NationStates Jolt Archive

An interesting article:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has U.S. threatened
to vaporize Mecca?
Intelligence expert says nuke option is reason bin Laden has been quiet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 7, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Why hasn't Osama bin Laden's terror network executed an attack on U.S. soil since 9-11?

Simple, says Dr. Jack Wheeler, creator of an acclaimed intelligence website dubbed "the oasis for rational conservatives": The U.S. has threatened to nuke the Muslim holy city of Mecca should the terror leader strike America again.

On his website, To the Point, Wheeler explains how the Bush administration has identified the potential of wiping Mecca off the map as bin Laden's ultimate point of vulnerability – the Damoclean Sword hanging over his head.

"Israel … recognizes that the Aswan Dam is Egypt's Damoclean Sword," writes Wheeler. "There is no possibility whatever of Egypt's winning a war with Israel, for if Aswan is blown, all of inhabited Egypt is under 20 feet of water. Once the Israelis made this clear to the Egyptians, the possibility of any future Egyptian attack on Israel like that of 1948, 1967, and 1972 is gone."

Wheeler says talk of bin Laden's Damoclean Sword has infiltrated the Beltway.

Writes Wheeler in his members-only column: "There has been a rumor floating in the Washington ether for some time now that George Bush has figured out what Sword of Damocles is suspended over Osama bin Laden's head. It's whispered among Capitol Hill staffers on the intel and armed services committees; White House NSC (National Security Council) members clam up tight if you begin to hint at it; and State Department neo-cons love to give their liberal counterparts cardiac arrhythmia by elliptically conversing about it in their presence.

"The whispers and hints and ellipses are getting louder now because the rumor explains the inexplicable: Why hasn't there been a repeat of 9-11? How can it be that after this unimaginable tragedy and Osama's constant threats of another, we have gone over three years without a single terrorist attack on American soil?"

Available only to subscribers of To the Point, Wheeler ends his column by explaining the effectiveness of the Mecca threat.

"Completely obliterating the terrorists' holiest of holies, rendering what is for them the world's most sacred spot a radioactive hole in the ground is retribution of biblical proportions – and those are the only proportions that will do the job.

"Osama would have laughed off such a threat, given his view that Americans are wussies who cut and run after a few losses, such as Lebanon in 1983 and Somalia in 1993. Part of Bush's rationale for invading Afghanistan and Iraq – obviously never expressed publicly – was to convince Osama that his threat to nuke Mecca was real. Osama hates America just as much as ever, but he is laughing no more."

Wheeler says bin Laden is "playing poker with a Texas cowboy holding the nuclear aces," so there's nothing al-Qaida could do that could come remotely close to risking obliterating Mecca.

Writes Wheeler: "So far, Osama has decided not to see if GW is bluffing. Smart move."

Sounds interesting... It could very well be true.

Has this appeared on any recognised media outlets?

Has U.S. threatened
to vaporize Mecca?
Intelligence expert says nuke option is reason bin Laden has been quiet

Wheeler says bin Laden is "playing poker with a Texas cowboy holding the nuclear aces," so there's nothing al-Qaida could do that could come remotely close to risking obliterating Mecca.

Writes Wheeler: "So far, Osama has decided not to see if GW is bluffing. Smart move."
Aaahahahahahahaha! What a hoot THAT is! If true, it would be one of the most effective "force multipliers" ever! LOL! :D

Well, it might just be effective, if the only one who knows about it is bin Laden...

I really doubt it.

You want a holy war against all Muslims?

How would you get word to Bin Laden?

The fact another 9/11 hasn't gone down might be the fact we are activily looking for it.

Sounds interesting... It could very well be true.

Has this appeared on any recognised media outlets?


That is a recognized media outlet.

I really doubt it.

You want a holy war against all Muslims?

How would you get word to Bin Laden?

The fact another 9/11 hasn't gone down might be the fact we are activily looking for it.

Seriously if we had the balls to nuke that place, do you seriously think they are going to rise up and risk being vaporized as well. Sure they may be fanatical, but when they realize that we are just as nuts, they may stand down.

Seriously if we had the balls to nuke that place, do you seriously think they are going to rise up and risk being vaporized as well. Sure they may be fanatical, but when they realize that we are just as nuts, they may stand down.

I am not sure. Over 8 million of them visit the place on Ramadan alone so they would be a tad pissed.

They also might get motivated by "Those crazy bastards nuked our holiest place, what's to say we aren't next?!?!"

Seriously if we had the balls to nuke that place, do you seriously think they are going to rise up and risk being vaporized as well. Sure they may be fanatical, but when they realize that we are just as nuts, they may stand down.

Yep. Because if there is one thing history has shown is that muslims back down from the tough fights. [/sarcasm]

This reminds me of a website:

http://www.imao.us/docs/NukeTheMoon.htm

It's not supposed to be serious (I think), but it makes you think.

Yeah, nuking Mecca is a craptastic idea.

Its an...interesting crackpot-type theory, nothing that hasn't been thought of before. I've read numerous foriegn policy journals stating massive retaliation and cold war "bluffing armegeddon" still play a large part in the new war on terror. Thus the talk of tactical nukes and such and the seeming unreasonability of the current US administration.

Even if this is the case, and its fairly unreasonable to think that it is, its unrealistic to think that martyrs will stop short just because of a little total destruction, it simply ups the ante for future terrorists. Eventually, someone WILL call.

World Net Daily is about as reliable as NewsMax. It's yet another notch in a never-ending parade of psuedo-journalistic hack "news" sites that cater to the kind people who stockpile assault weapons and masturbate to Tom Clancy novels. The entire site is little more than an echo chamber for loudest and most vocally obnoxious among the right-wing punditry, and it has about as much journalistic credibility as the National Enquirer.

One would have to be pretty damn gullible to take something like this seriously.

Bush threatened to nuke Mecca? Why did I not hear about this?

Oh wait, this is Johnny Wadd, the miserable fraud.

World Net Daily is about as reliable as NewsMax. It's yet another notch in a never-ending parade of psuedo-journalistic hack "news" sites that cater to the kind people who stockpile assault weapons and masturbate to Tom Clancy novels. The entire site is little more than an echo chamber for loudest and most vocally obnoxious among the right-wing punditry, and it has about as much journalistic credibility as the National Enquirer.

One would have to be pretty damn gullible to take something like this seriously.
Kind of like how DemocracyNow is to the left wing, eh?

Fundamentalist muslims and stupid americans with nuclear weapons will ultimately kill our planet. The majority of the muslims who aren't fundamentalist and all the good guys in USA need to join forces with the rest of the world to keep things peaceful. Send the people who need to fight to Mars - the red planet of war where you can pray 10 times a day without bugging anyone, there's nothing else to do. Bush will love the place, there are no democrats there - yet.

"Our planet is blue and so are you."
- Bush discovers that his cousins voted Kerry.

Kind of like how DemocracyNow is to the left wing, eh?

Exactly.

That's the beauty of the internet. Anyone can post anything they want and pass it off as news. The sad thing is that someone, somewhere always takes it seriously.

I don't know, this sounds more like neocon babble to justify a quagmire to old line conservatives. Bush could have nuked Afghanistan after 9-11 and the world would have put it down to knee jerk insanity. I tell you, Osama wouldn't have gotten out of that one.

I don't think Bush has the guts to use nukes, Goldwater would have and probably Nixon, but not Bush.

This is so laughable I don't see how any sane person could take it seriously.

OBL isn't scared and the US has ALWAYS had nukes. Besides if the US actually nuked Mecca the US would be fucked. Everyone would want to see the US taken down after something that monstrous.

This is greatly true!!!!

and to the person "do we want a holy war with Islam?"
If muslims dont want this to happen then all they need to do is they all, NOT A FEW, ALL NEED TO BANN ALL KINDS OF TERRORISM AND ANTI AMERICAN PROPAGANDA.

And if we are hit again... we need to strike mecca!
after striking you need to threatend to blow the next holy city! ~ after this they would know not to mess with the cowboy americans!

The funny thing is though, is that even considering how much of a crackpot theory this is, the idea still makes sense, if not in the context they used. If it was made clear that all attacks would be responded to in kind, we would really be retroverting to World War One measures. Oderint dum metuant. Let them hate, so long as they fear.

Actually, considering the fact we are talking about nuclear war, perhaps ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appelant makes a little more sense (where they make a desert, they call it peace). Either way, you get the picture.

I am not sure. Over 8 million of them visit the place on Ramadan alone so they would be a tad pissed.

They also might get motivated by "Those crazy bastards nuked our holiest place, what's to say we aren't next?!?!"
Nuke it during Ramadan. :D

World Net Daily is about as reliable as NewsMax. It's yet another notch in a never-ending parade of psuedo-journalistic hack "news" sites that cater to the kind people who stockpile assault weapons and masturbate to Tom Clancy novels. The entire site is little more than an echo chamber for loudest and most vocally obnoxious among the right-wing punditry, and it has about as much journalistic credibility as the National Enquirer.

One would have to be pretty damn gullible to take something like this seriously.


You doubt that this story is true?

BTW Tom Clancy is a genius, unlike you.

Bush threatened to nuke Mecca? Why did I not hear about this?

Oh wait, this is Johnny Wadd, the miserable fraud.

What? Why do you hate people with no limbs? You are an intolerant monster!

I really doubt it.

You want a holy war against all Muslims?

How would you get word to Bin Laden?

The fact another 9/11 hasn't gone down might be the fact we are activily looking for it.
If Mecca was nuked, the rest of the muslims would just shut the hell up like the Japs did after Hiroshima.

Its an...interesting crackpot-type theory, nothing that hasn't been thought of before. I've read numerous foriegn policy journals stating massive retaliation and cold war "bluffing armegeddon" still play a large part in the new war on terror. Thus the talk of tactical nukes and such and the seeming unreasonability of the current US administration.

Even if this is the case, and its fairly unreasonable to think that it is, its unrealistic to think that martyrs will stop short just because of a little total destruction, it simply ups the ante for future terrorists. Eventually, someone WILL call.
It stopped japanese suicide bombers.

The funny thing is though, is that even considering how much of a crackpot theory this is, the idea still makes sense, if not in the context they used. If it was made clear that all attacks would be responded to in kind, we would really be retroverting to World War One measures. Oderint dum metuant. Let them hate, so long as they fear.

Actually, considering the fact we are talking about nuclear war, perhaps ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appelant makes a little more sense (where they make a desert, they call it peace). Either way, you get the picture.


Hey, when it comes to either being loved, or hated/feared in this world, I'll take the second option. Being loved gets you killed, just ask Ghandi!

This is so laughable I don't see how any sane person could take it seriously.

OBL isn't scared and the US has ALWAYS had nukes. Besides if the US actually nuked Mecca the US would be fucked. Everyone would want to see the US taken down after something that monstrous.
They wouldnt' do a thing about it, cause there'd be nothing they could do.

uh... yeah... I seriously believe nuking Mecca is one of the worst descisions America could ever make. It basically states that the US is willing to use nuclear weapons to achieve its ends, and that it is willing to slaughter civilians to achieve its ends. And what does this day to every other nation on this planet - especially the other nations with nukes? I could see that decision precipitating major economic collapse around the world, a cold war or even, possibly, a world war.

Hey, when it comes to either being loved, or hated/feared in this world, I'll take the second option. Being loved gets you killed, just ask Ghandi!
Very true. This has been proven.

uh... yeah... I seriously believe nuking Mecca is one of the worst descisions America could ever make. It basically states that the US is willing to use nuclear weapons to achieve its ends, and that it is willing to slaughter civilians to achieve its ends. And what does this day to every other nation on this planet - especially the other nations with nukes? I could see that decision precipitating major economic collapse around the world, a cold war or even, possibly, a world war.
Actually it would increase the value of the dollar because no one would lift a finger in Mecca's defense. Not the Europeans, not Russia, not China. No one.
The rest of the world's muslims would do nothing more than verbally protest cause they wouldn't want to be next. And that would lead to another 60 years of world peace.

Actually it would increase the value of the dollar because no one would lift a finger in Mecca's defense. Not the Europeans, not Russia, not China. No one.
The rest of the world's muslims would do nothing more than verbally protest cause they wouldn't want to be next. And that would lead to another 60 years of world peace.

Don't you think, if that were actually the case, we would have already done it by now?

You know if Bush would touch Mecca there would be millions of potential suicide bombers trying to get to USA or to anyplace where there are any americans still alive. They would never rest and so wouldn't you US guys neither. It would be your nightmare for years to come. Then it would be time to move to Canada or at least to buy a canadian flag to desperately wave when the outraged army of Mohammad hunt you down. And rightfully so.

Leave Mecca alone :mad:

You know if Bush would touch Mecca there would be millions of potential suicide bombers trying to get to USA or to anyplace where there are any americans still alive. They would never rest and so wouldn't you US guys neither. It would be your nightmare for years to come. Then it would be time to move to Canada or at least to buy a canadian flag to desperately wave when the outraged army of Mohammad hunt you down. And rightfully so.

Leave Mecca alone :mad:

Easy, just seal the borders to the nation with the military, arrest all Muslim and Arab Americans, deport them and just rely on ourselves for once. If we put our minds to it we could have a non-foreign oil-based economy, thus turning the oil sheiks of the ME into less rich sheiks. I'd like to see the Muslim world really do anything, would something like that happen.

Don't you think, if that were actually the case, we would have already done it by now?
No. Because we aren't bloodthirsty. We will only do it if we are backed into a corner.

You know if Bush would touch Mecca there would be millions of potential suicide bombers trying to get to USA or to anyplace where there are any americans still alive. They would never rest and so wouldn't you US guys neither. It would be your nightmare for years to come. Then it would be time to move to Canada or at least to buy a canadian flag to desperately wave when the outraged army of Mohammad hunt you down. And rightfully so.

Leave Mecca alone :mad:
If suicide bombers attacked America, that would guarantee the nuclear anihilation of the middle east.

If suicide bombers attacked America, that would guarantee the nuclear anihilation of the middle east.

But suicide bombers have already attacked America, and there hasn't been nuclear annihilation of the Middle East yet.

But suicide bombers have already attacked America, and there hasn't been nuclear annihilation of the Middle East yet.
YET

To all you people who think using nuclear weapons on a holy city as a hostage here's a little something you should think of. America is not the world. America is not the only country with nuclear arms. So if America uses nuclear weapons as a live weapon today, what happens? Russia would think, well, if they can do it to stop terrorists, why not let us incinerate those pesky terrorists of ours down in [insert name of city]? China would go, "Hey! Taiwan doesn't want to reunify, lets turn them into radioactive slag!".

Get it right.

Using a nuclear weapon is essentially a big message to all the powers to take the keys off their nuclear arsenal.

And if that happens, how about Russia deciding that America is too rich and decides to grab that wealth with nuclear force? Impossible you say? We came quite close to a 3rd world war over political ideological differences. Do you think it couldn't happen over economic differences?

Besides the very intent alone of incinerating a city and its population, a historic and holy city alone as a measure of intimidation against a figurehead is a foolish, narrow minded move. You are essentially taking a city hostage. If you do that, what makes you any better than just another terrorist except that you have a much larger arsenal? Where's your moral justification for wholesale slaughter? Will you say it's justified because the city represents the highest symbolic value to the faith that muslim fundamentalists? What next? Kill all the muslims?

That makes you no better than Hitler or Stalin.

Think about the consequences of your actions/support.

YET

So you're saying that we're going to nuke the crap out of the Middle East sooner or later? That's comforting.

So you're saying that we're going to nuke the crap out of the Middle East sooner or later? That's comforting.
Yep.

Hey, when it comes to either being loved, or hated/feared in this world, I'll take the second option. Being loved gets you killed, just ask Ghandi!

It was also interesting that Ghandi was killed by a radical Hindu, Sadat was killed by a radical Muslim, and Rabin was killed by a radical Jew.

the sad thing is not that people might take it seriously..its that they might be enthuastic about the idea..reading most of the posts..i understood that some might think its actually a good idea to nuke mekka... how liberal and democratic of these ones..the great americans! i know and hope that those who actually think this way r only a minority or else we really need to work out on fighting islamphobia..cause if anybody is really for the idea of nuking mekka then we have serious problems in understanding that muslims are humans as well and they r not all terrorists and they wont stand still if something like that threatens them,cause its their belief u're talking about which is part of their existance. they might be going through the worst time in their history but it doesnt mean they wont revive and let morals and notions of freedom and justice control their countries once more..i tell u all this as a muslim :)

What the flying fuck? If that were true and EVER happened, I'd be glad to be the first Muslim to pick up a gun and make it my life goal to kill Bush.

You all know how much I love America. But Mecca is our past, present, and future. There's no words to explain the passion of what it means to us.

Protest verbally? Helllllllllllll no!



(but obviously this is a totally whacked conspiracy, and thank God it'll never happen. I mean seriously...you think only Muslims will lash out?)

So why stop there, why hasn't Bush nuked the Saudi cities, taken the oil fields and put the survivors on reservations. We could do it to Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Yemen, Sudan, and The United Arab Emirate. Then we could open the formerly Arab states for colonization. That's like nine more stars for the flag if you count the two Yemen. Oh hell we might as well do Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Algeria. We'd probably leave Morocco because it's colorful.

If we use Neutron bombs the buildings would still be standing. Free housing to anyone who wants to clear what's left of the bodies! I call dibs on one of the Saudi Royal palaces!

Yep now that a right wing conservative like Bush is in the White House it’s a matter of time.


http://www.whitehouse.org/ask/bandar.asp


:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

What color would Mecca glow, that is the real question...

It was also interesting that Ghandi was killed by a radical Hindu, Sadat was killed by a radical Muslim, and Rabin was killed by a radical Jew.


Yes, it just goes to show you that if you want to have a long life in this world, be hated and feared. Two examples of this: Stalin, Mao. Two examples of loved people being taken out: Jesus, MLK. You just proved my point.

What color would Mecca glow, that is the real question...


I'm thinking Henna!

"Haha, henna color at all"-Larry Fine

What the flying fuck? If that were true and EVER happened, I'd be glad to be the first Muslim to pick up a gun and make it my life goal to kill Bush.

You all know how much I love America. But Mecca is our past, present, and future. There's no words to explain the passion of what it means to us.



Well, you're life goal wouldn't really last too long, as I imagine you'd be met with at least 12 rounds from the SS before you could get anywhere near the President. But go ahead, it'll give us something to videotape and post online.

The funny thing is that Mecca means nothing for us non-Muslims.

i'd like to add that its offensive to simplify any expected reaction to the racist idea of nuking mekka to this of suciude bombers and minimize all muslims in this circle ...i mean GROW UP for muslims are alot more than that..it would be comfortable not if " mekka is nuked" but if people had less ignorance of other's religion and culture..less prejuidce against them and more tolerance and value of humanity..can we at least get to that standard of valueing humans ???

Well, you're life goal wouldn't really last too long, as I imagine you'd be met with at least 12 rounds from the SS before you could get anywhere near the President. But go ahead, it'll give us something to videotape and post online.

The funny thing is that Mecca means nothing for us non-Muslims.
Jesus, and sometimes I wonder why do I put up with so many ignorants everyday?

Seriously, an IQ test will be given to everyone when I am the Global Dictator. Anyone under a certain score will be executed.

Whether it means anything to you or not is of no consequence. It means a lot to over 1 billion people, thats 4 times the US population. Lets also take something else into consideration, Mecca is a city in Saudi Arabia, nuking Mecca is a declaration of War against a soverign nation which has done nothing to harm the US, so that is ILLEGAL under international law...although that hasn't really stopped Bush before.

However, the consequence of nuking a city such as Mecca and murdering over a million people (its a big city guys) is incomprehensible to utterly stupid and moronic douchebags like the people who write and post these articles. Its shameful that some people even think of that as an option. The US claims it is a bastion of freedom and tolerance, yet at the same time we can't accept 25% of humanity?

And if we are hit again... we need to strike mecca!
after striking you need to threatend to blow the next holy city! ~ after this they would know not to mess with the cowboy americans!
This is an interesting theory. Wonder how it would pan out.

Okay, you nuke Mecca. The entire Muslim world rises up to attack America. So you nuke Medina. Doesn't stop anyone. What next? What's the third holiest city in Islam?

Oh. Jerusalem. You really want to nuke Jerusalem? Cause if you did that, you'd not only have the Muslims after you, but the Jews and above all the Christians after you. Somehow I don't think this would work out easily.

(but obviously this is a totally whacked conspiracy, and thank God it'll never happen. I mean seriously...you think only Muslims will lash out?)
So if they touched Mecca and then hid behind their borders in fear.
1. The Oil price for the rest of the world would fall if USA couldn't buy any.
2. The US economy would flop immensely, no one would buy their stuff.
3. The world would finally unite to crack down on USA because of their crime.

So apart from the actual nuking of Mecca and the killing of 100,000 of people
it isn't actually a bad idea. We could all get a piece of USA. We want Delaware.

i'd like to add that its offensive to simplify any expected reaction to the racist idea of nuking mekka to this of suciude bombers and minimize all muslims in this circle ...i mean GROW UP for muslims are alot more than that..it would be comfortable not if " mekka is nuked" but if people had less ignorance of other's religion and culture..less prejuidce against them and more tolerance and value of humanity..can we at least get to that standard of valueing humans ???
Given the lack of tolerance and understanding on just this one message board, the answer seems to be a slightly qualified no.

So if they touched Mecca and then hid behind their borders in fear.
1. The Oil price for the rest of the world would fall if USA couldn't buy any.
2. The US economy would flop immensely, no one would buy their stuff.
3. The world would finally unite to crack down on USA because of their crime.

So apart from the actual nuking of Mecca and the killing of 100,000 of people
it isn't actually a bad idea. We could all get a piece of USA. We want Delaware.
Dude, no. First off, America is my home. When your house is dirty, you clean it. Your neighbors don't come in and take a giant wrecking ball to your house.

Besides, nuking Mecca is a terrible idea in the first place. Can't you nuke some other stupid city? Like Paris?

Seriously, an IQ test will be given to everyone when I am the Global Dictator. Anyone under a certain score will be executed.
All that will accomplish is a long, long series of executions ending with ( presumably ) your own suicide, since there won't be anyone left to execute you.

Besides, nuking Mecca is a terrible idea in the first place. Can't you nuke some other stupid city? Like Paris?
Wouldnt more muslims be killed if Paris was nuked than if Mecca was nuked though?

Colodia's absolutely right about the reaction to the nuking of Mecca. Even though I hate Islamic extremism and am a supporter of the state of Israel, I would still be seriously tempted to kill anyone who supported or participated in such a brutal act of genocide.

Dude, no. First off, America is my home. When your house is dirty, you clean it. Your neighbors don't come in and take a giant wrecking ball to your house.

Besides, nuking Mecca is a terrible idea in the first place. Can't you nuke some other stupid city? Like Paris?
Nope, Paris is a beautiful place. If someone would nuke that city I will personally go after them. And I'm not even french. And I'm not even a dude.

You are right about that you need to clean "your house" before they nuke Mecca.

Wouldnt more muslims be killed if Paris was nuked than if Mecca was nuked though?
Well consider this.

What allows for better damange control?

Nuking the house of God?
Or nuking a lot of Muslims far away from there?

Sure, it'd be terrible to see so many Muslims die. But I mean...really.

Let's nuke Mecca, Jerusalem, Ayodhya, and the Vatican.

Enough of this fighting over religious sites. After they are nuked the ones willing to go into these radiated holy sites first are the truly faithful and get to keep them.

Well consider this.

What allows for better damange control? I would have to say Mecca allows for better damage control since no muslim nation is capable of nuclear retaliation against the contintental US , France on the other hand has a fleet of ssbns anyone nuking France is getting nuked right back. Nuke Paris- mutually assured destruction, Nuke Mecca- assured destruction of Mecca.

Nuking the house of God?To athiests(me) there is no house of god, and to every religon except Islam , Mecca is meaningless.
Or nuking a lot of Muslims far away from there? well if you are proposing nuking a lot of muslims far away from Mecca, better make it somewhere that doesnt have an effective Nuclear deterrent.

Maybe if the Muslim population would police their own, c'mon, there are a few that believe the US caused the tsunami....crazy talk right there

I would have to say Mecca allows for better damage control since no muslim nation is capable of nuclear retaliation against the contintental US , France on the other hand has a fleet of ssbns anyone nuking France is getting nuked right back. Nuke Paris- mutually assured destruction, Nuke Mecca- assured destruction of Mecca.To athiests(me) there is no house of god, and to every religon except Islam , Mecca is meaningless.
well if you are proposing nuking a lot of muslims far away from Mecca, better make it somewhere that doesnt have an effective Nuclear deterrent.

:headbang:

The PEOPLE I deal with! Completly ignorant! Totally ignoring reality! Thinking that religon is the only thing at hand here!

I would have to say Mecca allows for better damage control since no muslim nation is capable of nuclear retaliation against the contintental US , France on the other hand has a fleet of ssbns anyone nuking France is getting nuked right back. Nuke Paris- mutually assured destruction, Nuke Mecca- assured destruction of Mecca.To athiests(me) there is no house of god, and to every religon except Islam , Mecca is meaningless.
well if you are proposing nuking a lot of muslims far away from Mecca, better make it somewhere that doesnt have an effective Nuclear deterrent.

Woo boy, one of many people here who makes me want to speak out.

Your assertaion that athiests have no houses of god, and that no religion cares about Mecca but Islam is wrong...and silly!

It assumes that no one except the members of a specific religion cares about ANYTHING that religion cares about. That Jews, Christians, Pagans, Hindus, Musims, Taoists, Buddhists, etc all would sooner take a crap on each other's holy sites than give a damn about them.

Churches are Churches, they are places of worship and devotion, places to respect and revere. Mecca is an amazing city, and a massive historical centerpiece, a place that can fill one with awe and reverance regardless of religion.

Perhaps you have nothing inside you that generates awe or respect for others, you may have been born without that part of your brain for all I know. But any self-respecting HUMAN BEING knows that one religion's holy sites are wothy of our respect. Would you bow your head to a holy man at Mecca? Would you kneel before the Pope? Or would you spit on them because you have no respect for others?

What I'm saying is this: You don't respect Mecca; fine, but don't think its because you happen to be an Athiest. You don't respect Mecca because something is deeply wrong with you. Athiests can still respect other other people's shrines and holy places. They don't have to be insensitive to be athiests.

"Its like a barbed wire fence, religion, pricks on all sides."

Easy, just seal the borders to the nation with the military, arrest all Muslim and Arab Americans, deport them and just rely on ourselves for once. If we put our minds to it we could have a non-foreign oil-based economy, thus turning the oil sheiks of the ME into less rich sheiks. I'd like to see the Muslim world really do anything, would something like that happen.
Hello, reality calling, not all muslims are terrorists.

YET

Not gunna happen.

It would wreck the oil fields.

Besides. Master Saudi King wouldn't let puppet shrubby do it.... :D

Let's nuke Mecca, Jerusalem, Ayodhya, and the Vatican.

Enough of this fighting over religious sites. After they are nuked the ones willing to go into these radiated holy sites first are the truly faithful and get to keep them.

Eww if you do that, could you send 2 at Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson? :D

Hmm, the US has nukes? Revelation!

Good thing all it took was a non-nuclear invasion, of a country we'd already invaded in recent memory, to remind our enemies (since they forgot) that we have 'em. Whew. Now we're safe.

Hello, reality calling, not all muslims are terrorists.

Yeah, but 9-11 happened and the world changed. Now we have to nuke all the arabs take their oil and colonize their former lands because we are so scared. It must never happen again, so everybody who may ever attack us has to die.

I really doubt it.

You want a holy war against all Muslims?

How would you get word to Bin Laden?

The fact another 9/11 hasn't gone down might be the fact we are activily looking for it.

You mean we might piss off the three or four Muslims who don't already hate us? As for getting word to Bin Laden--just tell the King of Saudi Arabia; he or one of his princes surely has Osama on speed dial.

No; it's just because Osama doesn't yet have the capability. Once he has the capability, he'll try again. He doesn't make long, drawn-out plans. He constantly analyzes his capabilities and acts on them when the puzzle pieces fit.

:headbang:

The PEOPLE I deal with! Completly ignorant! Totally ignoring reality! Heh I am hardly the one ignoring reality, you proposed nuking Paris instead of Mecca, I simply pointed out that France would turn any nation nuking Paris into a sheet of glass.Whereas the muslim world does not have the same capacity to retaliate.Thinking that religon is the only thing at hand here!
Hardly, I do however think part of the reason the UK and France developed independent nuclear arsenals is neither nation really trusts that the US would sacrifice New York in a nuclear exchange to protect Paris or London.There would certainly be an outcry if the US nuked Mecca, but somehow I doubt that Russia will sacrifice Moscow be nuking the US in retaliation, China im guessing is a little too fond of Beijing to sacrifice it to avenge Mecca, similarly France and the UK woiuld protest, but not launch a nuclear strike against the US. Pakistan would possibly *try* and hit the US with a nuke(with no ICBMs//SSBNs or bombers capable of reaching the US they would have grave difficulty in this task and would be facing total annhilation at the hands of the US response.
Im sure we would both rather that neither Mecca or Paris gets nuked by the US, I am simply pointing out the if one of these cities had to be nuked, Mecca would result in the fewest casualties.

Not gunna happen.

It would wreck the oil fields.

Besides. Master Saudi King wouldn't let puppet shrubby do it.... :D
blah, we have our own oil up in Alaska and in Texas and California and just off the atlantic and pacific coasts and the gulf of Mexico.

Heh I am hardly the one ignoring reality, you proposed nuking Paris instead of Mecca, I simply pointed out that France would turn any nation nuking Paris into a sheet of glass.Whereas the muslim world does not have the same capacity to retaliate.
Hardly, I do however think part of the reason the UK and France developed independent nuclear arsenals is neither nation really trusts that the US would sacrifice New York in a nuclear exchange to protect Paris or London.There would certainly be an outcry if the US nuked Mecca, but somehow I doubt that Russia will sacrifice Moscow be nuking the US in retaliation, China im guessing is a little too fond of Beijing to sacrifice it to avenge Mecca, similarly France and the UK woiuld protest, but not launch a nuclear strike against the US. Pakistan would possibly *try* and hit the US with a nuke(with no ICBMs//SSBNs or bombers capable of reaching the US they would have grave difficulty in this task and would be facing total annhilation at the hands of the US response.
Im sure we would both rather that neither Mecca or Paris gets nuked by the US, I am simply pointing out the if one of these cities had to be nuked, Mecca would result in the fewest casualties.

basically what I said. Mecca, in terms of nuclear geopolitics has no value for anyone hence, no one would lift a finger if it was nuked. I doubt Pakis would do anything to retaliate, they are now way too dependent on US.

Woo boy, one of many people here who makes me want to speak out. yeah joke threads are fun arent they?I am particularly amused by this little gem Would you bowyour head to a holy man at Mecca?
Of course I wouldnt, as a non-muslim I would not be permitted to set foot inside Mecca......
What I'm saying is this: You don't respect Mecca; fine, but don't think its because you happen to be an Athiest. Oh but it is, I have no reason to respect Mecca, any more than I respect Paris for example.. Athiests can still respect other other people's shrines and holy places. I dont recognise the existance of God, so can hardly be expected to acknowledge that the fact that certain superstitious people claim a city to be holy makes that city any more worthy of respect than , say , Miami.They don't have to be insensitive to be athiests.I fail to see how not sugarcoating my words to fall in line with someone elses worship of God//Allah//the easter bunny is insensitive ; rather than realistic.

Economic sanctions...nobody likes a nuker. And if you think the rest of the world needs America, think again.

To all you people who think using nuclear weapons on a holy city as a hostage here's a little something you should think of. America is not the world. America is not the only country with nuclear arms. So if America uses nuclear weapons as a live weapon today, what happens? Russia would think, well, if they can do it to stop terrorists, why not let us incinerate those pesky terrorists of ours down in [insert name of city]? China would go, "Hey! Taiwan doesn't want to reunify, lets turn them into radioactive slag!".

Get it right.

Using a nuclear weapon is essentially a big message to all the powers to take the keys off their nuclear arsenal.

And if that happens, how about Russia deciding that America is too rich and decides to grab that wealth with nuclear force? Impossible you say? We came quite close to a 3rd world war over political ideological differences. Do you think it couldn't happen over economic differences?

Besides the very intent alone of incinerating a city and its population, a historic and holy city alone as a measure of intimidation against a figurehead is a foolish, narrow minded move. You are essentially taking a city hostage. If you do that, what makes you any better than just another terrorist except that you have a much larger arsenal? Where's your moral justification for wholesale slaughter? Will you say it's justified because the city represents the highest symbolic value to the faith that muslim fundamentalists? What next? Kill all the muslims?

That makes you no better than Hitler or Stalin.

Think about the consequences of your actions/support.

Beautifully Said, thanks.

Economic sanctions...nobody likes a nuker. And if you think the rest of the world needs America, think again.
I dont disagree with you at all, however a nuclear response from France for a US strike on Paris would be a little more damaging than economic sanctions for a US strike on Mecca. Economic Sanctions is as far as most of the world would go.Even the middle-east wouldnt dare cut off Americas oil supply, (No Soviet Union as a counterbalance to US power- unlike in 1973)

blah, we have our own oil up in Alaska and in Texas and California and just off the atlantic and pacific coasts and the gulf of Mexico.

The fields are not that big. Else we could tell the ME no more sales for oil.....

If this threat were true, (and I don't buy it for a minute), it's about the stupidest thing that could be done.

Nuke mecca and every muslim on the planet spontaneously becomes a full-on terrorist. Quite a few non-muslims would join in the fun, too, and america would find quite a few of it's supporters vanishing into the mist.

Plus, once somebody else got into power, he and half his people would be handed over to the Hague for a war-crimes trial in about 3 seconds to try and salvage something from the political backlash.

That's presuming that other countries don't turn around and nuke the states back in retaliation.

Now, while I wouldn't put it past Bush to think it was a good idea, I'd suspect that his handlers are smart enough to realize how bad an idea even pretending that you'd be willing to do it would be.

I dont disagree with you at all, however a nuclear response from France for a US strike on Paris would be a little more damaging than economic sanctions for a US strike on Mecca. Economic Sanctions is as far as most of the world would go.Even the middle-east wouldnt dare cut off Americas oil supply, (No Soviet Union as a counterbalance to US power- unlike in 1973)

Actually, there are countries that'd be quit happy to nuke the US right back. Pakistan would most likely be willing to lob whatever they have, for example. They may be (more or less) willing to go along with the americans at the moment, but they're almost entirely muslim. I'm pretty sure at least one or two other predominantly islamic states are nuclear-capable.

Also, if you through terrorist groups were bad, imagine the intelligence groups of some of these countries (who are much better trained and equipped than your average terrorist), sneaking nukes into all the US ports on boats and the like. It's actually quite simple to do, and short of blowing up every vehicle that comes near US territory (or even just upwind/upstream of the US), there's not much that could be done to stop it really.

Countrary to popular belief, you don't need to have hundreds of nukes to counterbalance the US. You really only need a handfull, and the willingness to use 'em.

The fact that this article and half of these posts exists only brings down my esteem for the human race.

Jesus, and sometimes I wonder why do I put up with so many ignorants everyday?

Seriously, an IQ test will be given to everyone when I am the Global Dictator. Anyone under a certain score will be executed.

Are you sure you would pass?

Let's nuke Mecca, Jerusalem, Ayodhya, and the Vatican.

Enough of this fighting over religious sites. After they are nuked the ones willing to go into these radiated holy sites first are the truly faithful and get to keep them.

You win. I love you. Bear my children. :fluffle:

The US lobbing a nuke at Mecca would not only be unspeakably evil; it would be unspeakably stupid.

There is no way any other nation on the planet could possibly support that kind of wholesale slaughter, and whether the hard-line conservative nutters like to believe it or not, we need both resources that we purchase from other countries, and markets for things we sell TO other countries.

While some might cheer about that, remember -- if the US economy flops, it also drags down other economies -- they need to find other places to buy up all the same resources they were selling to the US, and have to shop for other countries to supply what they were getting from the US.

It would be a blow to the entire world. Not one that could not be recovered from, given time -- but no one would be happy after that incredibly stupid act.

Actually, there are countries that'd be quit happy to nuke the US right back. Pakistan would most likely be willing to lob whatever they have, :rolleyes:
Read the thread, its all ready been stated that Pakistan lacks the long range missles, long range aircraft and ballistic submarines to actually *hit* the US
Countrary to popular belief, you don't need to have hundreds of nukes to counterbalance the US. You really only need a handfull, and the willingness to use 'em.
:rolleyes: when your opponent has the capacity to wipe your nation from the face of the earth and you meanwhile can only hope to destroy a handful of his cities you are facing annhilation he is not.Even the "willingness" to use them is not enough, you need the ability to use a large enough number as well.

Economic sanctions...nobody likes a nuker. And if you think the rest of the world needs America, think again.

Yes but if we use Neutron bombs to nuke the Arabs, take their oil, and lands for our surplus population, America wouldn't need the rest of the World. Actually you'd need us because we would have all the oil. :D

I mean it's too bad and everything, but they attacked us first.

Well that would be the case if the Republicans hadn't elected a man who was the Saudi's butt boy. No wonder Al Qaeda doesn’t fear us, what happened to the party of Goldwater. They talk real tough, but they don't have the guts to use nukes.

This is so laughable I don't see how any sane person could take it seriously.

OBL isn't scared and the US has ALWAYS had nukes. Besides if the US actually nuked Mecca the US would be fucked. Everyone would want to see the US taken down after something that monstrous.
Certainly; I would expect nothing less than for people like you to take up arms against your government.

Certainly; I would expect nothing less than for people like you to take up arms against your government.

If you're going to say things like that, you might want to check your chair for bugs. ;)

Actually, there are countries that'd be quit happy to nuke the US right back. Pakistan would most likely be willing to lob whatever they have, for example. They may be (more or less) willing to go along with the americans at the moment, but they're almost entirely muslim.
Pakistan's nuclear systems are entirely designed to be used against India. There is no way that they could shoot missiles at the USA, which is on the other side of the world.