Proposed deterrent threats against the religion of jihad

Rep. Tom Tancredo says that if Islamic terrorists ever nuked American cities, we ought to think about destroying Islamic holy places including Mecca. Describing such an extreme threat as counterproductive, Hugh Fitzgerald in one of his comments at Jihad Watch offers up an entire list of more moderate anti-terrorist deterrent measures. It is a valuable, bracing statement, an example of just the kind of hard-headed thinking that is so urgently needed.

Some of Fitzgerald’s proposals—such as seizing Saudi and other Arab assets in the West—are intended as things we should threaten to do in the event of future terrorist attacks on us, while some proposals—such as ending all Moslem migration to the West—he says we should carry out in any case. However, other points in his list are ambiguous. For example, he calls for government sponsored centers outside the leftist universities where Americans would be taught the truth about Islam, and he suggests a Manhattan Project-style program to develop alternative energy sources. Is he saying we should threaten to do these things in the event of further terrorist attacks, or that we should do these things whether there are further attacks or not?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 18, 2005 05:55 PM | Send