It looks like Tom Tancredo's remarks about keeping Mecca and Medina on the list of targets we just might decide to turn into dust in response to a massive terrorist attack (radioactive or otherwise, it doesn't really matter, we can do both without breaking a sweat) . . .
I guess real men do it with plutonium--gives the gals that nice glow the next morning. (And if any of the radiation ends up in our wheat fields, we'll just wolf it on down with our Wheaties).
. . . has turned a bunch of otherwise sensible bloggers into shrinking violets embracing the philosophy of "can't we all just get along" that has served us so well in the past (just don't tell that to the ghosts of the 3,000 victims of 9/11. They might get upset, the bloody unnuanced primitives).
I guess all who oppose attacks on religious sites are hippy flower children (I keep hoping to meet some of that lost tribe). I suppose the Muslims living in the U.S. should get with the program. Either embrace bombing your religion's most sacred site or switch religions to something more Amerikan. (And we ain't talking about Hopi kachinas).
Of course, it's most likely because it's been so long since we conservatives had somebody we could offer up as a sacrificial lamb proving our "fair" bona fides.
What??? Offer up Bush. Or Cheney. Or Rummsfeld.
We'd hate to think that it was because our fellow conservatives knew less about fighting a war to win it than your average jelly fish knows about nuclear physics.
I'd agree with you on this one. Of course, the librals are even less capable of winning wars. But you're right. The Republicans, while willing to raze cities, torture prisoners, pre-emptively attack countries, cook intelligence, rig elections, enfeof excons, and engage in all sorts of other nasty Republican dirty tricks, haven't completely mastered the art of war. So where should they turn for the ultimate strategy? How about Hitler? He wasn't a girly man. He was quite willing to give an order to obliterate entire peoples (the Jews) and political groups (the communists and socialists). He even foresaw the mass murder and removal of entire nations (the Russians) until he was stopped by sheer Russian tenacity. Hitler, Tancredo--these people aren't jellyfish. On the other hand, there are a few of us who wonder what in the hell has been "won" after a certain line has been crossed. When we start targetting entire peoples or religions, the current democratic experiment (or more accurately, the illusion of attempting such an experiment) is gone.
Someone quoted on the above-mentioned site wrote the obvious sane response:
The idea that the US would retaliate in such a manner should be repulsive to any rational person, no matter where they fall on the political spectrum.
To which the manly Rottweiler replies:
Why? You throw out the rules, we throw out the rules as well. I've said it a million times before, but let me say it again: I'm not in favor of initiating brutal measures, but I sure as Hell won't hamstring myself by voluntarily stating that I won't respond in kind, no matter what the enemy decides to do.
I can guarantee that right now, some Muslim fundamentalist is sitting in a Mosque before a crowd of young men saying, "The Westerners came to the Middle East and occupied our countries, stole our resources, bombed our cities and mosques, and are now attempting to destroy our way of life. I've said it a million times before, but let me say it again, I'm not in favor of initiating brutal measures, but . . . "
The same logic is being used: There is a vague "they" out there called the West and everyone who is part of "they" and not part of "us" is collectively guilty.
Racism and nationalism have fueled the establishment of "great" empires (that is, mass-murder campaigns), whether it be the Mongol Hordes or the Europeans slaughtering native Americans as they crossed the plains. The vitriolic nonsense spouted forth from some rightwing blogs shows that old ideas truly die hard.
Lest I make it sound like all conservatives have swerved off the road into the ditch, take a look at Blundapundit's well-reasoned post (final excerpt below):
Congressman Tancredo repeat these three easy words ... "I was wrong." Consider this an intervention. I'm taking away your shovel so you can't dig any deeper! I'm going to help you remove your foot from your mouth ASAP! Believe me I'm an expert at the latter! Apologize and move on to more credible theories or be marginalized as one of the right-wing nut jobs that should be run out of Washington at the next election. I know if I was a Republican Coloradan from your district I would be working against such a foolish man. A "leader" who cannot see the error of tying retribution on a faith's holy sites to the actions of nut job factions of that faith should not even be leading a Boy Scout troop let alone be a representative in the Congress of this great country.