I don't. It's stupid, infantile, and damaging to our own interests.
There is either a connection between islam and terrorism, or there is not. If there is, then islam needs to be either changed to a profound degree and at a fundamental level, or excised. If, on the other hand, it is claimed that such a linkage between islam and terrorism does not exist, evidence needs to be produced to refute the anecdotal evidence we are all aware of.
Excision of islam could, arguably, include removal of sites regarded as integral to islam.
Therefore, I contend that the sentiment expressed in "nuke mecca" may not be entirely misguided.
I don't. It's stupid, infantile, and damaging to our own interests.
And it takes out of production valuable land that could be used for the production of livestock. Surely we could interest some hard-working Mexicans, desperate to escape the overcrowding of some areas of their native land, in serving as tenant farmers.
Nuking Medina makes much more sense, if a nuke is employed.
I find no evidence that Islam is remotely interested in peace.I am not interested in foolishly attempting to deal rationally with an irrational enemy.Islam declared war on the rest of mankind.Why do people avoid that fact?
Bush has said this will be a new kind of war, and he is speaking truth in that.This is not a battle of nations,nor even of religions.Islam is not a religion, it is a barbaric governmental system utilised by a limited number of despotic regimes to controll ignorant populations.
It is a battle of humananity against despicable sociopaths.IMNSHO.