State Dpmt: Tancredo ‘absolutely crazy.’
By on Aug 4th, 2007 at 12:42 am
State Dpmt: Tancredo ‘absolutely crazy.’
Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) today stood by his previous argument that the U.S. should threat to bomb Mecca in order to “deter” future attacks on the homeland. Tom Casey, a deputy spokesman for the State Department, told CNN that the congressman’s comments were “reprehensible” and “absolutely crazy.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Steve King
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Tancredo in ‘08!
“Reprehensible” and “Absolutely crazy!”
How could you go wrong?
That’s a campaign that’s sure to sink soon. Good widdence to bad wubbish!
August 4th, 2007 at 12:44 amGreat idea, Tom.
August 4th, 2007 at 12:45 amRemember what a great “deterrent” it was about a year and a half ago when the Golden Dome mosque was bombed? Didn’t that kind of escaltate the Iraqi Civil war that we are policing?
Wow. My Rep is reprehensible and absolutely crazy, but he pretty much keeps it quiet. Whew. Never thought Sali would look halfway acceptable. :}
August 4th, 2007 at 12:46 amI’ve been saying that for the past 2 years!!!!!!!!!!!
I should be a politician!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
August 4th, 2007 at 12:47 am*blinks*
….
*blinks*
Please don’t give Dubya any more terrible ideas. I’ve noticed that every loony idea I’ve come across, it takes only a month or two before G-Dub decides it’s a great idea. I hope it’s not the case with this one.
~Sean
August 4th, 2007 at 12:58 amYeah, and Tommy the Tank is a certified racist pig, didn’tcha know?
August 4th, 2007 at 12:59 amUnfortunately, as long as we continue to broadcast that we will not bomb religious sites, the enemy knows where to hide.
To win a war, you kill the enemy. To kill the enemy, you destroy them where they are.
Nothing should be off the table as a target.
I’ve seen plenty of WW2 era photos of bombed out churches.
August 4th, 2007 at 12:59 amThe correct term is “batshit” crazy.
August 4th, 2007 at 12:59 amDo unto others as you would have others do unto you.
August 4th, 2007 at 1:01 amWhat little chance Tancredo had of winning the nomination he just lost with his ridiculous comments. They were irresponsible. He is extremist in his views. So much that the State Department has distanced itself from his silly comments.
August 4th, 2007 at 1:01 amWhat little chance Tancredo had of winning the nomination he just lost with his ridiculous comments. They were irresponsible. He is extremist in his views. So much that the State Department has distanced itself from his foolish comments.
August 4th, 2007 at 1:02 amso using that line of thinking we should bomb the religious and holy sites (often thought of as santuary during war times) as retaliation for every bombing that is setting a very unsettling precedent. I dont’ think it would be wise to start that trend. the emphasis here is to not become just like your enemy.
August 4th, 2007 at 1:02 amo. bigfoot those bombed out churches were by the nazis during their sourched earth policy while marching into Russia. Do we really want to use those tactics?
August 4th, 2007 at 1:03 amumm Bob when did al queda bomb an american church? And is one whole religion responsible for every member’s transgressions? So if the oklahoma city bombers were catholic we should bomb the vatican?
August 4th, 2007 at 1:06 amWonder what he would say if they, whoever they are, decided to bomb the Vatican, or any of the other ‘pillars’ of our Country. In responce to what we are doing over there. If he wanted trouble, he would get more than he or they would know what to do if the bombed Mecca.
August 4th, 2007 at 1:07 amTancredo wants to ignite global nuclear WWIII, because that is what would transpire if Mecca and Medina were bombed by US.
August 4th, 2007 at 1:08 amwell if tancredo believes in the rapture, Jay, that is probably what he wants. I
August 4th, 2007 at 1:09 amI’ve seen plenty of WW2 era photos of bombed out churches.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — August 4, 2007 @ 12:59 am
I keep telling you guys… lock the f-ing doors…
Just out of curiosity, having seen the photos, what point are you making? It’s a good idea to bomb churches?
August 4th, 2007 at 1:12 amHe’s got an idea, if the Islamic fundamentalists detonate a nuclear device on US soil.
August 4th, 2007 at 1:14 amIt is not surprising that Tancredo would say something like this considering his often hostile and racist attitude towards Hispanics in relation to the immigration debate.
August 4th, 2007 at 1:14 amTancredo wants to ignite global nuclear WWIII, because that is what would transpire if Mecca and Medina were bombed by US.
No, Islamic fundamentalists destroying New York or Washington is what would ignite WWIII.
August 4th, 2007 at 1:22 amIf US bombed Mecca, then the entire Islamic population of the world would freak out, so instead of having a few terrorists it would create millions of them.
August 4th, 2007 at 1:23 amoff topic…
August 4th, 2007 at 1:23 amAny moment Sec of State CA will announce her decision of what to do about the voting machines…
details:
http://www.bradblog.com/
“Just out of curiosity, having seen the photos, what point are you making? It’s a good idea to bomb churches?
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — August 4, 2007 @ 1:12 am”
When fighting a war, you leave no stone unturned. Especially in an essentially guerilla war.
When we carpetbombed Germany and Italy, and nuked Japan, did we find some way to leave the churches, temples, and other religious sites undamaged? I don’t think so.
In war, you kill the enemy where they are. Utterly and entirely.
Right now, religious missionaries from Korea are being held hostage and murdered by the Taliban. Radical Muslims have no respect for our churches or religions, we are nothing but infidels, they have told us so.
We should treat them the same way.
August 4th, 2007 at 1:26 am“It is not surprising that Tancredo would say something like this considering his often hostile and racist attitude towards Hispanics in relation to the immigration debate.
Comment by Probus — August 4, 2007 @ 1:14 am”
Evidence please?
August 4th, 2007 at 1:27 amSen Tancredo and his brain dead supporters in this thread have no clue what they’re talking about.
For decades, the weapons of choice for the IRA in Ireland were bombs in what London considered terrorist attacks. Mind you, most Irish -including those in the IRA- are Catholic. But never did London consider bombing the Vatican.
That the idea of bombing Mecca is even considered, reveals the absolute lack of perspective of the repercussions of such an attack on the holiest site for 25% of the world’s population.
Do these morons really think Muslims hate them? After bombing Mecca they will find out what hate and anger really look like.
August 4th, 2007 at 1:30 amWhomever is elected in 2008 will be President in 2012, widely regarded as the year the world will come to an end.
Notice how the Republican Candidates try to out-do each other when it comes to torture and war?
Bush is just a War Time President. The Republican Contenders all want to be the Apocalypse President.
August 4th, 2007 at 1:36 amComment by chad — August 4, 2007 @ 1:06 am
umm Bob when did al queda bomb an american church?
Depends on your definition of church.
And is one whole religion responsible for every member’s transgressions?
No. One religion, I thought, was about treating others how you want to be treated. Been bombed lately?
So if the oklahoma city bombers were catholic we should bomb the vatican?
No.
1st response didn’t post.
August 4th, 2007 at 1:37 amFaire > Hillary Clinton wants to end the world too, since she wants to attack Iran, and most likely she will be president from 2009 to end of 2012. The first and last female president of the United States.
August 4th, 2007 at 1:41 amOKC Bombing shows the extreme lack of support for our government from the inside. Terrorism does not depend on religion alone.
August 4th, 2007 at 1:45 amTo stay consistant, Tancredo would have to cluster bomb Vail.
That’ll show those Christians not to mess with us.
August 4th, 2007 at 1:52 amI’m pretty sick of this stuff guys. Seriously. What part of “don’t kill nobody,” don’t you fools get?
That applies double to you, Theo.
August 4th, 2007 at 2:23 amDestroying Mecca might be worth it.
Without Mecca there could be no haj, without the haj you are not a proper muslim, if you are not a proper muslim you cant get into paradise, if you cant get into paradise there will no afterlife with 72 raisins.
The savages would probably visit anyway, believing allah would protect them from radiation, and game over.
August 4th, 2007 at 2:24 amO.Bigfoot,……………..
aw, forget it.
don’t feed the trolls
August 4th, 2007 at 2:30 amTancredo probably said this to get some badly needed attention considering he has been all but ignored by the media. Most of the attention goes to Guiliani, McCain, Romney and Thompson. His campaign is probably happy that he even got noticed by the media. Though being called “crazy” by the State Department didn’t help him. If anything his comments have backfired on him.
August 4th, 2007 at 2:30 am@ 33. Agreed.
August 4th, 2007 at 2:45 amThe 101st Keyboardists and other blowhards (like Tancredo) are always day dreaming of death and destruction, and always advocate (with the utmost courage, of course) putting someone else’s life in danger so the can feel safe.
That even Bush’s Department of State has called Tancredo’s comments “reprehensible” and “absolutely crazy” should be an indication that his comments belong to the loony fringe, and anyone agreeing with them does too.
August 4th, 2007 at 2:47 amSince most conservatives realize that the State Department is not necessarily on board with the rest of the United States, I would say the State Department comments are somewhat less important than Tancredo’s.
There is always room for diplomacy and diplomats. However, effective diplomacy must be backed up by something more.
Theodore Roosevelt’s “Big Stick Diplomacy” comes to mind.
August 4th, 2007 at 2:50 amGreat idea, Tom !
August 4th, 2007 at 2:53 amYeah, let’s do that.
Then even our own Moslems will turn on us.
But first, we’d need to nuke the vatican, then it would be fair play.
August 4th, 2007 at 3:30 am“No, Islamic fundamentalists destroying New York or Washington is what would ignite WWIII.” – Comment by m12
Such an action would precipitate global chaos, but not WWIII. “War” requires governments, armies, and borders.
With a competent Administration, an attack on the US would be followed by precise, powerful, and sustained response, with conventional military where possible, special ops, and intel operations, instead opting to wreck our alliances, break our military, devastate our democracy, and pillage our treasury
The proper response was started in Afghanistan before your idiot-in-chief and his chickenhawk neocon handlers completely destroyed the opportunity.
Too bad your lack of a soul makes it impossible for you to acknowledge this reality.
August 4th, 2007 at 3:39 amWhen we carpetbombed Germany and Italy, and nuked Japan, did we find some way to leave the churches, temples, and other religious sites undamaged? I don’t think so.
In war, you kill the enemy where they are. Utterly and entirely.
Right now, religious missionaries from Korea are being held hostage and murdered by the Taliban. Radical Muslims have no respect for our churches or religions, we are nothing but infidels, they have told us so.
We should treat them the same way.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — August 4, 2007 @ 1:26 am
Yes, Bigfoot-in-the-Mouth, radical Muslims have no respect for us. But not all Muslims are radical, and bombing Mecca would only turn many moderate Muslims into radicals, in a greater degree than the US invasion of Iraq (which had nothing to do with 9/11) did.
August 4th, 2007 at 4:53 amAs for the American treatment of Italy, Germany, and Japan, these countries had already declared war on the US. Moreover, General MacArthur and others nixed the idea of bombing Japan’s ancient capital of Kyoto, because of all the culturally important temples and shrines there. I haven’t heard that any Muslim countries have declared war on the US, even if some of their individual citizens have. Besides, the Bush and Cheney families are so close to the rulers of Saudi Arabia, where Mecca is located.
But finally I maybe could support bombing Mecca, as long as you and Rep. Tancredo ride the bomb, a la Slim Pickens in the last scene of the movie “Dr. Strangelove.” How about it, Bigfoot?
Pakistani Protests against Obama
> an idiot
Clinton leaves Nukes on the Table
> Insane
Tancredo an Inspiration to the Criminally Insane that They, Too, Could run for President
August 4th, 2007 at 6:39 am> Insane Moron
41/ MY GOD WHAT A CHOICE TO VOTE IN THE US
August 4th, 2007 at 6:40 amI really think the Democrats are misunderstanding the mood of the American people. Is Senator Clinton saying she would entertain the option of nuking Pakistan or Afghanistan? Wouldn’t that kill a lot of innocents and spread radioactive materials around on the grass that cows eat, putting it into milk and thence into local children, increasing their chances of contracting cancer? Isn’t Obama absolutely right that this is one instance in which nukes are useless for tactical purposes?
http://www.juancole.com/
August 4th, 2007 at 6:47 amTo my memory, the US planned to bomb Kyoto with the A-bomb (around 1700 shrines in Kyoto). Someone in the State Dept. (I do not remember his name, alas), said it was not a good idea. Then they went to Hiroshima (hardly better idea, by the way)
August 4th, 2007 at 7:17 amWhen fighting a war, you leave no stone unturned. Especially in an essentially guerilla war.
Comment by O. Bigfoot
Oh, what a genius. I guess throwing napalm all over the Vietnamese jungle did make US win that war.
These idiots keep thinking this is a religious based war.
Jihadists and neocons, you cant tell the difference from these people.
The only difference is that necons dont enlist in wars.
August 4th, 2007 at 8:44 amThen they went to Hiroshima (hardly better idea, by the way)
Comment by Jean Ollivier
The US had, at least, the good judgment to bomb military sites, instead of economical (Tokyo) and cultural (Kyoto) centres.
August 4th, 2007 at 8:47 amI had to go to Free Republic because I knew Tommy would be getting alot of support. They never disappoint.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1876056/posts#comment?q=1
August 4th, 2007 at 9:08 am‘American Congressman and presidential Candidate threatens to Bomb Mecca.” Is this the headlines we want in the Arab and Muslim press?
August 4th, 2007 at 9:12 amBin Laden and the terrorists are a small minority of the World’s 1 billion Muslims. A crusade against Islam did not succeed in the middle ages…it won’t succeed today.
We need to gain support from the moderate muslims . While we need to protect ourselves from the fundamentalist, anti-modernist, intolerant faction of muslims….Tancredo’s comments are not helpfull. They play right in to Bin Laden’s propaganda.
Badger couldn’t be more right. Talk like bombing a Muslim religious center just fueled the extremist ranks untold numbers.
August 4th, 2007 at 9:39 amJeez, badger, don’t be making sense, the rightists will call you unhinged. Any competent president would have rolled up the terrorist network in 6 months instead of attacking a defenseless country and getting our military broken and our reputation besmirched worldwide. Of course, Republicans dont elect competent governments, because they have to prove that government doesn’t work. All they are doing is proving that Repiblican government doesn’t work, thus guaranteeing another 5 decades of liberal rule, which always saves us, although it may be too late this time. Patriotism is a liberal concept. nationalism is the conservative take on it, and brings us Nazis and that ilk.
August 4th, 2007 at 9:40 amWhats also very disturbing is this republican apparently doesn’t know Mecca is in ally and friend’s country, and to whom we are about to sell billions of dollars worth of sophisticated weaponry.
August 4th, 2007 at 9:55 amTancredo is an idiot, but TP is reporting on a comment made last Feb. Why?
Trying to distract you silly libs from Obamas more recent comments about bombing Pakistan maybe?
Sheeple, sheeple, sheeple.
August 4th, 2007 at 10:02 amTroll,
August 4th, 2007 at 10:14 amHe must have remade the comment, its even on the Fox News website. Yes, Obama said a really stupid thing, but the question is how does he react to his mistakes. The really crazy part is that McCain and Mit “two Gitmos” Romney is saying Obama is too gung ho.
I should be a politician!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by Theophrastos — August 4, 2007 @ 12:47 am
Yet all you are is a pointless a**hole. How curious…
August 4th, 2007 at 10:17 amtroll !
August 4th, 2007 at 10:29 amtoday stood by his previous argument
What part of today don’t you get?
More and more officials are threatening other countries as our troops get killed in the Iraq Civil War. Now both Iraq leader/US leaders are vacationing with their families as our troops die. US leaders have made the United States look like the real Axis of Evil. Let’s see if the great State of Colorado feel Rep. Tom Tancredo is voicing their opinion.
August 4th, 2007 at 10:30 ammornin TRoS!
August 4th, 2007 at 10:30 amNice troll bashing, don’t get any on you!
I respectfully disagree. The proper response to a crime is an investigation, and police work. Was there a police investigation into 9/11? no. Evidence was destroyed without any real forensics investigation. How many thousands of innocent Afghanistanis have lost their lives or been maimed because we responded to a crime by invading a country?
Afghanistan offered to extradite Bin Laden upon a showing of proof of his involvement in 9/11. We invaded instead.
August 4th, 2007 at 10:30 amThe US had, at least, the good judgment to bomb military sites, instead of economical (Tokyo) and cultural (Kyoto) centres.
Comment by Juan C — August 4, 2007 @ 8:47 am
You’re right about the US not bombing the cultural center of Kyoto. However, while Tokyo was not nuked, a major part of it had already been destroyed in the fire-bombings of March 1945. More Japanese actually died in that fire-bombing than in Hiroshima, but, of course, the survivors of the A-bomb attack have had to deal with more serious, long-term effects.
August 4th, 2007 at 10:36 amThe reason that most of these Regressive Right Wing Republicans are running for President, is to build up a War Chest of Donations! “MONEY” They see the handwriting on the wall, knowing after the ‘08 election, any power they might have had, is history! Those donations not spent, will help heal their wounded pride because they also know K street won’t be clamoring for them!
August 4th, 2007 at 10:37 amMorning, cerious.
Is it my imagination, or has the man a trollo thing here been getting more, how shall we say, intense of late? Seems like on giant street fight some days.
August 4th, 2007 at 10:43 amTRoS, yeah, the threads are knee deep in troll feces these days.
August 4th, 2007 at 10:49 amI’ve been lurking and posting less cause it takes so much time to get past the topic jacking asses.
Going up to the San Juan Islands today for a four day respite.
See you all on Wed next week.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — August 4, 2007 @ 10:30 am
BnF…was 911 a crime, or an act of war?? I thought we invaded Afghanistan BECAUSE the Taliban would not surrender Bin Laden. I must say though, that I couldn’t say who I believe less…the Taliban or the Bush Administration.
August 4th, 2007 at 10:51 amThat being said, I want to offer a Western Influenced value judgement. The Taliban are EVIL. Any group who blows up priceless Buddist archeological statues…and prefers Women and their children to starve, rather than get jobs when their husbands are killed, need to be fought against (intelligently). Perhaps I’ve been reading too much Khaled Hosseini lately.
I’ve seen plenty of WW2 era photos of bombed out churches.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — August 4, 2007 @ 12:59 am
Wasn’t it terrible the destruction wrought on the old university towns of Cambridge and Heidelberg in WWII?
Oh… wait, that’s right… there wasn’t any. Because the Germans and English agreed to spare those historical treasures of little military value. What a bunch of moonbats.
August 4th, 2007 at 10:54 amI guess that means many on the right are absolutely crazy… aye bushies?
August 4th, 2007 at 11:10 amI’m pretty sick of this stuff guys. Seriously. What part of “don’t kill nobody,†don’t you fools get?
That applies double to you, Theo.
Comment by God — August 4, 2007 @ 2:23 am
I’ve never seen it put better than this:
God Angrily Clarifies ‘Don’t Kill’ Rule
August 4th, 2007 at 11:22 amAfghanistan offered to extradite Bin Laden upon a showing of proof of his involvement in 9/11. We invaded instead.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — August 4, 2007 @ 10:30 am
And, of course, while bin Laden is on the FBI’s most wanted list, there is no mention of the 9/11 attacks because, as one FBI person said, there is no hard evidence linking bin Laden to the attacks.
August 4th, 2007 at 11:24 amThe Taliban are EVIL. Any group who blows up priceless Buddist archeological statues…and prefers Women and their children to starve, rather than get jobs when their husbands are killed, need to be fought against (intelligently). Perhaps I’ve been reading too much Khaled Hosseini lately.
Those books are pretty accurate.
August 4th, 2007 at 11:25 amGoing up to the San Juan Islands today for a four day respite.
See you all on Wed next week.
Comment by RUCerious
My sister and her family have lived on Lopez since 1978, and visits up there have always been the best part of the year. Lucky you!
August 4th, 2007 at 11:29 amComment by Chris Wolf
I’ve never actually read anything on that blog before, although I’ve certainly heard of it. I thought Pee’s friend Ralph was thoroughly batsh!t, but just about everyone commenting on the Tancredo thread is in the same league.
Loons.
August 4th, 2007 at 11:31 amComment by Briseadh na Faire — August 4, 2007 @ 10:30 am
And I also agree with the beginning of this post. What was done to us was a crime, not an act of war committed by a nation state. It does not matter what they call it, it was still a crime and should have been pursued as such.
Sending a small Delta Force-type team (pick your branch which covert group you want to do it) to try to assassinate bin Laden is one ting, but sending inthe Army to invade is another. Personally, I believe that the invasion of Aghanistan following 9/11 had more to do with setting up the invasion of Iraq (an administration goal from the beginning) than it did with going after the people who attacked us. They even illegally and unconstitutionally diverted funding to begin planning the Iraq invasion. And, of course, if they killed bin Laden right away, they wouldn’t have as much of an excuse to leave our troops there. So they had to do a slipshod job of executing the war there, otherwise Saddam might still be in power today. And Bush would never have settled for that. I’m even willing to go so far as to say that had the attacks of 9/11 never happened, Saddam would still be dead today, because Bush and Cheney would have made up a reason to invade and remove him.
August 4th, 2007 at 11:33 amTrying to distract you silly libs from Obamas more recent comments about bombing Pakistan maybe?
Sheeple, sheeple, sheeple.
Comment by Troll — August 4, 2007 @ 10:02 am
————-
Heh. Yup.
August 4th, 2007 at 11:38 amDestroying Mecca might be worth it.
Without Mecca there could be no haj, without the haj you are not a proper muslim, if you are not a proper muslim you cant get into paradise, if you cant get into paradise there will no afterlife with 72 raisins.
The savages would probably visit anyway, believing allah would protect them from radiation, and game over.
Comment by Cobra — August 4, 2007 @ 2:24 am
————–
Might… be worth it?
It would absolutely be worth it!!!!!!!!
August 4th, 2007 at 11:41 amTrying to distract you silly libs from Obamas more recent comments about bombing Pakistan maybe?
Sheeple, sheeple, sheeple.
Comment by Troll
Why would anyone be against killing Osama and his #2/3 no matter what country they are in?
August 4th, 2007 at 11:52 amJihadists and neocons, you cant tell the difference from these people.
The only difference is that necons dont enlist in wars.
Comment by Juan C
…profound and pointed… good jab…
August 4th, 2007 at 11:52 am.
Jihadists and neocons, you cant tell the difference from these people.
The only difference is that necons dont enlist in wars.
Comment by Juan C
…profound and pointed… good jab…
.
Comment by katy
Very true… anyone see Jesus camp and the christian mudrassa schools in it? American style Taliban… that is how they react to Islamic radicalism… christian radicalism… not a bright bunch are they?
August 4th, 2007 at 11:54 amJihadists and neocons, you cant tell the difference from these people.
The only difference is that necons dont enlist in wars.
Another similarity is the big talkers Rush, laden, hannity, never do as they preach. Its always someone els that should die.
August 4th, 2007 at 12:12 pmSo we drop a bomb on Mecca in Saudi Arabia and kill thousands of pilgrims from Turkey, Iran, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates to name a few. We would probably call them collateral damage, but those victims would actually be seen as people elsewhere, and not just in the Muslim world. It would certify to the rest of the world that there is indeed a madman in the Whitehouse. Not only would the entire Muslim world turn against us, but we would find it difficult finding friends anywhere.
August 4th, 2007 at 12:48 pmTancredo showed his color,and ignorance. A big hater who wants to start a devastating never ending war in this planet.
Did Tancredo look at the world map to see how big Moslem countries area is when he made his statment?
Did Tancredo look to see that Moslems are in every continent with a population over 1.4 billions people. ONE OUT OF EVERY 4 HUMAN BEINGS ON THIS PLANET FOLLOWS ISLAMIC FAITH.
There are 59 nations of Moslems’ majority on this planet.
Tancerdo needs to study not only geography,religions of the world, but also economy.
Moslem nations contribute in big way to the world economy,and if oil nations demand payments in other currencies other than US dollar(which is the case now), then US dollar will lose its current value worldwide…
It is the Arabian and Moslem countries oil producing antions that keep demand on the dollar to buy oil.
Trancedo and other candidates lately are racing to show who will pull the trigger first.
Such candidates will bring us nothing but destruction and bloodshed,and total world economic collapse.
People like Tancredo should not make it to hold a President’s job.
Such mentality must not rise to bring us what Hitler brought to Germany and the world.
August 4th, 2007 at 12:56 pmSo we drop a bomb on Mecca in Saudi Arabia and kill thousands of pilgrims from Turkey, Iran, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates to name a few.
sorry have to say it , but normal people dont even think like this, no wonder america is in such a state when 28% of the population just want blood
what a bunch of sikos
August 4th, 2007 at 1:00 pmGood news from Baghdad at last: the oil law has stalled
Friday August 3, 2007….
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2140859,00.html
August 4th, 2007 at 1:41 pmYeah, well a lot of things Republicans say AND do these days are reprehensible and crazy.
August 4th, 2007 at 1:49 pmTommy Tancredo is from my state (Unfortunately) and I can tell you that his hatred and bigotry is reflected in his small area of constituents. Nobody has been able to mount any campaign against him because he has the White Supremists, the anti-immigration, anti-muslim frea mongering bunch behind him.
He and his followers are very pathetic, and I hoope their ilk soon fade into the minority in his District.
August 4th, 2007 at 2:14 pmHe and his followers are very pathetic, and I hope their ilk soon fade into the minority in his District.
Comment by upside00 — August 4, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
Hopefully they’ll fade into complete obscurity everywhere – including on this site. The sooner we rid our country of useless bigots, the better.
August 4th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
August 4th, 2007 at 3:31 pmJust 24% give the president favorable ratings of his performance in handling the war in Iraq, but confidence in Congress is significantly worse – only 3% give Congress positive marks for how it has handled the war.
“I respectfully disagree.” – BnF
I respectfully respect your respectful disagreement.
I’m not going to argue the details of how Afghanistan was carried out. My point is there is a distinct and profound difference between the action in Afghanistan and the one in Iraq, or the proposed bombing of Mecca.
Let’s quickly review the obvious distinctions between the basis for each action.
Afghanistan – there was a clear link between Al Queda and 911 (allow me to ignore conspiracy theories); there was a clear link between bin Laden and Al Queda; the Taliban is providing safe haven and training grounds for OBL and Al Queda; the Taliban was a stanky and odious regime of theocratic, jihadist, mysoginist lunatics without positive merit; the vast majority of the international community was in sympathy to the actions taken; military not otherwise engaged, available at full strength.
Iraq – oil; daddy; PNAC wet dreams; international support from a handful of toadies; diminished military capacity for protracted engagement.
I suspect that 75% of the population would agree that the Afghanistan engagement was justified and 75% would agree that the Iraq engagement was not. I guess I fall with the majority on this. The trolls clearly live in the gutter-dwelling 25%. Many TPers no doubt live in the upper 25% of idealists.
If I’m going to join forces with one extreme or the other, the choice is fairly clear. I’ll go with the respectful ones.
August 4th, 2007 at 3:38 pmShoot, I forgot to complete the thought above.
Justification for bombing Mecca:
Percentage of population agreeing with such action: surely less than 10%, hopefully less than 1% – only the most deranged inbred redneck hosebags, otherwise known as TP trolls.
August 4th, 2007 at 3:41 pmGorn, so if Iraq hadnt been invaded, just Afghanistan, it could be a more justified GWOT?
How many countries do you need to invade that are currently providing safe haven for terrorists (whatever their motives are)?
Afghanistan is all about pipelines, opium and surrounding Iran. Terrorism cant be fought by invading countries.
August 4th, 2007 at 4:18 pmTerrorism cant be fought by invading countries.
Comment by Juan C
No, but it can sure be given a major boost by those invasions… and continued illegal occupations!
August 4th, 2007 at 4:25 pmComment by Juan C — August 4, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
Juan…I think the attack on Sept. 11 was an act of war against America. Afghanistan was not providing safe haven for terrorists, they were providing safe haven for Bin Laden and Al qaeda. I think America was justified in threatening the Taliban to turn over Bin Laden or else. As I stated in an earlier post, my opinion is that the Taliban are EVIL.
August 4th, 2007 at 4:51 pmYou are probably right about pipelines, opium, and Iran…BUT…if Bush would have toppled the Taliban, caught or killed Bin Laden, and brought most of our troops home safely….he would now be welcomed to campaign with the Republican Candidates…instead of being treated like a leper.
I think the attack on Sept. 11 was an act of war against America.
Comment by Badger
Well, thats the thing with US citizens, whatever they do to them is a cause of war. Imagine, for a moment, that Sudan bombs a US aspirin factory in US soil. That would have been terrible, right? Well, when it happened the other way, I dont think you would have said that Sudan should attack US for that or did you?
Now, what about the bombing of Lebanon by a CIA vehicle in 1982? The blowing of a Venezuelan plane full of Cubans supported by the CIA? The complete destruction of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos? Ok…Im drifting, but do you see the point?
So, just to put things on perspective, dozens of countries should be making war to the US in response of acts of terrorism, performed by US govts, according to your logic.
August 4th, 2007 at 5:24 pm“Gorn, so if Iraq hadnt been invaded, just Afghanistan, it could be a more justified GWOT?” – Juan C
First of all, I don’t buy into the notion of GWOT. Civilized people always have been and always will be in a struggle against fanatics. The best solution is to lead by example with enlightenment, freedom, and fairness, three counts on which the US government has failed in recent years. However, while altruism is necessary, only the truly naive would consider it sufficient. It has to be backed by wise security, strong defense, and effective intelligence. Again, three failures for the recent US Administration.
The fact is, some people in the world are quite beyond reason. Almost always, these people are religiously motivated. Religion, by definition, is a matter of faith and not reason. Because faith is generally the antithesis of reason, religious fanaticism leads naturally to the irrational. Combining that with endless arms and fueling it with economic injustice, the result is the insanity represented by the Taliban and Al Queda, as only two examples. Fringe Christian nuts in the US are of the same ilk, but gain less traction because the institutions here are stronger (though stressing under Administration attack).
So, yes, I do consider the invasion of Afghanistan and the routing of its Taliban government and Al Queda allies to be entirely justified action in light of the unprovoked and indefensible actions of 9-11. Whether the invasion was done properly is a different matter.
The observant will recognize that while I consider religious fanaticism either the root cause or catalytic agent for the vast majority of historical mayhem, I have also vocally opposed those who would attack Mecca or other religious locations, shrines, or artifacts. The world would be far better off without religion, but religion is best killed off by the persistent light of reason, and not by bullets and bombs.
So, I don’t believe on a GWOT. I believe there is a GSARF (Global Struggle Against Religious Fanatics), and the enemy exists not only in the mountains bordering Afghanistan and Pakistan, but also in the White House and other locations.
August 4th, 2007 at 5:47 pmSo, yes, I do consider the invasion of Afghanistan and the routing of its Taliban government and Al Queda allies to be entirely justified action in light of the unprovoked and indefensible actions of 9-11.
What about Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Morocco and Indonesia? Why not invade them too?
Read my response to Badger. According to Afghanistan-ok supporters, dozens of countries should have engaged war against US. Even China when its embassy was destroyed by US missiles.
August 4th, 2007 at 5:57 pm“Well, thats the thing with US citizens, whatever they do to them is a cause of war.” – Juan C
Sorry, Juan, I have to call BS on this one. First of all, shame on you for lumping all US citizens into one group. Second, shame on you for the hyperbole of equating all actions that are taken against the US.
There is no possible defense or rationale for flying commercial aircraft full of innocent civilians into buildings full of other innocent civilians. None.
The US has withstood many attacks without going to war. Attacks against military targets in particular have a different response. Attacks against non-military targets are at an entirely different level.
“So, just to put things on perspective, dozens of countries should be making war to the US in response of acts of terrorism”
Actions against civilians are wrong and should be condemned, no matter who is the source. Without hesitation or reservation, I condemn any actions intentionally taken by the US against innocent civilians. Civilized people in the Islamic world need to take the same clear stand against Islamic terrorism.
August 4th, 2007 at 5:59 pmSorry, Juan, I have to call BS on this one. First of all, shame on you for lumping all US citizens into one group. Second, shame on you for the hyperbole of equating all actions that are taken against the US.
Dont mean to offend, really. I know it is a loose generalization, but, come on, one American dies in the most remote corner of the world and there is this huge quest for knowing what happened. Now, make that a Nicaraguan…good luck.
I have to go. Hope to read you further.
And I have nothing particularly against you. Romans felt they were the belly bottom of the world, as French, etc. Soon, the Chinese…it is a human behavior, not an American one.
Take care.
August 4th, 2007 at 6:04 pm“What about Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Morocco and Indonesia? Why not invade them too?” – Juan C
The Afghanistan government was not only the most openly hostile, it was also providing full cover and training grounds for Al Queda and headquarters for that group’s leaders. The governments of the other countries that you mention cooperated in light of 9-11.
Clearly, this problem is a complex one, and the relationships between US power brokers and the oil sheiks is fundamentally corrupt. I am not ignoring or excusing it. But the case for routing the Taliban and Al Queda was compelling.
Again, not the complete solution (not even remotely close), and not taken to effective conclusion, but still compelling.
In the complete solution, in my opinion the military should play only a limited supplementary role. You may feel it should play no role. The trolls think it should play the only role.
August 4th, 2007 at 6:08 pm“one American dies in the most remote corner of the world and there is this huge quest for knowing what happened. Now, make that a Nicaraguan…good luck.” – Juan C
Of course you are correct about this, and as you say it is human nature to show more alarm for your own tribe than for others.
Regardless, an attack upon civilians is an outrage no matter who conducts it, and who it is conducted against. It may or may not be a cause for “war”. I would say if George Bush were to order the bombing of the Tower of London it would be justification of war by the UK against the US. If George were to order the bombing of schools in Nigeria, it would be justification of war by Nigeria against the US. Whether it would be a practical option for Nigeria to conduct such a war is a secondary question. The response would be justified.
Look, Juan, you know I think the world of you (well, your TP persona at least), but although I understand your point I think it goes a little too far. There is no question that the US government, at various times, has implemented very poor policy and conducted very questionable operations. I do not defend such actions, or the nearsighted ignorance displayed be neocon trolls.
Routing the hideous Taliban in response to 9-11 simply cannot be seen in the same category. That’s all I’m saying. Certainly other regimes are equally hideous, but at the same time, we aren’t (I hope) the world’s police.
August 4th, 2007 at 6:18 pmThe War Made Easy…a good preview…take a look.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?bid=7&pid=217698
August 4th, 2007 at 7:47 pmA point/counterpoint argument from 2003…
http://www.theonion.com/content/point/this_war_will_destabilize_the
August 4th, 2007 at 7:55 pmGorn, you are right. I made a mistake with that comment. It wasnt intended to imply that US citizens are these or those, I just wanted to point out, that US events are no more painful than events in Samoa when it comes to killing innocents.
August 4th, 2007 at 11:37 pmCan we just stop dancing around the word and start calling the contiguous USA “fatherland” instead of “homeland?” It’s clear what the neocons mean when they say “homeland” so why hide behind the flag?
August 6th, 2007 at 12:20 pm