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.

---

[RichardAubrey]

This is exactly what I've been saying for three years since 3 of my good friends spoke their last words from the South Tower.

I'm willing to bet there is an "op order" specifically targeting Mecca...and UBL was "back-channeled" the "message". You know JFKerry would never give the order.

[weenie]

Wow...you are indeed...what a wonderful thing!

[Fred Nerks]

Yes, even though I am in Australia, I did catch both events, I saw one on TV and the other on video.
You may describe it anyway you like. It's a matter of perception after all. What one man sees as dignified, another may say is weak. So President Bush paid the Clintons a back-handed compliment? Described them both as something they are not and never will be? I thought that was a hoot! I thought their toes must have been curling up inside their shoes...
As for President Bush being envious of the former president, you'll have to tell me what that statement is based upon. Is it the hair? The affairs? His wonderful marriage? The fact that he was impeached?

When the Dems do field a half-decent candidate, let me know will you? As far as I can see ahead, all you're going to get as a Dem choice is Clinton's handler and another bite at Hanoi John.

[Fred Nerks]

A partial ban with certain restrictions and safety conditions.

No Australian who wants to own a rifle or a shotgun either to hunt or belong to a gun club is prevented from owning a weapon. He needs a permit. The weapon must be registered. And no Australian, to my knowledge has any complaints. So why does it bother you?

Why throw this red herring into a discussion about islam?

Oh, but Tim Priest wrote about that in the article I posted the link to, you will reply. Don't bother. Of the numerous points he made in connection with crimes committed by men from the ME, you chose ONE!

[dog breath]

I remember once while playing chess on Yahoo, there was a young Arab man spouting, in the chat room, all the usual anti American garbage about how we were at war with Islam. I explained that this was illogical because if we were truly at war with Islam Mecca and all the holy sites could quickly be reduced to ashes. This seemed to shut him up and give him some pause for thought. I have long maintained that the greatest fear that the extremists should have is that we would agree with them. There is a struggle within my soul between my anger and the principles of justice that I have learned as a citizen of this country. I know that this country has existed and prospered not on the theory that might makes right but on the premise that right makes might. That is why when we defeat countries, we try not to make them not into our slaves but try to make them stand with us as free men. Perhaps more powerful then nuclear weapons is the thought of freedom. There are those whoever who desire not peace and who prey upon the innocent in the name of their religion. It is those Islamic extremists who must be hunted like mad dogs and given no quarter. That they should fear us is a good thing, but that we lose our souls to hatred and revenge is not. It is our national character to fight, and I believe that we will fight for the values that shape our country which may prove to destroy the extremists more than any bomb.

[nutmeg]

read later bump

[Blowtorch]

I will tell you what Bush envies about Clinton. We all know Clinton is a fine and savvy politician and has a lot more charisma than Bush. When I say fine politician, I mean that Clinton rarely seemed uncomfortable in public or while speaking. He could muster support and spin things his way. He wasn't called "Slick Willy" for nothing. Bush's speaking ability and way with the media on the other hand, are lackluster to say the least, even when accounting for the media bias.

With Bush, what you see is what you get--a moral or "good" and genuine person and President, but also a man clumsy in the public arena. For the sake of the country, genuine is better than slick. However, when the going gets tough, it's nice to be able to smooth-talk and set the populace at ease (even if, as in Clinton's case, you are telling nontruths). As denigrated as Bush has been, he sees the media shine on Clinton and envies the favor.

As an example, I know how I felt during Bush's first debate, seeing holes in Kerry's arguments that were never exploited. Many I know felt the same thing. Bush knows he is lacking in his ability to express himself, and makes up for it the best he can with humor.

That's how this Yank sees things, anyway.

[Barlowmaker]

Ah yes, another Friday night, another "Nuke Mecca" thread that is an obscene insult to Free Republic and Conservatism.

[broadsword]

No. It's more of an idiot Islamonazi-defender convention of you and your faiwy fwends.

[Barlowmaker]

Go back in your hole little man.

[FITZ]

Nuking Mecca won't accomplish anything, except alienate almost all the Muslims in the world.

What would they worship? 5 times a day, you see the Muslims on the floor bowing down toward some meteorite in Mecca --- what happens when it's gone?

[broadsword]

Go back to your prayer rug, noob.

[broadsword]

What would they worship? 5 times a day, you see the Muslims on the floor bowing down toward some meteorite in Mecca --- what happens when it's gone?

The Islamonazi-defenders from this thread will all get in a circle and bow to each other... but that doesn't change anything, does it?

[Andy from Beaverton]

The pigs blood thing is such an old urban legend, I wish people would wise up.

[FITZ]

Uhhh....Muslim extremists aready feel alienated from us....Nuking Mecca won't do anything more but make them more brazen.

They only understand violence --- and their destroying the WTC should have brought at least the equal amount of damage to Mecca.

[FITZ]

That core symbol is in Mecca. Destroy that symbol and you destroy the religion of Islam forever.

But there is still the moon --- I hope we don't have to blow it up --- but the moon is what they worship for the entire month of November and isn't that meterorite they bow to important because they think it came from the moon? The Arab moon god.

[Andy from Beaverton]

Latitude 21 to 25 degree north and longitude 39 to 49 degree east. Do our pilots need to know anything else?

[FITZ]

You seriously think every Muslim would convert to Presbyterianism if Mecca was destroyed?

Some might --- but many would convert to Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroasterianism, Ba'hai, and whatever else --- all are better.

[broadsword]

...but many would convert to Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroasterianism, Ba'hai, and whatever else --- all are better.

ANYTHING else! ANYTHING is better than the religion of bloodthirsty peace.

[Chemist_Geek]

Moral equivalency? Sorry, the only One who can answer that is God.

Legal equivalency? It is for certain that there is.

all religions are equal, a dictatorship is just as valid as the form of government of the United States, and so on. In other words, another closet liberal and leftist.

Uh-huh. Sure. I guess believing in the first amendment's guarantees of freedom of religion are liberal. Ooo-kay.

For your reference, all religions are equal in the eyes of the law. In fact, the founders were quire aware of the existence of Islam. Dr. Rush even wrote approvingly of it, or Confucianism, in preference to atheism. He also wrote that Christianity was superior, but Article VI and the First Amendment leave no room in the eyes of the law for "superior" or "inferior" religions.