The mixture of Religion and politics sometimes scares me. In fact, it’s one of the major reasons religion should be knocked down a few pegs in America. Recently, Max Blumenthal posted a new video: Rapture Ready: The Unauthorized Christians United for Israel Tour. A good video, and I’m always amazed how many politicians support them, show up, and speak in agreement with their ideas. I’m pretty familiar with all this stuff – I was taught it growing up, and my parents could be clones of a few of the pro-Armageddon Republicans shown in the video. (In fact, a week ago, my dad sent me this this little Flash animation – which should give you an idea.)
But, I digress. Recently, Tom Tancredo (the Republican Presidential candidate) made statements again about threatening to attack Mecca and Medina if a nuclear device is detonated in the US.
“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,” the GOP presidential candidate 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. There is no other way around it. There have to be negative consequences for the actions they take. That’s the most negative I can think of.” (Link)
First of all, this is not the first time that Tancredo has made this statement. He made essentially the same statement here (July 2005), so given that he hasn’t changed his mind despite earlier backlash, it’s clear that he really means it. This isn’t one of those statements that politicians say and then later back away from because he realized it would play badly in the public, or that he said in the heat of some moment.
Now, the possibility of a nuclear attack in the US is a horrible possibility to contemplate. Further, it might not work as a deterrent to say you’ll attack Mecca and Medina. Muslim extremists might be very happy at the idea of an all-out war, and if the US retaliates against Mecca and Medina, it would bring a majority of Muslims onto the side of Osama Bin Laden. I’m sure he’d love to have a billion plus Muslims fall under his command. Further, as one commenter points out:
Have you really thought through the logic of this? Targeting the holy sites of Islam as a response to extremist terrorism is like bombing the Vatican for terrorism committed by Catholics, or blowing up the Western Wall for crimes committed by Jews. You can’t punish an entire religion for the acts of a subsection of the population. Of course this is crazy, because it is beyond the pale. This would not deter terrorists in any way, but rather set off a global war that makes the current conflict look like a spitting match.
What’s scary is the pro-war rhetoric of the conservative, Republican, Christian side. Many of them seem to be chomping at the bit for an all-out war with Islam. You can’t help but get the feeling that they’re saying, “That would be awesome!” Here’s a few posts from one pro-Tancredo blog:
> This would not deter terrorists in any way, but rather set off a
> global war that makes the current conflict look like a spitting
Let the games begin.
THANK God he refuses to apologize…And I support him 110% …. And I will continue to do so.
I support Tom 110% too. Maybe we should start the LBC chapter of the Tom Tancredo fan club???
Music to my ears.
Yes you can punish an entire religion when that religion itself is a portal to the purest form of evil this planet has ever seen. islam has NEVER contributed anything of worth to this Earth… It is the enemy’s religion… Come on! grrrrrrrrrrrr.
A global war against islam. I’m with LaShawn. If they are feeling froggy……..jump!
The only good news is that Tancredo’s current standing in the polls (as of less than a week ago) is 8th among Republicans, with roughly 1% saying they’d vote for him.