Another Reason Yankee Leaders Are Bad

A Colorado congressman by the name of Tom Tancredo suggested bombing Mecca, as what his spokesman called a “hypothetical” response to a future Islamist terror attack on US soil.

Talk show host Pat Campbell asked the Littleton Republican how the country should respond if terrorists struck several U.S. 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,” Campbell said.

“Yeah,” Tancredo responded.

It’s pretty much a given that this guy is a complete asshole, but questions that remain in my head are how does someone like this rise to congress and how many “good Americans” actually have the audacity to think like this?

Previous to the brave new world we now find ourselves in – post September 11th, 2001 – I would have thought a comment like this was so outrageous that it would be a waste of time to even think about it. With the asinine comments that a congressmen from the United States is willing to make about this kind of “hypothetical situation”, I’m forced to believe this kind of thinking is widespread.

Here’s a hypothetical scenario for Tom Tancredo, what if there were a horrific terrorist attack worse than any other in history and on US soil, that was carried out, not by an extremist Muslim, but by an equally fanatic Christian in the name of the Catholic Church? Hypothetically would you consider bombing The Vatican? It’s the exact same thing!

Sometimes reading the news makes me so mad.

8 replies on “Another Reason Yankee Leaders Are Bad”

Lets put it this way; if there were enough Catholics bombing and terrorizing the country, we would be looking at them in an entirely different way than we do now. Stuff like that makes us extremely cross.

Maybe an example that hits closer to home is in order, what if it were Mormon fundementalists going on terror strikes, would it be reasonable to consider imploding the Salt Lake Temple?

Mormon fundementalists aren't even allowed to set foot in LDS temples, as you know.
They would probably be the first to cheer. As with the catholics, fundimentalist mormons aren't terrorists either, at least not in this country. I thought we were talking about terrorists.

I think your intention of supporting the idea that bombing holy sites, as a way of fighting terrorists is despicable.

I wasn't saying that Mormon Fundamentalists were terrorists, as you well know.

I was trying to illustrate how punishing one group because of the bad actions of psychotics that claim to belong to that group isn't morally acceptable. I am ashamed that you think such action is acceptable.

I didn't say you mentioned bombing, but I think you can't argue that your comments were confrontational to my complaint that the American Congressman Tom Tancredo is horrible for suggesting we bomb Muslim holy sites.

If you don't agree with me that the destruction of holy sites is abhorrent, then I would say that at least part of you feels that potentially, it's okay. It’s not remotely okay.

And to clarify, I never said that you wanted to bomb them outright, what I said to you was, "your intention of supporting the idea that bombing holy sites, as a way of fighting terrorists is despicable." I still stand by that comment.

If you don't believe that it's acceptable to bomb a holy site like Mecca, then I challenge you to say so. Otherwise don't bother commenting.

Apparently you wanted everyone to stay strictly to the topic of whether or not bombing holy sites is acceptable. I took a different direction and implied that when members of a certain religion do something bad, it makes us a little suspicious of the whole bunch. This is especially so after years of it, over a wide area. But back to the subject of bombing. It would be stupid to bomb mecca because not only wouldn't it deter the terrorists, it would add about fifty and a half million more terrorists to the roster. For this reason alone it would be a mistake. All of this considered,however I'm not so sure it's any worse to bomb a holy site
and kill four thousand people than doing it at the trade center and killing four thousand people. I do know that it would make them madder though than if you bombed a place of business. I also know that by doing either of the above, you are killing people who had nothing to do with the problem you were hoping to solve by doing the bombing in the first place. I wonder what the problem was that the terrorists were trying to solve when they bombed the trade center. I don't think it got solved, whatever it was.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *