Skip to comments.
Nuke Mecca? Nope.
Frontpage Magazine ^
| 28 July 2005
| Robert Spencer
Posted on 07/28/2005 9:39:56 AM PDT by rdb3
Why not bomb Mecca? Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) has brought the issue to the table. The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has demanded that he apologize to Muslims, and commentators left and right have subjected him to vociferous criticism. At the same time, however, he seems to have tapped into the frustration that many Americans feel about official Washington’s politically correct insistence, in the face of ever-mounting evidence to the contrary, that Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists.
Although Tancredo’s presidential hopes and possibly even his seat in Congress may go up in the mushroom cloud created by the furor over his remarks, the idea of destroying Islamic holy sites in response to a devastating terror attack on American soil is not going to go away – particularly as long as elected officials rush after every Islamic terror attack to repeat the well-worn mantras about how they know that the overwhelming majority of Muslims abhor violence and reject extremism, and are our faithful and reliable allies against terrorism in all its forms.
However, although the resentment Tancredo has tapped is real and has legitimate causes, his suggestion that “among the many things we might do to prevent such an attack on America would be to lay out there as a possibility the destruction” of Islamic holy sites is still wrong — but not generally for the reasons that most analysts have advanced.
Primarily, of course, it contravenes Western principles of justice which, if discarded willy-nilly, would remove a key reason why we fight at all: to preserve Western ideas of justice and human rights that are denied by the Islamic Sharia law so beloved of jihad terrorists. But even aside from moral questions, which are increasingly thorny in this post-Hiroshima, post-Dresden world, there are practical reasons to reject what Tancredo has suggested.
Tancredo’s idea, of course, is based on the old Cold War principle of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Both sides threatened each other with nuclear annihilation, and the threats canceled each other out. The Soviets would no more risk Moscow being wiped out than we would Washington.
But applying this principle to present-day Islamic jihad is not so easy. The Soviets did not inculcate into their cadres the idea enunciated by Maulana Inyadullah of al-Qaeda shortly after 9/11: “The Americans love Pepsi-Cola, we love death.” This lust for death runs through the rhetoric of today’s jihadists, and goes all the way back in Islamic history to the Qur’an, in which Allah instructs Muhammad: “Say (O Muhammad): O ye who are Jews! If ye claim that ye are favoured of Allah apart from (all) mankind, then long for death if ye are truthful” (62:6). Will men who love death, who glorify suicide bombing and praise God for beheadings and massacres, fear the destruction of holy sites? It seems unlikely in the extreme — and that fact nullifies all the value this thread may have had as a deterrent. Nuke Mecca? Why bother? It wouldn’t work.
Others have argued, however, that the deterrent value of destroying Islamic holy sites would lie not in giving jihad terrorists pause, but in showing Islam itself to be false and thus removing the primary motivation of today’s jihad terrorists. If Allah is all-powerful and rewards those who believe in him while hating and punishing the disbelievers (the “vilest of creatures,” according to Qur’an 98:6), wouldn’t he protect his holy sites from these disbelievers?
However, Muslims have weathered such shocks to their system in the past. In 1924, the secular government of Turkey abolished the caliphate; the caliph was considered the successor of the Prophet Muhammad as the religious and political leader of the Islamic community. By abolishing the office, Turkish leader Kemal Ataturk hoped to strike at the heart of political Islam and create a context in which Islam could develop something akin to the Western idea of the separation of religion and state. Instead, his act provided the impetus for the establishment of the Muslim Brotherhood, the first modern Islamic terrorist organization, in Egypt in 1928. The Brotherhood and its offshoots (which include Hamas and Al-Qaeda), and indeed virtually all jihadist groups in the world today, date the misery of the Islamic world to the abolition of the caliphate. The ultimate goal of such groups is the restoration of this office, the reunification of the Islamic world under the caliph, and the establishment of the Sharia as the sole law in Muslim countries. Then the caliph would presumably take up one of his principal duties as stipulated by Islamic law: to wage offensive jihad against non-Muslim states in order to extend Sharia rule to them also.
The abolition of the caliphate, then, accomplished precisely the opposite of what Ataturk hoped it would: it gave the adherents of political Islam a cause around which to rally, recruit, and mobilize. In essence, it gave birth to the crisis that engulfs the world today. It is likely that a destruction of the Ka’aba or the Al-Aqsa Mosque would have the same effect: it would become source of spirit, not of dispirit. The jihadists would have yet another injury to add to their litany of grievances, which up to now have so effectively confused American leftists into thinking that the West is at fault in this present conflict. But the grievances always shift; the only constant is the jihad imperative. Let us not give that imperative even greater energy in the modern world by supplying such pretexts needlessly.
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: islam; islamicagenda; islamisevil; islamisnotareligion; islamists; mecca; muslim; nukemecca; robertspencer; tancredo; terrorism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 221-232 next last
Fair take on the matter.
1
posted on
07/28/2005 9:39:56 AM PDT
by
rdb3
To: rdb3
2
posted on
07/28/2005 9:40:19 AM PDT
by
Tijeras_Slim
(Now that taglines are cool, I refuse to have one.)
To: rdb3
The very fact it is in the public square being written and talked about is a sign that things are heating up.
3
posted on
07/28/2005 9:42:13 AM PDT
by
Porterville
(Don't make me go Bushi on your a$$)
To: rdb3
Finally, someone gives a strategic and intellectual rational for opposing the nuking of Mecca as opposed to an emotional based opposition. I tend to agree with the author.
4
posted on
07/28/2005 9:43:58 AM PDT
by
NeoCaveman
(Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Federalist Society?)
To: rdb3
Will men who love death, who glorify suicide bombing and praise God for beheadings and massacres, fear the destruction of holy sites? I think so. Since everywhere they look is a "holy site" and UBL supposedly used the US soldiers stationed in Saudi as a "recruting tool" for his skyjackers, then it's not a big stretch to believe they value the real estate more than they do human lives in any quantity. They sure as heck revere that black rock more than all the human life in the world, combined.
It seems unlikely in the extreme — and that fact nullifies all the value this thread may have had as a deterrent. Nuke Mecca? Why bother? It wouldn’t work.
Two assertions that the author completely fails to back up with so much as an explanation, let alone evidence. I think they would all shoot themselves harmlessly if the rock were rendered into melted glass.
5
posted on
07/28/2005 9:45:42 AM PDT
by
Cyber Liberty
(© 2005, Ravin' Lunatic since 4/98)
To: rdb3
6
posted on
07/28/2005 9:46:00 AM PDT
by
Cyber Liberty
(© 2005, Ravin' Lunatic since 4/98)
To: Tijeras_Slim
Fine. Fine as can be under the circumstances.
7
posted on
07/28/2005 9:46:39 AM PDT
by
rdb3
(You'd PAY to know what you REALLY think.)
To: rdb3
Why not bomb Mecca? Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) has brought the issue to the table.Look, I know that FrontPage is a conservative site but I have to point out something...when the lead sentence, which is what is quoted above, doesn't contextualize Tancredo's remarks for the average reader (much like what AP does) it doesn' give a fair portrait of the comments. Tancredo said 'if a nuke goes off in an American city *THEN* we should bomb Mecca'.
Not that we should just arbitrarily 'bomb Mecca'. Get it right!!
I think that most readers read the first few sentences of AP stories or pieces and draw conclusions.
When heard in context, Tancredo's comments are perfectly reasonable.
To: dubyaismypresident
Finally, someone gives a strategic and intellectual rational for opposing the nuking of Mecca as opposed to an emotional based opposition.Affirmative. That's why I said that it was fair. Dispassionate reasoning is a rare commodity these days.
9
posted on
07/28/2005 9:49:45 AM PDT
by
rdb3
(You'd PAY to know what you REALLY think.)
To: rdb3
Glad to see you're up and typing.
10
posted on
07/28/2005 9:51:33 AM PDT
by
teenyelliott
(Soylent green should be made outta liberals...)
To: rdb3
Dispassionate reasoning is a rare commodity these days. You got that right, FRiend.
11
posted on
07/28/2005 9:51:55 AM PDT
by
NeoCaveman
(Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Federalist Society?)
To: dubyaismypresident
Well, if CAIR opposes it, then I'm most likey to be FOR it.
12
posted on
07/28/2005 9:53:27 AM PDT
by
golfboy
(character is doing what is right, when no one is looking)
To: rdb3
Meanwhile, and expectedly, the author fails to tell us what
his solution to the problem (of getting hit by terrorist-deployed nuclear bombs with no return address) would be.
So easy to say that nuking Mecca in such a circumstance would be the wrong thing to do when one has no alternative idea.
And "bringing the individual terrorists responsible to justice" just isn't going to cut it if hundreds of thousands (at least) of Americans are incinerated and dying of radiation poisoning.
13
posted on
07/28/2005 9:53:42 AM PDT
by
Mr. Mojo
To: rdb3
He makes some good points in general, but I think Mecca is the only place where such a strategy WOULD work.
If you want to shake the confidence of Muslims, show them that their god is powerless to stop the destruction of his most holy city. Scepticism in Islam would be the most important check on Islamic terrorism. People that lack complete faith in Allah don't kill themselves in his name.
Oh, and just make sure the Kaabaa is completely destroyed.
14
posted on
07/28/2005 9:54:18 AM PDT
by
mc6809e
To: rdb3
15
posted on
07/28/2005 9:55:27 AM PDT
by
eleni121
('Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!' (Julian the Apostate))
I have yet to hear someone give a rebuttal to this "bomb mecca" arguement: The threat of Mecca's destruction may put more pressure on moderate muslims to root out the badguys.
Hugh? Captain Ed? Bueller?
Clean up your mess, or someone else will.
www.hughcantwinemall.blogspot.com
16
posted on
07/28/2005 9:56:01 AM PDT
by
mills044
To: rdb3
It appears to me that the genie is out of the bottle. Obviously no American president can withstand the vaporizing of NYC and tens of millions of Americans. Something will have to be done to respond in kind. You can be sure that there are plans for such contingencies or there had better be.
17
posted on
07/28/2005 9:56:49 AM PDT
by
RichardW
To: rdb3
How about not posting the full article or linking to just the printable version?
If a site produces a good article, at least give them a chance to earn some $$$ as a reward.
18
posted on
07/28/2005 9:57:32 AM PDT
by
mc6809e
To: soundandvision
When heard in context, Tancredo's comments are perfectly reasonable. Even in context they're wrong, for the reasons stated above.
19
posted on
07/28/2005 9:57:35 AM PDT
by
r9etb
To: rdb3
Will men who love death, who glorify suicide bombing and praise God for beheadings and massacres, fear the destruction of holy sites? Oh yeah! Destroy the site they pray to on mats 3 times a day! Destroy the most holiest of places that the Koran says every Muslim must go to at least once in their lifetime! Destroy their most sacred site and you destroy their God! The only reason we have not been attacked with nukes is that the terrorist fear this type of retribution.
But for the anti-Tancrado crowd: What is the proper response to Muslims nuking Washington DC or even the Vatican?
20
posted on
07/28/2005 9:59:31 AM PDT
by
Bommer
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 221-232 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson