SomaliNet Forums

WASHINGTON (CNN) — 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.

“This shows that we mean business,” said Bay Buchanan, a senior Tancredo adviser. “There’s no more effective deterrent than that. But he is open-minded and willing to embrace other options. This is just a means to deter them from attacking us.”

On Tuesday, Tancredo warned a group of Iowans that another terrorist attack would “cause a worldwide economic collapse.” IowaPolitics.com recorded his comments.

“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,” Tancredo said. “That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong, fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent, or you will find an attack.”

Tom Casey, a deputy spokesman for the State Department, told CNN’s Elise Labott that the congressman’s comments were “reprehensible” and “absolutely crazy.” Tancredo was widely criticized in 2005 for making a similar suggestion.

–CNN Associate Producer Lauren Kornreich

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... tes-first/

source cnn?? according 2 arabman, they tell lies and are zionists themselves.

According to Musika Man, everything is according to Arabman.

they simply cant attack makkah and Madinah, Allah is protecting the 2 holy cities

if they tried there will be HELL on earth!!!!

Indeed. Representative Tancredo also believes that sloshing petrol (instead of water) all over is a proper and effective firefighting method.

[quote="enemy_o_m_m"]they simply cant attack makkah and Madinah, Allah is protecting the 2 holy cities

if they tried there will be HELL on earth!!!![/quote]

Actually I would like to see them attack Mecca or Nuke it...and see what happens..but I suspect that will never happen till the end of time(s).

Salam alaikum

if someone tries to do such thing ===> say goodbye to planet earth!

Yeah guys, goodbye to Planet Earth.

The mighty forces of Jordan, Tunisia, and the other Sand Kingdoms would fight back hard...gimme a break. At the present time, if Mecca was nuked, the Arab League would only compliment the well-placed missile.

Its time like this when every two-star politician in American can say something like that and walk away harm-free. The Muslim world needs to grow some balls and realize that cavalry consists of TANKS today, not phucking camels.

Paidmonk , correct me if I am wrong but isn't that the essence of FREE SPEECH?!!
Walking out unharmed not matter what you say?
The guy said " If I'm wrong , fine, tell me ..."
Just tell him he's wrong and move on

You know how Muslims are these days:

The new Muslim motto:

You can have freedom of speech if I may have freedom to assault.

Mecca and Madina are protected by Allah, and nothing can happen to them. Case closed.

Luq_Ganane sums it up

the 2 holly sites are protected by Allah till the end of time!

Lets see what happends 2 bilion suiicde bombers will blow up Europe italy gateway to Europe

but then agains this is never going to happend becous allah protect the both holly citys in this world

Tancredo is not talking about a preemptive strike. He is talking about a quid-pro-quo, a deterrent threat: if America is again attacked, America will do X. His conclusion is clearly simplistic and unacceptable, but he does raise a necessary question.

The conventional wisdom and the rules of war do not apply to non-state players, a fact that does not yet seem to have reached Tancredo. Bombing Mecca and Medina is indiscriminate and absurd, probably misdirected, and could well be the desired result of those making the attack on the States in the first place.

A good many of you are American citizens with good backgrounds. Give the Dude the benefit of your thinking, maybe in addition to a piece of your mind.

.Let us say that it is immediately after 9/11 and the Bush Administration has not yet muddied the waters. What would have been an appropriate American response?

Alternatively, let us say that another attack of similar source and magnitude occurs. Beyond holding those responsible criminally and civilly liable, what SHOULD the American response be?

Grant for us Muslims, this is an article of faith. If you believe in Allah, and the the Prophet Muhammad (Saw) then you believe the sayings of the Prophet which say that these sites and cities are protected by Allah. These are the two most beloved cities to Allah, and cheap rhetoric by a congressman isn't going to have us shaking in our boots, thinking about how possible it is. Therefore we will not even get into the "If they do bomb it, then, we'll do this" type talk, because its irrelevent and a mute point.