The recent London terrorist acts–if actually conducted by authentic Islamists–serve to drive a wedge between Christians and Muslims in that country. This at a time when public support for the war was breaking sharply in the U.K.
Likewise the July 15th talk of Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo on WFLA-AM (Orlando, Fla.) about H-bombing Mecca and other holy Muslim sites (in response to a hypothetical Islamic nuclear attack on the U.S.) undoubtedly serves to drive a wedge between Muslims and Christians.
There is nothing new about the idea of bombing Mecca. It has been aired for years on Christian Zionist and Neocon talk shows, but Tancredo’s statement gives it more weight. And the technique has already been tried on a small scale with the destruction of Fallujah by U.S. forces, the birthplace of the Wahhabi Muslim sect some 200 years earlier. (During the war phase of the conquest, the British "accidentally" dropped two "smart" bombs on Fallujah markets, causing heavy civilian casualties.)
At the same time, the Neocon talk shows are floating the idea that Al Qaeda has "nukes" planted throughout the U.S. that they purchased with "Afghan opium money" from the former Soviet state. (The Taliban, strangely, had sharply curtailed drug production–strange if their guests wanted to use the "Hiroshima option" on the U.S.–but George Bush corrected this situation with the invasion!)
This type of talk serves the "war party" well as it makes the hard-to-swallow believable to a large segment of the U.S. population…should it happen. Nuking Muslim holy sites by the U.S. or vice verca would lock all parties into a prolonged genocidal struggle–something war profiteers and extreme Zionists would not be sorry to see.