Nuke Mecca? Nope.

Frontpage Magazine ^ | 28 July 2005 | Robert Spencer

[r9etb]

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.

I don't think so. Think of whatever place/symbol means the most to you, and then consider your response if it should be destroyed by a nuke.

Are you going to be "shaken," or are you gonna go looking for blood?

My money is on the latter. And so is bin Laden's.

[rdb3]

If a site produces a good article, at least give them a chance to earn some $$$ as a reward.

If you like it, click on it. There's nothing stopping you.

[JamesP81]

I do not agree with the author.

Let's have a little bit of comparative religion class. Christians don't scream (usually) about it when a church is destroyed. Not like muslims do. To Christians, the church is a group of people. Where they meet is not particularly important. If my church burns down tomorrow, that's unfortunate. But we'll just build another one. If 100 terrorists were holed up in my church, they had no hostages, and the goodguys choices were a) Storm the building and take them out in close combat, suffering casualties in the process or b) blow up the building with a bomb, I have to say that I would blow the building up with a bomb. It's just a building. It's concrete, brick, mortar, and steel. Nothing holy about it. We'll put together our funds as a church and build a new one. This attitude among christians was witnessed when PLO terrorists seized the Church of the Nativity. They tried to turn Christians against Jews by making the (true) claim that Israelis had fired on the church. But it didn't fly with christians at all.

Muslims aren't like this. If you touch one of their holy sites they go into convulsions of rage. I think if we can make islam believe that we willd rop a nuclear warhead on Mecca, and turn it into a radioactive crater, they will sit up and take notice. However, if we formally make the threat, we can't make it and them not believe it. If we do, things will be worse for us. If we make the threat, and they really do believe it, it may help us out (as long as they don't come to disbelieve it at some point).

[r9etb]

What is the proper response to Muslims nuking Washington DC or even the Vatican?

Your question is so imprecise as to defy any rational attempt to answer it. Please clarify what you mean by "Muslims nuking Washington DC...." Which Muslims?

[thoughtomator]

I find his refutation of the proving-Islam-wrong-by-destroying-Mecca argument to be insufficient. The caliph, and the caliphate, are restorable; no permanent damage was done to their beliefs by its abolition. The destruction of Mecca would be a one-way trip and not reversible.

[Agamemnon]

We needn't nuke them. Load B-52 bomb bays with pigs and drop from 30,000 ft on to Mecca (especially during the Haj), Medina (their second "holiest site"), and the Mosque of Omar (Jerusalem). This might just do the trick. Who would they ever get to clean it all up, I wonder?

Pig fat dipped bullets for the leaders and resisters would also be a finishing nice touch. I'm sure we could wrap the task into the Agricultural price-support budget and share the line item expense with the military.

[reagan_fanatic]

A reasoned argument. However, it might not hold up so well should an 'American Hiroshima' were to ever happen as ol' Uncle Binny has threatened.

[chris1]

The worst thing we can do is to take any option off the table.

[NeoCaveman]

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.

Perhaps nuking the Afghan/Pakistan border area where Bin Laden is hiding. Of course there are 2 problems with this:
1. We'd be relying on our famously unreliable intellegence community and more importantly
2. Pakistan has the bomb too.

There are no easy solutions.

I feel bad for Tancredo putting himself in the position he did, if he has stayed away from Paul Williams, the kooky moonbat who wrote "Inside the Vatican" he'd never have got the now infamous question as he would not have been on that call in show.

[Cyber Liberty]

Are you going to be "shaken," or are you gonna go looking for blood?

They're already "looking for blood." The more innocent, the better.

Besides all this, what wrong with Holy payback for blowing up the giant Buddhas in Afghanistan? In Judeo-Christian belief, this kind of attachment to physical objects borders on idol worship.

[Bommer]

Which Muslims?

The cuddly kind that live in the gumdrop woods near the chocolate river of love.....OH AND THEY HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS! What does it matter? If you have a family of rats living in your attic, do you discern the good rats from the bad rats or kill them all?

[TheForceOfOne]

Do you know about the plan to use Yukka Mountain in Nevada for nuclear waste? Um, I have a better idea......

USE MECCA!

[dennisw]

No way does this convince me. Nuking Mecca should be the first order of business if Muhammad worshiping lunatics detonate a nuke or two here or somehow unleash some terrible bio/chem agents on us. Mecca Medina Qom is how you do it right. Just effin' waste them if the Jihadist mutants push it too far.

[EdReform]

Ping

[elbucko]

I tend to agree with the author.

I don't, because he starts his position with a false premise, to wit:

"Tancredo’s idea, of course, is based on the old Cold War principle of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)."

Not true. The Muslims, for the time being, do not have the capability and Tancrdo's hiding behind this statement is backpedaling. The essence of a USA nuclear retaliation for any further terrorists attacks is simply:

"YOU DO THAT AGAIN, MOHAMMED, AND WE'LL KICK YOUR NUTS OFF!"

It's nothing more than a simple masculine threat that conveys to the thuggish mind that we mean business. Nothing more. It's ridiculous that anyone would perceive it otherwise. It's not worth the controversy that its attracted.

[llevrok]

Start at 200km. One terrost attack = 1 bomb. Go to to 150km and repeat every 50 klicks for every attack (car bomber, subways, etc) until they get the point. Simple.

The Muslem "community" must start to police their own or risk their holy site.

[chris1]

We need to cut the conventional nonsense and cut the throat (no pun intended) of Islam itself so that it bleeds to death. Whether it be peaceful or militarily, we all know the violence will continue so long as Islam is a major religion.

[takenoprisoner]

Way off the mark. Spencer accuses Tancredo of suggesting a pre-emptive strike. An absolute falsehood. You call that a "fair take?"

[Dazedcat]

"But for the anti-Tancrado crowd: What is the proper response to Muslims nuking Washington DC or even the Vatican?"


Well you know how it would go......"it's only the fantatical few who have done this; Islam is a religion of peace and this does not reflect on all muslims......"

I swear it would be exactly that way......