Dean Esmay received the following email, which he posts on his site:
Washington, DC July 26) The Free Muslims Coalition (FMC), a national Muslim organization with 15 chapters, will meet this Wednesday with Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado about a recent comment in which he suggested that the United States should bomb Islamic Holy sites in Mecca as a deterrent against the terrorists.
Following the congressman’s statements, he was immediately criticized by the White House and the Muslim leadership world wide. In response to the criticism, Spokesman Will Adams stated “We have an enemy with no uniform, no state, who looks like you and me and only emerges right before an attack. How do we go after someone like that?”
The Free Muslim Coalition (FMC) is not interested in joining the chorus of Muslim organizations who attacked Congressman Tancredo. Instead, we intend on having an honest discussion about resolving this controversy. FMC understands that Congressman Tancredo represents the frustration of millions of Americans who on a daily basis watch in horror as dozens of innocent people are murdered in the name of Islam.
FMC will convey to Congressman Tancredo that many Muslims share his frustration about the senseless killing of innocent people in the name of our beloved religion. The Free Muslims have said time and time again that the war on terror is more than a military battle, it is also an ideological battle and only Muslims can defeat the cancer of terrorism and extremism that is spreading throughout the Muslim world. The Free Muslims recognize that the Muslim leadership in America and abroad has failed in challenging and discrediting the ideology that leads to extremism and terrorism but we are now trying to reverse our past mistakes by aggressively challenging the terrorists and their evil ideology.
FMC understands that Congressman Tancredo was only speaking hypothetically based on the theory that America must threaten the terrorists with what matters to them most. However, what congressman Tancredo does not understand is that the terrorists don’t care if the United States destroys their holy places. The terrorists are heartless criminals and as far as they are concerned the holy places are just buildings that can be rebuilt. In fact, they will use Congressman Tancredo’s comments as more ammunition for their arsenal. Most likely, the terrorists will take Congressman Tancredo’s words out of context to gain more recruits by convincing gullible Muslims that they are defending them from “crusaders” who want to “destroy Islam.”
FMC president Kamal Nawash will ask Congressman Tancredo to join Muslims who want nothing more that to eliminate the terrorists and the ideology that leads to extremism and terrorism. Nawash said that “Jews, Christians, Muslims and the entire civilized world must join forces to defeat this evil that hides behind religion to justify the murder of innocent people.â€Â
For more information, please visit here [emphasis mine]
I realize that Dean is posting this as an example of moderate, sensible Muslims who, instead of getting outraged by Tancredo’s “incediary remarks,” are instead willing to “engage” the Congressman in a frank and fruitful discussion—at which time time they will tell him exactly why he is wrong.
Which, that sounds more like a lecture—but hey, beggars can’t be choosers. And besides, mere engagement is a step forward, right?
For my part, though, I’m not sold on the premise; for one thing, whether Usama bin Laden cares about the destruction of the holy places or not is immaterial. The fact remains, al Qaeda relies upon religious schools and radicalized Wahhabi mosques to do much of their recruiting and preaching. Which means it’s safe to say that many of his foot soldiers do care about Muslim holy sites, insofar as they believe in the religion that convinces them of the righteousness of their own eventual martyrdom. And those who don’t—but instead reflect only a radicalism formed in the cauldron of disaffected youth, restiveness, and the ideological precepts of an honor culture—should be turned out by the Muslim communities in which they find refuge.
I similarly don’t care much if Tancredo’s remarks are used to recruit more holy warriors—provided those holy warriors are deterred from using WMDs in American cities, however that occurs. Besides, the kinds of Muslims who are likely to be inflamed by the Congressman’s remarks are not “moderate Muslims” (as, ironically, the FMC’s release makes clear—after all, reasonable Muslims can see that Tancredo was speaking hypothetically about US military response options in the event of a major WMD strike, not about official US policy)—but are rather those who, in their hearts, if nothing else, are already waging war against the West.. Let them shout and shake their fists at the Great Satan all they want. But let them know as well that the US will not take any potential response to a WMD strike off the table.
****
(h/t Baldilocks) Previous posts here and here. See also JunkYardBlog, here and here.
Also worth reading.
But…but…but…Hugh Hewitt is damn near having an embolism about how insensitve and inappropriate Tancredo was…Hugh Hewitt! I mean…you know…Hugh Fucking Hewitt!
Actually, I tend to think that ‘reasonable Muslims’ just like ‘reasonable people’ would dismiss Tancredo’s remark as the kind of blubbering idiotic grandstanding that has become so much a part of the chicanery that is modern politics; and be done with it. The only people really getting their panties in a twist about it are the lefties (Look at the warmongering righties!) and maybe the terrorists (See! The Western Crusaders cometh!). Meh.
‘Southern’, as in “[This] southern man don’t need him around anyhow…”
You are wrong.
(referring to Goldstein)
If, whatever part of the Muslim world not engaged with, or sympathetic to, bin Laden’s terrorism and war on the West, were to take-on, confront, and defeat bin Laden and his ilk, as a result of Tancredo’s “posturing,” well, I say terrific.
Let’s not forget that the Saudis are one of the major financiers of terrorism. You’re either with us, or with the terrorists. I like to see a lot more people not only declare their interests, but prove it by their actions.
If you find that a little harsh, I’ll try not mentioning it at your funeral–out of respect for your kindheartedness.
It’s called war–and it was declared on us.
You are right!
(referring to Goldstein).
You are a contrarian.
(referring to Bill)
No I’m not.
(referring to Phinn)
I remember World War II and all those Kamikaze Pilots hurling their planes and themselves at all of the Allied ships all because of the Japanese peoples fury at having had nuclear weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
… Oh. … Wait.
The Kamikazes came BEFORE the use of the nuclear weapons.
Nevermind.
Jeff,
I do understand your point, but I must say that I had an entirely different feeling when I read that. It almost made me happy to finally see a Muslim organization convey a message showing that they have an understanding of the situation. I don’t know much about FMC, or how much influence they have, but it was at least heartening to see someone say it, and then step up to try and find some common ground and do something to help out.
The part that you put in bold is actually the part that makes the most sense to me, and they are right. These sites are not sacred to them. Look at how they use the concept of sanctuary as a weapon against us.
Hmmmm.
What I find curious is this.
If an American city gets nuked by muslim terrorists, then I can’t imagine under what circumstance at least one, and maybe more, participating muslim cities, or countries, won’t get nuked in retaliation.
What I find curious is that people seem to accept as a given that muslims, “moderate” or not, would simply take that as some sort of equivalency. A sort of “oh well, we nuked them, they nuke us, let’s get a latte”.
Which is absurd.
The most probable reaction, and I’m going to submit a request for a fatwa on this, is that muslims all over the world would immediately declare war on America.
So what would be the difference between nuking a muslim city and nuking Mecca? By nuking Mecca we immediately up the ante to the maximum and demonstrate that there are no safe havens and no limits to American retaliation.
Unless you’ve got some sort of proof that muslims will accept the death of a few hundred thousand fellow muslims, by nuclear firestorm, with a shrug.
Whether or not Muslim holy sites are important to the terrorists might be entirely irrelevant. The point is, we should never take any options of the table. Otherwise we create a de facto sanctuary.
Personally, 4 years down the road is a long time to wait for such heartening words. And anything that spurs moderate Muslims to act—including their realization that we will not take any of our strategic options off the table—is a good thing.
I say we stick with the secular. Response to a nuclear detonation in an american city should not be “immediately go apeshit and nuke everything in sight”.
Wait. Reflect. Investigate. Find out who produced the weapon’s core, then nuke the capital of that country.
Yeah, Kimmie, I’m lookin’ at you…
SB: dark
and dangerous.
Jeff,
I wouldn’t be too encouraged by such a meeting when the first paragraph of the press release so badly misrepresents what Tancredo actually said.
Press Release: “in which he suggested that the United States should bomb Islamic Holy sites in Mecca [sic] as a deterrent against the terrorists.”
This is so far from what Tancredo said that it cannot be the basis of a reasoned discussion.
Tancredo said that we should consider bombing (not nuking) Makkah IF THE ISLAMIC TERRORISTS FIRST DETONATE A NUCLEAR WEAPON in the United States.
This would be purely a RETALITATORY strike against a strategic nuclear detonation.
There is a reason why Mecca should be, at a minimum, CONSIDERED a target for such retaliation: The Hajj (the pilgrimage to Mecca).
“It is explicitly stated in the Holy Qur’an that every physically and financially able Muslim should make the Hajj to the Holy City of Makkah once in his or her lifetime.”
It is an inviolable tenet (one of only five) of the faith. Few exceptions are made.
The deterent value is that no Muslim would be able to make the Hajj if ANY MUSLIM nukes the US.
This puts tremendous pressure on ALL MUSLIMS to ensure that never happens.
Bin Laden and his Brothers get their terror money directly FROM OTHER MUSLIMS (via Al Zakat). They have the power to ensure what he does with it.
But they must be first given a reason to exercise that judgement.
I actually made that point over at Dean’s. Dean himself, presumably drawing from the release, mischaracterized Tancredo’s statements.
But you are right—I’m not sure how heartening it is that the FMC is willing to sit down to “discuss” something they’ve already gone to great pains to misrepresent, and the answer to which they’ve already admitted to having decided.
Jeff:
I’ve met some of the FMC folks at a rally here in DC in support of our involvement in Iraq, and in Iran (they hope). Pretty decent folks, I thought. But in this case, although one can certainly understand the sentiment, they are probably wrong. They’re wrong for the reasons you point out, but they’re also probably wrong for a another reason that may be even more salient.
There is probably a moral liability involved in giving the Muslim world the impression that we’d respond to a WMD attack on the US with some sort of restraint. That is not the history of the Jacksonian strain of American culture. Moreover, a simple mathematical tally of a rising series of tit-for-tat escalations immediately suggests that more lives would be saved by an all out retaliation against Islam, either after one “warning shot” or none, than with a series of measured responses or police actions. “Making nice” to the Islamic world, by attempting to convince them that we’re just uncomplicated Howdy Doody types misinforms and seduces them into the belief that the terrorists in their midst are our problem, not theirs.
They need to comprehend, for their own sake, that these Salafists are a far greater danger to Islam than to the US. Keeping Islam in the dark about that almost certain consequence is the opposite of kindness. It’s a form of depraved indifference.
U.S. response to a nuclear attack–of whatever type, nuclear or conventional–would and should focus on Mecca for one purely military reason: that’s where the terrorists are most likely to be located after such an attack.
Their whole reason for a nuclear attack would be to use the chaos of the immediate aftermath to seize control of Islam’s 3 most holy places, Mecca being the most important.
FMC’s claim that “as far as [the terrorists] are concerned the holy places are just buildings that can be rebuilt” is utter bullshit.
The “liberation” of Islam’s 3 holiest places, which the terrorists believe are now occupied by Western-controlled and Western-corrupted governments, is their highest priority, as evidenced by their own public statements and plenty of (Iranian and Egyptian fundamentalist-borne) violent attempts to take over Mecca since 1979. Their attacks on the West are intended not so much to destroy or convert us, but to force our withdrawal from the whole Middle East, so they can establish a “true” Islamic Caliphate originating from these holy places.
We probably wouldn’t nuke Mecca, but we damn sure wouldn’t ignore it either.
Hmmmm.
@ mojo
“Wait. Reflect. Investigate. Find out who produced the weapon’s core, then nuke the capital of that country.”
There’s no guarantee that anybody would be able to determine the actual source of the nuke. They might be able to determine the source of the nuclear materials, but not necessarily who built it and, more importantly, who detonated it.
The whole purpose behind using terrorists to detonate a nuke inside America is, after all, deniability.