Nuke Mecca? Nope.

Frontpage Magazine ^ | 28 July 2005 | Robert Spencer

[Windsong]

They sure as heck revere that black rock more than all the human life in the world, combined.

That really wouldnt have the desired impact youre hoping for, as in 100 years they would simply worship some other rock from "heaven".

[Kozak]

I agree. Big difference between removing the Pope, and vaporizing the Vatican. Caliphs have come in gone in Islam's history, but if we turned that rock into a crater, might give them real pause. Besides, the primacy of the Saudi Royal family is as " protector of the Holy Places". Removing said holy place puts them, and their allies the Wahhabi's out of a job.

[noah]

You have to include Medina Too. When "they" are gone, Muslims can't practice their religion, because the trip to these sites is such an integral part of their religion that if the pilgrimages could not be made, NOTHING else would matter and salvation would be out of everyone's reach, OR they would have to undergo major revision in their religion, which would also shake their confidence in their religion, OR at least cause them to ask if their was any SIN in their midst that led their god to abandon them.
This may be difficult to understand for those whose religions are primarily spiritual in nature. To understand the muslim mind you need to put yourself into their legalistic and materialistic frame of mind.
Also for a large, primarily ignorant population, it would be a severe demoralizing blow to their belief, to have to recognize that THEIR god was not strong enough to protect his own holy sites.

[TAquinas]

Tancredo for President 2008/2012.

[Bommer]

I gave you THE most specific response. You're the one dodging the question: What is the proper response to an Islamic nuclear attack on Washington DC or the Vatican?

[Radioactive]

Nuke the countries that have supported the ISlamic extremists.

Nothing wrong with that.

Make it so if they decided to give us an American Hisroshima, the Islamic countries supporting Islamic Jihad would never be inhabitable again.

You can use all the "Oh I don't think we should do this if that happends" logic, but when the US is hit with a nuke, you can bet there will be an outcry to get them and hit them hard.

IF I was a leader of an ISlamic nation right now, I would be worried that my inaction of not doing anything to stop these hatefull ISlamic extremists would come to a head if the US was nuked.

Yes...Nuke teh ecenters of Islam if we are nuked. And make them pay dearly for their inaction.

[PaRebel]

Your pedantic response is disgusting. You know exactly what Bommer means. Grow up!

[dajeeps]

"The abolition of the caliphate, then, accomplished precisely the opposite of what Ataturk hoped it would: it gave the adherents of political Islam a cause around which to rally, recruit, and mobilize."

As if they haven't done this against the US already... Does the author really mean to imply that if we did something like drop ol' MOAB on Mecca, we'd get attacked by terrorists? That's about as absurd as the dems proclaiming that the war in Iraq has put the homeland in greater danger. I don't see how we could possibly be in greater danger as far as terrorism goes than we were on 9/11.

They would have nuked us if they could have, instead of flying planes into crowded buildings, or possibly have done both. They still will if given the chance.

I don't necessarily agree that bombing Mecca would produce the effect we want, however. Really though, what could they do about it that they haven't already done, planned to do, or would do if given the chance?

Islam is the problem. One can arrive at that conclusion just by reading Quran. I warn anyone who hasn't read it, it's pretty much a loop of 'kill anyone who doesn't covert; kill jews; kill anyone who doesn't believe'. There's a section or two there instructing wife beating too. I found absolutely nothing about live and let live, nothing about peace, or loving thy neighbor (even if you can find nothing to love).

I don't believe we've faced issues such as this before in our history. We've always just spot-dealt with them all the way back to Jefferson declaring war on the Barbary Pirates. The only time that area has been at peace is when the Brits controlled them.

My theory is that the only way to stamp out the threat is to do things that are against our grain, like take them over. From my point of view, the ill intent they have for the west cannot be cured by democracy at all. If they are going to behave like animals they should be treated as such.

[Paul Ross]

Although Tancredo’s presidential hopes and possibly even his seat in Congress may go up in the mushroom cloud created by the furor over his remarks.

Not likely by half. The Islamo-fascists entire world belief assumes that it would be impossible for Infidels to destroy their holiest of holy sites, that Allah would prevent it, as he cherishes his name. We might not even need a nuke. A surgical strike might do it. If we succeeded in obliterating the black moon rock, i.e., meteorite, they worship as a token of Allah...the god of the heavans, then their religion is disproved. They will have been shown to be following a lie.

Now whether we would do it or not, at last somebody has been brave enough to put it out there. In the logic of national security, Tancredo has helped to create "Strategic Ambiguity". The terrorists will not know for sure what our real response will be, and the puke put out by the State Dept. will hopefully be discounted. That is if it's to have a DETERRENT effect.

So far the main players backing terror that remain, Syria, Iran, North Korea and China have gotten off scot-free. Al-Queada is free to make nuclear threats with impunity, and hope to accomplish them. China is free to nuke the U.S. while it openly plans on invading a peaceful neighbor...and U.S.-alligned nation... which they "claim" as they seek more "lebensraum".

We need more guts in Foggy Bottom. Supposedly there is a warrior princess there now. Haven't heard anything but squeaking mice, however.

[r9etb]

Your pedantic response is disgusting. You know exactly what Bommer means.

No, actually, I don't know exactly what he means. And neither do you, and I suspect neither does he. The problem with Bommer, and apparently also with you, is that you have not bothered to really think about what you're saying.

Grow up!

LOL! Cut me to the quick, that did.

[PaRebel]

I agree with your analysis. The West needs to come to grips with the fact that Islam's mandate is "convert or kill" the infidel. Islam has been trying to fulfill this mandate for, oh, around 1200 to 1300 years!

When faced with such an intractable enemy, to survive, unorthodox measures may be required. And it is a question of survival, in my opinion.

This crap about trying to "understand" why they are the way they are is the usual "liberal bs, just like "crime is caused by poverty".

Islam is the problem.

[Bommer]

The problem with Bommer, and apparently also with you, is that you have not bothered to really think about what you're saying.

Let me help you since your not to bright. Nuke the most holiest site in Islam (MECCA) that Muslims pray to 3 times a day and the Koran says every Muslim must visit once in thier lifetime, and you destroy their God and religion, because theres nothing to visit and nothing to pray to! Got it? Even a Muslim understands that!

Now for the 3rd time answer this question: What is the proper response to an Islamic Muslim nuking Washington DC or the Vatican?

[WestSylvanian]

I think the threat to nuke Mecca if terrorists explode nuclear weapons in this country is the only thing that will work to deter them. One of the reasons they despise us is that our soldiers (infidels) have been based in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Middle East polluting their holy places. Let them know these sites are fried if they kill thousands of our citizens and make our cities uninhabitable. At the very least, the threat may force Saudi Arabia and other Muslim states to finally take action to prosecute radicals and shut down the schools that are producing them.

Show them we mean business. And we've got the track record to prove we're willing to use nukes ourselves. I think this is the only deterrent we have that's credible. Creating little democracies in the Mideast and hoping that the Saudis and others will clean up their act is a pipe dream.

[r9etb]

Nuke the most holiest site in Islam (MECCA) that Muslims pray to 3 times a day and the Koran says every Muslim must visit once in thier lifetime, and you destroy their God and religion, because theres nothing to visit and nothing to pray to! Got it? Even a Muslim understands that!

Nice assumption -- unfortunately probably spectacularly wrong.

Now for the 3rd time answer this question

I asked first, and you've failed to answer. Your turn.

[Bommer]

Yeah I knew it. Have all the answer, but if you admit the obvious solution, it proves (as the entire board already has) that you don't have a clue to what your talking about. Try the DU board. You'lll find many at the same level of logic as yours

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Two assertions that the author completely fails to back up with so much as an explanation, let alone evidence

Well said. The author can go pound sand.

[TKDietz]

I honestly don't know. Bombing Mecca would be an attack on all of Islam and I don't think that would be the appropriate response unless the attack on us was coordinated by all of Islam, and not just a faction of crazy extremists.

We're in a tough position, no doubt about it. Sometimes in frustration I wish we would just nuke the entire Middle East and turn it into glass and then hunt down and kill every remaining Muslim on the planet. If we bombed Mecca and turned this into a war on all of Islam, that's basically what we'd have to do because we'd only get a tiny fraction of the billion or so Muslims in the world by nuking Mecca. I imagine the rest would be more than a little pissed off at us for destroying the holiest of the holy cities in their religion. Some people seem to think all Muslims would just turn their backs on their religion and give up if we bombed Mecca. I think we'd do just the opposite and turn huge numbers of the remaining hundreds of millions of Muslims who aren't out there committing terrorist acts or planning same into the type of crazy extremists we are fighting now.

I don't have the answers. This is a frightening time we are living in. I'm glad I don't have to decide how to proceed in this mess because I have no idea what to do.

[I see my hands]

How many people and how many times do you need to be asked? What do you do?

[JamesP81]

Why not simply.....destroy the enemy?

Unfortunately, Islam is the enemy. Mecca is its home. You figure out the rest.

As I mentioned before, I don't want this to happen. I'm more hoping that the threat that it could happen will give pause to terrorists.

[TKDietz]

"Make one impossible and yes, the entire faith goes down the proverbial tubes."

If you nuke Mecca do you make one impossible. Already the religion gives a break to those who just cannot make it to Mecca. I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of them putting on there radiation suits and going even if the place was still glowing. Muslim charities would pay the huge cost to clean up the nuclear material and in time they'd rebuild the mosques and go on as they always have.