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 previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 221-232 next last
To: PaRebel
"This crap about trying to understand why they are the way they are is the usual liberals' bs"It's the usual liberals' bs and the more and more usual lib-cons' bs.
To: Bommer
Don't ask him again. He has no answer for you. He's simply a typical polemic. Throw bombs, accuse others of not being unable to think, and run from the issue! He, of course, is such a deep thinker that it's hard for him to explain the oh so complex issues of the day to us lumpenproletariet.
142
posted on
07/28/2005 12:30:39 PM PDT
by
PaRebel
(The Constitution has no off-switch. Repeal the 17th amendment.)
To: TKDietz
If you nuke Mecca do you make one impossible.
Would have been better if I said: "If you nuke Mecca, do you make one pillar impossible?"
143
posted on
07/28/2005 12:31:03 PM PDT
by
TKDietz
To: Bommer
It's an easy question: Which Muslims are you blaming for your nuclear attack on DC and/or the Vatican?
Can you answer that?
144
posted on
07/28/2005 12:34:09 PM PDT
by
r9etb
To: I see my hands
How many people and how many times do you need to be asked? What do you do? I haven't been told yet which Muslims have attacked us. Don't you think it'd be a good thing to know that, before going off and lobbing nukes?
145
posted on
07/28/2005 12:36:17 PM PDT
by
r9etb
To: rdb3
While I don't object to putting the scenario on the table (good psy-ops), I think it would be smarter policy to target military, industrial and financial assets.
To: chris1
Keeping people always wondering just how much you are capabale of is a good thing in this situation. It seems however that the Islamatics believe that we are not capable of doing what is necessary to stop their march to domination.
Exactly. I'm not advocating we kill them all. I'm not sure nuking Mecca would be the right decision in case of nuclear attack on American soil (depends on the circumstances I suppose). What is a good situation is they are convinced that we will.
This is the theory of deterrent. It worked against the Russians because they wanted to live as much as we did. These nutjobs don't care. So, deterrent against islamists does not come from threat of death. So, we have to threaten something else they can't stand to lose. Perhaps Mecca is one of those things.
I don't want to nuke Mecca. Period. I want to them to believe we will. And hopefully, by doing so, we will never actually have to do it.
To: JamesP81
So, we have to threaten something else they can't stand to lose. Perhaps Mecca is one of those things. Probably not, though. They'd still be alive, as would the vast majority of other Muslims. The salamikazes might even use the event as "evidence" that Allah is angry at the Islamic world for not being aggressive enough against the infidels, and they'd probably use that to very good effect in moving toward what appears to be their near-term goal of inciting a global religious war (Islam vs. everybody else).
It would be a strategically stupid move to nuke Mecca.
148
posted on
07/28/2005 12:47:07 PM PDT
by
r9etb
To: rdb3
What SHOULD be the response of a WMD attack on the US by Islamofascists? It's interesting to read all of the historical descriptions of why Islam is the way it is, however, all of the "understanding" in the world doesn't negate the fact that the Islamists want to dominate the world by imposing their way of life on us all. And what is their way of life? No rights for women! No freedom of religion! No democratic societies! Sounds Utopian, if you're a 6th century caveman. However, most ideologies (religions, faiths, beliefs based on doing the will of God) tend to bond societies by the followers doing good deeds, rather than urging believers to destroy those who don't have the same beliefs. I, personally, don't consider Islam to be a religion, just a militaristic political movement. It manifests itself by violent acts on anyone but Muslims. For a moment, just picture a world, our world, fashioned after the examples we saw in Afghanistan under the Taliban. Murders and beheadings at the local soccer fields. Women with less than animal rights. The populous afraid to say or do anything that may offend the wrong Mullah.
I am forced to believe there is only one way to deal with Islam, and that is to completely and utterly destroy it, and all of it's followers. This approach may seem Old Testament, but necessary. A fate for Islam which only the Muslims will understand. A brutality only akin to that which the Muslims are now inflicting on the world. Solution:
All Muslims should be rounded up and shipped to Muslim countries. If a suicide bomber doesn't respect himself and the life God has given him, destroy his complete family. That means death squads sent to search out and destroy his wife and children, mother, father, brothers, sisters, grandparents, great grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, everyone family. All symbols of Islam should be eradicated from the Earth. Mecca, Medina, all mosques, shrines, emblems, korans, everything, destroyed. Countries that are majority Islamic, totally destroyed. Now, some of you will find this excessive. What will you say when the US is attacked again, perhaps by WMD? Will you keep writing historically developed stories on why Muslims are the way they are? I can assure you that there are many in our country who will take their places in defense of liberty. And, there are some who will fight till the end. By the way, I'm glad Tancredo said what he did about destroying Mecca. This way, the Muslims know there is that chance it could happen.
To: dubyaismypresident
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. The argument is faulty to the point of being silly. It is much like saying: "American Revolution accomplished precisely the opposite of what it hoped it would: it gave the socialist (modern-day Democrats) a cause around which to rally, recruit, and mobilize."
The author somehow overlooks an inconvenient fact that Turkey has been a secular, progressive and pro-Western country for 80 years now. It's no small accomplishment: Turkish democracy is much, much older than Russian, for in stance. The argument negates these accomplishment with insulting ease.
The argument is also universally false: since action tends to cause a reaction (of at least someone somewhere), it follows that no action must be taken. Ever. We have really made the King mad, hence we should've never started the revolution. Once we entered the war with Nazis, those Nazis mobilized with greater resolve, hence we should've never entered WWII. Atmosphere resists when you try to send a projectile into space, hence we should've never launched the Space Shuttle.
Do you see the plain falsity and silliness of the argument (besides its basic immorality and unfairness to the Turks)?
To: r9etb; Bommer
HAHA, just like the lib. Ask a straightforward question 10 times and get no answer. Then tell the lib you've asked ten times and could they give an answer this time. No answer. Zero shame.
"Ummm.. maybe it will be the Icelandic Bikini Team sect of Muslims, think?"
Ok, Boom! No Charlotte, NC. What do you do?
To: airborne
No need to choose. We are free to strike military as well as religious targets.
To: r9etb
It would be a strategically stupid move to nuke Mecca.
Not one-tenth as stupid as not retaliating in kind, immediately. As others have asked, since you think nuking Mecca isn't a good idea, then what is a good idea. And don't feed me any lines about "getting the ones who pulled the trigger." Odds are, they are either going to be impossible to find or they the operation will have been a homicide bombing and they're already dead. You might as well let that one go. It isn't going to happen.
It will not be acceptable to not retaliate in some way. You tell us how.
To: airborne
Make our policy and order of battle known. We will target all Wahabi mosques in the Mideast with tactical nukes in the event of a devastating attack on the US.
I think the Arabs will clean up their act and provide convenient targets.
154
posted on
07/28/2005 1:19:37 PM PDT
by
BIGLOOK
(I once opposed keelhauling but recently have come to my senses.)
To: rdb3
The author makes good points, but the threat of nuking Mecca isn't against the extremist elements out there. It is against the average, every day Muslim who shakes his head and clucks his tongue at what the extremists are doing.
They have created an irrational detachment from those who preach violence. 'What can you do,' they'll offer when confronted. The answer is: Do something, because if they do get ahold of nuclear weapons and start lighting them off in cities (or more likely Rican), you're going to be answering for their actions.
The mentality that separates this is how you view the whole conflict of terror - is it a war, or is it a police action? If it is a police action, this idea is abhorrent - you're punishing the innocent for the actions of the few. If it is a war, it is the cost of war that would result in the retribution. Everyone has a vested interest in seeing that this doesn't happen.
So, yes, I completely disagree with the author of this article, because I do view it as a war, and those who are not standing up with us against these terrorists, those who are aiding by their silence, their offering of their children, their giving away of political rights - they should be held accountable for their actions, just as much as the terrorists are.
155
posted on
07/28/2005 1:21:37 PM PDT
by
kingu
(Draft Fmr Senator Fred Thompson for '08.)
To: JamesP81
"Islam is the enemy. Mecca is its home."
"I'm more hoping that the threat that it could happen will give pause to terrorists."
Mecca isn't home in a military sense. If we are nuked, "hoping" and "giving pause" are poor strategies. You take out your enemy and your enemy's weapons; you don't strike at them simply hoping they'll submit or change their minds...you strike them emphatically to keep them from ever striking you again. You strike them to keep yourself alive. While one of our cities is smoking and radioactive it would be IMHO immoral simply to nuke Mecca because it guarantees nothing and keeps us at terrible risk. Terrorists are empowered by the states that sponsor them, that arm them...this is where we strike. What is Islam militarily if no nation wants anything to do with Islamic terrorists? States who sponsor terrorists should know that if we are hit with a nuke, they in turn will ALL be hit with nukes regardless of where culpability lies....MAD. I really doubt Syria, for example, will stop its sponsorship of terrorism because Mecca is no more.
To: rdb3
This is superficial, ignorant, lightweight commentary. The author breezily avoids addressing the hard scenario that was propounded to Tancredo, as if waving his hand and saying with a sniff, "inexcusable" answers the question. It doesn't. Not even close.
In the meantime, Tancredo's statement has NOT resulted in increased attacks on US citizens and servicemen or massive demonstrations throughout the Muslim world. On the contrary, in the wake of his statements there has been a noticeable shift in attitude among moderate Muslims who are at long last beginning to show an interest in cleaning up Islam's own mess. One of these Muslims told Tancredo that he would have said the same thing if he had been Tancredo and the question had been put to him.
It's time you admit Tancredo was measured and right, you were overwrought and wrong, and that Muslims got the message that was intended in the spirit it was intended, and we are all better off because of it.
To: Kozak
158
posted on
07/28/2005 1:33:50 PM PDT
by
txhurl
To: JCEccles
It's time you admit Tancredo was measured and right, you were overwrought and wrong, and that Muslims got the message that was intended in the spirit it was intended, and we are all better off because of it. Who is the "you" to whom you refer?
159
posted on
07/28/2005 1:35:05 PM PDT
by
rdb3
(You'd PAY to know what you REALLY think.)
To: macamadamia
You take out what is dear to your enemy; you crush what sustains his morale. Mecca fits the bill like no other target.
Tancredo was right. He played his point and won it. It's time for appeasers to acknowledge that fact and let it go.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 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