[XJarhead]

Can someone who supports Tancredo's remarks please explain to me why nuking Mecca is a better response than nuking the capital of any countries that supported, harbored, or tolerated the responsible terrorist group?

I'm not afraid to bring the hammer down -- I just want to hit the right nail.

And (if you have one), I'd like to hear reasons other than the claim that the destruction of Mecca would end islam. I've already discussed that one once, and have no desire to do so again. But I am curious as to the other "practical" reasons to make Mecca the preferred target over the capitals.

[JCEccles]

Can someone who supports Tancredo's remarks please explain to me why nuking Mecca is a better response than nuking the capital of any countries that supported, harbored, or tolerated the responsible terrorist group?

Tancredo didn't say it was a "better response." He said it was a response that shouldn't be taken off the table.

[sheik yerbouty]

It is a symbol, and the capital; the source of the plague. A neutron bomb in which the radiation will quickly dissipare will drice the message home.

[JCEccles]

Tancredo didn't say bombing Mecca was a "better response." He said it was a response that shouldn't be taken off the table. Do you agree with him now that you know what he actually said?

[Publius6961]

Can someone who supports Tancredo's remarks please explain to me why nuking Mecca is a better response than nuking the capital of any countries that supported, harbored, or tolerated the responsible terrorist group?

I'm not afraid to bring the hammer down -- I just want to hit the right nail.

You seem to be missing the subtleties of the debate. I for one, agree with you entirely, as I'm sure do many others.
The debate is all about the faux horror at articulating the obvious; a political screw up. The reaction is more horrific than the proposal.

Whether we nuke mecca first or last is of profound importance. My personal vote is last.

The substance of the argument is if a billion savages are totally pissed and vow to kill you or support those who do, how can it get any worse with mere words?

[Klickitat]

If you read Tancredo's original comments he was talking about using the threat of bombing holy sites as a means of deterrence against a nuclear attack on America. I believe this stance is consistent with American govt. policy since at least world war two which is that we reserve the right to respond with devastating force against targets we perceive as precious to the enemy if our cities are destroyed. Note also in his original comment he says "bomb" with no mention of "nuclear".

I believe that if we were to use the threat against these targets it might help those supporters of terrorism in muslim governments, mosques, and other positions of power reconsider supporting, either overtly or covertly, a large scale nuclear or other wmd attack against the US.
Remember Osama bin laden has received permission from a Saudi sheik http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/252390p-215993c.html to use nuclear weapons against US cities. Maybe this sheik and others in positions of influence in the muslim world would reconsider if they felt their holy sites would pay the price.

All that being said while I agree that using the threat as a deterrence might work, actually carrying out the threat, I just don't know. I do know this, I hope we are NEVER in a position to have to make the decision, because if we are it means at least one American city has just been destroyed.