Tancredo: bomb Mecca as a deterrent

“If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina.”

So mind-bogglingly stupid and ignorant that there’s little color commentary I can add. Why do they hate us?

(Apologies for not being able to find the original comments-- I looked on iowapolitics.com but didn’t see them. I’ll take the post down if the comment turns out to be false.)

How does that work?

Someone provides a cite and I apologize in the OP? I certainly don’t expect the quote to be false, but it seems most prudent to always include primary documents where possible.

Edit: Oh, right; I forgot that you can’t edit posts retroactively. I suppose I’d make a new post apologizing. Really it’s likely a moot point-- I think most people consider CNN a reliable source. But I do believe in maintaining at least a reasonable skepticism of sources.

So, tell me why it is stupid? :confused:

From the linked story:

I would hope that even the Neo-Cons and the rest of the Administration would censure this idiot, but at least the State Department is officially noting that his is [del]an idiot[/del] reprehensible.

The thread title is a little misleading. The idea is to deter terrorist bombers with a threat/promise to bomb Mecca in retaliation.
It might be a good idea, but wouldn’t work as actual policy. “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” (They’d just bomb us back for it, and so on.)

For some years now, it has seemed that the State Dept. has become the Sane Asylum.

I think that such an announcement would actually encourage terrorist attacks. Because the radical Muslims probably want an all out armageddon type war between Muslims and the West and they know that an attack on Mecca would likely provoke such a war.

you fucking dolt

because we’re not at war with Saudia Arabia .

because we’re not even at war with Islam.

because it plays into the extremist predicitons thereby ensuring an escalation of violence.

Tell me how it’s anything other voices in your head insane.

It is generally not considered an act of intelligence to threaten the holy sites of a billion or more people (residing in a reputed ally of this country) for the purpose of intimidating a few thousands of their co-religionists.

The rest of the billion people–many of whom are actively opposing al Qaida and its related terrorist groups–cannot stop every terrorist. So you are threatening the overwhelming majority for the actions of the tiny few. (We still censure Nazi Germany for doing that to people in WWII.) You are also telling all the potential allies and currently neutral parties that the terrorists are speaking the truth about us and that we are monsters who need to be stopped. The actual destruction of a holy site would probably be welcomed by terrorists on the grounds that it would inflame the rest of their society to join them, so its threat is not actually a deterrent. Having an idiot in American politics raise the suggestion makes it more likely that some rogue terrorist will carry out his own strike on the holy sites, with us easily blamed for the attack.

Tancredo is the biggest fool on the current U.S. politiacl stage.

Which is an extraordinary achievement.

Note that I did not claim it was a good idea, I just wanted to know the reasons why* the OP *thought it was stupid.

But I guess some here are better at name-calling that reading comprehension. :rolleyes:

What you wrote is just so much common sense that it literally frightens me that an american politician (presidential hopefull I might add) is that ignorant about world cultures and has the “us vs. them” menatilty of a 5 year-old.

Or maybe everybody else thought it was so obvious it didn’t need explaining.

:rolleyes: right back atcha.

I know the State Department is sort of the red-headed stepchild in this government, but when somebody in the Bush administration tells you your idea is “absolutely crazy”… I mean, damn. You could rant about Tancredo for pages and pages, but that says it all.

Actually, a person with normal reading comprehension, after reading your first post, would most likely arrive at exactly the conclusion whole bean did: that you did not, personally, comprehend why threatening to bomb Mecca is an incredibly stupid idea.

Next time, write more clearly, and people will be less likely to think you’re an idiot.

Yeah, it’s a really stupid idea, but you could have at least gotten the thread title right. Your own article uses the term “retaliation” in its title, which is not a synonym for “deterrent”. And although Tancredo says he wants to deter people from attacking the US, he is using the threat of bombing Mecca as the deterrent, not an actual bombing of Mecca.

Anyway, Tancredo is a racist, xenophobic idiot who probably just wants the press to pay more attention to his pathetic presidential bid.

That’s sort of a double bind for him; if he writes vaguely, people read into his ambiguity and assume he’s an idiot, but when he writes at length he conclusively proves it to be true. What ever is he to do?

It might have been better not to use the “confused” smiley after that first post, DrDeth. That conveys an inability to understand something, not just a request for more information.

I’m not sure – the article says [bolding mine], “Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo’s campaign stood by his assertion that bombing holy Muslim sites would serve as a good “deterrent” to prevent Islamic fundamentalists from attacking the United States, his spokeswoman said Friday.” That seems to support my reading; CNN’s interpretation might be wrong, of course.