[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?

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"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?"

I agree there. We couldn't stop at Mecca. Once you smack the bee hive, you need to take out all the bees you can immediately. Hesitation would kill you. If we are nuked, we must erradicate entire nations of Islam with lightning speed, not merely Mecca.