← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Gabrielle
Thread ID: 19190 | Posts: 29 | Started: 2005-07-17
2005-07-17 19:39 | User Profile
NUCLEAR WAR-FEAR Tancredo clarifies 'ultimate response' Should U.S. bomb Islamic holy sites after nuke terror attack on America?
Posted: July 15, 2005 5:00 p.m. Eastern
By Art Moore é 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Rep. Tom Tancredo Clarifying remarks from a radio interview that drew praise from some supporters, Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., said he was not suggesting that the U.S. should nuke the Islamic holy site Mecca as a response to a nuclear homeland attack by al-Qaida.
The congressman's press secretary told WorldNetDaily the comments were an off-the-cuff response to a hypothetical situation.
"He doesn't believe that we should go out and threaten to bomb anybody's holy city," said spokesman Will Adams.
In the interview this morning with Pat Campbell of WFLA radio in Orlando, Tancredo discussed his request for a briefing from the Justice Department on information it has on plans revealed by WND this week for a nuclear attack on the U.S. by al-Qaida terrorists.
Campbell noted that just after the London bombings last week, former Israeli counterterrorism intelligence officer Juval Aviv predicted an attack in the U.S. within the next 90 days. Aviv believes the plan is to attack not one big city, like New York, but half-a-dozen smaller ones, including towns in the heartland.
The host asked Tancredo, "Worst case scenario, if they do have these nukes inside the border, what would our response be?"
The congressman replied: "There are things you could threaten to do before something like that happens, and then you have to do afterwards, that are quite draconian."
"Well," Tancredo continued, "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 could take out their holy sites.'"
Campbell: "You're talking about bombing Mecca?"
Tancredo: "Yeah. What if you said, we recognize that this is the ultimate threat to the United States, therefore this is the ultimate response."
The congressman quickly added, "I don't know, I'm just throwing out some ideas, because it seems that at that point in time you would be talking about taking the most draconian measures you could imagine. Because other than that, all you could do is tighten up internally."
The comments heartened some readers of Free Republic, the conservative online news forum, including one who said, "Rep. Tancredo is taking off the gloves on the Islamofacists! Yee ha!"
Others, however, reflected the sentiment of another poster, who said, "Tancredo is racing to the edge of the lunatic fringe."
The Northeast Intelligence Network, which posted a soundbite from the congressman's interview on its website, praised the remarks, saying the group "applauds Representative Tancredo for all of his anti-terrorism efforts to keep our country safe. We also applaud Mr. Campbell for asking the tough but necessary questions ââ¬â AND getting the answers."
But Adams insisted the comments were made in the context of an interview that led Tancredo down a hypothetical path and asked, "In the wake of a nuclear holocaust, what sort of things would be said?"
"In the past several weeks, we've had a lot of staff discussions triggered by [WND's] al-Qaida nuclear weapons article," he said. "We are reserving judgment about the merits of it. But one of the questions that has bothered [Tancredo] is how do you prevent terrorist attacks short of searching everybody? Even then, you wouldn't get it right 100 percent of the time."
The difficulty for the U.S., Adams said, is, "How do you evolve from a cold war paradigm ââ¬â mutually assured destruction ââ¬â to one where al-Qaida mingles in the public and emerges only as an attack is taking place?"
The Soviet Union's pressure point was the fear that one of their cities would be destroyed, Adams said, "But what are the pressure points of terrorists, of people who only look to the next world ââ¬â short of a police state?"
Adams said the remarks also need to be heard in the context of Tancredo's style.
"One of his vices and virtues is he is a free thinker and is willing to speak his mind," the spokesman said. "Sometimes he says things in not the most artful way; but if you take him as, unfortunately, one of the few free thinkers on Capitol Hill, you'll get where he is coming from."
[url]http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45298[/url]
2005-07-17 21:13 | User Profile
Maybe this whole affair was a typo????
Campbell: "You're talking about bombing Mexico?"
Tancredo: "Yeah. What if you said, we recognize that this is the ultimate threat to the United States, therefore this is the ultimate response."
2005-07-18 06:21 | User Profile
"Well," Tancredo continued, "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 could take out their holy sites.'"
The invasion of filth from south of the border (and elsewhere) notwithstanding, I totally support Tom Tancredo's comment. Clearly Islam has stagnated the Arabs, and now it is conflicting with the West to the point where something dramatic must be done. Short of a Second Coming, the only hope besides nuking Mecca and a few other key places, would be the Muslim leaders saying that the koran is garbage and they are converting to Christianity (for a result similar to MacArthur thankfully having Japan's Emperor let his people know he was not a god at the close of WWII). And the chances of that ever happening is really non-existent. So maybe, like with Japan, they have to be nuked into democracy.
2005-07-18 07:08 | User Profile
All we need for this thread is for Mentzer to jump in to tell us that Tancredo is strong and not a fag for wanting to take on these filthy mudslimes. LOL.
[QUOTE=Snouter]The invasion of filth from south of the border (and elsewhere) notwithstanding, I totally support Tom Tancredo's comment. Clearly Islam has stagnated the Arabs, and now it is conflicting with the West to the point where something dramatic must be done. Short of a Second Coming, the only hope besides nuking Mecca and a few other key places, would be the Muslim leaders saying that the koran is garbage and they are converting to Christianity (for a result similar to MacArthur thankfully having Japan's Emperor let his people know he was not a god at the close of WWII). And the chances of that ever happening is really non-existent. So maybe, like with Japan, they have to be nuked into democracy.[/QUOTE]If we are looking to create the perfect situation for Islamic propagandists to use to further their cause, and to instantly recruit more Muslims for all kinds of terrorist activities, the symbolism that would be created by the destruction of their most holy city would be the ideal tool. Holy war, indeed.:oh:
2005-07-18 07:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]All we need for this thread is for Mentzer to jump in to tell us that Tancredo is strong and not a fag for wanting to take on these filthy mudslimes. LOL.
If we are looking to create the perfect situation for Islamic propagandists to use to further their cause, and to instantly recruit more Muslims for all kinds of terrorist activities, the symbolism that would be created by the destruction of their most holy city would be the ideal tool. Holy war, indeed.:oh:[/QUOTE]Yes, I think Tancredo's position illustrates the weakness of basicaly trying to be an an anti-immigration neo, or a pro-war paleo, however you want to call it.
Tancredo I think basically represents what I'd call sort of a Teddy Roosevelt type belligerance against all our nations enemies, this continent or others, who are fighting us. And like any politician in his position, too much quatable talk gets you in trouble when they're after you.
That said, I'm sure an awful lot of congressman make equaly stupid statements. But Tancredo is going to be picked on disproportionately there.
2005-07-18 08:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Snouter]The invasion of filth from south of the border (and elsewhere) notwithstanding, I totally support Tom Tancredo's comment. Clearly Islam has stagnated the Arabs, and now it is conflicting with the West to the point where something dramatic must be done. Short of a Second Coming, the only hope besides nuking Mecca and a few other key places, would be the Muslim leaders saying that the koran is garbage and they are converting to Christianity (for a result similar to MacArthur thankfully having Japan's Emperor let his people know he was not a god at the close of WWII). And the chances of that ever happening is really non-existent. So maybe, like with Japan, they have to be nuked into democracy.[/QUOTE]
If the major Western countries didn't have Zionist foreign policies, there would be little anger from Arabs concerning the West.
Also, the West must return to isolationist foreign policies.
There is no need for anger between Arabs and the West, provided that Western foreign policies are sensible.
2005-07-18 08:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]If the major Western countries didn't have Zionist foreign policies, there would be little anger from Arabs concerning the West.
Also, the West must return to isolationist foreign policies.
There is no need for anger between Arabs and the West, provided that Western foreign policies are sensible.[/QUOTE]That's my position as well.
Radical Islam's clash with the West is only a symptom of the real problem: the Zionist infection of the US government. That needs to be kept firmly in mind. If all Muslims were suddenly to disappear from the face of the earth -- and that will never happen, nukes or no nukes -- then the Jews would simply find another enemy to conquer through the manipulation of their goyish slaves.
2005-07-18 10:01 | User Profile
The West hasn't had an isolationist foreign policy. The states of the western hemisphere are a testament to the very unisolationist impulses of the last 500 years, at least. One could even make a case that with the Crusades it started much earlier. There are very few places on the globe that were not at some point under the control of a European power during history, though in some cases this may have amounted to indirect rule or a type of suzerainty. The point, however, is that the nations of the west have been outward looking for centuries and have not avoided international intervention simply out of principle.
It is one thing to oppose a nation's support to Zionism, as I do myself, but the nation ultimately reserves the right to make such decisions based on various factors. An attitude that we must take our cues from, or be bullied or otherwise cowed by 3rd worlders, moon worshipping or otherwise is simply appalling. That is, foreign policy should be dictated by the interests of the nation (though sadly this is not the case today), yes, but nor should the West as a matter of course have to suffer the antics of militant Islam and act in a certain way because the world's Muslim community decided it should. And in the long term they may just be a greater threat than Zionists. A reflexive and dogmatic support of Islam is no better than a reflexive and dogmatic support of Israel.
Perhaps this is all rooted in the notion held by some that if Zionists oppose something or are in conflict with it, *on its face* it *must *be good. No one is making others personally support them; nor do our orders issue from the Islamic world.
2005-07-18 14:25 | User Profile
All Tancredo's commentary points out is that the deterrent model that worked during the cold war is unsuited to the geopolitical condition of multipolarity and assymetrical political constraints between a nation state and an extranational organization.
It has been suggested by globalization wonks that the nationstate is obsolete. IF that is true, the fall back social framework is not business and financiers, it is theocracy. Why? That is what open societies evolved into. A set back in the nation state's utility means either anarchy, at which point we are back to the land and famine will take about 80% of the Earth's population in about a year, or theocracy, and the wars it will take to sort out who lives where and who has to leave where. See the population transfers between Greece and Turkey after WW I as a fine example of what can happen. Or might happen . . . but with a lot more dead bodies.
[QUOTE=robinder]The West hasn't had an isolationist foreign policy. The states of the western hemisphere are a testament to the very unisolationist impulses of the last 500 years, at least. One could even make a case that with the Crusades it started much earlier. There are very few places on the globe that were not at some point under the control of a European power during history, though in some cases this may have amounted to indirect rule or a type of suzerainty. The point, however, is that the nations of the west have been outward looking for centuries and have not avoided international intervention simply out of principle.
It is one thing to oppose a nation's support to Zionism, as I do myself, but the nation ultimately reserves the right to make such decisions based on various factors. An attitude that we must take our cues from, or be bullied or otherwise cowed by 3rd worlders, moon worshipping or otherwise is simply appalling. That is, foreign policy should be dictated by the interests of the nation (though sadly this is not the case today), yes, but nor should the West as a matter of course have to suffer the antics of militant Islam and act in a certain way because the world's Muslim community decided it should. And in the long term they may just be a greater threat than Zionists. A reflexive and dogmatic support of Islam is no better than a reflexive and dogmatic support of Israel.
Perhaps this is all rooted in the notion held by some that if Zionists oppose something or are in conflict with it, on its face it must be good. No one is making others personally support them; nor do our orders issue from the Islamic world.[/QUOTE]
2005-07-18 18:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]If we are looking to create the perfect situation for Islamic propagandists to use to further their cause, and to instantly recruit more Muslims for all kinds of terrorist activities, the symbolism that would be created by the destruction of their most holy city would be the ideal tool. Holy war, indeed.[/QUOTE]
The chance I am willing to take is that Islam will end since worshipping Mecca is a daily function and taking a pilgrimage to kiss the black meteorite is a required function of Islam. If these elements are gone, then like with the Japanese, they may wake up and become constructive inhabitants. Like with Africans, I think that they do not have the genes to be particularly constructive, but that would be the assumption after their religion is ended.
Keep in mind also that the Zionist will no longer need to make constant efforts to exert control over our politics and our money if the Arab Muslim threat is over.
Just by watching the footage recently of European cities under Islamic siege (and in Michigan where they are taking over), they are doing their Jihad now (as dictated by the koran) whether we take action or not.
2005-07-18 18:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]If the major Western countries didn't have Zionist foreign policies, there would be little anger from Arabs concerning the West.
Also, the West must return to isolationist foreign policies.
There is no need for anger between Arabs and the West, provided that Western foreign policies are sensible.
-----------[/QUOTE]
Like Angler, this is my position as well.
Goodwill towards all nations, entangling alliances with none.
Can't think of anything that makes more sense.
Scapegoating Islam or Muslims doesn't make sense when
the country you live in (USA, England, etc.) isn't even yours
anymore and hasn't been yours for a few decades now.
2005-07-18 18:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=robinder]The West hasn't had an isolationist foreign policy. The states of the western hemisphere are a testament to the very unisolationist impulses of the last 500 years, at least. One could even make a case that with the Crusades it started much earlier. There are very few places on the globe that were not at some point under the control of a European power during history, though in some cases this may have amounted to indirect rule or a type of suzerainty. The point, however, is that the nations of the west have been outward looking for centuries and have not avoided international intervention simply out of principle.
It is one thing to oppose a nation's support to Zionism, as I do myself, but the nation ultimately reserves the right to make such decisions based on various factors. An attitude that we must take our cues from, or be bullied or otherwise cowed by 3rd worlders, moon worshipping or otherwise is simply appalling. That is, foreign policy should be dictated by the interests of the nation (though sadly this is not the case today), yes, but nor should the West as a matter of course have to suffer the antics of militant Islam and act in a certain way because the world's Muslim community decided it should. And in the long term they may just be a greater threat than Zionists. A reflexive and dogmatic support of Islam is no better than a reflexive and dogmatic support of Israel.
Perhaps this is all rooted in the notion held by some that if Zionists oppose something or are in conflict with it, *on its face* it *must *be good. No one is making others personally support them; nor do our orders issue from the Islamic world.[/QUOTE]
I hear what you say. Maybe I should have said a "more isolationist" foreign policy.
2005-07-18 18:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]Scapegoating Islam or Muslims doesn't make sense when the country you live in (USA, England, etc.) isn't even yours anymore and hasn't been yours for a few decades now.[/QUOTE]
It's yours in the sense that you and your family physically live within its borders, x. A suitcase nuke going off in New York is not going to be so discriminating and selective.
2005-07-18 19:36 | User Profile
What Franco said.
Yet I reserve the right to destroy any enemy of America's Traditional Majority should the need arise.
2005-07-18 20:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]It's yours in the sense that you and your family physically live within its borders, x. A suitcase nuke going off in New York is not going to be so discriminating and selective.[/QUOTE]
I agree Tex, but if me or my family is affected in any way, my indignation is going to go against the government first, Muslim second.
And to make it clear, I don't believe Muslims are responsible for 9/11. History shows that Fascists and Communists and Tyrants always need scapegoats to accumulate more totalitarian power over it's own citizens and will go to great lengths to do so.
The more people believe that all Muslims are terrorists the more certain it becomes that we'll all have to walk through metal detectors just to go to the movies or a restaurant. In the United States of Multiculturalism, the prevailing dogma will utterly collapse if any group, such as Muslims, is singled out. So we all suffer. In a way, I'd love for the collapse to happen, but then again, I prefer truth to lies and justice to false witness.
I'm so torn.
2005-07-19 01:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Snouter]
Keep in mind also that the Zionist will no longer need to make constant efforts to exert control over our politics and our money if the Arab Muslim threat is over.[/QUOTE]What Jews do has little to do with their "need". What they do is determined by expediency and opportunity. It is expedient for them to instigate a war between the two greatest obstacles to their supremacy.....Whites and Arabs. There is no logical reason whatsoever to assume that if Arabs are minimized, Jews will struggle for their supremacy with any less enthusiasm than they have for centuries. If Islam were out of the way, they would be herding the US and China into war against each other. The only reason they aren't doing that yet is because Islam is more difficult for them to herd than the Chinese.
2005-07-19 02:00 | User Profile
Aviv believes the plan is to attack not one big city, like New York, but half-a-dozen smaller ones, including towns in the heartland.
He is trying to influence the potential attackers to aim at the heartland instead of the New York, DC corridor.
2005-07-19 02:41 | User Profile
With regard 'xmetalhead',
Those that develop sparse or unpopulated land. Those that build upon that sparse or unpopulated land. From the beginning and make it what is it. Those that make the land by agriculture and structure and construction and system. That land belongs to them.
It does not belong to thieves and killers. It does not belong to those that may want it. They have no Blood-Right to it. They cannot claim it. It does not belong to the poor of other nations. And never will: for they do not deserve it. When you spill your blood building your country - you do not allow greedy and lazy weaklings to take it from you. And no criminal will take your land if you wish it not.
Muslims committed the murders at New York - it would be foolish ignorance to consider otherwise. They committed similar murder in other places, before and after - they admit to it. They do not make false pretence.
They are clear in their intention and happy to admit to it. They want you to know it.
And those that deny the facts put to them - are simple cowards. Afraid to face the enemy. Afraid to kill those that want, and will, cut your throat from ear-to-ear. And parade your head as an animal. As an ââ¬Ëinfidelââ¬â¢.
Mentzer
2005-07-19 02:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Mentzer]Those that develop sparse or unpopulated land. Those that build upon that sparse or unpopulated land. From the beginning and make it what is it. Those that make the land by agriculture and structure and construction and system. That land belongs to them.
It does not belong to thieves and killers. It does not belong to those that may want it. They have no Blood-Right to it. They cannot claim it. It does not belong to the poor of other nations. And never will: for they do not deserve it. When you spill your blood building your country - you do not allow greedy and lazy weaklings to take it from you. And no criminal will take your land if you wish it not.
Mentzer[/QUOTE] So, are you saying that the Israeli's by right own the land? You described the Might Makes Right method of drawing lines on a map, a time honored tradition in human history.
There is one slight hitch, along the "he that lives by the sword dies by the sword" adage: there's always some wag who wants to get his gun and take it from you, once you make it bloom.
The age old conflict between the farmer and the nomad. A human cultural archetype.
2005-07-19 02:57 | User Profile
You are in error.
I speak of Europe - My homeland. I speak of Germany - my Fatherland.
I have no interest in Israel or the Middle-East. I care nothing for Jew or Muslim. Until they come my way.
Can you undertsand this?
I have made it clear.
Mentzer
2005-07-19 03:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Mentzer]You are in error.
I speak of Europe - My homeland. I speak of Germany - my Fatherland.
I have no interest in Israel or the Middle-East. I care nothing for Jew or Muslim. Until they come my way.
Can you undertsand this?
I have made it clear.
Mentzer[/QUOTE] Got it. Specific, not general.
Vielen Dank. (Sorry if I spelled that wrong.)
2005-07-19 18:56 | User Profile
Mecca should be on the list of targets if America is attacked. In this way, the terrorists may think twice before attacking us again.
2005-07-19 20:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ron]Mecca should be on the list of targets if America is attacked. In this way, the terrorists may think twice before attacking us again.[/QUOTE]Has the Jewsmedia got you brainwashed about "terrorism"? They would like us to kill their enemies every time they implement an attack and tell us the Arabs did it. Tel Aviv should be at the top of that list.
2005-07-19 20:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=travis]Has the Jewsmedia got you brainwashed about "terrorism"? They would like us to kill their enemies every time they implement an attack and tell us the Arabs did it. Tel Aviv should be at the top of that list.[/QUOTE]
I am more afraid of the Zionist with one nuclear (and they have over 400) than an Arab with a bomb.
The Arabs (Muslims) were not our enemys till started to support the Zionist state of Israel in killing Palestinians and stealing their land.
And why play games? we all know that the Palestinians will never be free of the Jews the same way that the Jews will never have peace as long as they are in Arab land.
2005-07-19 20:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Mentzer]With regard 'xmetalhead',
Those that develop sparse or unpopulated land. Those that build upon that sparse or unpopulated land. From the beginning and make it what is it. Those that make the land by agriculture and structure and construction and system. That land belongs to them.
It does not belong to thieves and killers. It does not belong to those that may want it. They have no Blood-Right to it. They cannot claim it. It does not belong to the poor of other nations. And never will: for they do not deserve it. When you spill your blood building your country - you do not allow greedy and lazy weaklings to take it from you. And no criminal will take your land if you wish it not.
Muslims committed the murders at New York - it would be foolish ignorance to consider otherwise. They committed similar murder in other places, before and after - they admit to it. They do not make false pretence.
They are clear in their intention and happy to admit to it. They want you to know it.
And those that deny the facts put to them - are simple cowards. Afraid to face the enemy. Afraid to kill those that want, and will, cut your throat from ear-to-ear. And parade your head as an animal. As an ââ¬Ëinfidelââ¬â¢.
Mentzer[/QUOTE]
I don't deny Muslims use terrorism to achieve political goals but I don't deny that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Until we admit to ourselves that America has just been plain fuggin' people up in the Middle East for 100 years then we'll never, ever be free of men who want to strike back at the Evil Empire.
How do you know that Muslims [U]definitely [/U] did 9/11? Oh, was it that guy's passport that survived the inferno and happened to land on a street 5 blocks from WTC where a news team and photographer just happened to be standing and proceeded to take few snapshots of that passport?? God works in mysterious ways!
Mentzer you expose yourself as a true neocon by justifying 'might makes right' in the Israeli/American/UN land grab of Palestine. Sharon & Co would be proud of you, comrade.
2005-07-20 14:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]I am more afraid of the Zionist with one nuclear (and they have over 400) than an Arab with a bomb.
The Arabs (Muslims) were not our enemys till started to support the Zionist state of Israel in killing Palestinians and stealing their land.
And why play games? we all know that the Palestinians will never be free of the Jews the same way that the Jews will never have peace as long as they are in Arab land.[/QUOTE]
Israel has over 400 bombs which could reach us or Europe, but they haven't caused as much damage as a few Arabs with bomb packs. The bin Laden faction are insane. In fact, I think old Osama bin Laden himself could be insane. Yes, Israel did steal their land fair and square. The same way the US stole this land.
2005-07-20 15:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ron]Israel has over 400 bombs which could reach us or Europe, but they haven't caused as much damage as a few Arabs with bomb packs. The bin Laden faction are insane. In fact, I think old Osama bin Laden himself could be insane. Yes, Israel did steal their land fair and square. The same way the US stole this land.[/QUOTE]
About the state of Israel nuclears = all it take is one.
Arabs with bomb pack = don't mess around with a bee hive.
About Osama = to Arabs he is their George Washinton, insane as a fox.
About Zionists stealing land like US = no peace for Jews and Aztlan.
2005-07-20 17:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]About the state of Israel nuclears = all it take is one.
Arabs with bomb pack = don't mess around with a bee hive.
About Osama = to Arabs he is their George Washinton, insane as a fox.
About Zionists stealing land like US = no peace for Jews and Aztlan.[/QUOTE] Well, let's say bin Laden had the nuclear arsenal Israel supposedly has. What do you think he would do with it? The Arabs with bomb packs demonstrates a will toward suicide and murder, not a superior or even equal morality with Christians. If bin Laden is their GW, then they are all crazy and a candidate for extinction. What applied to Nazi Germany should also apply to them.
2005-07-22 09:05 | User Profile
If Al-Qaeda deploys nukes in U.S. cities (an inevitabilty within a few years, perhaps months, I should think), and say takes out New York, Washington and Los Angeles on Christmas morning of 2009 or whatnot, a few things are going to happen. One of those things is that President Hillary Clinton, or Jeb Bush, or whomever the black box voting machines tell us we selected in November of 2008, after Tancredo fails to win the GOP nomination, due to having made a series "surprisingly poor showings," after doing so well in Iowa and New Hampshire (caucuses don't use voting machines, and in New Hampshire, they still count paper ballots by hand, or at least they still were doing so in 2000, and my understanding is that they were very reluctant to alter that process, since Granite Staters are smart enough to know there's a reason why the establishment is so in favor of voting via mystery machines, no doubt equipped with the same sort of backdoors the CIA was adding to those versions of the PROMIS software they so graciously handed out to all our allies, rather than safe and reliable pencil & paper), along with the entire "bi"partisan establishment in the Congress, Judiciary, cabinet departments (those that are still alive and kicking after Washing goes the way of Gomorrah, that is), and equivalent functionaries across the nation as a whole, will be forcibly (if need be; many will give in with little or no fight, I suspect) and quite rapidly displaced by people such as ourselves (more at the local and smaller state levels) and patriotic elements within the military, intelligence and Federal law enforcement (more at the national and larger state levels), thus a new order in public affairs will thus begin to emerge.
In such an event, the military wing of this new government will waste very little time, and won't be consulting with anyone else, other than [I]MAYBE[/I] some intelligence types, before taking quite devastating action againt the Arab (and Persian) peoples of southwest Asia and North Africa, via ICBM and/or sub-launched nuclear cruise missiles, against quite a number of their cities. Mecca and Medina will likely be on that list, but so will Tehran, Riyadh, Amman, Beirut, Damascus, Cairo, Alexandria and Khartoum. The Turkic peoples of Central Asia may witness similar attacks on Islamabad, Karachi, Lahore, Kandahar, etc. This will all be done in an attempt to A) discourage such attacks against us in the future by such nearly genocidal degrees of 20 or even 50 to 1 levels of retaliation, and B) to largely destroy the economic ability of predominantly Arab and Central Asian Turkic Islamist guerrillas to acquire the means to strike at us in such a manner again (dead Islamists can't nuke us, nor are a bunch of desert-dwelling, nomadic refugees from a regional nuclear holocaust likely to have much wherewithal in so far as purchasing and deploying anymore nuclear warheads, especially in light of the fact that all American Muslims and/or Middle Easterners - and probably European, Canadian, Australian, New Zealander and quite possibly Latin American - will be in concentration camps awaiting summary deportation - and the U.S. Marines will be securing our border with Mexico - or at least those Muslims and/or Middle Easterners not killed in the immediate aftermath of the Christmas Day Decimation, and many no doubt would be killed by angry Americans, along with more than a few Sihks, Maronite & Coptic Christians, Hindus, and even some of the darker skinned Bhuddists).
Within such a context, as I regard as nearly inevitable at this stage, it is actually somewhat unrealistically mild on the part of Rep. Tancredo to suggest ALL we will do is nuke Mecca and Medina. We'll do a Hell of a lot more than that (which will include seizing any number of their oil fields, i.e. those ones the Russians don't get to first in the immediate aftermath of our terrible misfortune and subsequent reprisal) Tancredo's remarks are (characteristically) helpful, as they can be seen as giving reason to act to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and various other less than entirely committed and/or effective governmental agencies in that region. Its really important that those people over there understand just how much it is in their best interests to see Al-Qaeda fail in their efforts to strike a crippling blow against this nation, so that they will be motivated to do what it takes to protect the American imperialist jackasses who so clearly are unworthy of said protection (but since my son and I live here, I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist, irrespective of how righteous or otherwise understandable their desire to see the David Frums, Dick Cheneys, Morton Zuckermans, Larry Flynts, Hillary Clintons, etc., of this world die a painful and fiery death may well seem to be).