Tancredo gets it right

Thanks to Jihad Watch

Last night in the Republican candidates’ debate Tom Tancredo said:

    “My dear friend Ron here, I dearly love and really respect, but I’ll tell you: I just have to disagree with you, Ron, about the issue of whether … Israel existed or didn’t, whether or not we were in Iraq or not, they would be trying to kill us, because it is a dictate of their religion, at least a part of it. And we have to defend ourselves.”

It is a sign of the times that Jason Easley of 411mania.com (thanks to Kaosktrl), who reported these words, thinks they’re loony. Why? Well, just because. Easley classes Tancredo as among last night’s losers, and comments:

    “Tancredo got to say a lot more in this debate, and unfortunately for him, this wasn’t a good thing. His idea that the Muslim faith is crazy and blood thirsty was the topper of a really poor night for him.”

Yeah, where did he get a crazy idea like that? Maybe from Qur’an 9:5 and 9:29? Maybe from teachings from all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence counseling warfare against unbelievers?

Naah. For Easley and multitudes like him, Osama bin Laden and other jihadists can quote the Qur’an and invoke Muhammad to justify violent acts until doomsday, or until the Mahdi returns, and they will never be willing to acknowledge that there may be something in those texts that deserves attention if we are ever going to see a cessation of that violence. The facts of the case are just too disturbing, too hard to believe. It’s easier to assume that when people like Tancredo intrude a bit of reality into the polite fictions that dominate the public discourse about Islamic jihad, that they’re just going off half-cocked, committing a “gaffe.”

Unfortunately, the evidence that Easley would prefer to ignore just keeps piling up no matter what.

May 17, 2007 | 3 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

3 Comments / 3 Comments

  1. His idea that the Muslim faith is crazy and blood thirsty was the topper of a really poor night for him.”

    That’s exactly what it is. Why do so many in the media and government fail to see what is as plain as the nose on their faces.

    I loathe ron paul and his entire bankrupt point of view. Tancredo gave a good response, but he could have added that if our foreign policy is the motivation behind terrorism against us, then why are countries not involved in Iraq, or friends of Israel, terrorist targets? He should have asked, why Spain, which pulled its troops out of Iraq is still threatened with terrorism, why Germany who opposed the Iraq war is threatened by terrorism, not to mention France etc. In fact France has had a pro-arab, pro-muslim foreign policy for decades, and yet is teeming with hostile muslims within its borders.

  2. I am not sure why Jihad Watch seized on Jason Easley’s analysis of the Republican candidate debate. It was not a particulary good analysis.

    Easely is noted on another site as the editor of the politics zone at 411mania.com. His news column The Political Universe appears on Tuesdays and Fridays at http://www.411mania.com/politics.

    Does Easely have any influence at all or is he just one of 10s of thousands of bloggers who think they are good enough to put up their own site and spread their particular views?

    That said, Easely observed the following about the highlight of the debate:

    The highlight of the debate was Ron Paul making the mistake of trying to point out that that one of the reasons why Islamic fundamentalists hate the U.S. might have something to do with our foreign policy in the Middle East. “They attack us because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. … We’ve been in the Middle East. Right now, we’re building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We’re building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting,” Paul said.

    If what Easely is referring to was in fact the highlight of the debate, the debate must have been pretty lacklustre. The Republicans are going to have to generate a lot more excitement then that if the Republican party hopes the ultimate winner for candidate for President of the U.S. will be able to exploit that excitement into votes that will carry them into the White House.

    Easely then injected his own view with the following:

    By the way, there is nothing absurd about the idea that the U.S. is hated because of our foreign policy.

    That Easely disagrees with Tancredo, will that in any way affect voter opinion?

  3. Unfortunately for many, time will vindicate Tancredo and others who understand the threat. Even if it seems that a diplomatic solution is achieved in the future in regards to the situation in the Middle-East it cannot stand since there is no underling foundation shared by the principle parties.

    If Islamic nations participate in any agreement it will be a temporary move in order to compromise Israel’s security. At this point the US, UN, EU, nor anyone else has even been able to get the parties on board for even a pseudo-peace.

    The Islamic hatred for Israel is so profound they have not been able to bring themselves to fake peace even when it works to their advantage and Israel’s demise.

Comments are closed.