One billion Muslims to turn into suicide bombers if Makkah, Madina are attacked: NA

Pakistan Tribune ^

[milestogo]

One billion Muslims to turn into suicide bombers if Makkah, Madina are attacked: NA

ISLAMABAD: The treasury and opposition members in National Assembly (NA) Wednesday have made it clear on US that one billion Muslims will turn into suicide bombers if the holiest places of Makkah and Madina are attacked and warned Vetican City will not remain secure if any such  threat is materialized.

 They said this unanimously while participating in debate on foreign policy. Opposition legislator Ghulam Murtaza Satti said  US was pursuing double standards. Those talking of launching any military offensive against Makkah and Medina are accursed. This will not happen nor will we allow it to happen.

Treasury member Rozina Tufail said Benazir Bhutto was striking deal with government and was seeking guarantee from US. If US presidential candidates are giving offensive statements then our candidates can also say that Vetican be attacked during the election campaign in the upcoming elections ", she added.

JUI-S legislator Hamid ul Haqqani said Muslim Ummah was facing the situation the sketch of which was presented by the last prophet Hazrat  Muhammad (PBUH) 1400 years back.

Treasury member Ejaz Chaudhry said US was not friend of any one. " We will teach the lesson to US if it dares to come forward to attack upon us. Americans are coward nation and they can do nothing. Army should not target their brethren. US aid is like killer disease AIDS We curse it. The whole nation does not want US aid. Those who are targeting humanity and justice are terrorists. Those who are engaged in freedom war are freedom fighters. US ship is close to sink. It is hurling threats like a coward.

He demanded president and prime minister should stop holding any talk with junior US officials like Richard Boucher. "If US dared to hatch unholy conspiracy to attack Makkah and Medina then one billion Muslims will become suicide bombers and I will also be among them", he added.

Opposition member Sher M Baloch called for convening joint session of parliament for holding debate on foreign policy.

Haji Khuda Bakhsh Nizamani of PML-F said Western countries and US were out to weaken Muslims.

Fazal Subhan of MMA said it has become problem for us to safeguard nuclear device we have made for our protection. Army be immediately withdrawn from tribal areas, he demanded

Treasury member Faiz Timman alleged US was making mockery of Pakistan since the last 60 years.

MMA legislator Qari Gul Rehman demanded of the government to review its relations with  US.

Minister of state for finance Omar Ayub Khan warned those involved in attacking army should abandon their activities other wise they would have to face dire consequences. " We will have to address the root cause of terrorism. These causes are Kashmir and Palestine issues.

He asked NWFP government to resign if it could not control deteriorating law and order situation in the province.

Dr Farida Ahmad alleged government was adhering to Indian agenda and had put the Kashmir issue on backburner. Iran and Afghanistan are not happy with us due to our ill-conceived policies.

MQM parliamentary leader Farooq Sattar called for bringing feudalism to end immediately. We have to eliminate religious fanaticism and address the root causes of terrorism, he stressed.

[DBrow]

Resolve? Never. Strategery, yes.

I’ve mentioned this on other threads- the Roman’s tactic of public humiliation, torture, and death of a religious rabble rouser did not have its intended consequences.

It just could be that nuking Mecca would radicalize large numbers of Muslims and send them after us one by one for centuries.

Maybe they would see that their Allah did not protect Mecca- and all billion and a half of them would quit and become Unitarians.

It’s a decision that would require some serious study. In fact, just making the threat should have been studied a bit more IMO.

[mamelukesabre]

One billion suicide bombers???

I think not. first of all, there are only about a billion muslims on the planet right now. Second, if we bomb mecca and medina, there will be a whole lot less of them. And finally, fewer than half of the remaining muslims will be of the “suicide” persuasion. I’d say they’d be lucky to get a hundred million of their own to consider being suicide bombers...and the overwhelming majority of those volunteers would be useless simply because of their geographic location and not being capable of obtaining required transport.

So, my very unscientific semi-logical conclusion is that they might be able to muster 100,000 volunteers in the proper locations to do any good against christian western targets. 50% of those will be rounded up while still discussin possible bombing plans assuming our intelligence is up to snuff, and I think it will be. So now we are down to 50,000. How many of those do you think will be able to access bombs of sufficient size to do anything very scary? I doubt very many. I’d guesstimate the number to be something like 1000 bombs of the kind that we saw in scotland when the idiot crashed into the airport and burned himself up. Maybe 5000 more shoe bombers that blow their legs off and maybe kill a few innocent bystanders. Maybe a 10,000 or 20,000 wannabees that can’t even manage to hurt themselves much less bystanders.

But maybe a thousand serious bombs that could wipe out a whole building or more. That’s alot. That would definitely get everyones attention. It would be the end of western tollerance towards islam. Muslims would become like european jews during the nazi era. I don’t think they want to go there. They can’t win. Surely they know this.

[familyop]

"Not only do I play plenty of attention but you miss my irony as to their notion that the Vatican is (still) the center of the Infidels ...."

Yes, I did miss the irony. Most of the news (propaganda) is focused on Iraq. When Iran is mentioned, the focus is often on Israel. Most people want to be unaware of Iran's designs on Europe.

[El Gato]

Second, if we bomb mecca and medina, there will be a whole lot less of them.

Not really, very few actually live there. Even during the Haj a very small fraction are there. Most live in Indonesia and Pakistan.

Pakistan could turn into a problem right quick though. If the radicals kill and oust Musharraf, they get a nuclear armed Islamic state, with fairly long range missiles as well,

[mamelukesabre]

We’d know about it before it came to pass. Those missiles would be as good as destroyed if that happened.

[omega4179]

The center of christianity is Christ.

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

So where are the “moderates”?

[EBH]

So there you have the truth about islam.

From worshipping holy sites to there not being any ‘moderate’ islamists. For a religion that does not allow idols, arts, etc. it is an inconsistancy that they ‘worship’ places for is not their Allah everywhere?

[hosepipe]

Duuugh... The kicker IS that they are ALREADY planning on nuking western citys whether Mecca is nuked OR NOT...

These people are brain dead...

[USF]

I concur... I’ve always been for targeting their “holy” sites.

Makkah and the kaba are the basis of two of the five pillars of islam.

Their end of days prophecies are related to these sites as well, and their destruction in a way of our choosing would rock the very foundations of their delusional belief system.

[dangerdoc]

Judaism has survived destruction of the temple, more than once.

[TC Rider]

don’t bomb Mecca, just sprinkle it with plutonium dust. heh heh

[ME-262]

So what is your point?

The Jews are not required to go to the Temple in order to go to heaven. And Judaism was almost stamped out but there was a small “remnant” from which it slowly came back.

Even if bombing Mecca does not end islam, if it can put the muslims back in their place for a while it is well worth trying. In my estimation the Great Crusades were a resounding success that had to be done even at the great price that was paid in lives and money. Growing up before political correctness the school mascot where I went to elementary school was the Crusader. Back then it was known that the brave crusaders gave their lives and fortunes to give civilization a 700+ year reprieve from the evil of Islamic hate.

[dangerdoc]

Islam is not a place, it is a state of the soul. Destroying a city will not change their souls.

My point is the Asyrians, Babalonians and the Romans detroyed the Jewish Temple (if my memory serves) and Judaism survived. I’m not a Jew but I have read the Old Testament. The Temple was the center of Jewish religion and culture. To those living at the time, it would seem that destroying the temple would destroy the Jewish religion. They were wrong and I’m afraid that we may be also.

If we destroy Mecca and Medina, it will not destoy Islam. The Romans tried to wipe out Chritianity and did not succeed. The Jews were harmed more systematically than any other group that I am aware of in the history of the world and I see a bright, strong and successful Jewish culture now.

I only see three solutions to the islamic terror problem.

On an individual level, change their hearts. I’m a Christian and I believe that the Christian mission field has a real chance to pull muslims out person by person.

On a political/economic level. As a country, we have to get off the imported oil. It is the reason we are not bombing Iran at this very moment. It is the reason that people who would prefer to live in mud huts and chant at the moon have the money to organize and hurt us in out own country. Without oil money, they would be hurding goats and throwing rocks at each other.

On a military level. We have to have the fortitude to go into countries, overthrow thier goverments and kill those who oppose us. Threatening holy sites and leaving the killers alive doesn’t sound like a good solution to me. Would holding the Vatican hostage paralize Christians? I’m not saying that Mecca and Medina should be off limits but I would be much more interested in Tehran at this time.

Unfortunately, if we do not have the fortitude to hold fast in Iraq, I don’t think we have the fortitude bomb Islams holly sites and then fight the clean up battles that will be required on a global level.

[rmlew]

1. You are over-simplifying the effect of the destruction of the Second Temple.
2. Given the disdain that Wahabbists have for Muslim religious site they consider to be decadent and even idolitrous, I'm not sure that blowing up the Qaba would not simply make the Wahabbist form of the "Oneness" doctrine supreme in Islam.

[Polybius]

So IOW you say that if Muslims nuke one or more American cities we should not nuke Mecca and Medina. Because then one billion Muslims would get really really angry with us.

Sorry for the late reply. I was out of town for a week.

What I am saying is that you do not discuss targeting options and you do not discuss nuclear capabilities.

For decades, the standard Navy reply for any questions regarding the presence of nuclear weapons on a particular platform is: "We can neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons."

If a Muslim faction nukes an American city, the targets may be Mecca or Medina or Tehran or Damascus or (fill in the blank) or one or two or three or all of the above.

From a strategic standpoint, you achieve much more by announcing that "all military options are on the table" than by specifically threatening to bomb nonmilitary sites that have emotional significance to those Muslims who are now fighting on our side.

For example, during World War II, while groups such as Irgun cooperated with British war efforts against the common foe and its members joined British military units including the Jewish Brigade, the Lohamei Herut Israel group (Lehi) persisted with assassinations against British military leaders.

If the British had publicly announced that further Lehi attacks would be countered by the blowing up of the Western Wall, what strategic benefit would the British have achieved?

The British would have increased anti-British sentiment and anti-British attacks, increased Lehi recruitment, undermined the members of the Jewish Brigade fighting along side the British and, in the end, Lehi might very well have decided that a destroyed Western Wall was just the rallying point they needed for a unified attack on Britain.

[Polybius]

1. You are over-simplifying the effect of the destruction of the Second Temple.

Sorry for the late reply. I was out of town for a week.

Actually, my point is that the destruction of the Second Temple and the destruction of Jerusalem did not destroy Judaism as some would believe that the destruction of Mecca would destroy Islam.

The destruction of Jerusalem was so complete that the Roman historian Cassius Dio did not refer to Aelia Capitolina as a "rebuilding" but as a "founding" of a new city.

"... he (Hadrian) founded a city in place of the one that had been razed to the ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina, and on the site of the Temple of the G-d he raised a new Temple to Jupiter....."

Yet, Judaism survived.

Likewise, the destruction of the Second Temple did not mean the end of Judaism. Under the leadership of Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakai in Jabneh, Judaism simply focused on traditions and the Law rather than sacrifices at a physical sanctuary.

Vespasian, Titus, the Tenth Legion, Hadrian and the Roman Empire itself are all long since gone but the Rabbinic Judaism that came after the physical destruction of the Second Temple has survived.

2. Given the disdain that Wahabbists have for Muslim religious site they consider to be decadent and even idolatrous, I'm not sure that blowing up the Qaba would not simply make the Wahabbist form of the "Oneness" doctrine supreme in Islam.

That is exactly my point.

"Islam" is not a unified entity and the sect behind the most extreme violence has the least respect for the physical religious sites and actually considers veneration at those sites to be idolatry.

[dennisw]

Absurd analogy but at least you tried

[Polybius]

Absurd analogy but at least you tried

ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM: ... consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. ... Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic, since the truth value of premises is taken as given, and the validity of a logical inference is independent of the person making the inference.

Instead of immediately admitting defeat in the debate, would you care to at least try to defend your position and explain exactly why you consider the historical analogy "absurd"?

Here, let me help you get started:

Do you believe that having the British publicly threaten to blow up the Western Wall in retaliation for future Lehi attacks would have stopped further attacks against British targets by the Lehi faction?

What do you consider the impact of such a British threat would have been to groups such as Irgun that were not only advocating cooperation with the British war effort but actually fighting on the British side against the Nazi common enemy?

Do you believe that having an American politician publicly threatening to blow up Muslim holy sites in retaliation for future al Qaeda attacks would stop further al Qaeda attacks against U.S. targets by al Qaeda? Are you aware that the particular brand of Islam that al Qaeda adheres to considers worship at those physical sites to be idolatry and that al Qaeda frequently resorts to blowing up religious sites as a tactic in stirring up civil war in Iraq?

What do you consider the impact of such a American politician's threat would has been to Iraqis that are not only advocating cooperation with the U.S. war effort but are actually fighting on along side U.S. forces against the terrorist common enemy and to the Turks who have been fighting to keep the Republic of Turkey secular since the days of Attaturk in the 1920's ?

If the Shah of Iran were still in power in Iran today, would such a threat help to keep him in power or would it only help recruitment to the cause of the Islamist extremists?

In Pakistan today, does such a threat help the recruitment to the cause of the Islamist extremists that want to take over control of Pakistan and it's nuclear arsenal?

[dennisw]

QUESTION:
Would you nuke Mecca-Medina if Muslims nuke a few US cities?