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.

---

[Chemist_Geek]

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.

Hear, hear.

[Chemist_Geek]

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

Sigh. Sadly, 'tis true.

I guess all the video stores were out of The Siege.

[FITZ]

First Amendment leave no room in the eyes of the law for "superior" or "inferior" religions.

Except there weren't any Muslims in the USA flying airplanes into buildings when the Founding Fathers came up with the First Amendment. Likely they never once considered Middle Eastern religions like Islam moving into the USA when they thought about how the government should be. Mostly they were thinking of religious freedom to be one kind of Protestant or Catholic or even atheist.

[txhurl]

If we DID threaten this, even bluffing, they'd have no reason to believe we wouldn't, after Japan. I suppose it WOULD be an effective deterrent.

[RebelTex]

"Besides......I'm just here to meet chicks and get free BBQ & Beer..."

uhhh, Squantos - that's MY chick and MY beer you got your hands on.

Gimme back my beer!

;^D

[FITZ]

they'd have no reason to believe we wouldn't,

Especially if any muslims ever read FR --- they'd realize that there are plenty of Americans who mean business --- who aren't so sensitive about the enemy's feelings --- and we're still angry about the WTC. They also know they deserve to see Mecca destroyed after what happened on 9-11 --- and their entire reason for going after the WTC, the Pentagon, and the Congress was they figured they'd be getting us where it hurt us.

[Chemist_Geek]

Likely they never once considered Middle Eastern religions like Islam moving into the USA when they thought about how the government should be.

Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles. But the religion I mean to recommend in this place is the religion of JESUS CHRIST.

"Thoughts Upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic," by Dr. Benjamin Rush, From A Plan for the Establishment of Public Schools and the Diffusion of Knowledge in Pennsylvania; to Which Are Added, Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic. Addressed to the Legislature and Citizens of the State. (Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson, 1786).

No, the Founders were quite aware of Islam. They had the opporunity to exclude it from First Amendment protection, and yet they did not so expose it to legal sanction.

[FITZ]

I think what got us attacked on 9-11 was that the muslims were here checking us out for a few years, sizing us up --- only they tended to be in the universities and certain large cities so they came to the conclusion that Americans were extremely weak, very sensitive, non religious, extremely politically correct --- ready for their submission to Islam.

Too bad they never had much opportunity to know real Americans who are still capable of anger and want to save the USA and will fight to save it. Now they have to cower behind their bleeding heart friends here.

[FITZ]

They were aware if it --- but in those days, they had little concern for millions of Muslims coming into their USA with visions of replacing the Constitution with Koranic law. Like you see them attempting to do in many African countries... all the Middle East of course.... SE Asia... even in European countries they are demanding Sharia law. A Muslim by definition believes that the world must be united under the Koran and everyone must obey Sharia law. The Founding Fathers envsioned people coming here who would want to live under the Constitution.

[bonfire]

'Now they have to cower behind their bleeding heart friends here.'

I'm sure they are posting right along with their cohorts on DU.

[broadsword]

the Founders were quite aware of Islam. They had the opporunity to exclude it from First Amendment protection, and yet they did not so expose it to legal sanction.

200 years ago, the entire Islamic world was just a few steps above the stone age, but every bit as culturally savage as the stone age must have been.

Today, the Islamic world is every bit as primitive and savage as it was 200 years ago, but now they have access to weapons and technology they never could hope to produce themselves, and plenty of money thanks to the oil fields WE developed for them because they never could have hoped to develop them themselves.

It's like giving loaded M-16s to a troupe of chimpanzees, except that these primitives are following a "religion" that demands total world domination/enslavement and the ruthless slaughter of every non-Muslim who refuses to submit.

Worse than that, our own nation contains traitors who would support this marching horde of bloodthirsty savages against us. Perhaps these traitors have already learned to submit to the moon god's meteorite.

[Squantos]

LOL....Hope yer well friend !....Stay safe !

[dennisw]

A most enlightening thread

[dennisw]

A unprovoked nuclear attack against Mecca would go down as one of the vilest, evil acts ever foisted against mankind.....

Please use your reading comprehension skills. 99% of the posters here are talking about a provoked attack from Muhammedans, as does the author. What would you classify as a provoked attack? Large scale American deaths due to bio weapons or nuclear blast?

[broadsword]

I guess a world-wide, bloodthirsty, Islamic assault on human civilization is not provocation enough.

Should we wait until the last infidel throat is slit?

Would that satisfy them?

[Once-Ler]

Except there weren't any Muslims in the USA flying airplanes into buildings when the Founding Fathers came up with the First Amendment.

Of course. The Founding Fathers never heard of the Crusades or conflicts that were motivated by religion in those simple times. They are not as wise as you.

[dennisw]

Mecca/Medina/Qom/Karbala should be on the table even now. But at minimum we must allow for their vaporization after any mega-terror attack on the USA. If Bin Ladin is smart he has his minions inflict on us the death of a thousand cuts instead of mega-terrorism

[Star Traveler]

You said -- "Legal equivalency? It is for certain that there is."

The "legal" derives from the "moral". If there is no moral equivalency (and there certainly is not, as we see below in a simple example), there is no legal equivalency.

In the following simple example, we see that the law (at least here in the United States) agrees with the fact that there is no moral or legal equivalency.

A person in the commission of a crime shoots a policeman and kills him. He goes to jail for murder.

A policeman in the defense of the law (and also in protection of life) shoots and kills a criminal. The policeman continues in his job. No crime committed.

That's what Israel is talking about in that there is no moral equivalency with terrorism, which also directly translates into there is no legal equivalency with terrorism.

You'll notice that "legally" Israel is not on the United States' list of terrorist nations. However, in the P.A. and also in other countries, there are listed these particular terrorist groups (and also some countries). There's your recognition -- legally -- by the United States, that it's not the same thing. Of course, some want to apply the principles of the United Nations (bunch of dooche bags there).

You also say -- "For your reference, all religions are equal in the eyes of the law."

That may be true, in the secular sense, for a religion which is peaceful and doesn't advocate the overthrow of the United States and doesn't advocate the killing of millions of Americans as a duty of the adherent of that religion. At that point the religion has lost all legal legitimacy. And that's in the secular world. There is no protection for a religion of death (advocating the killings of Jews and Americans, by the millions) in the secular world!

In the religious realm, there is no comparison or equivalency by any degree of the imagination between Christianity (and Judaism) with the debased, evil and false religion of Islam. That's a "no-brainer" not needing too much explanation (unless one is a dolt).

And so..., in the secular world, since Islam advocates the overthrow of the United States government, and since Islam advocates the killing of American citizens (at least in the millions by their own proponents words, which were "authorized" by their own "clerics") -- Islam has no legal legitimacy. Mind you, the Islamics are told it's their religious duty under Islam to do these killings. Islam has left the legal legitimacy world of religions.

The only thing left is to totally wipe out the entire evil and debased religion of Islam, as it's a religion of death -- and not of life -- as Christianity and Judaism is.

Regards,
Star Traveler

[kingsurfer]

The only thing left is to totally wipe out the entire evil and debased religion of Islam, as it's a religion of death

..........................................................

Do you mean by converision?

[Star Traveler]

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

Ahhh..., well then..., let's test that out and run a few pigs through the mosques. We can also cut one up and fry some bacon and have some pork chops while we're there -- and feed the masses of Mooslims coming for prayer. We'll spill just a little bit of pigs blood in their kitchen, which shouldn't cause them any worry at all. They wouldn't tear out that section of the building and abandon it, would they?

We wouldn't get a peep of protest, would we? (It's all a "legend" doncha know.)

You're pretty funny, ya know... snort, snort... (or is that oink, oink...)

Regards,
Star Traveler