. With an irrational player who would prefer to die in order to do damage, the use of nuclear weapons is practically assured. Most defense analysts agree that a "tactical" nuclear war will invariably escalate into a global strategic nuclear war. Unlike Tancredo, there are people qualified to think about these "unthinkable" things at some level of sophistication for a living; see the website of the Federation of American Scientists, for example.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    My father is a moderate muslim, and he wouldn't even begin to go about meeting a terrorist, much less being in on their plans. The idea is laughable. I am an environmental activist. Don't know a single person in ELF. How many of you moderate christians had info on that Rudolph abortion bomber guy? The problem is that people you are ignorant of muslims and middle eastern country see it all as some sort of monolithic group. And when you identify a group by the characteristics of individuals, isn't that the very definition of racism? Who you not be horrified if someone said on t.v. "the next time a christian extremist bombs an abortion clinic, our government should bomb a few evangelic churches, or maybe the vatican?" That would clearly be bigoted as the vast majority of people who hold these places sacred have nothing to do with the crime. In Tancredo's case, he is not even able to differentiate countries. If any muslim extremist attacks, we bomb Saudi Arabian holy sites. Because when one arab misbehaves, all should be punished. That is insane and racist.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#35)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    JB. Eric Rudolph hid in the woods because he knew he couldn't get away with living among people who knew him. Nobody said he had done a good thing, he had not attended a church which frequently preached on abortion clinic bombings. He had not been sent abroad to learn more about abortion clinic bombings. No state sponsored him or sheltered him. Nice to know you know no terrorists, or wouldn't know they were terrorists. Not the point. Nice dodge. The question is those who support them. Charities? Inflammatory speeches at Friday services? Anybody you know have a kid who went to Pakistan recently? Board struggles at your local mosque bring out the crazies? People going around muttering that sharia should be supplement US law? None of that, with the possible exception of a dirty charity, is illegal. It is, however, worthy of investigation. The ball's in your court.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    Odd, I don't remeber us ever having problems w/ Middle Eastern muslim terrorists prior to WWII That's quite a revealing comment. So many here seem to be quite ignorant of history. With an irrational player who would prefer to die in order to do damage, the use of nuclear weapons is practically assured. I'm sorry this isn't clear enough for you. The extremists are nuts, and I don't consider them to be the "rational player". The "rational players" in this case are those who don't want to die, and I'm sure there are a very large number of people who fit into that category. That especially includes the leaders of those countries who are living quite large in this life.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    Richard Aubrey, I am not trying to dodge anything. I am not say that there isn't a single moderate who would have some helpful information. I am saying that the vast majority of moderates have no information. So when you talk about bombing the city of mecca in retalliation for the action of an extremist, you are talking about punishing innocent people who are in no way associated with a crime. Simply for being part of the same racist and a crime against humanity. As to Rudolph, I don't pretend to be an expert in his case, but I love here in NC and it was my understanding that he was getting assistance from some in the local community. I could be wrong, but that is the way I remember it. But that is not really my point anyway, since the citizenry in Mecca have not been involved as a whole in any terrorist bombings.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#38)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    JB. I don't think Tancredo thought through his comments. But the majority of Russians living in Moscow would have had nothing to do with any nuclear strike by the USSR on the US. The presumption was that their leaders would, 1, be there, too, and, 2, not want to hazard that many people even if they weren't there. The guilt of the Muscovites was not an issue. That tactic MAD, was in part an outgrowth of the relative inaccuracy of our weapons--made up for in enormous destructive power--and various other factors which meant we didn't have any other tactics. Today, we can hit far more accurately, which means smaller weapons. So we could use conventional warheads on presidential palaces, the homes of the mad mullahs, military facilities, legislative assemblies, and send Predators roaming the skies looking for escapees on the road. No nukes are necessary. As a moral and logical issue, I wouldn't worry about it. But if we get a nuke here, morality and logic will go out the window. Everybody, but most assuredly Muslims, had better hope it doesn't happen. You can be certain that, whatever happens, we'll probably feel bad about it later.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    Ernesto, "What it is saying is that we should be commended for not killing everyone, since we could." No. What I said was, we shouldn't be saying American military is indiscriminately killing, and even targeting, civilians, because we're not. You were close to quoting me correctly, just completely wrong.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    Ernesto, "The fact is we pretty much did this in Fallujah and didn't accomplish much except to probably motivate more people to take up arms against us." By 'we pretty much did this' do you mean killing everybody in sight and flattening buildings? I'm not sure what you mean.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    Posted by BBL "He's just talking about fighting fire with fire. Too bad we can't get some crazy to fly a plane in there (Mecca) during the prayer hour!" You are disguting. You claim the right to murder millions of innocent people for the acts of a few. You also claim the right to permanently damage a religion held by 1.2 BILLION human beings, 99.9999999999% of whom are innocent of any terrorist crime. You are the UGLY AMERIKKKAN. "I realize that MAD did work. Our enemies knew that if they F-ed with us... they'd die." And who are your enemies? All 1.2, or just the ones you don't like personally? The guy who runs the 7-11, perhaps? And how about that evil Sikh who has the carwash? And those Mexicans -- they are surely the problem. And Blacks, well, some are OK, but only if they let Bush rub their bald heads. And Indians. God I hate indians. "Everyone that disagrees with you isn't automatically a racist!" No, you are a racist because of your beliefs. Believing that there is a strategy in nuking Mecca is a racist concept. It has BUPKIS to do with national security, since it would galvanize a race war on planet earth. "MAD - (Mutually Assured Destruction) are two different things." That's true, but you ex-military clowns use acronyms because spelling things out is too much trouble and doesn't look cool. JB: "And when you identify a group by the characteristics of individuals, isn't that the very definition of racism?" No, that's COLLECTIVE GUILT THEORY, which combined with fascism = Nazism. What Bush is doing is genocide, and what he is killing is large numbers of MODERATES. And the reason why? OIL (and military) PROFITS. The racism just greases the skids.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:24 PM EST
    Posted by Scott: "No. What I said was, we shouldn't be saying American military is indiscriminately killing, and even targeting, civilians, because we're not." What a hilarious LIE. Fallujah and Al Qa'im were POGROMS on civilian populations. Use of napalm (incendiaries) is a war crime. Use of D uranium-tipped shells is a war crime. Bombing out electrical and water services is a war crime. Using the MOAB on civilians is a war crime. Invading a disarmed country to install airbases is a war crime. And these crimes don't go away. NO statute of limitations. What Bush has done is genocide.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:24 PM EST
    Paul in LA "Fallujah and Al Qa'im were POGROMS on civilian populations." Back it up.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:24 PM EST
    Back it up? Inform yourself, fool. Barricading and attacking whole towns in an illegal invasion is POGROM. Where are the civilian casualty studies by CENTCOM? Didn't they know that inquests are required under international treaty (aka US law)? Where is the inquest on the actions of CENTCOM in Fallujah? Where are the independent observers? Where is the UN approval for this mission? Oh, there is none, I see. Indeed, the UN has found, formally, that this was an illegal invasion. What are the duties toward the civilian population in a LEGAL occupation? You have to look at quaint documents to find out. But here's one that's not so quaint: "Article 2 In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: • (a) Killing members of the group; • (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; • (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; • (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; • (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Article 3 The following acts shall be punishable: • (a) Genocide; • (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; • (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; • (d) Attempt to commit genocide; • (e) Complicity in genocide. Article 4 Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals." Tancredo, are you listening? "There is no more Iraq. There will be three territories." --Henry F* Kissinger, genocidist, early 2004, unaware he was being taped. Since Bush tried to put Kissinger in charge of the 9i1 investigation, it is a sure bet he is privy to the USPNAC conspiracy, and was stating that policy when quoted. That policy is GENOCIDE under the GCon. The list of war crimes is quite long; the list of pogroms on the civilian population of Iraq is growing.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#45)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:24 PM EST
    Paul in LA: I hope you are not in the customer service arena, or at the local DMV. You seem to lose your cool quickly.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:24 PM EST
    Those who are suggesting that our intelligence is about as good as it can get and that this proves the only way to stop jihadists is to blow them up are very, I hope not willfully, misinformed. An instructive case is that of Nawar Hishan, who, as a 23 year old Iraqi, helped collar 5 of the top 50 most wanted in Iraq. He had no intelligence training, no military experience, and yet he was not only "instrumental" in the capture of these Iraqis, he was also able to save the lives of a psy-ops division "numerous times," according to the officer who made contact with Hishan and helped him into the U.S. after a $10,000 bounty was placed on his head and members of his family began being picked off. The truth of the matter is that we don't know very much about the culture, language, etc. in Iraq or the larger middle east and this is doing terrible damage to our intelligence there. A 23 year old with no training shouldn't be able to upstage veteran CIA and psy-operatives, and other intelligence officials in Iraq, but that's exactly what happened. And please, no more "they hate us because we exist talk." Many would still dislike us were we not fighting an unnecessary, poorly planned war in Iraq, having not finished the job in Afghanistan, but they certainly wouldn't hate us enough to carry out suicide bombing after coordinted suicide bombing. This is basically the "they hate us for our freedoms argument," and if we can't think enough to get past that piece of partisan nonsense we are all, as Americans, in big, big trouble. To be fair (a weakness that seems to have become almost entirely unique to the liberal commenters), Hishan is ecstatic that we've removed Saddam, so he would probably disagree with me that the war was unnecesary. But he also talks about how badly American intelligence officials speak the language, and how poor their grasp of the culture is. Look back to ppj for instruction on the MAD issue. You really do need a cohesive nation-state where the leaders feel attached to the public and the public expects protection from the leaders, for this kind of thing to be even theoretically plausible.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#47)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:24 PM EST
    Paul in LA - That definition of genocide seems so vague as to be useless. Killing any person is killing part of a group, so it seems any killing is genocide. I guess that's the legal definition though. Most people are more interested in whether we're killing innocent Iraqis for being Iraqis, instead of by accident or imprecision. Also, could you provide a source for your Kissinger quote? Sorry if this is a repeat request. I could have sworn I called you on mangling and taking the quote out of context. I even remember feeling quite smug about it, but I can't find anything like that in the TL archives.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#48)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:24 PM EST
    roy - try google. Why it turns up in the comments on at least three blogs...and all authored by PiL. Busy little blogger he is.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:24 PM EST
    By 'we pretty much did this' do you mean killing everybody in sight and flattening buildings? I'm not sure what you mean.
    Yeah that's what I mean. What was the point of this excercise?

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#50)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:24 PM EST
    Theo writes:
    But this is not speculation. It's a moral certainty.
    Surely you see nothing moral in attacks upon us. Did you mean "mortal?" John Mann writes:
    Against whom, Jim?
    Well, we may need to practice a bit in this part of the world.... ;-) Sorry, but a stupid question deserves a stupid answer. c-law writes:
    Mediablog's post doesn't offend liberal sensibilities, it offends common sense.
    Unfortunately, for the ME, it offends common sense as we know it today. It doesn't offend what would be the state of the public mind should the terrorist actually kill a large number of Americans. Especially with a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon. The leaders of the ME, including the so called moderate Imams should carefully review what has happened to peoples whom have inflicted damage on the west, America in particular. The results have been truly bad for these peoples. Again unfortunately, they will look only at our responses in Korea and Vietnam without understanding the conditions of the world's geopolitics at that time. They will also look at the Lebanon Marine barracks and Somali. They are deluding themselves. Ernesto writes:
    PPJ...how have we made the terrorism problem better by pulverizing Iraq with our military might?
    Ernesto, we have covered this time and again, but I will try one more time in the vain hope that one day reality will penetrate your mind. It was thought that Iraq had WMD's. It was known they had the engineers, scientists and infrastructure to build WMD's. It was known they had used WMD's. So Iraq had to go. The purpose is to establish a democracy in the ME, provide a land base for further military ops if needed, and to secure the world's second largest oil supply, most of which goes to the ingrates of Europe. (But hey, they don't own cars, anyway.) So far Libya, Egypt, Lebanon, SA and Iraq so improvement. The hope is that democracies will provide a better life, thus fewer recruits. The English bombings worry me. Here we had people who were middle class, who had education, etc., yet blew themselves up. That argues that the issue is purely religious, and purely illogical. J.B. writes:
    That is insane and racist.
    War is insane, but I don't see it as racist, but for some, everything is racist. So be it. Look. Wars are won by breaking the political will of your opponent. You do that by killing lots and lots of them, destroying their infrastructure and ability to function as a society. And yes, that means civilians. The moderate Moslem is no different now than the moderate German was before WWII. He knows there is a problem, but he doesn’t want to become involved. Know what? He has no choice unless he wants bad things to happen.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:24 PM EST
    Posted by Wile E. Coyote: "I hope you are not in the customer service arena, or at the local DMV. You seem to lose your cool quickly." No, I'm a Roadrunner. You had to ask? You're one of the fools hauling Acme Bush's BS up the mountain of lies. Posted by roy: "That definition of genocide seems so vague as to be useless." Then you should go yell at Reagan's grave. He signed it. "Most people are more interested in whether we're killing innocent Iraqis for being Iraqis, instead of by accident or imprecision." Ask the same question about Fallujans. The answers are YES, and NO. "War is insane, but I don't see it as racist." You wouldn't. Try being on the OTHER end of the bombs and bullets -- you know, the DISARMED, not-involved-in-9i1 end. "War" -- I presume you mean this illegal occupation of a disarmed country on trumped-up lies. The Executive war power is SPECIFICALLY limited in the Constitution for a reason. An unelected cabal lying the country into war is not a Constitutional power of the Executive. It's treason.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:24 PM EST
    "The English bombings worry me. Here we had people who were middle class, who had education, etc., yet blew themselves up. That argues that the issue is purely religious, and purely illogical." HILARIOUS. The current theory over there is that the people thought they would be walking away from the act, but that the bomb maker wasn't taking chances. Religion is a matter of considerable LOGIC. It is not 'illogical.' Neither is the desire to seek REVENGE illogical. It is highly logical. Invade two countries to install airbases and oil pipelines. Now start arguing about how 'illogical' it is for people to defend their country from foreign attack. And don't forget that Dick NEVER produced a single accepted shred of evidence for his 9i1-Hussein LIES.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#53)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:24 PM EST
    Look. Wars are won by breaking the political will of your opponent.
    That's the definition of terrorism.
    You do that by killing lots and lots of them, destroying their infrastructure and ability to function as a society.
    terrorists by definition are not states. Bombing houses of worship will never do anything except prove the point of extremists and recruit more followers. (See AME Baptist church burnings.) Actually, you win wars by defeating armies, not killing innocent civilians. In VN we kept killing innocent civilians and we lost the war. We lost in VN even tho we killed more of them, and they didn't destroy our infrastructure, and they didn't make our society disfunctional. The majority of muslims around the world (over 1 billion), are productive members of whatever political regime they live under. Confusing nation states with religions is one of the reasons this admin is losing in iraq. That and attacking a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Self-Destructs on Radio (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:24 PM EST
    "Article 2 In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:" "There is no more Iraq. There will be three territories." --Henry F* Kissinger, genocidist, early 2004, unaware he was being taped. We already know Kissinger believes he has a right to commit genocide, just as Ariel Sharon does, just as Hussein did, just as Bush does. The genocidal acts of dictators are no longer judged on 'vague' standards, their sense of impunity aside. War crimes laws have no statute of limitations. Neither does genocide. You can all expect to have yourselves and Genghiz