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.

---

[blackie]

[blackie]

Thanks ariamne ~ speaking of getting to the point, I read your profile page.
It's succinct and powerful, congratulations on your transformation and welcome!
The same thing happened to me twenty years ago. :)

[expatguy]

So do you think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a mistake?

[Camel Joe]

Who said we should stop with Mecca? If you are for any reason considering ANY Muslim as trustworthy then you need to read Prophet of Doom. Islam is nothing more than a death cult and should be eliminated completely. No exceptions and with extreme prejudice.

[kingsurfer]

I have said nothing of the sort.

What I have said is that the situation is completely different and there is absolutely no political will for your plan to nuke the middle east.

As I said if you nuke Mecca then you will turn every Muslim into a jihadi.

If you target the jihadis instead of the average Muslim we will have a better outcome.

[kingsurfer]

All Muslims are liars?

Way to generalise!

I do not subscribe to Islam but I do not think that they all lie and hate us and want us dead.

Some of them do and those are the ones we need to target.

Nuking Mecca, as some want on this thread, will not kill Bin Laden or Al Quaeda as they are in Pakistan.
It will only serve to recruit every Muslim aginst the West.

[Monti Cello]

Your persistence on this thread has been worthwhile.

I think you are correct that the Achilles heels' of the enemy are its reliance on concrete symbols, and on theocratic leaders -- both are symptoms of its falsity and weakness.

Both can be destroyed or at least undermined with relatively small loss of life, compared to bombing Middle eastern capitals and governments, which is the conventional next step.

There are many who don't yet perceive this as an epic struggle, a civilizational mano-a-mano. The enemy does, but on our side this is still seen as flyswatting. Now, we have shot our wad in terms of framing 9/11. We are stuck with the narrative of 'religion of peace' and 'axis of evil' and 'war on terrorism' until we should get hit again.

I sure hope that frightening threats have been communicated to al qaeda and friends, no matter what. And by the same token US intelligence ought to be spreading and fostering the notion in certain circles that the US did cause the tsunami to destroy Aceh, and that it was just for starters. Same effect.

[weenie]

And by the same token US intelligence ought to be spreading and fostering the notion in certain circles that the US did cause the tsunami to destroy Aceh, and that it was just for starters. Same effect.

Hmmmm...need to think about that.

[expatguy]

I do not subscribe to Islam but I do not think that they all lie and hate us and want us dead.

Some of them do and those are the ones we need to target.

And I don't think anyone minds debating the issue with you either, but you seem to be repeating the same thing over and over.

We all know that "not all muslims want to kill us" and it is irrelevant. Not all Nazis or Communists wanted to kill us either. Please explain the point you are trying to make, because I just dont get it.

You keep saying also that you want no part in 'mass murder' and so I asked you if you thought Hiroshima and Nagasaki were mistakes. Did you backtrack on that one as well?

[Andy from Beaverton]

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.htm
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_black_jack_pershing.htm
http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/pershing.html

[kingsurfer]

We all know that "not all muslims want to kill us" and it is irrelevant. Not all Nazis or Communists wanted to kill us either. Please explain the point you are trying to make, because I just dont get it.

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

What I am trying to say is that it is a large minority of Muslims that are jihadis but not the majority.

But if you nuke Mecca then you will have all of them on our backs.

We are having troubles dealin withe millions of jihadis as it is. Why make it harder on ourselves by increasing their numbers?


ALSO:

I recognise the good use of the A bomb although I think it could have been one bomb instead of two.

I do not think bombing Mecca is the key to success.

I think we need to concentrate on Fallujah and the Pakistani border where Bin Laden is.

I do agree with you that we should target the Imams that preach hate.

That is a given.

[traumer]

"Intelligence expert says nuke option is reason..."

I'd say -
some intelligence expert reads the FREEREPUBLIC.COM !!
:o)

[Conspiracy Guy]

Right now my profile is kind of junked up. I need to spend some time on it. Thanks for the kind words. Glad you're reformed.

[FITZ]

Since they were even against the British authorities and their state religion, I really think they would be against bringing in those who would want to impose a different state religion and believe the Koran must be the law.

Freedom of thought obviously didn't include the monarchists' thought. The Founders also accepted slavery --- so you can't claim they were completely politically correct multiculturalists like the liberals we see today --- and the only "religion" they could completely accept is Mohammad's.

[FITZ]

One more attack on us --- even similar to the 9-11 attack on the WTC should bring about the bombing of Mecca. It's nothing to us. No more important than the other cities we bomb. You notice Muslims didn't destroy some little town in Nebraska --- they went after our big one.

[JesseHousman]

Has U.S. threatened to vaporize Mecca?

Nyet.

[kingsurfer]

Write your Representative and see if you get an answer.

[Schwaeky]

Nuclear weapons used in the time of war is geopolitical poison.

Nuclear weapons have historically, when used in hostilities, saved more lives than they cost. Operation Olympic, the planned invasion of Japan, was projected to have at least four million U.S. casualties, and likely the destruction of the Japanese nation/people. The home of the evil moon god is the "CENTCOM" for the Haji camel inseminators.

[APFel]

Please use your reading comprehension skills. Please do not insult me. I read every word in this thread and I understand them perfectly. Perhaps if you read what I wrote, you would understand that I was writing about a nuclear attack against a city with no military value in an allied land.

Maybe I should write that again, because clearly those people who have needlessly attacked me in this thread for not being a cheerleader for the inane "NUKE MECCA" movement here on FR don't quite understand.

Here it is again. This time in italics: I was writing about a nuclear attack against a city with no military value in an allied land.

Not only would it be seen as an attack against Islam, it would be seen as an attack against a civilian target in an allied nation-state done sheerly out of malice and spite for the actions of an NGO.

Bah. I'm not going to bother anymore. You guys can have your nuclear dreams and geopolitical fantasies. If you need me, I'll be over here in the real world.

APf

[Boazo]

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? It has everything to do with it,By your remark I take it your an anti-gunner? When the muslims come for you it will only be to easy Freddy.If an AMERICAN said that,It would be from the loony left!!!