Muslims are not offended, but like other Americans, they are appalled that the congressman has jumped in where the wise would fear to tread.  Pat Campbell's questions and Tom Tancredo's statements confirm that extremists exist not just amongst Muslims, but also amongst Americans.  Tancredo states that in view of the failure of the current approach to terrorism,  "the civilized world need to intensify its approach", without realizing that intensifying an unsuccessful approach is not going to make it successful, rather, what is needed is a different approach.

He cites remarks by Tariq Ali and Dr. George Hajjar as being representative of "mainstream Muslims".  His lack of knowledge of the  facts is remarkable, for Tariq Ali is an atheist, ex-Marxist of Pakistani origin, does not speak for and certainly is not a representative of  British Muslims,  and the "George" in Dr. George Hajjar's name indicates a Lebanese Christian, not a Muslim.  Has he not heard statements by religious leaders like Sheikh Tantawi of Al-Azhar in Cairo, Egypt, or President Musharraf of Pakistan, or the fatwa from CAIR http://www.cair-net.org/downloads/fatwa.htm in America?  Are they more representative of mainstream Islam or the ones he ignorantly or deliberately misrepresents as "mainstream" Muslims?   He can not get simple facts straight, but he wants to run for President of the United States?

Does he really think that provocative threats will deter terrorists, for by now it is evident to everyone that they do not care.  Or does he think that mainstream Muslims will react to his murderous genocidal threats by cooperating with the likes of himself.  What was he thinking, if at all?

For someone on the House International Relations Committee, his lack of insight into these matters is also remarkable.  In May, Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, speaking to AIPAC, admitted that U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East for the past 60 years has been based on "false choices".  And this has been a contributing factor in the oppressive conditions in Muslim countries, for which there is resentment against America.  However, resentment is not the same as supporting harming innocent persons through terrorism, and he seems not to be capable of distinguishing between the two, when he blames "mainstream" Muslims for supporting terrorism, which they do not, instead of recognizing the underlying problems.

He blames Muslims for the failure of control terrorists without comprehending that it is even more difficult to fight extremism than to fight the "Drug War". America with its large police forces and technology has been fighting the "Drug War" for years, and has failed to eradicate drugs, can it be expected that in a matter of weeks or months Muslims will eliminate terrorism? 

He mistakenly thinks that all of America's and the Muslim world's problems can be solved by force.  He blames mainstream Muslims for reminding Americans that the solution is not just the use of brute force, another "Gunfight at the OK Corrall".  Americans also need to understand the answer to the question that President Bush himself asked after 9/11, "Why do they hate us?", which seems not to yet have been properly understood or answered by the Administration or by the congressman. There are serious problems in Muslim countries that need to be understood and addressed to eliminate extremism and terrorism, for if you need to get rid of the alligators, you drain the swamp, but there seems to be no coherent strategy to drain the swamp of oppressive conditions in Muslim countries.

The radio talk show host is like many other American radio talk show hosts who have lapsed into the role of "agent provocateurs", making and inviting irresponsible and provocative remarks intended to stir up fear and hate against Islam and Muslims, beyond what would be accepted as the limits of free speech.    Terrorists are unlikely to get their hands on nuclear weapons, and even if they did, it would be nearly impossible to get them into the United States.  To suggest something that is nearly impossible just to get an extremist reaction on air is mischievous and malicious, similar to mischievously shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater, knowing that someone will get hurt in the stampede.

Is there any difference between the thinking of the "civilized" congressman and terrorists?  The congressman suggests that the response to some harm inflicted by a group of persons  should be to harm another totally innocent group of people.  This is exactly the terrorist mentality that, based on some real or perceived harm to them by some group, respond by harming another totally innocent group of persons because of some vague guilt by association. This is like police, in response to a crime committed by a criminal in a neighborhood, punishing innocent people in another neighborhood.  And the congressman does not realize that, by the response he is proposing, he is playing into the hands of the terrorists, doing exactly what they want as a reaction.  For a genocidal nuclear attack on Mecca, a city of over a million, killing innocent men, women and children just because they are Muslims, would invite a worldwide reaction against the perpetrators, be they Americans or Russians, and matters would get much, much worse, playing into the hands of extremists on all sides.  It is as inappropriate for responsible, "civilized" groups to behave like terrorists as it is for police to behave like criminals by justifying their actions based on how criminals behave, not on how law-abiding citizens behave.

Americans seem not to realize that they themselves have long crossed the boundary and have been deliberately targeting innocent civilians as a strategy of war (see Time Magazine article on anniversary of Hiroshima, July 25, 2005).  During World War II, thousands of innocent German men, women and children were killed by deliberate bombing of German cities by American and British bombers, the worst being the fire-bombing of Dresden, with the Germans retaliating against London.  Conventional bombs were dropped on Tokyo and other cities by US bombers, killing 900,000 civilians.  Atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed tens of thousands of innocent Japanese men, women and children.  Use of bombs against military targets, like the Japanese navy, or on Iwo Jima, could have been justified.  But to deliberately target innocent civilians as a strategy of war is absolutely unacceptable, and is unethical in all circumstances.  Even using bombs on targets of dubious military value located in residential areas that will surely result in many incidental civilians casualties is unethical.  And it does not matter to the victims whether the bomber who killed them was wearing a military uniform, flying a bomber, and claiming to follow the Geneva conventions, or a misguided suicide-bomber terrorist, the consequences are the same for the innocent victims.

It is remarkable that neither the talk show host nor the congressman seemed to have the sense to discuss meaningful solutions to the problems that exist, on how to address Muslim resentment of aspects of American foreign policy, and changing the oppressive conditions that exist in Muslim countries.  Instead, they indulged in foolish, irresponsible and provocative speculation that makes  matters worse,  making it more difficult for Americans to understand the real situation, and make it more difficult for Muslims to deal with the extremists, who may cite these foolish statements as justification for terrorism.

On one day, he condemns a Chinese general for talking about responding to the US with nukes  http://tancredo.house.gov/pressers/0714TancredoSlamsSeniorChineseOfficialForNukeThreat2.htm , a few days later he makes a similar statement himself.  Let his own words pass judgment on him:  “For a senior government official to exhibit such tremendous stupidity by making such a brazen threat is hardly characteristic of a modern nation, … "he said.