Comments:U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo clarifies 'nuke Mecca' comments
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
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)