Looks like most freepers don't buy Robert Spencer's argument to leave Mecca alone.
I'm not against nuking Mecca, per se, but I think if we are nuked, nuking Mecca as retaliation is a second-rate strategy...and its effectiveness is debatable. Why resort to a debatable strategy? If we are nuked, why not do the obvious, which is to destroy the enemy itself. There's no military power or weaponry coming from Mecca. Syria, Iran, North Korea, etc. will still have their weapons, their money, their terrorists. Why not simply.....destroy the enemy? Why not simply nuke key cities in countries that protect, host or fund terrorists? In fact, I hope we have told them already that if a nuke goes off in America, their capitals and their infrastructure will be destroyed. MAD, in other words. Nuking Mecca is mostly symbolism.