http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050719/ap_ ... ongressman


U.S., Turkey Condemn Congressman's Remarks

By BENJAMIN HARVEY, Associated Press Writer Tue Jul 19, 5:13 PM ET

ISTANBUL, Turkey - Top U.S. and Turkish officials on Tuesday condemned comments made last week by Rep. Tom Tancredo that the United States could "take out" Islamic holy sites if there was a nuclear attack on America by Muslim fundamentalists.

The Colorado Republican refused to apologize Tuesday, telling The Associated Press that his comments had been taken out of context.

U.S. State Department spokesman Adam Ereli called the statements Tancredo made Friday "insulting and offensive." He said Americans "respect the dignity and sanctity of other religions."

Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul labeled them irresponsible.

"This was nothing but a fanatic speaking completely personally, irresponsibly and without thought of how far his statements would reach or what kind of problems they would create," Gul said, according to the Anatolia news agency. The Foreign Ministry confirmed Gul's remarks.

On Friday, Tancredo was asked by a radio talk show host how the United States should respond if terrorists struck several of its cities with nuclear weapons.

"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, you know, you could take out their holy sites," Tancredo answered.

"You're talking about bombing Mecca," said talk show host Pat Campbell of WFLA-AM in Orlando, Fla.

"Yeah," Tancredo responded.

When asked Tuesday to clarify his comments, Tancredo said he never said he wanted to bomb Mecca or Medina, but he did not explain whether he would support bombing the Muslim holy sites if the United States's nuclear reserves were attacked by terrorists.

"If these nuclear devices did go off, there'd be a lot of people thinking about worse than that," he said, adding that he wanted to think about ways to prevent a terrorist attack. "I hope we can think of things that actually will prevent an event of that nature. That's the task we are all set upon. From my point of view there's a lot that can be done, and ... I don't want to inflame this issue."

Gul, speaking prior to Tancredo's response Tuesday, said that he did not think the people or the government of the United States shared Tancredo's view, according to Anatolia.

"This shows that this kind of fanatical person can emerge anywhere. This kind of speech is the thing we need least these days," Gul was quoted as saying. "I strongly condemn it."

Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean said Tancredo owed an apology to Muslims around the world.

"Tancredo's statements go against the very message America is trying to send to the world, that the war against terrorism is not a war on Islam," Dean said. "Remarks threatening the destruction of holy sites akin to the
Vatican or Jerusalem do nothing to win the hearts and minds of Muslims in the United States and abroad."


I guess this must be his version of an eye for an eye...scary. I understand the desire for revenge but this isn't the answer.

   

Tancredo is unfortunately relating a real strategy that has been discussed as a potential last-resort deterrent to Muslim aggression.

We are a long way away from implementing such a strategy and Tancredo is terribly irresponsible for discussing it.

However, if a US city was vaporized by an Al Qa'eda nuclear weapon I doubt that a US President would hesitate to employ this strategy to prevent further attacks.

Frankly, a US President would do nearly anything to prevent further attacks of that nature.

Still, it is very irresponsible to discuss it right now.

   

I would hope so. Becuase immolating Mecca would solve so many problems.

   

Immolating Hiroshima, Nagasaki, & Dresden did.

   

I'm not discussing national security policies that I've been briefed in on. I'm just spouting my own opinions no different than you or anyone else on this site.

My opinion does not matter. Tancredo's does. Big difference.

   

The Dresden bombings were unecessary to end the war wiith Germany. All that was accomplished was the needless deaths of civilains.

In the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, those cities were not religious centers. How pissed would Christians be if the Vatican were to meet the same propsed fate? Or how about Jerusalem?

   

The Dome of the Rock, in Jerusalem, is on the target list in that addendum to the SNIE Tancredo is discussing.

Dresden had a transportation hub that was being used to move troops to the Russian front and the Allies bombed it for that reason and because it was home to several clandestine bearing factories and, also, it was payback for Coventry.

Hitler missed the memo about not starting wars he could not win and the German people suffered for it.

It was a war.

So is this.

   

I always wonder if Americans would feel this way if the Nazis had burned New York to the ground, or if the Japanese had bombed LA into the Stone Age. Would today's Germans or Japanese be justified in thinking the same way if it had won the war for them?

   

I understand that you seem to be opposed to this, Bart, but it's irresponsible period!
Nuking Islamic holy sites isn't going to help stymie Islamic terrorism... it's going to turn into a shitstorm the level of which we simply cannot fathom. We would be at risk of provoking a jihad (war against unbelievers, OR fight against oppression, depending on which Islamic sect we are discussing... which would be all of them) from even moderates.
Bad, bad, bad, BAD idea.

But then again... what do you expect from a Republican?