No, your logic just says that Islam had the "right" to destroy the foundation of Christianity, which validates, to terrorists, their suicide bombings and acts of terrorism.
No, my statement was that if it were necessary to destroy Islam in order to stop attacks on our nation, using weapons of mass destruction, I would take that option, if I were President. Don't try to reword what I have said in order to fit your preconceived notions of me.
The terrorists, on the other hand, have proven over the past decades that terrorist attacks do not, in fact, achieve the objectives of these groups. It seems, to me, a failed strategy.
The fact is that Western Civilization, at least to some extent, is intent on confronting the various issues that plague the Muslim World and maintain it in a state of constant chaos, violence, and degradation. The various nations and groups of the West have different views on just how to proceed with that mission, but I think that it is safe to say that we all have that goal.
That said, these dictatorships, the terrorists, and the very tenets of Islam are among the things standing in the way of peace and progress in the Middle East and in the Muslim World. The conflict between the West and the terrorists will remain until either the terrorists give up or the West is reduced in strength to the point that it can no longer afford to interfere.
As it stands, right now, the terrorism angle is not working. It only draws more attention to that region and greater interference from the West. If the terrorists truly want to be free from our influence, their best and probably their only hope is to lay down their arms and to work toward detente with their enemies.
The only strategy that has thus far been, in any way, effective is the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Say what you will about the way the occupation has been handled and how it has unfolded versus our expectations, but the fact is that Afghanistan is no longer a training ground for terrorists and Iraq is no longer capable of threatening its neighbors, sending money to Hamas or Hezbollah, nor of producing weapons of mass destruction, whether they were there or not.
Both of these nations have the opportunity to get a taste of what living under a moderate, albeit Islamic-influenced, government can be like and in many areas of Iraq and most of Afghanistan, they are taking to it like a fish to water. While many trouble spots remain, there are entire cities, towns, and villages that are getting that first hit of democratic rule and free market economy. They are starting to be able to express themselves freely. Nobody likes the ongoing violence in Iraq, but change is not always easy and sometimes bad things have to happen before the ultimate good is realized.
So, again, if our nation is attacked with nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons and the attack kills, perhaps, hundreds of thousands of Americans, then I would not hesitate to strike back at whatever enemy that would be, even if it involves the destruction of Islam. If that is what it takes to protect this country, then I would do it. I think that is what Tom Tancredo is trying to say.
So, I guess you're not going to help, then, eh?
