Uh, that depends what we find out about the attacks. If it turns out it was from a group that has been given safe haven in Iran, why would you bomb Mecca? Why not Teheran? Or if its a Saudi group, why not Riyadh? Or Damascas if its Syria?
OH thats right its our fault and we just need to understand their anger.
Oh, that's right. Anyone who doesn't see the logic in bombing Mecca obviously is soft on terrorism and thinks its all our fault. Even though I suggested that nuking the capital of a responsible country might be an appropriate response....
Please explain -- if you can -- exactly what you expect to accomplish by bombing Mecca. What do you expect the result of that to be?
The problem is that some of you people are thinking like liberals on this. Because its usually liberals who respond to problems with solutions that make them feel better, regardless of whether they actually solve the problem or even make it worse. Hey, people need money? No problem, the government will give them welfare because that makes us feel like we're compassionate people. Whether that solves poverty or actually makes it worse isn't really relevant. We feel better, and that's all that matters.
The only way to ever win this war on terror is to force moslem governments to crack down on terrorists themselves. I'm completly in favor of bringing whatever force we need to "encourage" them to do that. But bombing Mecca, or threatening to bomb Mecca, doesn't do that. Why would Assad care if Mecca gets bombed?
Like I said, bombing Mecca is the equivalent of kicking your dog because your wife ticked you off.