Nuke Mecca? Nope.

Frontpage Magazine ^ | 28 July 2005 | Robert Spencer

[appalachian_dweller]

>> And you're going to start a real shooting war with all of them. <<

Um, I believe THEY (that would be muslims which is a religion, not a race) started it about 30 years ago.

Significant Terrorist Incidents, 1961-2003: A Brief Chronology
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

If you don't know Koran you don't know your enemy.

The Tancredo option would make Muhammad a liar and shake believers to the core:

KORAN [9.28] O you who believe! the idolaters are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque [Mecca, the Kaaba] after this year; and if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He please; surely Allah is Knowing Wise.

THIS IS NOT FROM AL-QAEDA!

THIS IS JUST A BIT OF WHAT ALL MUSLIMS, INCLUDING SO-CALLED MODERATES, SIGN UP FOR WHEN THEY SAY THE BISMALLAH, "THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH AND MUHAMMAD IS HIS PROPHET"!

KORAN [3.28] Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming.

KORAN [4.34] Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

KORAN [4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

KORAN [9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

KORAN [9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair [Ezra] is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

HADITH Sahih Bukhari [4:52:176] Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:
Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' "

HADITH Sahih Bukhari [4:52:177] Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

HADITH Sahih Bukhari [4:56:791] Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:
I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "The Jews will fight with you, and you will be given victory over them so that a stone will say, 'O Muslim! There is a Jew behind me; kill him!' "

HADITH Sahih Muslim [41:6981] Ibn 'Umar reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying:
You will fight against the Jews and you will kill them until even a stone would say: Come here, Muslim, there is a Jew (hiding himself behind me); kill him.

HADITH Sahih Muslim [41:6982] Ubaidullah has reported this hadith with this chain of transmitters (and the Words are):
"There is a Jew behind me."

HADITH Sahih Muslim [41:6983] Abdullah b. 'Umar reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying:
You and the Jews would fight against one another until a stone would say: Muslim, here is a Jew behind me; come and kill him.

HADITH Sahih Muslim [41:6984] Abdullah b. 'Umar reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said:
The Jews will fight against you and you will gain victory over them until the stone would say: Muslim, here is a Jew behind me; kill him.

HADITH Sahih Muslim [41:6985] Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying:
The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

HADITH Sahih Bukhari [4:52:283] Narrated Abu Juhaifa:
I asked Ali, "Do you have the knowledge of any Divine Inspiration besides what is in Allah's Book?" 'Ali replied, "No, by Him Who splits the grain of corn and creates the soul. I don't think we have such knowledge, but we have the ability of understanding which Allah may endow a person with, so that he may understand the Qur'an, and we have what is written in this paper as well." I asked, "What is written in this paper?" He replied, "(The regulations of) blood-money, the freeing of captives, ******** and the judgment that no Muslim should be killed for killing an infidel." *********

HADITH Sunan Abu Dawud [14:2526] Narrated Anas ibn Malik:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, "There is no god but Allah" and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist). The tyranny of any tyrant and the justice of any just (ruler) will not invalidate it. One must have faith in Divine decree.

KORAN: http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/
HADITH: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html

[macamadamia]

"Once we vaporize mecca it would prove their entire religion is a sham"


I don't think they're logical enough to realize after Mecca's destruction that their religion is a sham. They've well established their irrationality. My gut feeling is that they'd keep on keepin' on with the beheadings, misogyny, wild-eyed intolerance, chest-thumping, blood-letting, effigy burning, suicide bombing, baby killing, and so on...ad bloody nauseam...

[Fishrrman]

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

Stop wasting your breath (or bandwith). He isn't going to answer. I doubt he _has_ an answer. I doubt he could formulate one if we _were_ attacked.

Just pass his posts by, as I do...

Cheers!
- John

[Kozak]

do you really think the bin Ladens of the world would be all that upset if you chose to nuke random Muslim cities?

The bin Ladens don't operate in a vacuum. Without the support of a friendly government, or a friendly population, they can't function or at least are a much much lower level of threat. If we make it plain that the Muslim world is going to suffer a thousand times more then we are for any terrorist activity against us, THEY will take care of it. And frankly thats the only way the problem is going to be taken care of.

[Fishrrman]

TKDeitz writes:
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.

It would be exactly the _correct_ and most appropriate response to take, if the United States is attacked with a nuclear weapon that destroys a city, or a biological weapon that creates mass casualties. By "mass casualties", I mean deaths and grievous injuries in the tens of thousands.

The fact that bombing Mecca would be tantamount (in your words) to "an attack on all of Islam" is precisely _why_ it would be required.

It would provide a response that is equal in force (what force OTHER THAN nuclear would, could, might _ever_ be an suitable response to the use of such weapons against US?), but SYMBOLIC in nature, without destroying any of the Islamic nations' major population centers. Indeed, we might not know from which country the contents of the weapon issued, or even who manipulated it into place. At that point, it might be a strategical mistake to destroy, say, Tehran when perhaps Syria or Islamabad might be the real (read: guilty) targets.

Almost every Freeper will agree that the "War on Terror" is, itself, a misnomer; that the _real_ war we are engaged in is with something else. That "something else" is Islam, which seeks the destruction of the West (indeed, of everything non-Islamic, by the design of the Quran).

There is no single nation, no specific capital, that we can point to as the instigator of this war. Or is there? Which city, frankly, is the "capital" of Islam itself? The city towards which _all_ Muslims pray?

I knew you could answer that.

Faced with [what at this time still seems] the unthinkable, perhaps without a specific Islamic nation onto which we can assign blame (and retribution), the United States must - and I emphasize MUST - be willing to strike back symbolically with overwhelming force against a target that will get the undivided attention of ALL Muslims EVERYwhere, and the leaders that govern them.

That message must be: "Islam's thirst for the destruction of the West must end NOW. We have demonstrated what you, as Islamic individuals and nations, will face if it does NOT stop. If you have any doubts, you need look no further than the ruins of your [once] holiest city. Behold what the teachings of Mohammed hath wrought!"

Never happen, you say? Perhaps. But the war that we are engaged in now isn't going to end this year, or this decade. It could become humanity's greatest struggle, the final battle between light and dark for the future of mankind. I was never deeply into the Bible, but if ever there might be an Armageddon, this could be it.

Someday, as this struggle progresses - and probably years after I am gone - the world may witness the destruction of Mecca as the climax of the War between the West and Islam. Frankly, I cannot foresee any other possible ending, if our side is to "win". Islam is incompatible with the West on the most fundamental terms: the two cannot co-exist in a world in which both sides have acquired nuclear technology (as an aside, the West could tolerate and resist Islam so long as their side had the equivalent of pocket knives to our guns, but that is no more). As such, there can be only one side triumphant. The other must wither, perhaps disappear.

I know which side _I_ want to win!

Cheers!
- John

[Jim_Curtis]

The jihadists would have yet another injury to add to their litany of grievances

Dear Author, The US has been nuked at this point. What can we do in response to a nuclear attack on America that will avoid adding "another injury" to "their litany of grievances"?

Wouldn't every Islamic terrorist on earth head to Mecca if they know that we have designated it as a "safe zone" for terrorists to hang out at?

People like this author would like to condition you to accept the destruction of your country without reacting angrily afterward.

[r9etb]

Stop wasting your breath (or bandwith). He isn't going to answer. I doubt he _has_ an answer. I doubt he could formulate one if we _were_ attacked.

Oh, great and knowlegeable sage, perhaps YOU can answer the simple question that Bommer still has not answered -- and thus I cannot answer his question:

Who popped the nuke?

Simple enough question, right? Any rational response would require the answer to that question, before we went off nuking places.

Now, we've got lots of folks blaming all living and dead adherents of a particular religion -- which is pure foolishness, not to mention a direct affirmation of the author's point about rejecting Western standards of justice "willy-nilly."

And we've got folks like Bommer not answering at all, because his answer is likewise no doubt "everybody who's a Muslim."

But he won't answer the simple question. He has dodged it every single time. I wonder why that is? Perhaps he dodges it because the logic of his answer isn't so compelling when he has to actually consider the consequences of his recommendation? Perhaps it's because he has more moral fiber than his loud talk lets on?

Well, Bommer? Are you going to answer my simple question?

[r9etb]

Dear Author, The US has been nuked at this point. What can we do in response to a nuclear attack on America that will avoid adding "another injury" to "their litany of grievances"?

Dear Jim: No it hasn't been nuked. It's a hypothetical that will probably never be realized in our lifetimes. But even as a hypothetical it's flawed, because nobody seems to be able to tell us who's guilty of popping the nuke in the first place. And without that piece of information, how can we possibly start lobbing our own nukes in response?

Wouldn't every Islamic terrorist on earth head to Mecca if they know that we have designated it as a "safe zone" for terrorists to hang out at?

No. If you're a terrorist, you try to get where you can hurt us. You can't stage terrorist attacks from Mecca, and you can't set up your training camps there, either. If you could, you'd have already done so.

People like this author would like to condition you to accept the destruction of your country without reacting angrily afterward.

Not even close to what he said.

[meema]

When heard in context, Tancredo's comments are perfectly reasonable.

I agree.

[meema]

Glad you are back with us!

[Jim_Curtis]

Dear Jim: No it hasn't been nuked. It's a hypothetical that will probably never be realized in our lifetimes.

You would criticize the hypothetical response while dismissing the hypothetical situation? That would be like dismissing the hypothetical situation of a Soviet nuclear strike to focus on the hypothetical response. Perhaps you will be able to recognize your flaw by considering this analogy:

"The United States has a policy of wiping out the Soviet Union"

"Yeah, well that's only if they attack the US with nukes first...that would be the US response to such an attack"

"But the Soviets haven't attacked the US with nukes...The United States has a policy of wiping out the Soviet Union"

[Jim_Curtis]

Who popped the nuke?

In the situation that Tancredo responded to, I believe it was Islamic terrorists that "popped the nuke". Are you trying to apply Tancredo's response to some completely different hypothetical that you have imagined?

Or we can go with the answer that r9etb would give to the question r9etb asked "No one popped the nuke, relax"

[Bommer]

Who popped the nuke?

Post #20 "What is the proper response to Muslims nuking Washington DC or even the Vatican?"

Then I get some simplistic crap of "Which Muslims?"

Some enlightenment for a simplistic mind like yours can understand. American Muslims, Chinese Muslims, Saudi Muslims, Albanian Muslims, Gay Muslims, Republican Muslims, every Muslim on the face of the Earth ALL worship to MECCA! All hold Mecca sacred. Destroy MECCA and you destroy Islam! There's nothing to worship, there's nothing to go to visit which all Muslims must do once in their life!

I would like to dumb it down for your mind to understand, but I've got an 8 year old that can even get this basic concept.

So for the 4th time, understanding (I hope but doubt) what is now stated on what a MUSLIM is, "What is the proper response to Muslims nuking Washington DC or even the Vatican?"

[I see my hands]

"And you're going to start a real shooting war with all of them."

You're making me mad now, pal! They started it. Why don't you just shut up?

[Valin]

Christians don't scream (usually) about it when a church is destroyed.


Today. It wasn't all that long ago that they did.

[sport]

Nuking Mecca still sounds like a good idea to me.

Deporting every follower of the religion of peace a/k/a mohmmadans yesterday along with flushing the unholy q'uran down the sewer is another.

[America's Resolve]

AH! Now here's a person with an inkling! Very good Bommer!

From another thread that I posted:

This guy obviously has NO clue what he's writing about.

The purpose of nuking Mecca isn't to kill gobs of people, though of course it would accomplish that.

The purpose of nuking Mecca is this:

Islam is built upon "5 Pillars" which are REALLY the way you get into paradise. There's the praying to Mecca 5 times a day. Contributing to charity. The Haj to Mecca at least once in their lives. Don't remember the last two.

Nuking Mecca would remove at least 2 of the 5 pillars that will get your average muslim into paradise.

It's hard to make a pilgrimage to a smoking crater of fused glass.

And praying 5 times a day to said crater is sorta an exercise in futility.

Therefore, no muslim would be able to get into paradise thereafter.

THAT'S the deal with nuking mecca, not "western values" for or against it. Not MAD.

Kicking the spokes out of their wagon wheel for all eternity is the deal :)

Godspeed

[agincourt1415]

This is the gist of what TANCREDO said:

Before a strike (Terrorist Nuclear Strike on the United States)we would make it known:

We might say to the powers at be in Islam, "If a nuclear strike were to happen against the United States and its origin was a Islamic Terrorist Org, then all bets are off and every option is on the Table including a strike by the United States against Holy Sites.

Its the standard deterance used in the Cold War.

There is nothing other than standard policy in his supposition.

[FredZarguna]

Problem is, it's not a mischaracterization.

Read what Tancredo said. He didn't advocate the "discarding of Western values, willy nilly." As for the positions of others on this site, don't even try to drag me into defending them. This is an argument between Tancredo and one of his critics, who has chosen to set up a straw man to knock down. Problem is, what Tancredo said is in the public record, and it isn't what Spencer implies with this over-the-top description.

You've once again missed the author's point, which is that Ataturk's actions had unintended consequences, as spelled out (accurately) by the author.

Not true. Ataturk understood the consequences of his actions, and the results were not unintended at all. Contrary to Spencer's assertion, the rise of radical Islam had its foundations laid long before Ataturk, and his abolition of the caliphate had little--if anything at all--to do with its subsequent successes. Where Ataturk intended to suppress Islamist influences--in his own country--he succeeded. And in fact, quite well, because he was not nearly so revolutionary as Spencer suggests. In 1924, Turkey had been on its way to becoming a secular state for already nearly a century under the Ottoman Empire. And in 1924 Islamic extremism was already alive and flourishing.

However, if it is not the case that "ALL Muslims" are to blame for a nuclear attack, then there is no justification for an "ultimate extremity" that calls for large scale attacks on "ALL Muslims."

Your arguments are very nearly as silly as Spencer's. It was certainly not the case that ALL [sic] Japanese or even a majority of them favored their aggressive war against the United States in 1941. Japanese interests throughout the world nevertheless became legitimate targets. I doubt seriously that more than a fraction of the inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had any animus toward the United States, or even contributed significantly to the war effort. Nevertheless, their destruction was morally--and in light of the lives saved--practically, justified. However that may be, it's straw man time again. Tancredo hasn't called for attacks on ALL [shouting in the original] Muslims, and neither have I.

Understand this: we are in a war. Under those circumstances there is only one legitimate reason for destroying (or preserving) a particular target, and that is whether it serves our interests to do so. Neither the destruction of Islamic Holy sites, nor the credible threat to do it, serves our war objectives at this time. Period.

Blather about "hunting down and destroying" a handful of miscreants as the only legitimate response to the loss of trillions of dollars in property and hundreds of thousands or even millions of American lives because we can't afford to provide "recruiting opportunities" to al Qaeda is typical of the kind of flaccidity that got us 3,000 dead Americans. By all means call up your buddies at Foggy Bottom or Langley and wring your hands over the loss of Western Values, "willy nilly." For my part, I see nothing wrong with more serious people discussing more serious reprisals. That's all Tancredo has done.