Nuke Mecca? Nope.

Frontpage Magazine ^ | 28 July 2005 | Robert Spencer

[dervish]

"Again, the supposedly reasoned response has nothing to do with the actual facts. The abolition of the caliphate in fact accomplished exactly what Ataturk desired: it established Turkey as a secular state. Ataturk couldn't possibly have cared less what a bunch of nut-cases in Egypt used as a justification for their murderous ideology. Learn some history, Mr. Spencer."

Spencer is wrong. Ataturk was very sucessful. The problem is the West with its soft multiculturalism has not kept up what Ataturk accomplished for 80 years.

Also because of the worship of death Jihad represents, the Islamists have upped the ante on MAD. Clearly they are willing to sacrifice vast numbers of innocent civilians in their war, even fellow Muslims (Sharm el-Sheik being the latest example). The US is left with no choice but to warn that they too will be extreme in response. Nothing less will affect the Death Cult that is Islam. It is akin to calling us murderers of children because they use them as human shields in a gun fight.

[Chgogal]

"A point that will go over the heads of most posters, I fear."

You bomb Mecca which is in Saudi Arabia (wow...imagine a Freeper knowing where Mecca is!) because (1) Saudi Arabia spreads the most virulent form of Islam around the world and (2) Saudi Arabia support terrorism through (a) charity (b) governmental institutions like their PC religious police force and (c) their religious institutions.

You do know that 15 out of the 19 911 terrorists were Saudis? You do know that Saudi Arabia spreads Wahabism, the most fanatic form of Islam around the world? You do know that charities supporting terrorism have not been shut down in Saudi Arabia? That doesn't mean that Damascus and/or Tehran wouldn't be on the list.

I for one living in Chicago and a target if what is known about Jose Padilla is true want the terrorists and their supporting governments to know there will be hell to pay if US cities are attacked with dirty bombs. And I want them to know that we will decide where and when we will send them to hell. If you have a problem with that too darn bad.

Nowhere in this article does Robert Spencer offer what he deems to be a worthy response. And respond we will when major metropolitan cites lie in radioactive ruin, bringing down local, national and then the international economies.

I think it is absolutely ludicrous to take options off the table should the US be attacked by terrorists with nuclear bombs. It's silly, short sighted and tells the enemy that we are not willing to fight back. And that is the only thing that Islamists respect, the willingness of their enemy to fight back with heart and soul.

It is annoying to see my fellow citizens more upset about how we would respond while not demanding anything from the enemy who over decades has attacked this country, its citizens, its embassies and its assets over and over again. This hand wringing about that we shouldn't anger the poor darling sweeties after their governments, religious institutions, culture and society have promoted and rewarded terrorism again and again and again.

[Chgogal]

"If you nuke Mecca do you make one impossible. Already the religion gives a break to those who just cannot make it to Mecca. I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of them putting on there radiation suits and going even if the place was still glowing. Muslim charities would pay the huge cost to clean up the nuclear material and in time they'd rebuild the mosques and go on as they always have."

And where would the charities get their monies from? You forget, the economic engine of the world was destroyed in a brazen nuclear attack orchestrated by fellow Muslims on the USofA that their charities BTW supported. And most likely Mecca would not be the only target.

[Chgogal]

"It would be a strategically stupid move to nuke Mecca."

Wouldn't it be a strategically stupid move by MUSLIM TERRORISTS, who are supported by countries and their governmental and religious institutions to attack the US with nuclear bombs? Shouldn't they expect a severe response of greater magnitude than the destruction of numerous US cities with nuclear weapons? BTW, where are all these moderate Muslims fighting for religious freedom in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Syria, Egypt, etc.?

[Chgogal]

I don't think Mecca would be the only potential target if one or more US cities were attacked with a nuclear bomb or some other kind of WMD.

[John Lenin]

If 3 or 4 million Americans are killed in a multi-city attack something will be done. The public will demand it.

[jan in Colorado]

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 threat may have had as a deterrent. Nuke Mecca? Why bother? It wouldn’t work.

I disagree with Mr. Spencer.

If our cities are nuked there needs to be retaliation like nothing they could ever imagine. IMO we shouldn't wait until we are attacked again, but in this Politically Correct war we are fighting, I guess we have to wait until thousands more innocent civilian's are murdered before we can retaliate and actually try and WIN this war! We are so worried about mistreating our enemies or offending them...we have got to be a laughing stock to the Islamic terrorists.

Congressman Tancredo gave his opinion about what he thought might be a good deterrent in dealing with this enemy. We still have the Freedom of Speech in this Country, don't we? Islam hasn't taken over YET...although CAIR is trying to silence,Tom Tancredo, Michael Graham,Oriana Fallaci, The Rev. Gene Youngblood and any one else that speaks out against Islam.

What is Islam so afraid of? Why can't it tolerate criticism? Could it be because if it is inspected closely (remember Theo Van Gogh?), there will no longer be the facade of a Religion of Peace, but the reality of what it really is...and we KNOW what it really is, don't we?

It is time we put some real FEAR into our enemy!

[AmericanArchConservative]

Tancredo DIDN'T say to "Nuke" those cities anyway...

He said "Bomb them"

As in Daisy cutters and MOABs.

Which I think is absolutely appropriate.

We probably ought to do it anyway on general principles, I am sure there is a muslim prophecy or two that would be discredited/disproved if we razed Mecca and Medina to the subterranean parking garage level...

Certainly worth a thought

A.A.C.

"Let the Final Crusade commence!"

[USF]

Dont miss this article at Dhimmiwatch:

Bynum: Balance of Terror

Jihad Watch News Editor Rebecca Bynum offers some considerations on how to shake off the dhimmitude that clings to us so tightly and deal with the realities of the global jihad. I hope there will be a reasoned and thoughtful discussion of her piece in the public square, free from cant, name-calling, and prejudice. (I know, I know...)

This is a different war. A war far different than any fought before in the history of our country. This is a war fought by civilians against civilians. The concept of the nation-state is not involved. It is primitive war, brutal and basic and ugly. The enemy, however, shows a surprising sophistication, when, at the behest of an alien belief, he attempts to alter the foreign policy of nations by cowing their citizenry into voting avowed appeasers into office. He sees the reluctance of nation states to enter into a war with his faith, and the enemy uses that fear against us. “Worse than war, is the fear of war,” and of course, fear is a main tool of the enemy. That is why we must do our best to fight him without fear. We must be coldly calculating.

When the earth is slowly crumbling around one’s feet at the water’s edge, one tends to cling to the bank -- to the bit of hope that the inevitable may be avoided, rather than to take the plunge into the swirling current of unknown future events. Events that are driven by forces we barely comprehend. There are times, however, when it might be better to simply hold one’s nose and jump. Such a time is now upon us.

The use of fear as a deterrent is as old as war itself. In fact, if I remember my Clausewitz, all war is simply an extension of state policy “by other means.” Diplomacy, of course, is usually a bundle of little threats, consequences for undesired behavior, coupled with a package of rewards for desired behavior. War is the act of forcing the desired behavior by breaking the enemy's will to do otherwise.

Islam, in a sense, can be thought of as having a policy of belligerence toward non-Muslims and non-Muslim states. Islam defines itself as a nation in every sense of the word, including the concept of territorial sovereignty. Included within that concept are the ways and means of territorial expansion – jihad. Jihad is the means to enforce and expand Islam, which is a combination of “state” and religion mixed together in a doctrine. Terrorists are using jihad to force the west to conform to this doctrine. If we would know what the enemy has in store, we must understand his doctrine, for it is that that he will follow.

A decision must be made on our side now about whether we should meet this fearful threat of jihadist aggression with a fearful threat of our own, a balance of terror, if you will. For throughout history, the hand seeking aggression has only been stayed with an even more fearful hand of aggression. Without a threat designed to cause fear in the enemy, there is nothing to stay his hand. The enemy has nothing to lose and everything to gain by his aggression. We must therefore give him something to lose.

The London bombings have exposed two questions and answers we must face. 1) Is there any way for western infidels to tell ahead of time when a sweet seemingly well-integrated Muslim boy will turn into a psychotic killer at the behest of his faith? Answer: no, there is not. 2) Can we rely on the Muslim community to warn us when one of their number seems about to fall off the edge and become a jihadist killer for the cause? Answer: no, we cannot.

Add to that the fact that purely defensive measures will never be 100% reliable, and the fact that we do not want to be forced to live with the increasingly draconian security measures that will eventually be required if that’s all we do in self-defense. Americans don’t want to live like Israelis, putting up with being searched everywhere we go. Frankly, we don’t think we should have to. We want to live and travel freely as we always have done in this country. We do not want to be subject to invasive security measures, not to mention the fact that we’re not crazy about paying for it. How many billions should we sink into Homeland Security with no guarantee that it will it do any good anyway?

On the heels of the London bombings came two reports from the G2 Bulletin explaining all about Osama’s next big plan – an “American Hiroshima” nuclear attack featuring two American cities (both with large Jewish populations) playing stand-in for Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of WWII. By this heinous act al Qaeda is hoping to kill 4 million Americans, 2 million of them children. They’re hoping to do this on an anniversary of the American nuclear bombing of Japan, August 6, year unknown. The sixtieth anniversary is two weeks from today. The report also explained that the Qaeda leadership wants to make sure the attacks take place in broad daylight, “so that the whole world will be able to see the images of a mushroom cloud over an American city.” I imagine they have to balance the effect of the news coverage provided by New York City, with the lure of killing vast numbers of American Jews there. Decisions, decisions.

They do not, however, have to decide whether or not this action will advance Islam, which is the only criterion Islam provides for its adherents to decide which actions are “permitted." The liquidation of non-Muslims automatically advances the cause of Islam if there are no punitive retaliatory measures in place that would do the opposite.

Clearly, then, we will have to threaten consequences for terrorist acts if we are ever to have a hope of stopping them. Threatening Islamic terrorists with death obviously doesn’t deter them, so we have to threaten something they value. We have to threaten Islam, or threaten the advancement of Islam. That’s the only way to have an effective policy of deterrence, regrettable though it may seem.

Does a policy like this hold the entire Muslim community accountable for the acts of a few? Yes it does. Is that fair? Not especially, but that cannot be our first concern. Our first concern must be the protection of American lives, of the American political system, and of the American way of life, period. And we must rise to the challenge of her defense first and foremost; excluding consideration for the feelings of a relentless enemy or of that enemy’s collaborators. We should be glad to exchange the danger of “insulting” or “humiliating” a few people, even a billion or more such people, for the opportunity to save American lives, even to save America herself. We are forced, unfortunately, to target in Islam in some broadly defined way; otherwise we will have no real defense in terms of strategy.

There are many ways to threaten the advancement of Islam. We might consider the creation of categories of attacks along with lists of possible retaliatory measures. If an attack falls into this category, then one of the following list of retaliatory measures will follow. For an attack on the scale of the London bombings (category 1 – under 100 dead, non-chemical, non-biological, non-radiological) we could close mosques and/or deport Imams. It is not enough to “search mosques” or to arrest or deport a particular imam. Entire mosques must be closed, permanently. The threats could escalate from there depending on the severity of the terror attack. As to whether or not we should target Islamic holy sites, I do not feel qualified to judge, but I believe the possibility should not be excluded -- although it should only be even considered except as a response to something on the level of the destruction of an entire American city. After all, the terrorists operate according to Islamic categories. What could possibly deter them? Not death. But possibly, just possibly, the destruction of Islamic holy sites would. (Even in this, of course, the West would have to be careful to adhere to Western principles of justice, and do everything possible not to harm non-combatants. Otherwise how would be distinguishable from the jihadists themselves?)

With responses to various levels of attack clearly delineated, we can avoid the retaliatory “cycle of violence” tit-for-tat type of response. This eye for an eye exchange doesn’t seem to do any good anyway, if we study the Israeli experience. Nothing, however, should be taken off the table and all the threats we make must be fully public -- so that all Muslims know that if one of their number harms Americans anywhere in the world, there will be consequences to pay concerning the advancement of Islam for all. That is the only thing they care about and the only thing they are trying to achieve.

For it is true we are at war with a very different interpretation of God’s will for man. If, as many of us believe, man is “created in God’s image,” then we carry a bit of God within us. It is that “bit of God” within that guides is forward morally, so that each generation should advance both in the expression of that morality and in the refinement of our civilization. Progress gives our existence meaning, for we are defined as much by where we are going as by where we have been.

Islam, on the other hand, has entombed individual moral choice in the dead legalistic tradition of a barbaric past. Morality, for Muslims is not a question for the soul to answer, but is one of legality turning on the question, “does it advance Islam?” Muslims have no choice but to follow the letter of the law, even in war. For example, there is no concept of “civilian” in Islamic law as that word has long been understood in the Western world, thus all the discussion among Muslims over whether someone killed in a terrorist attack, whom we non-Muslims would have no trouble immediately classifying as an “innocent civilian” – over whether or not such a person, even a baby, or a pregnant woman, should or should not be regarded as an “innocent civilian” – with logic-chopping on both the “innocent” and the “civilian” part of the phrase. This concept is not developed in Islam. Also conspicuously absent in the view of Believers in the "Total Explanation of the Universe," is intense loyalty even to the Muslim nation-state, as a level of political and societal organization. In Islamic areas loyalty to family, and to tribe, and the overarching loyalty to the Community of Believers, trump any loyalty to the nation-state.

To fight a terrorist war waged by Muslim civilians, we have no choice but to impose retaliatory measures on Muslim civilians, thereby impeding the advance of Islam, for that is the only thing the Islamic terrorists value, and this is by the standards of Islam they follow. Human life is, for true believing Muslims, famously Hobbesian -- “nasty, brutish and short” affair. Human life is not something cherished by Muslims; to be nurtured and preserved above all things, the way it is in our own Judeo-Christian tradition. The ideal Muslim life is one that is sacrificed for Islam. Therefore, we must make certain kinds of Muslim sacrifice, namely suicide bombings designed to kill infidels, totally untenable, and so damaging to the umma, the Community of Believers, and so damaging to the other instruments of Jihad, that the terrorism will cease, or be severely limited in scope.

We can run around the world trying to “bring terrorists to justice,” but it won’t keep us safe. We can impose increasingly expensive and unpleasant security measures upon ourselves, but that won’t keep us safe. We can “take the fight to the enemy” and wage war on terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that won’t keep us safe. The only thing that might, just might, give us an edge, is to threaten Islamic expansion in retaliation for Islamic terrorist attacks.

A cool, calculating, measured response is in order. We have overwhelming force in every area at our disposal and it would not due for the emotionalism of the moment after an attack to hold sway. We must debate these things beforehand, without emotion, in order to determine our best course of action. We must have input from all sides and come to these decisions as a nation, though elections and free debate. As Representative Tancredo said, we have to talk about it, even if we may not agree with Tancredo himself.

We have the technological advantage, so long as we undertake to keep it out of the hands of our enemies. We have the Western tradition of warfare and all the strategy and tactics of the past to draw upon. But none of this does any good if we do not summon the political will to counter force with retaliatory force, to counter strategy with retaliatory strategy. We cannot win this conflict without it. We cannot fight a purely defensive war and expect to survive to see the end of this century as a nation. We must counter threat with meaningful threat. There is no other way, but I do wish there was.

If we do not do this, will we not be tormented by the screams of the dead and dying after the next attack? Will we have done all we could to prevent it, if we leave out this essential part of an effective deterrent strategy out of misguided political correctness. How will we explain that to the living who remain?

Posted by Robert at July 26, 2005 01:11 PM | Email this entry | Print this entry

[Fred Nerks]

"If we do not do this, will we not be tormented by the screams of the dead and dying after the next attack? Will we have done all we could to prevent it, if we leave out this essential part of an effective deterrent strategy out of misguided political correctness. How will we explain that to the living who remain?"

There are issues such as the defence of its citizens that require unity of purpose by government and therefor must be above and beyond political posturing - without unity of purpose the enemy laughs, ultimately planning to dance on the grave of Democracy.

[Thommas]

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.

So, if the Islamists nuke one of our cities, we should capitulate and put on the yoke of dhimmitude? The Arabic, Muslim world needs another rallying point by which to hate us even more - to hate us so much they want us and our culture and our religion dead?

Frankly, they can't hate us any more than to have their children perpetuate homicide/suicide attacks upon us. They already hate us with unsurpassed passion. Floating a remark to the Jihadists, that when they indiscriminately employ nukes against us we will return the attack with extreme prejudice, hardly seems out of line.

Maybe at some point it will sink into our collective thought processes that the followers of the Koran consider their actions against the West as part and parcel of their religious war against the infidel.

[Dark Skies]

Thx USF. That was a great article. I particularly liked the following excerpt.

The London bombings have exposed two questions and answers we must face. 1) Is there any way for western infidels to tell ahead of time when a sweet seemingly well-integrated Muslim boy will turn into a psychotic killer at the behest of his faith? Answer: no, there is not. 2) Can we rely on the Muslim community to warn us when one of their number seems about to fall off the edge and become a jihadist killer for the cause? Answer: no, we cannot.

But as good as the article was, I am concerned about its conclusion. It seemed to say that "retaliation" is what is required. I don't believe that kind of "tit for tat" strategy will work. That wasn't how WWII was fought and won.

The war against Islam is even worse than WWII because it cannot be ended with the surrender of the enemy. In Islam, there is no one authority that can surrender.

Islam is like a lethal virus. Though many people are just carriers, some carriers develop the full blown illness and when they do they kill. The solution can't be the punishment of those that kill (even punishing the most active spreaders of the virus), it must be the elimination of the virus itself.

How can this be accomplish. I don't know the answer to that any more than I know how to cure cancer.

But I know in the end, we must close all mosques and ban the practice of Islam. It must be as illegal as any religion must be that advocates and, indeed, accomplishes the killing or enslavement of non-believers.

[Dark Skies]

Freddie...see my post #212 above to USF.

[r9etb]

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

"They" started it? Which "they?" You've got the same problem all over again.

[JCEccles]

Still defending the Islamists?

They undoubtedly love you by now and might even allow you to emigrate to one of their countries. Just don't bring your religion with you unless it is Islam. Otherwise they may have to put you to death.

That's how peaceable and tolerant Islam, even moderate Islam, is.

[TKDietz]

You're changing the question considerably when you start talking about bombing a whole bunch of other cities besides Mecca. If only Mecca is bombed, you still have the rest of the billion Muslims out there in the world to contribute to the cause. I don't know how much money all Muslims combined have, but it has to be at least in the billions if not trillions and certainly not all of it just disappears if New York City gets nuked.

[r9etb]

Blather about "hunting down and destroying" a handful of miscreants as the only legitimate response to the loss of trillions of dollars in property and hundreds of thousands or even millions of American lives

OK, so here's the deal, Fred.

Let's say that the hypothetical nukes were set off by a "handful of miscreants." Is it a proper response -- either strategically or morally -- to incinerate a few million Muslims who were not involved with the bombings in the first place? And isn't it important to understand that the people who did set off the bomb probably won't be killed by our response, because they won't be in Mecca?

I guess I'm old fashioned in that I think the moral aspects of our response are important. It's what separates us from the terrorists. Unfortunately, your response and those of others on this thread, does not indicate that there is any significant moral difference between you and the terrorists you want to kill.

[USF]

There are several ways to approach this... until the true nature of islam is clear to all, the cult absolutely humiliated and the slaves of islam are freed, some form of deterrence is required to keep it in check until its final demise.

Ultimately, I agree with your conclusion... the ideology itself must be destroyed and humiliated in defeat.

[TKDietz]

Interesting post. I don't know what is going to happen. I hope it doesn't come to an all out war between Islam and the Christianity with the United States being the principle target of a billion pissed off Muslims who think God is on their side and wants them to kill us all or die trying. I don't know that anyone really wins that conflict. Casualties would be enormous world over with quite possibly millions of those casualties being in the United States.

[USF]

without unity of purpose the enemy laughs, ultimately planning to dance on the grave of Democracy.

An old saying from another site:

Unite the 5 billion. Join the anti-Jihad.