Has U.S. threatened to vaporize Mecca?

World Net Daily ^ | 1-7-05

[hope]

to vaporize Mecca?

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42272

Friday, January 7, 2005

---

---

Has U.S. threatened
to vaporize Mecca?
Intelligence expert says nuke option is reason bin Laden has been quiet

---

Posted: January 7, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

---

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Why hasn't Osama bin Laden's terror network executed an attack on U.S. soil since 9-11?

Simple, says Dr. Jack Wheeler, creator of an acclaimed intelligence website dubbed "the oasis for rational conservatives": The U.S. has threatened to nuke the Muslim holy city of Mecca should the terror leader strike America again.

On his website, To the Point, Wheeler explains how the Bush administration has identified the potential of wiping Mecca off the map as bin Laden's ultimate point of vulnerability – the Damoclean Sword hanging over his head.

"Israel … recognizes that the Aswan Dam is Egypt's Damoclean Sword," writes Wheeler. "There is no possibility whatever of Egypt's winning a war with Israel, for if Aswan is blown, all of inhabited Egypt is under 20 feet of water. Once the Israelis made this clear to the Egyptians, the possibility of any future Egyptian attack on Israel like that of 1948, 1967, and 1972 is gone."

Wheeler says talk of bin Laden's Damoclean Sword has infiltrated the Beltway.

Writes Wheeler in his members-only column: "There has been a rumor floating in the Washington ether for some time now that George Bush has figured out what Sword of Damocles is suspended over Osama bin Laden's head. It's whispered among Capitol Hill staffers on the intel and armed services committees; White House NSC (National Security Council) members clam up tight if you begin to hint at it; and State Department neo-cons love to give their liberal counterparts cardiac arrhythmia by elliptically conversing about it in their presence.

"The whispers and hints and ellipses are getting louder now because the rumor explains the inexplicable: Why hasn't there been a repeat of 9-11? How can it be that after this unimaginable tragedy and Osama's constant threats of another, we have gone over three years without a single terrorist attack on American soil?"

Available only to subscribers of To the Point, Wheeler ends his column by explaining the effectiveness of the Mecca threat.

"Completely obliterating the terrorists' holiest of holies, rendering what is for them the world's most sacred spot a radioactive hole in the ground is retribution of biblical proportions – and those are the only proportions that will do the job.

"Osama would have laughed off such a threat, given his view that Americans are wussies who cut and run after a few losses, such as Lebanon in 1983 and Somalia in 1993. Part of Bush's rationale for invading Afghanistan and Iraq – obviously never expressed publicly – was to convince Osama that his threat to nuke Mecca was real. Osama hates America just as much as ever, but he is laughing no more."

Wheeler says bin Laden is "playing poker with a Texas cowboy holding the nuclear aces," so there's nothing al-Qaida could do that could come remotely close to risking obliterating Mecca.

Writes Wheeler: "So far, Osama has decided not to see if GW is bluffing. Smart move."

---

Subscribe to Wheeler's To the Point intelligence website and read insightful, clear analysis every day.

---

[FreedomCalls]

That core symbol is in Mecca. Destroy that symbol and you destroy the religion of Islam forever. It will totally disintegrate. That's the bottom line.

Memo to His Most Excellency, Governor Pontius Pilate
Re: The Christian cult problem

That core symbol is in Jesus Christ. Destroy that symbol and you destroy the religion of Christianity forever. It will totally disintegrate. That's the bottom line.

Your most humble servant,
Caiphus, High Priest, Sanhedrin
Jersualem

[JoeV1]

"...except alienate almost all the Muslims in the world"

Uhh, and there are how many that we haven't already alienated by daring to defend ourselves against the swine?

[ariamne]

Why is it so many people are afraid to admit that Muslims at best are INCREDIBLY racist? And at their worst, INCREDIBLY bloodthirsty? If Christian or Jewish leaders preached 1/10 of the malicious horrific lies and calls to violence preached in the mosques,they'd be strung up for hate crimes. Such double standards will end in the destruction of our way of life.

[AmishDude]

Not that I advocate this action, but if the Hajj were unable to be performed, if Mecca were uninhabitable for 100 years, do you think there would be any Muslims around?Islam views the world as being in an unending march toward an Islamic planet. If Mecca does not exist, Mohammed could not have been the "final prophet" and all of the apocalyptic predictions of Islam wither away.

And the West would never do it, but I do not put it past some future Indian regime.

[ariamne]

As it always does when the truth hurts..

[BayouCoyote]

"fully armed and OPERATIONAL missile defense system."

Now where have I heard a similar line in a sci-fi flick?? Something about a death star, perhaps? Hmmm...

[JTHomes]

I like it if it true, but maybe we can win the stalemate by upping the stakes: OBL, turn yourself and your officers in by noon tomorrow or we'll nuke Mecca. What's it gonna be, call or fold?

[ariamne]

I get the same info from two cousins in the Marines: one (in Iraq) and his brother (in Thailand). According to the latter Thailand is crawling with anti-American hatred and islamic thugs. We are starting to wonder who is in the greater danger.

[nonliberal]

Then, why are we so afraid of taking action against North Korea

Because the Koreans can fight back.

[Earthdweller]

AF said.."Strip him of the jihadi rhetoric and he's just a deranged murderer."

You said.."Secularists have a tendency to underestimate the faith of others."

By George I think you've got it!

Could it be that the US does see things differently because we are still a mostly Christian nation governed by our creator and Europe is not?

We and the Euros are looking through two different sets of glasses on most issues because of this.

If you are a Europeon or a US secularist, try to imagine for one moment why the US might have gone into Iraq for moral reasons and why most of Europe cannot understand this.

Hint: There is a religious war going on perpetrated by Muslim extremists trying to take over every country and convert everyone to Islam by force. People of real faith understand fully what commitment to that faith means. Those that have fallen away do not.

Does Europe even care if it becomes Muslim? The US still does or at least the majority don't want a religion forced upon them.

For those of us on earth that still believe we have been given inalienable rights from God that no man or government can take away....fighting for moral values is part of defending the interests of our nation.

[ken21]

i like the israeli strike on the aswan dam! and 20 feet of water over inhabited egypt.

when do we start?

[meatloaf]

The other point is; if Allah does favor Muslims to the degree that they believe their religon to be supreme, nuking Mecca, would obviously discredit Mohammed's religion. Allah wouldn't have allowed it otherwise.

Of course he wouldn't have alowed two Islamic countries to fall to, so-called, infidels either. Religion, the opiate of the masses. Still an addiction after millennia.

[Spirochete]

Nuking Mecca won't accomplish anything, except alienate almost all the Muslims in the world. But threatening Damascus, Khartoum or any other potential terrorist- harboring states is more practical. Even that Libyan leader is untrustworthy.

The world's muslims are already alienated, so nuking Mecca can't possibly make things worse.

[EdReform]

read later

[bert]

I would argue you are applying an invalid precedent.

I'm thinking of Arabs who would suddenly be totally lost. There has never been such a loss to Christians. Jerusalem has always been there.

[Fishrrman]

EQAndyBuzz writes:
I wasn't referring to the oil fields being blown up. More along the lines of we will not receive any more Saudi oil.

As long as the Saudis have oil, and as long as we _need_ it, we will _have_ it.

Are you old enough to remember the _first_ Arab oil embargo, in 1973? I remember it well. The United States will _never_ allow such an embargo again.

If there was an attack on the United States sufficient to warrant the use of a nuclear weapon against Mecca, we would certainly be at war with the Saudis. And just how long does one think a war between the United States and Saudi Arabia - a society where nearly _everything_ is contracted out to foreigners - would last? I'd say about 3 days longer than a war between the U.S. and Mexico (hearty laugh).

Saudi Arabia is one of the most totalitarian - and most dangerous - nations on earth, a cancer upon humanity. We tolerate them in exchange for the economic lifeblood that lies beneath their miserable sands. I find American patronizing of Saudis - ESPECIALLY by Republicans and the administration - to be vile. Perhaps the greatest strike for world freedom and the defeat of Islam would be the overthrow of the House of Saud, to be replaced by, well, anything.

Cheers!
- John

[Redcloak]

The lovely thing is that mere talk of such a strategy is enough to do the job. It doesn't have to be official US policy.

[Quix]

I hope it's true.

Dad says it's not the Christian way to retaliate. I think he has a bit of a lopsided view of that.

I can imagine that Bush is part of God's way of dealing with Bin Laden.

We shall see. I just hope we have the courage to follow through if needed. I'd hate to see it. But that is the only language that mentality understands.

Of course, we'd likely have some 1 billion angry Muslims to deal with afterwards. But I suspect we'd also have a LOT more of their respect.

AND, IT MIGHT JUST BE THAT THEY'D START TO QUESTION THEIR DEMONIC MOON GOD WHO WASN'T ABLE TO PROTECT MECCA.

I could imgine God really liking that aspect a lot.

[OB1kNOb]

"I'm not trying to be confrontational, but give me a rational explanation for how you think this would have a lasting positive outcome......"

How about 2 actual case studies? First case - the bombs over Nagasaki and Hiroshima? The first one didn't quite convince the Japanese to stop fighting but the second bomb did. They changed their ways and haven't tried to take us on again, have they? Second case - the Cold War and the strategy of M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction). Even in this case where neither the USA nor the USSR could "win" it was enough to deter the commies from trying to take us on. It prolonged the "forced peace" upon them long enough for their corrupt system to complete its foundational rot and eventually led to winning the "war" without lobbing one nuke.
Personally, having lived through the Cold War and being daily reminded that annihilation was but a button push away, I think our government should publicly resurrect the old policy and rename it M.M.M.A.D. (Medina, Mecca, and Muslim Assured Destruction) and announce our intentions to the world, i.e. if the USA suffers a biological, chemical, or nuclear attack coming from the Islamo-facists, then we will without hesitation and without consultation with other countries completely and utterly annihilate both Medina and Mecca on the first launch.
If any retaliatory WMD action is then taken against us we will do the same thing to the Islamic nation capitals, including (but not limited to) Damascus, Baghdad, Tehran, Riyadh, and Cairo. Tell them the same way we did the USSR,...if you do this, we will do that automatically....then their continued existence is in their own hands. It's worked before. Peace through overwhelming strength works. Appeasement and continued negotiations with pathologically lying supremacists won't. Got a better alternative?

[RSmithOpt]

I think it is an excellent idea. Fight terrorism w/ terrorism and make sure the Arab networks get a live feed as the cloud rises....call it a little insane...but a really really 'dirty' bomb so no one can live in that area for 50,000 years; that would be an event to dwarf the recent tsunami. We know how to do that.

I am basically against killing innocents in that city, however, the radical Muslims all over the world only understand and worship brute force. It would send an absolutely clear message to those of radical Islam.

Use a dirty nuke or train a very highly paid multi-ethnic covert assassination battalion to hunt and eliminate the radical leaders (bast*%ds) worldwide. The sooner peace lovin' Americans (and that's most of us) accept the reality of the way to maintain a reasonable level of peace, the sooner it will get done. Just never let the US government officially acknowledge it sponsored any such move.....Do not ever think that for one moment that Muslims intolerant of Christians, Jews, the West, and anyone not of their particular faith would not hesitate to do the same. If those in charge or our government to make such a decision do not believe personally the teachings of the New Testament, well, there's nothing to hold them back with such a move.

Ever seen in person where a powerful bolt of lightning has struck sand? It leaves a spot of greenish-black low grade glass......