Retaliate for nuclear terror

CNN reported A Colorado congressman told a radio show host that the U.S. could "take out" Islamic holy sites if Muslim fundamentalist terrorists attacked the country with nuclear weapons. Rep. Tom Tancredo made his remarks Friday on WFLA-AM in Orlando, Florida. His spokesman stressed he was only speaking hypothetically. Talk show host Pat Campbell asked the Littleton Republican how the country should respond if terrorists struck several U.S. cities with nuclear weapons. "Well, what if you said something like -- if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites," Tancredo answered. "You're talking about bombing Mecca," Campbell said. "Yeah," Tancredo responded. The congressman later said he was "just throwing out some ideas" and that an "ultimate threat" might have to be met with an "ultimate response."

Michelle Malkin blogged Rep. Tancredo's remarks were most certainly unwise, and he should do the right thing and retract them quickly, but I do not agree that his words were "the most irresponsible" opinions expressed by any American official. Not compared to this or this or this or this. The controversy does raise a very serious issue: What should we do to deter the jihadist threat, nuclear or otherwise? Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald offers his list here of things Rep. Tancredo should have said. Some of my preemptive measures are included here. Juliette Ochieng listened closely to Rep. Tancredo's remarks, which have been mischaracterized, and brings her trademark sensibility to the controversy here.

Bombing their Holy Sites would enrage all Muslims. If we have to target something in Saudia Arabia, it should be the leaders of the extreme Wahhabbi teachings, but my preference would just be to expell all Muslims that have ever spoken in favor of terrorism in any context (including Israel), and close our borders to any new entry.