« The Bright Side of Bias | Main | Moveon Responds »
July 20, 2005
Tancredo's Cheerleaders Dig In
I was disappointed to read this at LaShawn Barber's Corner, regarding Congressman Tom Tancredo's comments on bombing Mecca:
Most politicians are faint-hearted, weak, ineffectual, disconnected, and desensitized pencil-pushers, so when one comes along and says what should’ve been said eons ago, his own party wants to see his head on a platter because he dared “offend” someone. Numbskulls.I'm one of those who thinks Tancredo should apologize, and I strongly disagree with Barber here. I am a conservative who wants to win the war on terror, and believe that Tancredo's irresponsible statements will make winning this war harder.It’s becoming painfully clear to me that I’m moving farther to the right than so-called conservatives, including bloggers. As they cave to PC pressure and become indistinguishable from liberals, I’ll take up the slack and remain as un-PC as I can get.
Memo to conservatives like Barber: This is not a war against Islam. The best way to make it a war against Islam would be to follow Tancredo's advice and start bombing Muslim holy sites. Let me make my own position clear - if a nuclear weapon is used against the United States, I would not object to responding in kind to those responsible for the attack.
What I object to is the idea that we should indiscriminately punish those Muslims who happen to live close to Mecca.
Bogus Gold says it well - "LaShawn's position is morally, tactically, and strategically wrong." Morally, an attack on Mecca would be nothing more than a revenge strike. Tactically, it would serve no purpose other than to 'punish' all of those who share the faith of those who might attack a U.S. city, and strategically it would set the war on terror back by angering and possibly radicalizing followers of one of the world's largest religion.
In an update to the post, Barber doesn't help herself in suggesting that anyone who disagrees with her and "Bombing Tom" is an "Islamist apologist:"
For Islamist apologists and soft-on-terrorism types, I’m going to pretend I’m an Islamist and crush all dissent. If you don’t agree with me, your comment may not be posted. I don’t think I’ll make any bombs, though. I’m really busy today.This is just ridiculous. Can we maybe dial back the rhetoric just a little bit? Overwrought doesn't even begin to describe this paragraph.
If Barber's idea of a conservative is one who disagrees with her and Tancredo, then I'll plant myself firmly in the "liberal" camp on this one.
Posted by slublog at July 20, 2005 12:40 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.slublog.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1576
Comments
Sorry, Slubgob, I disagree. It IS a war against Islam, you just haven't realized it yet. This won't end until western civilization falls or Islam is destroyed - they are not compatible. And the fault for the "clash of civilizations" is Islam's. You're hypnotized by the sheer number of people who are in thrall to this failed political system, in the same way that we in the West were in the 1970s when we looked at Communism. That was considered a permanent feature of life on Earth back then, too - only a few fanatics dreamed of actually destroying and eliminating it. And it had been around a long time, too, by 20th century standards - the best we could hope for was to slowly, incrementally modify it so we could all manage to coexist. But as it was with Communism, so it will be with Islam. Islam is a donkey-cart religion - if it had stayed in the scruffy little dirt lanes of the backwater where it originated, we would never have bothered with it. But it was the Muslims themselves who decided to take it onto the autobahn, and now its failure is plain for all to see. It can't keep up, and it can't succeed, and the driver is in a constant state of road rage because the rest of the world keeps passing it. Eventually we'll have to smash it to pieces - hopefully, as with Communism, we won't have to slaughter millions of human beings in the process.
Posted by: Wanda at July 20, 2005 07:00 AM
Let's assume we are in a war with Islam. Actually, I agree - I just don't think it's with all Muslims - we're at war with a radical strain of Islam. Anyway, what tactical value would destroying a holy site have on a war with a religion? At best, we'd get some measure of emotional satisfaction at the cost of radicalizing millions of those who practice the religion.
Posted by: Slublog at July 20, 2005 09:16 AM
Blowing up Mecca is a REAL bad idea. One of the Five Pillars all Muslims should accomplish for a good afterlife is to make a pilgrimage to Mecca. To threaten Mecca, therefore, is to threaten the way to salvation. All the mainstream Muslims sitting on the fence between hating the U.S. and deploring AQ's corruption of Islam would jump down firmly on AQ's side.
Posted by: MainiacJoe at July 20, 2005 12:32 PM
Solar cells are the smartest way of saving the planet. They are ubiquitous and can be put on most roofs.
Posted by: Green energy at October 26, 2010 05:54 PM
You make blogging look like a walk in the park! I've been trying to blog daily but I just cant find writing material.. you're an inspiration to me and i'm sure many others!
Posted by: Buy Backlinks at December 18, 2010 08:56 PM
Dreamin. I love blogging. You all express your feelings the right way, because they are your feeling, focus on your blog it is great.
Posted by: Buy Links at December 19, 2010 09:33 AM
Kudos to you! This is a really good blog here and I love your style of writing. How did you get so good at blogging?
Posted by: Buy Links at December 20, 2010 02:47 AM
