OMFGWTFBBQ!!!!!1!!1!!11 An Explosion Sound in a Campaign Ad!

Well, it looks like Tom Tancredo has a campaign ad that’s making the usual suspects on the left all sweaty and indignant. Tancredo asks whether we are willing to face the possibility of a terrorist attack in a shopping mall as a consequence of our ludicrously open borders.

Apparently, that’s not a question a Presidential candidate is allowed to ask. The TPM post breathlessly announces that the ad “even ends with the sound of an explosion!”. An explosion? In an ad about a potential terrorist attack? My stars and garters! I shall have to sit down and have my brow soothed with a cool cloth!

Not to be outdone, Firedoglake proclaims the ad watchable only “if you think your stomach is strong enough”. MyDD says this ad makes Tancredo the “fearmongeriest of the Republicans”. DownWithTyranny!, ironically, says the ad “might make someone think Bush’s fear tactics have been positively moderate“. Comments from Left Field calls Tancredo “bat-shit crazy”. And John Cole, eager to polish his lefty cred, says that “Tancredo takes campaign ads to a new low”. (All links via memeorandum, where you can find ‘em if you want ‘em.)

Yes, well. Before we get all dyspeptic, let’s look at the ad. You can find it, and my reasons why Tancredo’s ad isn’t nearly as outlandish as the cynical naysayers of the left would have you believe, after the jump.

The ad is definitely stark and it surely doesn’t pull any punches, but is it really that off-base? I don’t think so.

In order to simply discard the ad as “fearmongering”, you’d have to believe two things: 1) that Islamists aren’t capable of crossing our largely open southern border and 2) that Islamists aren’t terribly interested in exploding a bomb inside an American shopping mall.

To the first point, I’d say that you’ve have to be pretty determined to ignore a lot of direct evidence that Islamists are making their way here over the Mexican border. To steal an Al Goreism, the debate on this subject really is over.

But what about shopping malls. Are they really viable targets for Islamists? Well, STRATFOR, which is generally a pretty good place for analysis, has this to say:

Although FBI warnings concerning potential attacks against malls date back to as early as 2002, no major attack has occurred. Rather, security incidents at malls over the past few years have largely involved individuals acting alone, such as an incident in February when a Bosnian man opened fire in a mall in Utah, killing five people and wounding four. The suspect was found to have no international militant connections.

Shopping malls overseas, however, have proven to be popular terrorist targets. Shopping centers in Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, Spain and the Philippines have been targeted by militant groups. The tactics used in these attacks have included suicide bombers, car bombs and explosive devices planted at the scene.
…
Even though malls will contain a high number of potential victims during the holidays, there are relatively few places inside them where shoppers are concentrated enough to ensure a high number of deaths. Malls, therefore, do not fit the targeting criteria of al Qaeda prime, which concentrates on mass casualty attacks against highly symbolic targets.

The primary threats to U.S. shopping centers, then, are lone wolves and homegrown terrorist cells, as several thwarted attacks in recent years suggest. A Muslim convert in Illinois was arrested in 2006 after he attempted to purchase hand grenades from an undercover officer for an attack at a mall. Similarly, a Somalian immigrant in Ohio was said to have been plotting to detonate a bomb at a mall in 2004 with the help of several associates.

STRATFOR doesn’t note that the FBI found that the Somali man arrested in 2004 was working with admitted Iyman Faris, who had already admitted his al-Qaeda membership. He pled guilty to a terrorism charge in 2007 and was sentenced guilty to 10 years in prison. So it’s not conclusive that all the attacks on shopping malls could come from “lone wolves”. Even if STRATFOR is correct, would the people killed by a lone Islamist any less dead than those killed by those carrying their al-Qaeda ID cards? Would the economic damage be any less? You’d have to work really hard to convince me or any other reasonable person that a “lone wolf” attack is any less serious than one with the al-Qaeda Seal of Approval.

The real question, then, is this: It is really out of line to say that allowing Islamists to enter the United States nearly unchecked could very well result in an attack on a mall or other public area? Given the FBI’s recent cautionary note, it sure seems to me that Tancredo’s ad brings up a couple subjects we should be talking about a whole lot more. I think we’d be incredibly foolish this subject off for no better reason than cynical politics. And make no mistake, folks, that’s exactly why the folks on the left are sniggering at Tancredo today. They’ve not invested any serious thought in the subject. They simply see that Tancredo has a big capital “R” behind his name and they dump on him. It’s not rational; it’s reflex. They’re no different than Pavlov’s dogs, except that the thing that makes them drool and yip are the words “Islamic terrorism” coming from the vocal chords of a Republican instead of a ringing bell.

Maybe they can afford to be like that. I don’t think the rest of us can. I’m not willing to stake my life, or the lives of those I love, on the sneering cynicism of the left.

No related posts.

Category: Fighting the Islamists, Moonbat Nonsense, The 2008 Horse Race