Fat Man and Fatwa Boy

I'd been intent on steering clear of Congressman Tom Tancredo's recent comments about possible responses to an Islamic terrorist attack on multiple American cities involving multiple nuclear weapons. The comments were made while a guest on Pat Campbell's AM radio show:

"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," Campbell said.

"Yeah," Tancredo responded.

The congressman later said he was "just throwing out some ideas" and that an "ultimate threat" might have to be met with an "ultimate response."

Hugh Hewitt, though made the following challenge:

I want to be very clear on this. No responsible American can endorse the idea that the U.S. is in a war with Islam. That is repugnant and wrong, and bloggers and writers and would-be bloggers and writers have to chose sides on this, especially if you are a center-right blogger. The idea that all of Islam is the problem is a fringe opinion. It cannot be welcomed into mainstream thought because it is factually wrong. If Tancredo's blunder does not offend you, then you do not understand the GWOT…

…We are not in a war with devout Muslims. We are in a war with Muslims who think that their faith compels them to kill non-believers and the nations that support those extremists.

A SCOTUS nomination will sweep Congressman Tancredo's remarks from the headlines, but I hope center-right bloggers will stand up and be counted on this issue.

Hugh, the last time I checked, every "responsible American" is still entitled to his own opinion, yet you present your opinion on this matter as fact, and everyone else's opinion that may differ is presented as wrong.

As experts studying Islamic jihad are far better versed in the subject, and some feel that Islam and violent jihad are so entwined as to be inseparable, I'd suggest that your decree that we are categorically not at war with Islam is wishful thinking unsupported by fact. At this moment, we simply do not know if we are in a war with Islam.

So-called Islamic moderates seem unwilling to choose sides, and extremists seem to have the greatest voice in setting policies and shaping public opinion in predominately Islamic communities. I'd like to think that we are only opposing extremists, but the fact remains that we simply do not know. Mr. Hewitt, you are wrong when you say, "The idea that all of Islam is the problem is a fringe opinion. It cannot be welcomed into mainstream thought because it is factually wrong."

Just hoping something to be true does not make it so, Hugh. We do not know it for a fact any more than heliocentrists "knew" that the universe revolved around the Earth. The historical evidence, it seems, indicates just the opposite.

Islam had a history almost a millennia-and-a-half long of near-constant warfare with its neighbors. Even charitable biographies of the prophet Mohamed acknowledge that he led his followers into combat more than 20 times and ordered captured prisoners executed, including women and children. Islam is decidedly not a "religion of peace." It never has been. Any attempt to say otherwise is historically ignorant revisionism.

The near universal Muslim desire to eradicate Israel from the face of the earth shows us that Muslims are willing to wipe out entire nations and commit genocide if they can. Why is it inconceivable to you, Hugh, that if we show ourselves to be weak, that they won't try to utterly destroy us well?

Congressman Tancredo was talking about a hypothetical situation where Muslim terrorists attack multiple major U.S. cities with thermonuclear weapons, rendering hundreds of thousands or even millions of Americans dead, and tens of millions wounded. To think that the American people would not demand a proportional response is unrealistic.

Saudi Arabia is the spiritual and financial heart of Islamic extremism. It is the most logical target for a proportional response. If Mecca is not your preferred target Mr. Hewitt, please offer an alternative target. Riyadh? Medina? Perhaps Jeddah, just to let them know we'll get that close to their holiest of holies?

If a military response to the nuclear murder of millions of Americans is not acceptable to you, do you care to offer another appropriate response? Offer up a solution of your own and I'll gladly discuss its merits with you. So far, Mr. Tancredo's off-the-cuff response is as appropriate as any other option I've seen placed upon the table.

The destruction of the holy center of Islam may not endear us to mainstream Islam, but then, neither has the billions of dollars we've invested in their culture. If we let it be known as a matter of policy that we will respond to nuclear attacks on our heartland with nuclear attacks in their heartland, perhaps then it might inspire a bit more vigorous pursuit of terrorists within Islamic cultures. Call it inspiration. Call it fear. In any event, it is motivation that Islamic culture currently seems to lack.

I'm quite willing to consider other options, and readily admit that Congressman Tancredo's option is probably not the best solution, but don't just tell me I'm wrong, give me a more valid option.