(Re the article: I hope you at least got past the first paragraph. But it is rather lengthy, and reading can be so tedious.)
(Re academia: As I mentioned earlier, I think, given the irretrievable state of things, the problem is going to self-correct.)
A reading assignment: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3869
Actually, the analogy was the carrying out a military reprisal on both the symbolic and physical ideological capitol of an enemy movement. I know that Islam isn't a country; it's an ideology conflated with religion. After World War II, "fighting Communism" became the paramount thing. Communism wasn't a country, though, was it?
Who are we fighting? Turr-ists, as Jorge Busheron would say?
That Tancredo repeated his statement years later would simply mean that upon reflection he chose to stand firm on his initial assessment. Impugning the off-the-cuff-ness of his remark is a red herring. Maybe it was initially and maybe not. I'd heard it was. But who cares. He wound up reaffirming it years later, so it doesn't much matter.
I am curious, though. Perhaps you can answer.
What should be the response of the United States government if that happened?
Several U.S. cities are nuked and it's determined that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims.
That was the question posed. What's your answer?
"...asked the Littleton Republican how the country should respond if terrorists struck several U.S. cities with nuclear weapons."
I remember that little brouhaha. What should be the response if that happened?
Several U.S. cities. Nuked. "[A]nd we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims...."
(This will be telling.)
A comparable historical situation would be the attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan (7 December, 1941). Tokyo was bombed as quickly as the technology of the times would allow (18 April 1942). Wikipedia: "Doolittle would later recount in his autobiography that the raid was intended to cause the Japanese to doubt their leadership and to raise American morale."
Nowadays that is no doubt viewed by the typical university-indoctrinated droid--equipped with all the logic and rhetoric skills necessary to question authority--as mean and narrow-minded.
I think Tancredo's response, which was off-the-cuff and hypothetical, was appropriate. Destroying Mecca would be destroying the enemy's capitol. Duh! (The civilized gesture of dropping leaflets prior would be optional.)
"The irony of this situation...."
Yes, as in "[a] student, carrying a cardboard sign that read "NO HATE SPEECH AT UNC," bolted after Tancredo and Matheson, screaming profanity and insults."
The origin of garbage like this is academia, and it'll be effectively ended when semester course costs at even the lowliest state university is $1000+ per credit-hour. Then Daddy and Mommy will have to tell little Ashley and Cody that upon graduation from high school they'll have to either enter a technical school or find a job (or join the Navy!).
As a commenter at Lawrence Auster's "View From the Right" said, I'm cautiously optimistic about a complete and total economic meltdown.
Indy Week • 302 E. Pettigrew St., Suite 300, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation