Conffederate
Confederate

July 20, 2005

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.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at July 20, 2005 05:53 PM | TrackBack
Comments

Man, don't you know, you can't nuke Saudi Arabia. It's too hard to extract oil from underneath all that glass. ;)

Posted by: RobTBSC at July 20, 2005 06:18 PM

Perhaps, merely a light dusting with radioactive cobalt would suffice. Mecca would not be destroyed yet no one would be able to go there. It could still be venerated from afar. Way afar.

Posted by: Tuskis at July 20, 2005 11:15 PM

[Not to the above comments, but to the above post]
Why can you tell someone you’re wrong without providing a better solution? What rule states this? Why isn’t a person allowed to come to the conclusion/thought - the current course of action is not working and a new one need to be formulated before proceeding - back solely on recognition of the problem/problem situation. This does not imply one is being critical with comments for the pure purpose of being obstructive, though most experience would suggest otherwise; it just proves a recognition of the problem and while no current solution is presented, a better idea/process should being given more thought and worked on before proceeding with any action.

Posted by: Guy at July 21, 2005 05:59 AM

My understanding of Islam is beyond that of "Joe Six - Pack", I believe, although certainly not in the Samuel Huntington / Bernard Lewis category, and I would say we're in a war with Islam.

Look at it this way: During World War II, many US Communists were opposed to our entry into the War, until Hitler invaded Russia -- then they all changed their minds, as neatly as they changed their allegiance in World War I, when the Communists took over Russia during World War I.

By the same token, Lord knows how many G.I.'s trooped through the forests of Europe and the jungles of the Pacific, without being at all clear as to what we were fighting and why.

The Muslims that are war with the Infidel (that's us) want us dead, no doubt about that. Quibbling about who the anti-war elements of Muslim are is rather pointless, to me. They are not helping us (like the Resistance Danes or French in WW II did), nor are they hurting them (like the resistant Jews or the Cheka in WW II).

"Lead, follow, or get blown up," I say.

Posted by: Frank DiSalle at July 21, 2005 09:46 AM
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."
The problem is that the Islamic fanatics are those who holler loudest, have the guns and bombs, and can cow the rest of the Muslims into silence. I have a friend who happens to be Muslim and he has to watch what he says, where he prays precisely because of the extremists in the community. Instead of calling these guys out, he's silent. Perhaps he's made the decision that his personal safety warrants that silence, but that silence has a spillover effect to the rest of society. If those he came in contact with were preaching violence, it could incite someone to violence. He might not have condoned the action, but the silence provided the means.

Providing greater support to those who call out those who are inciting people to violence in the name of Islam is one way to keep the fight from going West v. 100% Islam. At this point we're fighting a West v. some % of Islam that is less than 100% but greater than 1%. We just don't know.

Posted by: lawhawk at July 21, 2005 10:24 AM

What the anti-war left, and unfortunately some on the right, when they refer to Islam as a religion of peace is complete self-delusion.

It's why we hear crickets when we ask why moderate muslims don't condemn terror attacks.

No explict codemnation is tacit silent approval.

Posted by: acwgusa at July 21, 2005 10:39 AM

Seems to me like "moderate Muslims," whether in the US or "over there," are considered the equivalent of what Christians would call apostate, or backslidden, by those in the vanguard of modern militant Islam.

So, I don't think I'd put much credence in what any of 'em said -- the "moderates," I mean. 'Cause they obviously don't speak for those who seem to be making decisions for Islam today.

Posted by: Erudite Redneck at July 21, 2005 10:44 PM