Comments:U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo clarifies 'nuke Mecca' comments

I really have noting against what he said. What if a Islamic terrorist attack the Vatican? We should have a option like M.A.D. as a safety issue. (Yes i know what i said and no I'm not anti-islamic just anti-radical in all fields).--KDP3 (talk) 01:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The trouble with nukes is that they're indiscriminate. Considering the knowledge that when targeting a city with one you effectively wipe out the civilian population, I've long wondered wether use of them constitutes a war crime in most cases. Japan was less clear-cut; I wouldn't have done it but I can understand the view that maybe there would be even more deaths if the country had remained fighting, especially since they were working on nuclear capability of their own. The Dresden firbombing was fairly wanton destruction at a time when it served no point, even Churchill said that. Dropping the bomb on Mecca would only serve to bring more WMDs against the west unless you could demonstrate that the nuclear capability was based in Mecca; I think wether you approve of using them or not, we should all be able to agree on that. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)