Shot In The Dark: Tancredo - Context Doesn't Help Much

July 19, 2005

Tancredo - Context Doesn't Help Much

Thorley Winston, Twin Cities blogger at large writing with RedState, has Rep. Tancredo's remarks:

While I am sympathetic that people sometimes speak off the cuff and say things that don't come out quite as they intended and that the MSM can and often does chop off the "juicy parts" in order to gain ratings, having listened to his comments and read them, I find nothing mitigating in them and his Durbenesque statement on Sunday misses the point entirely.

The actions of the enemy in targeting Muslim and non-Muslim alike including targeting Mosques is eroding support (what there may have been) for the killers. Does anyone seriously think that our foe would be deterred rather than gladdened should the United States respond by intentionally bombing Islamic Holy Sites? Tancredo `s remarks are harmful to our country, our cause, and our party and they need to be retracted immediately.

Here's the deal; collective guilt is anathema to Americans. And it should be in this hypothetical case as well.

The moslem in Indonesia may be on the fence regarding his sympathies today; it behooves us not to push recklessly into the "kill America" camp, when better options are available.

Posted by Mitch at July 19, 2005 12:16 PM | TrackBack

Comments

"Here's the deal; collective guilt is anathema to Americans. And it should be in this hypothetical case as well."

You need to read more of our history.

Collective guilt has anathema to American only when dealing with societies and cultures that "play by the rules".

We've always been ones to play by the rules, when the other side did the same, and we've always been fast to throw the rule book away if the other side didn't.

Should we nuke Mecca in response an Islamist nuclear attack on the US?

No.

Would we?

I can conceive of a number of scenarios in which we would.

Remember - we firebombed _every_ city in Japan. Because we thought the threat justified that response.

People don't think that sort of response is justified against Islam - mainly because most people are still able to make distinctions between Islam and the Islamists.

But that distinction is a subtlety that can quickly be lost.

Posted by: Jeff Dege at July 19, 2005 04:41 PM

"You need to read more of our history."

As I'll try to demonstrate - no, I don't.

"Collective guilt has anathema to American only when dealing with societies and cultures that "play by the rules".

You're splitting a hair differently than I'm splitting it, here. More on this below.

"Remember - we firebombed _every_ city in Japan. Because we thought the threat justified that response."

Differences; Japan was a cohesive (EXTREMELY cohesive!) nation, not a discontiguous mass gathered around (different and often conflicting versions of) a faith. And even THEN, we did not firebomb the Shinto analogue of Mecca, their holy city of Kobe - for many of the same reasons the US would probably abjure bombing Mecca. We firebombed them because other options - surrender (as with the Germans) or the ability to divide and conquer/co-opt (the Middle East under the Bush doctrine) weren't available (or at least not obvious, given the kamikaze offensive and other indicators of Japan's apparent monolothic willingness to fight to the death.

"People don't think that sort of response is justified against Islam - mainly because most people are still able to make distinctions between Islam and the Islamists.

But that distinction is a subtlety that can quickly be lost."

Can be, sure. Will it be?

Not as certain. For starters, it would play directly into the Islamists' hands.

Posted by: mitch at July 19, 2005 04:50 PM

csIt is there - latina mpegs
http://aqgk.synnu.com/
horny latinas
http://aqgk.synnu.com/horny-latinas.html
daily latinas

Posted by: petra at March 20, 2006 03:46 AM