[XJarhead]

The analogy would be threatening to bomb the capital of any country that supported, aided, abetted, or sheltered the terrorists. That at least has some logic to it. But how does bombing Mecca as retaliation deter, say, a secularist moslem like Assad of Syria? If he shelters a terrorist group that nukes Detrout, how is the thread to bomb Mecca in retaliation relevant?

[King Prout]

it is relevant to the people of the Ummah among whom the terrorists hide and from whom they draw recruits.

[JCEccles]

But how does bombing Mecca as retaliation deter, say, a secularist moslem like Assad of Syria?

The medicine for Assad is to threaten to obliterate Damascus.

It's worked for the Israelis.

[Lancelot Jones]

"The analogy would be threatening to bomb the capital of any country that supported, aided, abetted, or sheltered the terrorists. That at least has some logic to it. But how does bombing Mecca as retaliation deter, say, a secularist Muslim like Assad of Syria? If he shelters a terrorist group that nukes Detroit, how is the thread to bomb Mecca in retaliation relevant?"

Thanks for trying (again) to inject logic and common sense into these threads, it's sorely needed.

Nuking Mecca would in fact validate everything that these terrorists are doing, nuking Mecca, is exactly what they want us to do, as it would give them a veritable bottomless well of motivated new recruits from among the roughly one billion adherents scattered throughout the world.

Who is the enemy?

Same as it always was...the enemy is a loosely organized, multi-national group of individuals, financed by Syria, Iran, and perhaps some individual Saudis. This "shadow Army" uses religion as both an offensive and a defensive weapon to fight the encroachment of Western secularism into the Middle East, and encroachment which would diminish the power of religion over the people in the region.

The fight will neither be easy or quick, but it can be won if we don't do something as stupid as what Rep. Tancredo suggests.

Beauseant!