OxBlog

# Posted 10:37 PM by Ariel David Adesnik

CAN YOU STILL CALL SOMEONE AN "IDIOTARIAN"? I haven't heard that phrase in a while, but I think I have a reasonable candidate:

[George] STEPHANOPOULOS: Congressman Tancredo, your answer on [my show] was...

You said that, in order to deter an attack by Islamic terrorists using nuclear weapons, you would threaten to bomb Mecca and Medina. The State Department called that “reprehensible” and “absolutely crazy.”

[Rep. Tom] TANCREDO: Yes, the State Department -- boy, when they start complaining about things I say, I feel a lot better about the things I say, I’ll tell you right now.

That's from the Republican debate in Iowa on August 5. For a while now, I've been trying to think of an analogy that really expresses just how idiotic Tancredo's position is. It's like saying that if Catholic terrorists attacked us, we'd retaliate by bombing the Vatican, even if the Pope had nothing to do with the attack.

A colleague of mine observed that if you leave aside the threat to kill millions of innocent Muslims, a threat to nuke Mecca and Medina would constitute an interesting test of Al Qaeda's rationality. Presumably, even Al Qaeda would balk at the prospect of Mecca and Medina being incinerated.

I said I wasn't so sure. I think enough Al Qaeda types are inclined toward apocalyptic thinking that they would welcome a nuclear strike as some sort of collective martyrdom. Because frankly, they're even crazier than Tancredo.

Labels: Tom Tancredo

(2) opinions -- Add your opinion

Comments:

Who knows? Maybe if this threat was credible our friends in Saudi Arabia may think twice about funding an Islamicist death cult. Yes, I know. Just the thought is morally reprehensible. Really? Compared to what?

# posted by

Anonymous : 1:29 PM

Well, it is an interesting example of deterrence.

"Attack us, and we will launch a recruitment drive for you."

# posted by

Anonymous : 1:42 PM