Tancredo: Take out their holy sites

...either that or he's positively insane. Respond to the work of some extremists by bombing a site that's considered holy by the moderates as well and you'll instantly (and quite justly) receive the wrath of the entire Muslim world and quite a few other countries to boot. What a brilliant plan: Hey, let's prevent something like 9/11 from happening again by threatening to do something in response that will bring a billion allies to their cause...Wow.

 

Would blowing up their holy sites not be terror? Or is it just 'shock and awe'?

 

Tancredo told WND in an exclusive question-and-answer session he would be happy to back off his controversial remarks about threatening Islamic holy sites – if something would offer an alternative.

 

This man appears to be genuine to me, unlike Romney, McCain, and Giuliani.

 

Uh...not blow them up? That would seem rather obvious.

 

1. Locate all terrorist training camps and bomb them. I mean, bomb them, regardless of whether there are women and children in the camps.

2. To combatants. No prisoners. No quarters given, no quarters taken. Anyone within the fire zone is to be considered an enemy, period, regardless of age or gender. If the civilian population doesn't want to be hit, then tell them to move. No hamleting. Just move, but only after thorough inspection and screening. Women and children first. Men last.

3. Nothing is to be sacred. If the enemy retreats into a mosque, raze it, if he hides in holy places, bomb them.

4. In the homeland, monitor all Muslims, all Muslim organizations, all Muslim mosques, all Muslim finances. Close down any mosque that has a history of allowing radical clerics to preach in their pulpits, same with organizations, ban the CAIR.

5. In Immigration, tighten exit and entry of those coming from Muslim countries, or heavily Muslim countries, or those with ongoing Muslim rebellions who want to come in to America and are Muslims, like the Philippines.

6. If a terrorist is unavoidably captured alive, then he is to be treated as a criminal, not a political prisoner which seems to be the status of these scum right now. No rights. No visitation. No media. No prayer rugs. No qu'ran.

7. If a terrorist is able to sneak in despite the tight controls on those coming from Muslim areas or Muslim dominated areas, and is caught, shoot him/her on sight.

That felt good.

Apologies to those who feel offended, I just had to let go of some steam.

 

That's the way we've been doing it. Doesn't seem to be working.

 

You seem to have an awful lot of absolute knowledge on the subject.

Simply because radical Muslims have hacked off heads, disemboweled people, and committed other such atrocities does not prove that Muslims, or even radical Muslims, will do so in the future. Moderate Muslim children and non-Muslim children WILL be drugged and indoctrinated by radicals? How do you know that this WILL happen? You don't think that maybe people would start objecting if their children were drugged and taught to use an AK-47? If that's the radical Muslims' brilliant evil plan, then I'm pretty sure we can sleep easy tonight. But maybe we should make sure we don't let our kids use AK-47s, just in case. Because clearly you've seen visions that told you that my moderate Muslim friends (and yes, I actually have quite a few of them) are going to turn and slit my throat when a jihad they don't believe in begins, despite the fact that they're more concerned about human rights than any other groups of people I know (including Christians). Why would they "denounce" Islam? Why not just denounce the interpretation of those nasty radical Muslims as being false? Exactly how do you KNOW that these moderate Muslims will choose to join the radicals? I have yet to see a moderate Muslim who believed the killing of innocent people to be okay if it furthers the cause of the jihad, but if you'll look to the post above yours you'll see pinoybaptist proposing the killing of innocent people to further his cause.

I certainly agree that the current policy isn't working, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the reason it isn't working is simply that Mecca hasn't been threatened yet.

 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you've missed the stories of kids, yes KIDS, being recruited as suicide bombers.

If you are aware of this practice and still hold to your ideology, then all I can say is that you are emulating an ostrich!

 

It would shock the terrorists to the bottom of their souls, because they adamantly believe their god will NOT allow the destruction of their holiest site, but I can't remember which one. It would mean that their god was not real.

No it would not be an act of terror, but a necessary and vitally important act of war. Do not confuse our actions with terrorism.

 

But if they did it to a church, it would be terror, right?

 

Here, I'll assume you mean the jihadists: Every act of savagery they commit is terrorism. Terrorism is their modus operandi. We in America teach our children to be good citizens, to read, write, do math, etc. They teach their children to hate. To hate Israeli's, to hate the west, to hate each other, and to kill.

Here, I'll assume you mean our troops: If they bombed a church full of terrorists, it would be another legit act of war, IMO. Their churches are not holy, but are used as gathering places for terribly evil men to plot destruction of man.

 

By jihadist, I assume you mean muslim, seeing as that is who gathers at their churches. So did I miss the announcement and we are at war with Islam?

 

Aren't we? Oh I guess it's not politically correct to identify Islam, the religion of terrorists, as what it is.

 

PC run amok!

If anyone ever doubts the fate of this country, should the liberals get control of all three facets of gov't (Legislative, Judicial, Executive), these discussions of laxity toward the terrorist instigators should remove any question.

Granted, I see our fate as basically the same with either party in control, but with the "conservatives" (does such really exist politically anymore?) the demise will be slower, AND nicer. (The liberal faction really is a vicious bunch!)

At any rate, there IS a bit of hope if common sense gets back into politics, but I ain't holding my breath.

 

Could be, the current policy has been the policy all along and it has never worked. Common sense would then of course dictate that we use a more extreme form of the same failed policy. 'Logically' that should solve the problem the continued use of the failed policy has caused. Sure sounds reasonable don't it?

 

Children are treated the same or worse in African countries but we don't invade and occupy them do we? We dig for their diamonds, mine for their gold, and pump their oil out of the ground while funding and arming this side and that, which ever side happens to be "friendly" to the so called "American" (corporate) interests at the moment. Always being careful to keep the populations (barbarians) fighting amongst themselves, to keep them from uniting and tossing the greedy culprits most to blame for their miseries out on their ear. It use to be said we were doing this to stop the spread of communism, now it's terrorism. Same old plays from the same old players wrapped in new cloth, packaged for global consumption and sold to American consumers as if it were their patriotic duty to protect what has now become international corporate (greed) interests. We consumers of course ultimately end up paying the price for the corporate warfare/welfare state with our own blood and treasure.