Tancredo’s ultimate, metaphysical rejection of the “moderate Islam” thesis

A reader writes with more on Tom Tancredo’s bold stand:

I recall that the policy of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) promulgated by Eisenhower and Kennedy over 50 years ago eventually expanded to include our NATO allies, wherein any attack by the USSR against one of them would be considered an attack against all. Evidently, group characteristics were popular then as they are now. Mr. Tancredo very correctly applies the same logic to the “moderate” Muslim world by inference: since the so called good guys of the Muslim faith have yet to purge their religion of terrorists and murderous activities, an attack on the West by the latter would constitute an attack by all Muslims, moderate and otherwise.

In any event, more power to him, not only for having the guts to speak the truth, but to maintain his position despite predictable backlash and platitudes.

Indeed, the more I think about it, the more I am impressed by what Rep. Tancredo has done here. He has not only refused to go along with the de rigeuer view today that the “vast majority” of Muslims are “peace-loving moderates” and therefore not responsible for what the “radicals” do, he has delivered the ultimate refutation to that view. According to Tancredo, the so-called moderates are so implicated with the jihadists and terrorists, that in the event of a nuclear attack on America calling forth a retaliatory U.S. nuclear strike on Islam, we would make no distinction between Muslim “moderates” and “radicals.”

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 27, 2005 11:00 AM | Send