We didn't even kill Mullah Omar when he's in sights because the lawyer had to OK it first.
But selling a "private" newspaper that tickles ears is a way to make some dough, so....
How to respond to a 9-11 Part II? Taking out Mecca, despite your legitimate point, would be in keeping with Bush's response to the first one.
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.
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.
Exactly, this guy is waiting for the Mothership.
I doubt that we'd respond to a fairly small terror attack by nuking Mecca, but I would bet that Bush has threatened to nuke Mecca in resonse to an attack with a tactical nuclear weapon. Bin Laden may have some old Soviet suitcase nukes in his posession. Personally, I doubt that he could get them to work without a lot of help from Russia. But I would bet we have sent a message to Bin Laden telling him that if he nukes America we will nuke Mecca in response. If Bin Laden actually hits us with a tactical nuke and destroys a city, then we should nuke Mecca. I mean, this terror s### is getting way out of hand. A credible threat to vaporize Mecca in resposne to a nuclear blast is entirely reasonable.
If there were something here in the neighborhood of a small nuke, or a chemical attack with a massive death count, I think it would be viewed as an option.
Libya came around like a lamb, and that's not fantasy land. A phone call from GW with plain talk or a diplomatic note handed over in private is not boots on the ground stuff we see on TV or read in the papers, but yields richer rewards.
No, nuking lightly populated Mecca would be far preferable to having to destroy Riyadh, Karachi, Cairo, Tripoli or Tehran. It's not a bad strategy.
And I've often wondered why the palis only attack small targets in Israel. Painful, tragic incidents, but strategically insignificant. The answer is simple -- they don't ever want to push Israel so far that the full weight and power of the IDF and IAF comes down on them driving them back across the Jordan and into "Greater" Lebanon. I'd never heard that about the Aswan Dam, but it makes perfect sense and I imagine there are a few Isreali "nukular-tinged" cruise missles pointed at it all the time.
I'm glad I didn't sign up for that "newsletter."