Tom Tancredo's a bit of a loon, so I sympathize with the desire to mock him over the fact that he wanted to ask General Petraeus about whether or not members of the Central American MS-13 gang were operating in the US military in Iraq. That said, by the time House Armed Services got to ask questions, all the main Iran topics had been discussed to death, and the problem of gangs (including MS-13) in the military is a real one.
« War Crimes | Main | Unawakening »
In Defense of Tancredo
10 Apr 2008 09:51 am
Comments (29)
Paging Chris Ford...paging Chris Ford...
Yep it's a problem but Tancredo's problem is that they're brown not that they're in a gang.
Jay,
Do you have a shred of evidence that Tancredo's problem is that they are "brown" or is your accusation of racism here as spurious as Yglesias's suggestion that Petey was a racist for not backing Obama?
Kudos to Matt. I was in the service just a few years ago and I can tell you its not just MS-13. There were Bloods, Crips, Vice Lords and LK's in the military. What happens is that the judges give them a choice join the military or go to jail. Some join the military. They are the ones likely to get kicked out because they are targeted. NCO's and Officers are most likely to review their service records so those guys are watched the hardest and generally picked on. So they are unlikely to handle the pressure.
On the other hand I have friend (just one of many) who was a former gang member. He changed his life, got married and then left the military. The guy is the most productive person I ever met. He just needed a chance and the military gave it to him.
Tancredo doesn't like the brown people who speaka da spanish. That's not exactly news.
Tancredo doesn't like the brown people who speaka da spanish. That's not exactly news.
But if you want something on him start .
Suggesting that threatening to nuke Mecca is a good way to deter terrorist attacks seems kind of loony to me.
Why again is Tom Tancredo a loon?
You do know this is the guy who called for bombing Mecca in case of another terrorist attack, right?
Regardless of whether or not Tancredo's concerns about MS-13 are justified, shouldn't his questions be directed to the Army Chief of Staff or someone actually in a position to assess and deal with this potential problem? Is he worried that MS-13 affiliated soldiers are going to start entering into Milo Minderbinder-style deals with AQI or JAM?
"Suggesting that threatening to nuke Mecca is a good way to deter terrorist attacks seems kind of loony to me."
I'd say that suggestion is politically incorrect and undiplomatic but I don't know if "loony" is the right characterization for it. It does have a certain logic.
Is he worried that MS-13 affiliated soldiers are going to start entering into Milo Minderbinder-style deals with AQI or JAM?
Hey, what's good for MS-13 is good for La Raza.
This whole story sort of reminds me of this.
I'd say that suggestion is politically incorrect and undiplomatic but I don't know if "loony" is the right characterization for it. It does have a certain logic.
John Hinckley's plan had "a certain logic" too! I mean, you can bet Jodie knew who he was afterwards!
But you're right--the strategic thinking here is totally sound. If there's one thing I know about suicidal Muslim extremists, it's that they're TERRIFIED at the idea of a cataclysmic world war, and would NEVER do anything to provoke Western aggression!
I'd say that suggestion is politically incorrect and undiplomatic but I don't know if "loony" is the right characterization for it. It does have a certain logic.
He's out there operating without any decent restraint, totally beyond the pale of any acceptable human conduct. And he is still in the field commanding troops.
"Suggesting that threatening to nuke Mecca is a good way to deter terrorist attacks seems kind of loony to me."
I'd say that suggestion is politically incorrect and undiplomatic but I don't know if "loony" is the right characterization for it. It does have a certain logic.
Posted by Fred | April 10, 2008 11:13 AM
What logic would that be?
That said, by the time House Armed Services got to ask questions, all the main Iran topics had been discussed to death, and the problem of gangs (including MS-13) in the military is a real one.
Matthew Yglesias
Do you mean Iraq? Because if you're gonna say one when you mean the other, you should really lay off McCain's Shiite-Sunni thing. Yeah, yeah, you're not running for president, but still.
Yes, Fred, clearly his comments on Mecca aren't loony but logical. After all, when prominent people in the government of other countries talk about nuking places, it always makes the United States feel more favorable toward them and less likely to attack.
From your 2nd link
The FBI report concludes the increase poses a threat to law enforcement officials and national security.
The FBI thinks every gorram thing these days are threats to law enforcement and nat'l security. You normally (rightly) mock them for it. Why are you so eager to accept this at face value?
Also re: "increasing"
When the number of incidents related to gangs go from 4 to 16, out of a background of 10,000 criminal investigations, I call that statistical noise.
In short "the problem of gangs (including MS-13) in the military is a real one." is (trivially) true, but there are at least a dozen 'real problems' ahead of it in line that should command our attention.
KCinDC,
You're clearly right. Saddam had no capability to nuke anyone, yet it's been our great national priority to invade and occupy Iraq. PRNK has nukes, and we're told Iran is on its way, and our response to both has been petulant whining.
This thread so perfectly sums up why Fred is an idiot. Pretty soon he'll point to something Steve Sailer wrote as proof that he's not an idiot and wonder why linking to a white supremacist fails to convince non-crazy people. The lack of self-awareness is just amazing.
He's loony because he wanted to ask General Petraeus about mexican gangs in Iraq. If you had a chance to ask the General a question..I mean, come on!
"I don't know if "loony" is the right characterization for it. It does have a certain logic." -- Quoth the loon
On an unrelated side note, can anyone actually point to a quote from Matthew where he called Petey a "racist?" I recall a post that pointed out Clinton won a solid majority of the Ohioans who freely admitted that race played a significant role in their decision. I don't seem to recall Matthew or anyone else here claiming that the other 80-90% of Clinton voters were racists.
Reality Man, wrong. Sailer is a "citizenist" as these articles arguing against Jared Taylor's white nationalism explains:
"Citizenism" vs. White Nationalism (II): Sailer Sums Up"
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/051120_response.htm
"Sailer vs. Taylor, Round II —"Citizenism" vs. White Nationalism"
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/051008_round2.htm
For what it's worth, I went through processing in Los Angeles before I came into the military and they make you get down to your underoos to check for gang tattoos. Besides the military brainwashes you pretty good anyways. I mean, hey, look at me!
Here's an evisceration of a smear piece against Tanc (from MaxBlumenthal). I'll bet things like that have taken in a lot of people, including hacks like MattY.
Tom Tancredo was asked a hypothetical question by a radio show host about how the U.S. should respond if Muslim terrorists attacked several U.S. cities with nuclear bombs. His extemporaneous response was that an appropriate retaliation would be to nuke Mecca. He later backpedaled from that comment, but that comment was as logical as the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction that kept us out of a nuclear war with the Soviets for decades. With stateless Muslim terrorists, the challenge, of course, is that there is no state we can threaten in return. Hence Tancredo's mention of nuking Mecca in response. If you fail to see the logic in that, you are being obtuse. Whether Tacredo should have expressed this thought this out loud on a radio show is another question. By his later backpedaling, it's clear his answer to that question in hindsight is "no".
"Sailer is a "citizenist" as these articles arguing against Jared Taylor's white nationalism explains:"
Sailer has dedicated his life to proving that Africans are mentally genetically inferior to white people. His website, VDare, is listed as a hate site by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Read some of the stuff he wrote about blacks in New Orleans during Katrina. The man is a sick fuck.
"Hence Tancredo's mention of nuking Mecca in response. If you fail to see the logic in that, you are being obtuse. Whether Tacredo should have expressed this thought this out loud on a radio show is another question. By his later backpedaling, it's clear his answer to that question in hindsight is "no".
Posted by Fred | April 10, 2008 4:55 PM"
If you don't see the difference between a religious community and a state, you're an idiot.
Reality Man,
"If you don't see the difference between a religious community and a state, you're an idiot."
Everyone sees the difference -- what are you missing here? Tancredo's whole point was that since these Islamic terrorists aren't loyal to any state, threatening retaliation against a state (as we did with the Soviets) doesn't work -- but threatening retaliation against a religious site of theirs might.
Fred, what part of "one billion Muslims" don't you get, you fucking retard?
Why don't you just STFU, moron?
Reality Man, the Southern Poverty Law Center is a joke. They deserve zero credibility.
Read this Harper's expose on them:
"The church of Morris Dees:
How the Southern Poverty Law Center profits from intolerance"
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2000/11/0068709
Comments closed April 24, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Why again is Tom Tancredo a loon?
Posted by Fred | April 10, 2008 10:12 AM