So ummm... Tom Tancredo
 

I'm pretty sure you've all heard now but in case you haven't, according to ol' Tom, a nuclear attack against the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina would be a successful deterrent against possible future terrorist strikes against the US.

Not only will wiping out two of the most sacred Muslim cities not deter future attacks, but would more than likely incite more attacks against Americans as such an action would be deemed a modern day Crusade against Islam. Not to mention that Mecca and Medina are both located inside of Saudi Arabia and, last I checked, Saudi Arabia was a supposed ally of the US who supplies us with billions upon billions of barrels of gallons of oil. I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't take too kindly to being bombed...

What scares me more than the fact that he's actually running for POTUS, is the fact that there are actually people who agree with him (Enough to get him elected to Congress) :orly:

Doesn't anyone understand that ideas can't be fought with bombs?

MAD has worked for decades, why wouldn't it still continue to work?

The only ones that bombing wouldn't work on are the fanatics and, i'll say it again, you can't fight fanaticism, you can't compromise with it, and you certainly don't want to ignore it, so the only thing you can do is beat it before it beats you.

Because no Muslim extremist is deterred by MAD, is why. They've already shown a complete disregard for who they kill as long as they're killing the 'non-believers', so what makes you think that this mentality will change any time soon?

Besides, such idiotic statements as the one Mr. Tancredo made above play right into the extremists hands and will undoubtedly be used a rallying cry in order to mount more opposition against the US (Hell, they might even take it as a chance to 'Push the envelope', so to speak). If you bomb-- Or even threaten to bomb-- Mecca or Medina you suddenly change the 'war' (I use that term loosely) from the West vs. Islamic fundamentalists to the West vs. Islam.

which is what I think I said above, however, the threat isn't about deterring the fanatics. It's about persuading the rest of the non-fanatics to deal with the exremists in their midst.

If that is the case, then it should be plainly obvious that their is no compromise because the non-extremists are just as interested in our demise as the extremists. They just aren't as ambitious about it as the extremists are.