December 07, 2004
Nuking Mecca and MAD
Nearly two months ago I made the case for nuking Mecca as a rational deterrent to radical Islamists bent on using WMD against American civilians. It seems that David Atkins over at WND is either a Jawa Report reader or that no thought is original (thanks to Andre for the link).
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
Based on the Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine (MAD for short) which successfully deterred a Soviet first strike against the United States for 40+ years of the Cold War, Atkins urges the following policy stance:
In the event of a WMD attack by terrorists on the U.S. homeland or U.S. military facilities overseas, the U.S will immediately and without discussion use its immense nuclear weapons capabilities to destroy the 100 largest Islamic cities on earth, regardless of state, and destroy all of the military facilities of Islamic-dominated states. This will include all of the capitals and at least the 10 largest cities of all Islamic-dominated states and the "holy" cities of Mecca and Medina. In addition, North Korean cities and military installations will be destroyed.His MAD logic is summarized this way:
Now suddenly everybody from Casablanca, Cairo, Damascus, Riyadh, Tehran, Islamabad, Pyongyang and Jakarta have skin in the game. The last thing they want would be a WMD attack on the U.S. It would mean certain destruction of their societies. They might even be motivated to actually and feverishly work against Islamic terrorism instead of the tepid lip service they currently give. Those "freedom fighters" currently being cheered in the streets would be transformed to deadly threats in the very societies that spawned them.I have numerous problems with the specifics of Atkins proposal--starting with the inhumanity of killing millions of innocent people because a handful of states support Islamic terrorists--but agree that MAD could be used to deter Islamic terrorism. It seems to me that a much more reasonable form of MAD would be to limit the target list to one city, Mecca. The terrorists really don't care if we nuke the capitals of Pakistan, Bangladesh, or Syria. As I argued earlier:The beauty of this doctrine is that it encourages the 1.2 billion Muslims to actually prove that they are adherents to a "religion of peace," and it holds all Islamic states and North Korea accountable for their behavior. If you don't want your cities on the target list, you have to earn your way off the list.
...if incinerating Damascus were the only threat we could use to deter terrorists then certainly a MAD scheme would not work in this new Cold War we find ourselves in.However, Mecca is not Damascus. It plays a central role in Muslim worship. Five times a day Muslims pray toward it. All Muslims who have the means are expected to make the Hajj--a pilgrimage to Mecca which revolves around the Kaaba stone. The Kaaba stone is really the reason Mecca is considered holy. Muslims believe the site was used for worship as far back as Adam and that the shrine around the stone was first placed there by Abraham (Ibrahim). There is a 12 mile zone around the stone that infidels are restricted from entering. It's that holy. No non-Muslims near it. In fact, without Mecca and the Kaaba stone, Islam would be very different.
Mecca, then, is quite unlike any other place in the world for Muslims. It is an entire city dedicated to Muslim worship. A place set apart. A holy place. It is an entire city that is thought to be the Temple of God.
Islamist terrorists also consider Mecca the holiest place in the world. It is central to their mode of worship. They face it when they pray. They too believe they must make the hajj. If we take them at their word, then the reason they commit terrorist acts is because they take their religious convictions so seriously. When they kill us, it is because they believe that this is what their God wants them to do.
So, ask yourself the question again: Can terrorists be deterred from using WMD against American targets?
Maybe they can. If Islamic extremists really love their religious institutions in the way that they claim they do, then pointing an ICBM at Mecca may not be the most irrational thing to do. They may not care if the rest of the world goes up in a nuclear mushroom cloud...but Mecca is not the rest of the world. Would they really risk blowing up New York City if they believed the consequences of such an action would be a 30 kiloton nuclear explosion over the Kaaba stone? After all, the nuclear destruction of Mecca would end Islamic forms of worship as they presently exist.
Posted by: Rusty at
04:04 PM
| Comments (65)
| Add Comment
Post contains 789 words, total size 5 kb.
1
Maybe nuking Mecca would solidify their (the terrorists) beliefs that the US is the biggest evil on the planet. The major consequence would be, of course, that not only would the US have to withstand the wrath of every disaffected and disenfranchised Muslim out there, but all the other Muslims as well. Not to mention losing friends and alliances faster than you can imagine. Imagine trying to fight a war against 1-2 billion people with no help? Pretty fucking scary, don't you think.
I know it sounds like a pretty easy solution to a lot of hotheads out there to nuke a religious capital, assuming it somehow makes all the problems go away. But, in the globalized world that US commerce has built up, and with the good relations that the US has fostered in dozens of countries, dropping a nuclear weapon on a holy site to end the actions of a fractionally small group of extremists would be akin to dropping it on themselves. The US cannot survive in this world without other countries, not the way it has positioned itself globally. It relies on others as much as other rely on the US. Dropping a bomb on Mecca would only imply the US has lost the war and needs to resort to such desperate measures.
Posted by: Venom at December 07, 2004 04:49 PM (dbxVM)
2
'rational deterrent'
Good thing you weren't being irrational.
Posted by: actus at December 07, 2004 04:51 PM (YxF4W)
3
Venom--
Maybe, but then are you suggesting that there is no deterrent at all?? Or that this particular deterrent wouldn't work?? If such a threat existed would it give an incentive to all the moderates that you claim are out there to root out the fundamentalists??
Further, if my understanding of Islamist ideology is correct (and I could be way off), than the destruction of Mecca cannot happen. If it were to happen, then, Muslims would have to critically reevaluate their religion. In much the same way Jews had to reevaluate after the destruction of Harod's Temple and the second diaspora. In much the same way Christians had to reevaluate themselves after the reformation and bloody religious wars that followed.
Posted by: Rusty at December 07, 2004 05:16 PM (JQjhA)
4
Not at all, I'm suggesting nuking Mecca won't accomplish anything if you wind up with a lot more trouble afterwards. I mean, you don't cure a hangnail by cutting off the hand. You don't win over any on-the-fence Muslim moderates by telling them you're going to bomb their primary holy site.
As for whether its "possible" to destroy Mecca or not, I think even if you could physically do it, spiritually it would never be destroyed. It would turn into a martyr itself. And that's much more difficult to deal with.
Posted by: Venom at December 07, 2004 05:32 PM (dbxVM)
5
Maybe. I'm not so sure. Maybe it would force moderates to view Islam as a spiritual religion and reject the political aspects of the core doctrines.
Posted by: Rusty at December 07, 2004 05:50 PM (JQjhA)
6
I think a hang nail can be cured if the hand is cut off.
Not only will that remove the hang nail it would also remove the idea of hang nails in the future.
Posted by: Steven at December 07, 2004 06:17 PM (+7Usq)
7
The "friends" we would lose are already against us: France, Spain, Germany, et.al. The Brits would continue to stand by us. However the real problem is here in America. When we first went after Al Qaeda Bush and Rummy referred to it as a Crusade for freedom. Several members of the "Black Caucus" were on the MSM complaining how biased/bigoted that was. Ther term disappeared in less than a month.
The idea makes sense - but it would stir up too much MSM outcry.
Rod Stanton
Cerritos
Posted by: Rod Stanton at December 07, 2004 07:56 PM (tHUgl)
8
It's the classic conundrum in international relations: Is it better to be feared or loved?
Since I believe that nation's act in their best interestts, I think it is better to be feared. The Soviet Union feared us, and now they are gone.
Posted by: Rusty at December 07, 2004 08:10 PM (JQjhA)
9
This bad idea didn't get any better with aging.
Nuking Mecca would certainly accomplish some things. Maybe not what you expect, though.
One thing it would achieve would be to turn the US into a completely isolationist state, because no American could safely live outside its borders (and many would be in danger within). I suspect you'd find all Americans persona non grata in every country on earth.
You would achieve an Israel caught in the middle of a nuclear cloud of its own making, as Muslims rom throughout the Arab world marched on it to utterly destroy it.
Removing the principal locus of worship would indeed be devastating. Since Islam--at least as currently practiced--needs a place toward which all worship is directed, they'd need to find a substitute. Guess what that'd be?
Try Jerusalem.
While Medina is considered the "second most holy" site in Islam, it's qualitatively different from Mecca or Jerusalem. Medina is where the secular Mohammed established the first Islamic state; it's where he died and is buried.
Jerusalem, though, is the destination of his miraculous journey, from which he was transported to heaven. It has far more religious import than Medina.
Removing Mecca from the map will ensure the removal of Jerusalem from any hands other than Islamic.
I won't get into the moral problem of nuking hundreds of thousands of arguably innocent people based on the behavior of a few who pretend to act in their names.
May I recommend just putting this idea in a box and burying it in the backyard? Under the cat.
Posted by: John at December 07, 2004 08:20 PM (OmbAg)
10
Rusty:
I believe that the answer old Niccolo had for that conundrum was when you have to choose between the two, it is better to be feared than loved.
I think we went into Iraq as part of Plan A to defang Islam. Nuking Mecca is probably Plan B. Wholesale destruction of all major Islamic cities must be Plan C, and so on. Surely this is an oversimpification, but I would be surprised if these options and all the ramifications have not been discussed and even planned to some degree.
Posted by: Mr. K at December 07, 2004 08:52 PM (C40ug)
11
Nuke 'em? No. But I firmly believe that for each beheading, we bomb one muslim "holy site." And yes, that would include the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. There's a shiny new temple waiting to be rebuilt there. These fanatics care nothing for life, let's see how much they care for their shrines.
Posted by: Eric at December 08, 2004 12:08 AM (lK7Sh)
12
Bombing Mecca would not resolve the problem. Whether a destroyed Mecca or Jerusalem would become the locus of Islamic religious fervor is an interesting question, but peripheral to the ongoing battle between Western ideals (exemplified by the US and the other members of the Anglosphere) and the dark pseudo-fascism of the radical Islamists.
Similarly, destroying religious sites or capital cities will not end the radical Islamist threat. In a battle of ideals, the path to victory for the West is convincing enough of today's passive supporters of radical Islamism to stay out of the fight, then tracking down and eliminating the active elements. Advocacy of force alone to alienate the passive support elements won't work--the governments of the region have been ineffective that way and yet we would be even less so (culturally, we would not act with the ruthlessness that would be required).
The ongoing experiments in Afghanistan and Iraq, if they continue to grow into viable, independent and free states with popular legitimacy (they aren't there yet, but it's possible they could be in a decade), provide an alternative that may prove attractive. Further, if a reasonable accomodation can be made between Israel and a new Palestinian state, that issue would no longer be viable as a distractor by authoritarian regimes in the region resisting public calls for greater participation in political affairs. It will likely be a very long time before any of these states closely resemble Anglospheric democracies, but reaching the sort of accomodation Turkey has between the secular and religious would greatly reduce tensions in the region and the threat of radical Islam to the rest of the world.
Posted by: Jem at December 08, 2004 04:42 AM (2myPr)
13
I think it would be good to remember the goals, threats and claims of the Muslim world toward the West. Namely, that Washington will fly the Islamic flag. Does one really think that talking will change their minds. Discussion is good to a point. Then it merely is a tool used by schemers on one side and cowards on the other. I am not pro nuke anyone. AT THIS TIME. Islam does need to be controlled. They obviously cannot control themselves. The threat of major destruction of something that means a lot to them can be a useful tool.
Bear in mind that if our enemies were to nuke us first. The liberal estabishment would immediately say it is all Bush's fault and we should not strike back. Many, so called liberals (cowardly surrender monkeys) would claim striking back will only produce more attacks on us.
Rod Stanton is right on the money with his previous post.
How can we have solidarity in the western world if we don't have solidarity in our country. Discussion is one thing. Taking an anti stand on every issue the administration does is another.
As for me, I am sick of the same cry babies before the election continuing their ways. It is unamerican not to except the will of the majority. The majority has spoken.
If readers will remember, before the election. I posted that I would give my total support to whom ever wins. I also stated that I would not cry, piss and moan about everything the winner does. That was when many thought Kerry would win. REMEMBER RUSTY? I also asked if any of you Kerry loving liberal cry babies would do the same. Not one of you responded. That means to me that you are happier pissing and moaning than offering anything constructive.
We have two enemies. One lives, works and takes substance from the country it continuously complains about. One is as bad as the other.
Posted by: greyrooster at December 08, 2004 08:12 AM (pfOwp)
14
I like the 100 cities thing. Just hitting mecca does not put enough pressure on people not in mecca. When it is life and death for real you will see some changes in attitude. I think it could work but only in retaliation for a severe attack much worse than 9-11. But we would have to put it out front like we did with the USSR and make it clear we will not strike first with WMD. I see a lot of posts that sound like a first strike was proposed. That is not what was put up for discussion.
Posted by: Howie at December 08, 2004 09:23 AM (YdcZ0)
15
I find it interesting that people jump from the threat of bombing Mecca (the idea of MAD) to the fact of nuking Mecca, and then talk about the results thereof.
The US had a policy of MAD with the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War, the facts of which meant that we were willing to trade every US city for every Soviet Bloc city. Thankfully, this wasn't necessary, because MAD actually worked. It deterred direct, armed Soviet agression. (Incidently, it also deterred the US from invading Soviet Bloc countries and freeing them, but that's beside the point.)
I suspect that a MAD policy that centered on Mecca would not work. The fact that so many commenters are cavailing at the very thought, probably indicates that we no longer have the national will to pull it off any more, and the terrorists know it
Posted by: Robert J. Ritchie at December 08, 2004 01:27 PM (7dkzi)
16
I think the 100 cities is a little more of a deterrent. When other nations begin to realize that the actions of a few, whom a large part of their populations view as heroes, will impact their livelyhood, then maybe these countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc, will take a proactive role in curbing islamic fundamentalism within their borders. This isn't saying that we should go bomb a hundered Islamic cities, but i definately think that putting that out on the table and backing it up in the event, would definately change the support for Islamic fundamentalism by these nations.
Posted by: bosewicht at December 08, 2004 05:22 PM (HuxWD)
17
I don't think nuking mecca would solve the problem... although it would be pretty fun to watch it go *poof*
Posted by: J.R. at December 08, 2004 11:57 PM (4r4gu)
18
DEMOCRATIC IRAQ WILL SEAL FATE OF ISLAMIC TERRORISM.
As George Bush's first term nears its end, how is the global fight against terrorism going? In Saudi Arabia a few days ago, al-Qa'eda reminded the world that it could still conduct terrorist operations in the kingdom, by attacking the American consulate in Jeddah. Meanwhile in London, President Musharraf of Pakistan said that the trail of its leader, bin-Laden, who is thought to be on the run in the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan, had long gone cold.
These are discouraging developments, but both need to be put in perspective. The operation in Jeddah, which resulted in the deaths of four Saudi guards and three terrorists, did not succeed in killing any American diplomats. It was much less lethal than attacks last year and this on housing compounds in Riyadh and Khobar. There was a similar sense of anti-climax in Indonesia in September, when Jemaah Islamiyah, having massacred more than 200 people, among them 88 Australians, in Bali two years ago, failed to do nearly as much damage in a strike against the Australian embassy in Jakarta.
This is not to say that the Saudi and Indonesian security forces are on top of the terrorist threat. In the case of the first, the standard of training is low, competing princely patronage militates against a coherent policy, and jihadis have managed to penetrate the state apparatus. But, as with Indonesian prosecution of JI members, some progress, with Washington's help, has been made.
In Pakistan, likewise, al-Qa'eda has been put under pressure in both cities and the mountains; Gen Musharraf said a few days ago, that it was on the run. Even more striking was the failure of the Taliban, once lords of a terrorist-sponsoring Afghanistan, to prevent democratic presidential elections being held in October.
Some progress in the Arabian peninsula, the Indonesian archipelago and South Asia contrast with continuing high levels of violence in Iraq as it prepares for elections to a constituent assembly in January. There have been calls from Sunni minority for these to be postponed, but there is no guarantee that that would reduce violence. Indeed, by angering the Shia majority, it might make matters even worse. It must be hoped that, over the coming weeks, the prospect of the country's assuming democratic control of its own destiny will draw a large part of the Sunni community into a non-violent political process. That would open the way to reducing the number of foreign troops and, thereby, the resentment that their presence inspires. The emergence of a peaceful, democratic and prosperous Iraq would be a quantum leap in the struggle against Islamic extremism.
Posted by: Solid at December 09, 2004 08:35 AM (PM/BC)
19
Responding and agreeing with Solid . . If and when a free democratic society is established in Iraq, the support for the Terrorists and "Insurgents" will wane in that country. However it will become a problem in Saudi Arabia (it already is gaining a foorhold) and to a lesser degree, Kuwait and the other Gilf states ruled by monarchies . . The gross income for the Saudi's has been steadily shrinking and the Royals are just Lamp Post decorations waiting to happen . . Not if, but when. As we are fighting the "Civil War" for the Iraqi's now, soon we will begin to fight the Saudi Civil War for them. It's either that or eventually lose the Middle East to the Islamifascists. Kinda like the old Domino Theory.
Eventually, we'll have them all back where they started . . . Somalia, Ethopia, North Africa, and this time we need to chase 'em to the ground, kill 'em all . . Let the Islamic World in Western Europe see that this isn't something they want to do . . Perhaps that is what Nuking Mecca, Medina, Qom, all their other holy places will not do. We have to change their minds, not their locations, so to speak.
But then, as one noted, it would be fun to watch . . Heh, heh . . .
Posted by: large at December 09, 2004 10:48 AM (VRK2g)
20
I love reading pseudo-intellectual's anaylsis of the Iraqi conflict and the GWOT reduced down to a game of Risk.
"Ok, so, we'll chase them from this country to that country, and then get the help from these people and then tighten off their escape routes," and blah blah blah.
Gimme a break.
Posted by: Venom at December 09, 2004 12:21 PM (dbxVM)
21
Hey, that's where they came from . . they (bin Laden & Co.) didn't just hatch under a rock in Afghanistan, and this is information provided to us by the Minions of the Defense Department . . nothing I thought of all by myself . . . Re: Prof. Tom Barnett.
Venom, you need to get out more! Or read a Book!
Posted by: large at December 09, 2004 05:49 PM (VRK2g)
22
Muslims in Europe
NATIONALISING ISLAM.
This week's call by the French government for imams to undergo univerity training in civil law, history, language and culture is an important moment for Europe's faltering attemps to try to engage with its Muslim citizens. The country with the continent's largest Muslim population, whose cecular state is a hallowed principle - and which imposed the controversial ban on wearing the hijab in schools - has decided it must try harder. This is not an attempt to create a mosquee de France, Nor should it be. But the lesson of recent years - intensified since 9/11, the war in Iraq and the Madrid train bombings - is that Muslims in France, Germany, the Netherlands and Britain must be taken more seriously by their governments, though not just by their police and security services.
There is no excuse, especially in France with its still raw memories of Algeria, for a heavy-handed approach to civil liberties, even though the state has legitimate concerns about an intolerant fundamentalism that in isolated cases shades into violence and even jihadist terrorism. But it has an equally important duty to look at the matrix of alienation, deprivation and disdain in which too many young Muslims are trapped, to try to ensure that integration works better. Helping to prevent extremism is one such way.
It is hard to be too prescriptive about how this should be done. In the Netherlands, where Muslims now make up 6% of the population, long-standing concerns about immigration, ghettoisation and Islamophobia came together after the recent murder of Theo van Gogh, maker of a highly offensive film about Islam and women. This may have been the work of a single deranged individual. But tit-for-tat attacks on mosques and churches suggested a far wider crisis.
In Germany, where Gerhard Schroder has urged the country's 3 million Muslims to learn its language and honour its laws and democratic principles, there is concern about "parallel societies." Islamic leaders retort that intergration is a two-way street and that the state should have been more welcoming to Turkish Gastarbeiter four decades ago.
Britain has nothing to be complacent about, as recent polls about Muslim discontent show. Community leaders are wary of state-sponsored bodies or training, arguing that independent institutions are needed and non-Muslims cannot intervene in religious doctrine and authority. Two points apply to efforts to forge strategies of engagement: dialogue has never been more vital; and a light, sensitive touch is required.
Posted by: Solid at December 10, 2004 11:22 AM (PM/BC)
23
Please note that vemon's reply rejects ideas of others but never, never, ever has an answer himself. Everyone's suggestion is wrong. However, he never gives a solution himself. America is wrong. The President is wrong. His advisors are wrong. Rusty is wrong. All posters are wrong. Get a life you narrow minded creep.
Posted by: greyrooster at December 11, 2004 08:19 PM (linwh)
24
Everyone, I'd like to introduce you to the president of my fan club, "greyrooster."
Personally, I only think it's worthwhile to suggest a solution if it's not filled with irrational thoughts and made-up-facts. Please take note on this point.
And, apparently rejecting wholesale nuclear annihilation means being "narrow-minded." Thanks for the lesson, teach.
Posted by: Venom at December 13, 2004 09:06 AM (dbxVM)
25
Venom.....On what basis, are you suggesting, that one of my posts or indeed both posts, contain "irrational thoughts and made-up-facts"?
Posted by: Solid at December 13, 2004 04:25 PM (PM/BC)
26
The reply was more directed at greyrooster than anyone else. But the principle still stands, if even in a general sense.
Posted by: Venom at December 13, 2004 04:29 PM (dbxVM)
27
Well, what basis was that again? Generalizations don't help anyone. It is alway's useful to support your statements with facts. Untill you come forth with facts etc, then perhaps I can give you a reasoned and intelligent response to your posts. Thankyou.
Posted by: Solid at December 14, 2004 12:22 PM (PM/BC)
28
Solid,
I'm not going to sit here and spend a few hours digging up my previous posts for you where I challenge greyrooster, Laura, and a few other people for facts to back up their arguments. In fact, I think it's ironic that you're asking me for something that I've actuallyspent more than enough time demanding from other people.
And what are you talking about, anyways? Was I even asking for a response from you?
Posted by: Venom at December 15, 2004 09:01 AM (dbxVM)
29
VENOM being an asshole is one of the few constants on this blog. The bitch is still pulling for Kerry. Maybe they were lovers.
Posted by: greyrooster at December 15, 2004 08:55 PM (VkopJ)
30
Still should nuke Mecca and the other so called holy cities, mosques and wherever they may be hiding.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at December 15, 2004 11:38 PM (D39Vm)
31
"VENOM being an asshole is one of the few constants on this blog. The bitch is still pulling for Kerry. Maybe they were lovers."
How quickly an idiot like greyrooster forgets that, as I stated numerous times, I didn't support either candidate. Kerry seemed as ineffectual a leader as Bush. As to why he's always thinking about homosexual thoughts, I can only speculate there are latent, repressed feelings he's trying to deal with.
But if there is one constant, it's greyrooster's incomprehensible ramblings about Islam and his lack of concrete facts to support any argument he makes.
And firstbrokenangel, it's comforting to know that no decision you ever make will ever have a material impact on anything.
Posted by: Venom at December 16, 2004 12:27 PM (dbxVM)
32
VENOM: If you are claiming that I have ever advocated nuking anyone you are a liar.
Posted by: greyrooster at December 16, 2004 09:52 PM (eLjJa)
33
VENOM: If you talk like one you are one. And you talk like one. So piss on you sissy.
Posted by: greyrooster at December 16, 2004 09:54 PM (eLjJa)
34
Venom probably wasn't for Kerry or Bush. Maybe so. He's never been for anything. Just a pro Islam and against everything else punk.
Posted by: greyrooster at December 16, 2004 09:58 PM (eLjJa)
35
"VENOM: If you are claiming that I have ever advocated nuking anyone you are a liar."
I recall making no such comment. You called me "narrow-minded" in a thread discussing nuking Muslim holy cities - a thread in which I said it wasn't the answer.
Please learn to read.
Posted by: Venom at December 17, 2004 10:08 AM (dbxVM)
36
We've had this discussion before and I'm still saying destroying Mecca, Bethlehem, Jerusalem, despite it's historical value should definitely be destroyed - unfortunately Mecca is in Saudi Arabia. But then that's no real loss as an ally.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at December 17, 2004 02:04 PM (D39Vm)
37
And Venom, no comment from you please, you troll.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at December 17, 2004 02:12 PM (D39Vm)
38
"We've had this discussion before and I'm still saying destroying Mecca, Bethlehem, Jerusalem, despite it's historical value should definitely be destroyed - unfortunately Mecca is in Saudi Arabia. But then that's no real loss as an ally."
That's why you're one of the nutjobs here.
Apparently a troll is someone who doesn't have the same opinion as Cindy.
Posted by: Venom at December 17, 2004 02:16 PM (dbxVM)
39
Me, a nutjob? Boy are you in the wrong building.
~Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at December 17, 2004 02:54 PM (D39Vm)
40
Grey Rooster, it's probably best if we just ignored ALL of Venom's comments; you know, just scroll past anything he writes and don't bother with a reply or comment to him - maybe then he'll go away.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at December 17, 2004 03:00 PM (D39Vm)
41
I'm not sure that the logic behind MAD can be applied to the nuking of Mecca and the hundred largest Islamic cities. MAD theory worked during the Cold War because the USSR was in control of its nuclear arsenal and could be held accountable for its actions directly.
The incineration of millions of Muzzies around the world sounds like collective punishment, such as the Nazi reprisal killings in areas they controlled during WWII as a response to partisan activities. An example would be the destruction of the Czech town of Lidice, following the assasination of Reinhard Heydrich.
Nuking Muslim holy sites and population centers would not be a strategic deterrent, but a methodology to be employed in a larger context during a global war of extermination. I'm not morally or philosophically opposed to genocidal war against Muslims, but we need to be sure that we're willing to go all the way. We can't just fry Mecca during the Hajj and expect these bastards to reform themselves. It would mean the end of one our civilazations.
Posted by: Caliban at December 21, 2004 12:16 PM (SdBkW)
42
It wouldn't work to bomb Mecca, because to do that would only serve to enrage them and push them towards an all out battle to the death. You have to know the Arab mind. It would be far better to hold out a continuous threat to destroy Mecca than to actually do it. That way, you'd get their attention and they might bend over backwards to try to preserve their holiest shrine. But destroy it and you remove their raison d'etre, ...no more threat to hold over their head so no more leverage. They would then just as soon go out in a flurry of bullets.
However, posing a tangible threat to the Ka'aba might work. If you threatened to bomb it and the holy mosque with bombs filled with pig-shit, that would really get the bastards worrying. For one thing, someone would have to become enormously contaminated, forever, cleaning the place up. For another, they'd be in a real quandary..."Gee whiz, I really need to worship this place, and go to it physically, but ...it's been desecrated with pig shit! ...What to do, ..What to do?? TheyÂ’d probably grant some special dispensation to get some infidels in there just long enough to scrub off the pig shit and get it purified enough for them to use it again, at which time they would reassert the ban on infidels. But even though the stench of the pig manure is gone, they would always remember the horror of seeing their sacred place bathed in pig cah-cah and they'd really think twice about pissing anyone off again.
Then, you warn them..."This time, pig shit, next time, plutonium, ...your choice!" From time to time, when there are skirmishes or minor uprisings, deliver another pig-shit bomb to serve as a reminder. And, if something big happens after that, then you nuke them.
Posted by: Bigmomma at January 07, 2005 10:59 PM (mbZEM)
43
How can you people be so bigoted? Radical Islamics are just a microscopic part of the entire Islamic society. Not only that, but there are Muslims all across the US. Destroying Mecca would infuriate not only these but all Americans who aren't right wing extremists like you crazy bastards.
Posted by: bob at January 13, 2005 08:18 PM (TCYIi)
44
You are the biggest moron ever. Hey let's just nuke the whole earth. That way we all would be dead and would enever fear terrorism again. Perfect!
Posted by: Paul at January 15, 2005 06:28 PM (OHMs0)
45
I just came across this post and have to say, It's a bit interesting, not to mention some of the ideas I think are personally over the top.
As someone else stated, the use of MAD in this situation would not be the complete answer, as not all goverments have complete control over terrorist/population in their countrys. Most of these countries that harbour terrorists are developing or poor developed countries with a lot of instability. I think the whole idea of nuking holy sites is very narrow minded and wrong. If it were the opposite way about, where a minute percentage of catholics commited terrorist act - say, something real big in northern ireland happened, and it was due to the IRA, not necessary done due to religion, but due to what they think is forign rule (or their excuse at least), are you saying that the right course of action for a religously different country, say the UK, due to its mostly protestant population, should nuke the residence of the pope? and Dublin, due to it being the capital of Ireland. As well as christan holy cities in the Middle east? - Course this is wrong.
If the use of MAD should ever be used against countries, it should be used against that country in a way that if would inflict damage to the country itself and not the wellfair of it's religous belives. An example of this would be to threaten the country's economic and military targets, and even then, would sanctions not be a better thing to use against another country, such as was used against Iraq, during Saddams rule?.
I hate how some people automatically associate muslims with terrorists. For example, terrorists in ireland, spain and the russians, have nothing to do with muslims, but when the word terrorist is used, the are usually the 1st to be assossiated with it. This only makes the situation worse and causes even more tension.
I know this has little to do with the topic of this post, but America and it's allies may have troubles in the future for intervening too much, even if it is to protect itself. The threat that is growing from china (that has a large muslim population as well) and the russian alliance may bring around another cold war, or even worse, complete economic disaster for western powers as well as the threat of war. America's stratagies should keep this sort of thing in mind, and not threaten countries so heavily, or other countries may think about taking action.
Anyway, I'm not wanting a bitching session that has already errupted in this post, I'm only posting my own views, as everybody is entitled to there own.
Posted by: Chris Connolly at January 20, 2005 06:12 PM (BdeAR)
46
Just to add, I agree about the thing somebody said about using MAD against the USSR, and comparing it to using against countries due to islamic extreamists, saying that it's impratical due to the goverments not having full control. If America were to use MAD against these countries, as pointed out by another post, they would be the ones worse off. I personally think that if America did get attacked, it would not stick to this MAD policy, as it would face retalition from almost all musil dominated countries, including most probably China - that has already open threatened nuclear war with america. I think in the entire thing of MAD in this post is purely a Bluff. America has too much to loose, and no matter how powerful a country it is, could not withstand the counter attack.
Posted by: Chris Connolly at January 20, 2005 06:20 PM (BdeAR)
47
feck, heres a correction, (sorry if i'm posting too much now, lol)
in my 1st post where it say's
"I hate how some people automatically ... and the russians...."
I'm not refering to the russians, but to the troubles they are having with the chechen rebels.
Posted by: Chris Connolly at January 20, 2005 06:25 PM (BdeAR)
48
I am a simple soldier's wife and each day consists of caring for this wonderful man and our children, so I may not be most "qualified" to offer an opinion on global politics or thoughts on how this nation responds to threats from any outside group. However, what I find interesting about the commentary on the MAD approach is the seeming supposition that the majority of this great country are actually so "globally minded". What I have found over the years is that the media, politicians and lobbyists of our country actually speak for a much smaller portion of the population than they would have you believe. According to these few, it is not currently popular to be "intolerant" in any form or to even give the appearance of not letting each person " be free to be me" , so to speak. I have observed that the basic American is patriotic at his core, believes in a higher power greater than himself, wants to order his lunch--hotel room---whatever from someone who speaks english, accepts the flaws of others but will tell them honestly what they are if he's asked, thinks politicians need to quit meddling in every aspect of life, wishes the media would just report the news and not offer political slant, knows without a doubt that this great country doesn't really need anyone else out there at all and that they should all be very, very afraid----he also knows that in this country, the few speak for the many and that the few don't always know what they are talking about. What does this rambling mean? Well, simply this.... 9/11 happened here in America and was perpetrated by a very specific group of terrorists. Why are we really worried about what the global community thinks of how we handle a threat to our own shores? They certainly run to us when they have a need and expect Americans to foot the bill for their disasters and send troops when they need help. What I see is a global community that wants to control the US by demanding help in times of crisis and then demanding that the US get approval for taking care of it's own troubles!!! Using a threat on Mecca to deter future attacks, well....I think it's a good idea. Nothing else reaches these extremists. True, if the threat ever had to become reality, there would be collateral damage and worldwide disapproval. But, the hope with a threat like this would be the same as during the cold war......that the "enemy" is aware of our abilities and resolve to act and therefore chooses not to provoke action. And again, why do we need approval to protect our own? War in any form is an ugly, ugly thing and no matter how well-informed, enlightened, or globally minded any of us is it always comes back to that. As long as humanity exhists, there will be those that hate and act upon that hatred. They will not respect Geneva Convention resolutions, they will not respect life, they will not tolerate dissenting opinions, they will try to obliterate freedom. They don't care about the collateral damage. If threatening to destroy something they actually do value keeps them from acting, what's the problem? Would some hate us more? Yes. Would we have new issues to deal with? Yes. Would the world respect our nation and take us at our word? Absolutely! Don't you think that the Al Qaeda and terrorist groups just love the fact that we seem to be so divided in our beliefs in this country? I believe that we should quit arguing amongst oursleves and present a unified front to the rest of the world! Any way, I know that my opinions and those of my peers are not always popular or even politically correct but that's the beauty of our great nation! We have a voice and can have opinions. My husband goes to work each day to ensure that this freedom is never lost and in a few short months he will be doing his duty in Afghanistan. May God bless and keep you all and if you happen to think of it, send a prayer up to heaven for my soldier. Thanks!
Posted by: Brianna H. at January 21, 2005 06:05 AM (WyMmp)
49
big Momma has the right idea; the perfect formulation of the "Threat in Being" theory.
There is just one little problem... Mecca is Saudi Arabia
It would be necessary to depopulate and recolonize that country with our own people in order to ever get oil out of it again.
Posted by: Lucius Severus Pertinax at January 26, 2005 03:26 AM (h5H65)
50
Nuke Mecca, and every American will be slaughtered as well as the decendents of americans in the next few generation.
Although i never liked the fanatics, I will in such event, I will kill the first american scum i find in Europe.
How about Nuking Israel. Surely, america will be safer then.
Posted by: Tony at February 01, 2005 02:41 AM (nocvx)
51
Islam is a pathology, not a religion
keeping that in mind will help you focus your ideas in a useful direction.
Posted by: Walter Gremillion at May 14, 2005 04:06 AM (AwlST)
52
Nucking Mecca is a limited approach to US response after a WMD attack. The real issue is, if there is a GOD that speaks through humans to communicate what he wants and there are plenty of human beings willing to do his bidding, which group is correct. Equally possible are all groups - wrong! How to find out is Jews, Christains or Muslims are on the right track? Since a WMD attack by radical Muslims would have killed a whole bunch of Americans, why not Americans carry out the followint test - nuke Jerusalem, Mecca, Bethlehem, and any other reasonably holy site loved by the above. This will not be an act of revenge, but rather an querry to see which view of God God wants us to follow. By making an earnest effort via nuclear missles and bombers carrying nukes and ships firing nukes to totally annihalate all the above targets after giving the inhabitants 96 hours to get out human kind will find out which religious perspective God is interested in saving. What religious sites God protects from the all out attack will be the one we follow. Jews, Christains will have a hard time if Jerusalem is turned into series of big holes. Muslims will not be too happy to see the Dome of the Rock and Mecca vaporized. A test, a real test is the only reasonable response to a WPM attack or any seriously damaging attack on America by religious zealots doing the bidding of God. The survival of their holy places after a "Good Faith Effort" by the U.S. to totally destroy them will vindicate their attack on America and go a long way to sway Americans to accept Islam and reject Judo/Christianity. On the other hand, the total annihalation of all holy sites, would indicate to Americans that a much nastier response would be needed to be directed at the zealots and those remotely associated with them in much the same vane as Rome responded to the Jewish revolt during hte 1st century. We should all insist of a retalitory strike against all Judo/Christain/Islamnic holy sites after Islamic zealots attack the U.S. again.
Posted by: Amtr at June 05, 2005 01:21 AM (1oiwb)
53
"Nuke Mecca, and every American will be slaughtered"
I dont think so. You would have done so already...
"I will in such event, I will kill the first american scum i find in Europe."
Well at least you're honest about your hatred - Exactly why we SHOULD nuke that freakin cesspool in the first place. Get this - We (America) dont care if you hate us. We only care when you mess with us.
You freakin Islamafascists have been sucking on the American money tit for too long!
You fucking assholes attacked our "holy place" (WTC) we should wipe our asses on the Q'uran force the soiled pages down your throats and watch your eyes grow wide as we create an artificial sun over the fucking Kaaba stone!
Eat shit Wahabbist!
Posted by: StoneGarden at July 08, 2005 04:07 PM (QuTt4)
54
Possible scenario #1 for non-governmental agency:
7-day warning for Medina (to allow evacuation and to allow martyrs to congregate)
Delivery by private jet
100 kt device
Air burst at 2000 ft
One month waiting period
7-day warning for Mecca (to allow evacuation and to allow martyrs to congregate)
Delivery by private jet
300 kt device
Surface burst
Posted by: CR at July 15, 2005 09:43 AM (+NPIp)
55
This deterrent strategy would make some muslims think twice about attacking the u.s. But it does not solve the problem. If we were to nuke a muslim holy site, we would lose every ally on earth, regardless of who they are. The president and many other experts on terror abroad say the only way to surpress terror in the end is to win over hearts and minds in other nations, and trust their governments to support the war on terror. The interior pressure on our allies to cut off all help or even declare war on the u.s would be immense, and even violent. The massive muslim neighborhoods in europe would erupt in overwhelming violence. The sheer tenacity of the violence in European countries will strain relations with our few remaining allies. This will also solidify america's reputation as the worlds evil empire. Nuking mecca would turn the al qaeda from a small movement into an open movement involving millions of angy muslims and even non muslims. You have to think globaly and unilaterally. If we attack mecca, we lose the war on terror. SO we attack mecca, then what? what comes after that?
Posted by: fred at July 18, 2005 04:06 PM (m2IQQ)
56
Nuking Japan worked in WW2 so it's got to be worth a try.
Posted by: gt at July 21, 2005 05:50 PM (l8gSf)
57
At what point did the first question asked about any tactical or strategic military operation become "what will our enemy think of us afterwards?"
Japan was a nation at least if not more motivated than the Islamist scum we currently fight. They were also an eminently stronger foe. We nuked two of their cities. Was the result a perpetual state of hatred toward the United States and a never-ending war? No. The result was that japan was brought to it's knees and FORCED to change it's ways.
As for losing allies, one hopes that a decision to nuke Mecca in response to any nuclear attack by Islamists is reached by the West as a whole. MAD was something understood by all of NATO. If you our allies would not give the United States a wide berth in it's response to a nuclear attack, you're mistaken. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT RESPONSE TO A NUCLEAR ATTACK!
Posted by: EJ at July 22, 2005 09:18 PM (ePd0R)
58
"Nuke Mecca, and every American will be slaughtered"
Let yourself come to grips with certain realities. The West has the power to wipe out all Muslim lands in the blink of an eye. We furthermore have the power to extinguish all traces of Islam within Western lands. Given the current trajectory of your gutter religion, I'd say you are living on borrowed time. Know that the only thing that keeps us from slitting your collective throats is our own decency. The day that Islam wears that decency thin is the day of your reckoning. As you reach out to kill that "first European" you see, what thought will run through your mind as the bullets rip through your heart in unison with the words "death to Islam?" Do you want to find out?
Posted by: EJ at July 22, 2005 09:24 PM (ePd0R)
59
"It wouldn't work to bomb Mecca, because to do that would only serve to enrage them and push them towards an all out battle to the death. You have to know the Arab mind."
And they shall be killed. And those behind them. And so on and so on.
Japan was a FIERCER enemy than thes jihadist scum. The Emperor was a God like figure and to die fighting for the Empire was the highest possible honor. We nuked them. It ended the war.
Stop being so frightened of this enemy. They are not all-powerful. They do not have never-ending resources and never-ending will. The ONLY question is whether WE have the will to do what it takes to put an end to it all.
Posted by: EJ at July 22, 2005 09:29 PM (ePd0R)
60
"It wouldn't work to bomb Mecca, because to do that would only serve to enrage them and push them towards an all out battle to the death. You have to know the Arab mind."
And they shall be killed. And those behind them. And so on and so on.
Japan was a FIERCER enemy than these jihadist scum. The Emperor was a God like figure and to die fighting for the Empire was the highest possible honor. We nuked them. It ended the war.
Stop being so frightened of this enemy. They are not all-powerful. They do not have never-ending resources and never-ending will. The ONLY question is whether WE have the will to do what it takes to put an end to it all.
Posted by: EJ at July 22, 2005 09:30 PM (ePd0R)
61
If Islam is mutating into a religion of murder devoted to the destruction of all non-muslims, as seems to be the case, then a war of annihilation against the Muslim world is inevitable. Such a war using thermonuclear weapons would last about a day. Subjected to a stone age economy, most of the remaining population would starve to death.
The central tenet of terrorism is that the victims of terrorism are too 'civilized' to strike back in a meaningful way. It is time to adapt. It is 1939 again folks. Pure evil is on the march and this time it takes on the guise of a religion.
Calling Islam a 'Religion of Peace' is akin to Chamberlain waving the peace treaty with Nazi Germany in the air in 1939. Apeasement has never worked.
Posted by: imagtek at July 22, 2005 11:53 PM (6PnCZ)
62
America it's time for you to be oblieterated just the way the all-mighty Romans were by the Barbarian hordes. See, they never thought they were vulnerable. They thought they had everyone standing at their doorstep well below. How ironic that history repeats itself...hmmm....
Posted by: Malik at July 24, 2005 07:41 AM (iBkIq)
63
re: Islamic Fanatic movements
Appeasement doesn't work: See Israel
Destruction of Terrorist States doesn't work: See Iraq and Afghanistan
Working closely with Islamic State Partners doesn't work: See Saudi Arabia and Pakistan
Working with Democracy Coalition Partners doesn't work: See France, Germany, Spain, Canada, etc..
Destroying Terrorists cells doesn't work: See Al Qaeda, Hezbolla, Islamic Jihad, etc...
So maybe the Mecca threat is worth considering, after all what do we have to lose ? Maybe if we added an additional threat such as....
All captured or killed islamic terrorist remains will be transported to, mixed with and buried in the world's largest pig shit and pork entrails landfill project.
Posted by: CBL at July 25, 2005 11:59 AM (BdBzU)
64
if you do want to bomb mecca and medina lets not forget the oil and a country called saudi arabia, so say bye bye to your oil then americans, oh and your pick up truck...and worry about north korea pricks
Posted by: jawa at August 06, 2005 02:49 PM (F1nba)
65
I love the plan to bomb the islamic locations with pig shit. This is the best plan that I have read so far. If this act was caught on Video it could be sent to the traitors micheal moorer and the scumbag prof. in Colorado who is teaching young americans that "America got what it had comming" It is time for Americans to show the world that we can be just as mean as we need to be.I shit in the face of Islam.
Posted by: rick at August 10, 2005 05:25 PM (qTzO7)
75kb generated in CPU 0.0777, elapsed 0.1834 seconds.
118 queries taking 0.1676 seconds, 309 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
118 queries taking 0.1676 seconds, 309 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
