Nuke Mecca? Nope.

Frontpage Magazine ^ | 28 July 2005 | Robert Spencer

[Future Snake Eater]

You said it. Your post perfectly sums it up--thank you.

[MikefromOhio]

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

It was never off the table to begin with. Sometimes it's better to not announce you will use the whuppin stick on someone and let them figure it out for themselves...

I agree that a nuke will fly if we get nuked, but what I DON'T agree with is how, even in a theoretical, a politican, someone who should know better, would let himself be cornered into saying he would nuke anyone.

[JamesP81]

What about things like the Wailing Wall?

The Wailing Wall is a Jewish site, and Jews, occasionally, are a little more touchy about holy sites. But not much and not often. If palestinians were to destroy the wailing wall, it would be frowned upon strongly by the Jews, but it wouldn't constitute some kind of refutation of the whole religion. The Wailing Wall isn't prominent in the Old Testament anyway. As jews, they know this better than any: that God has punished them by allowing the destruction of holy sites (such as the Temple) before. They know that it could happen.

Muslims, OTOH, believe that allah will protect their holiest sites against incursion. Period. The End. No Discussion. I seriously doubt that Jews would start homicide bombing muslims if they were to tear down the wailing wall.

[I see my hands]

Written up, talked about and marginalized. Agreed consensus is such talk is to relegated to the politically incorrect. Isn't this good news.

[Bommer]

Your answer seems to be "kill 'em all, let God sort them out." Not unexpected, but sadly lacking in any rational or moral content.

?

Oh well everyone on the board that has been blasting you is waiting for your loving words of enlightenment and I've been waiting for your answer to what is the proper response to a Muslim nuking the Vatican or Washington D.C. So far all I've seen from you is a moralist eletist non-answer. We are waiting....

[macamadamia]

I'm not against nuking Mecca, per se, but I think if we are nuked, nuking Mecca as retaliation is a second-rate strategy...and its effectiveness is debatable. Why resort to a debatable strategy? If we are nuked, why not do the obvious, which is to destroy the enemy itself. There's no military power or weaponry coming from Mecca. Syria, Iran, North Korea, etc. will still have their weapons, their money, their terrorists. Why not simply.....destroy the enemy? Why not simply nuke key cities in countries that protect, host or fund terrorists? In fact, I hope we have told them already that if a nuke goes off in America, their capitals and their infrastructure will be destroyed. MAD, in other words. Nuking Mecca is mostly symbolism.

[I see my hands]

This is the self-liberalization of a large segment of the right. We now have new enemies.

[hershey]

They don't need another 'cause' to rally around. They already have half a dozen, everything from Israel's existence to American culture. The real problem is that they will use nukes on the US and then what will we do? Demand an apology? Take our grievances to our friends at the UN? Anything other than the use of overwhelming force will be looked on by the Muslims as weakness and will encourage the use of more WMD's against us. We will end up like the black knight in 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail', chopped to bits, but still yelling our defiance.

[I see my hands]

Yes, there had better be a response. And we know now over half of the right prefers a politically correct response.

[FredZarguna]

If the article actually did make the sense so many claim, it might be a rebuttal. But of course it doesn't.

Primarily, of course, it contravenes Western principles of justice which, if discarded willy-nilly, would remove a key reason why we fight at all:

An extraordinary response to the nuclear destruction of an American city by Islamic terrorists isn't the "discarding of Western values, willy nilly." This is a completely rabid mischaracterization.

But even aside from moral questions, which are increasingly thorny in this post-Hiroshima, post-Dresden world,

Any sensible person must reject--out-of hand--any writer who implies, however indirectly, the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima or the conventional attack on Dresden was unjustified. The Nazis and their allies began the practice of attacks on civilians and other violations of the laws of war to which they were signatories. And since the writer claims to be concerned with practical outcomes, perhaps he should learn some history: the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima saved many lives--American and Japanese.

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...

This isn't an argument against nuking Mecca under ultimate extremity--it's an argument against any violent action or threat of violent action; as such it is on its face preposterous.

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.

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. And once again the author is making an argument against any attempt whatsoever to bring Islam into the 21st century--any attempt to separate religion from governance, in this author's opinion--can only strengthen the radicals. Given this view, Islamists are genuinely invincible, since no action against them can do anything but strengthen them. So the "reasoned argument" against Tancredo is nothing more than a craven appeal to hoist the white flag everywhere on earth that radical Islam has taken hold. Ridiculous.

Finally, Mr. Spencer isn't even correct in his assessment of the origins of the rise of radical Islam. The abolition of the caliphate had far less to do with the actions of Ataturk than the rise of Wahhabism, which was simply a manufactured justification for the House of Saud to overthrow the Hashemite rulers of the Arabian Peninsula and the historical protectors of Islamic holy sites.

In sum, there are arguments against Tancredo's proposal, but Spencer doesn't make any of them: He attacks a position Tancredo has not taken, the logic of his position leads inevitably to helplessness and surrender, and his historical assertions are simply laughable.

[johnb838]

Well, if we get nuked I don't thing we should announce that we're very angry but we understand that most muslims are peacelovign people and that we won't retaliate against them. That we will bring the people responsible to justice or bring justice to them.

No, if we get nuked, somebody has to get nuked. I reject Mecca too. Too symbolic. I say Damascus and Tehran.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

the Mosque of Omar

Would make a nice Byzantine style Church.

Better to do that.

[I see my hands]

Yes, it's very nuanced. I'm impressed. I'm elite.

[r9etb]

We are waiting....

Given that you've already advocated wholesale slaughter of Muslims, whether or not they're generally responsible for the hypothetical attacks, it is clear that you do not even understand the moral implications of your own stance, much less any ideas that do not call for wholesale slaughter.

Unless you're ready to admit that a more specific response is preferable, there is no reason to waste any more of my time talking to you.

[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.

[r9etb]

They don't need another 'cause' to rally around. They already have half a dozen, everything from Israel's existence to American culture. The real problem is that they will use nukes on the US and then what will we do?

I'll ask you, too: who is this "they" you're talking about?

[NeoCaveman]

Yes, it's very nuanced. I'm impressed. I'm elite.

Well it sure beats the usual "we can't make em all mad" vs. "kill em all" discussion in which we and certain talk show hosts nomrally engage.

[I see my hands]

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

Mustn't anger them.

[MikefromOhio]

being nuked and having your own nukes of your own is a line in the sand no one has crossed yet.

it is going to be a tough decision for whomever is in the White House. At least I hope it is. because it obviously ISN'T a hard decisions for UBL and his ilk to make....

[TKDietz]

I just don't get this logic you guys are using. If we destroy Mecca then Islam would cease to exist? All the Muslims would just stop believing? That's just ludicrous sounding to me. What if Israel was nuked and turned into a giant sheet of glass? Would Christians and Jews all give up the faith? I don't think so. Those involved in destroying Israel would face serious repercussions and the country would be cleaned up and rebuilt, along with the holy cities. Muslims wouldn't just all turn their backs on their faith either if Mecca was destroyed. They'd raise lots of hell and before long they'd rebuild and make do. Nothing would really change in the long run.