Say goodbye to Mecca (Ka'ba)......ISIS threat

a reply to: milomilo

2 million dead in Iraq? Righto, I can see you have an objective viewpoint. Even the most wildly dire of body counts, which is disputed, puts the figure at 1 million, with most agreeing on the 100-150,000 mark as a result of all violence, not just US/Allied forces.

Which then puts anything else you have to say in to perspective, really... You clearly have an axe to grind and will make up any old BS to suit.

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: milomilo

2 million dead in Iraq? Righto, I can see you have an objective viewpoint. Even the most wildly dire of body counts, which is disputed, puts the figure at 1 million, with most agreeing on the 100-150,000 mark as a result of all violence, not just US/Allied forces.

Which then puts anything else you have to say in to perspective, really... You clearly have an axe to grind and will make up any old BS to suit.

sadly , the suffering and death in iraq was caused because of the illegal US invasion. If theres no US invasion there wont be disaster in iraq. Now US and Saudi trying to topple syria and iraq with their ISIS frankenstein. this is the start of new regional war and will lead to a world war , this time US will be alone against the world. Dont count on EU for help , as Victoria Nuland found out in hard way.

a reply to: milomilo

There was plenty of suffering and death in Iraq prior to the invasion, except none of you lot seem to care much about that, instead you act like Iraq under Saddam was Heaven on Earth and we just had to roll on in there and ruin the party....

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: demus
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I am saying anyone would have hard time to destroy it completely and if it's damaged it can always (and would be) rebuilt.

even if it was completely destroyed it would still be rebuilt.

to destroy it completely would be a monumental task because it is NOT "just a building" for BILLIONS of people.

V said - "you can kill a building, but you cannot kill an idea..."

It can only be rebuilt if those that destroy it happen to just up and leave afterwards. If they don't allow it to be rebuilt then it won't be. It isn't really a monumental task....it is a building and plenty of buildings are destroyed. Their last few buildings they hit are basically rubble and they are keeping a presence in those towns....I don't think anyone will be rebuilding them for a while it at all.

And actually your quote from V is incorrect. What was said was : "A building is a symbol, as is the act of destroying it. Symbols are given power by people. Alone, a symbol is meaningless, but with enough people, blowing up a building can change the world."

it is actually monumental task as you need to have force to keep presence as you said.

so your theory about a group of infiltrators with some explosives is invalid in your own words as that would not allow them to stay there - damage would be caused but nothing more.

and OK, I understand that Kaaba in Mecca or whatever religious Holy Place doesn't necessarily mean a lot to you but I hope you understand that it is certainly more important (huge difference) to any Muslim (and members of other religions) than "some old"...mosque, church or other...(and I say that with great respect as some of the destroyed buildings are treasure of mankind)

you say it is a building and I agree, but it is not only a building - it is more.

and regrading "V"; I was paraphrasing, I will try again - "You can destroy a building, but you cannot destroy an idea..." and I don't care about what he said in the movie; Kaaba is not a Parliament building.

originally posted by: demus

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: demus
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I am saying anyone would have hard time to destroy it completely and if it's damaged it can always (and would be) rebuilt.

even if it was completely destroyed it would still be rebuilt.

to destroy it completely would be a monumental task because it is NOT "just a building" for BILLIONS of people.

V said - "you can kill a building, but you cannot kill an idea..."

It can only be rebuilt if those that destroy it happen to just up and leave afterwards. If they don't allow it to be rebuilt then it won't be. It isn't really a monumental task....it is a building and plenty of buildings are destroyed. Their last few buildings they hit are basically rubble and they are keeping a presence in those towns....I don't think anyone will be rebuilding them for a while it at all.

And actually your quote from V is incorrect. What was said was : "A building is a symbol, as is the act of destroying it. Symbols are given power by people. Alone, a symbol is meaningless, but with enough people, blowing up a building can change the world."

it is actually monumental task as you need to have force to keep presence as you said.

so your theory about a group of infiltrators with some explosives is invalid in your own words as that would not allow them to stay there - damage would be caused but nothing more.

and OK, I understand that Kaaba in Mecca or whatever religious Holy Place doesn't necessarily mean a lot to you but I hope you understand that it is certainly more important (huge difference) to any Muslim (and members of other religions) than "some old"...mosque, church or other...(and I say that with great respect as some of the destroyed buildings are treasure of mankind)

you say it is a building and I agree, but it is not only a building - it is more.

and regrading "V"; I was paraphrasing, I will try again - "You can destroy a building, but you cannot destroy an idea..." and I don't care about what he said in the movie; Kaaba is not a Parliament building.

Yes I did say that they can send a few in loaded with bombs to destroy it. Those are the ones that sacrifice themselves to blow it up. If they sent in a force that would be to capture it. If their intention is to destroy it then they just have to sit on the outside and wait for the explosion then take over in the chaos.

The reason I pointed out your quote as being incorrect is because it is actually stating the opposite of what you are saying. He is saying that blowing up a building CAN change the world, not that it doesn't matter.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

another thing to consider is that Saudi Arabia actually has an army unlike Iraq and is not in civil war unlike Syria; Saudi Arabia is (still) American ally and USA has "some" bases in neighboring Qatar.

and knowing location of Mecca in Saudi Arabia and geography of Saudi Arabia - good luck to anyone with that.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

yes I get that but that is my whole point; not every building is the same and it doesn't represent the same, it doesn't hold the same significance.

what I'm trying to say is: How many buildings you know that hundreds of MILLIONS people believe were first built by Abraham - Ibrahim and his sons as a House of Worship of One God?

originally posted by: demus
a reply to: Vasa Croe

yes I get that but that is my whole point; not every building is the same and it doesn't represent the same, it doesn't hold the same significance.

what I'm trying to say is: How many buildings you know that hundreds of MILLIONS people believe were first built by Abraham - Ibrahim and his sons as a House of Worship of One God?

Yeah....trouble with that statement is the word "first"....Abraham didn't rebuild it every time after. So they are holding a false significance to the building...maybe that is why ISIS wants to reduce it to rubble again....the Muslim world is paying homage to a false relic.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: demus
a reply to: Vasa Croe

yes I get that but that is my whole point; not every building is the same and it doesn't represent the same, it doesn't hold the same significance.

what I'm trying to say is: How many buildings you know that hundreds of MILLIONS people believe were first built by Abraham - Ibrahim and his sons as a House of Worship of One God?

Yeah....trouble with that statement is the word "first"....Abraham didn't rebuild it every time after. So they are holding a false significance to the building...maybe that is why ISIS wants to reduce it to rubble again....the Muslim world is paying homage to a false relic.

brother - it is not a relic.

Muslims believe that the Ka'bah was the first place of worship built by the first human, and the first prophet, Adam. It was later rebuilt on the same foundations by Abraham and his son, Ishmail, and declared as a shrine dedicated to the belief and worship of one God (2:125-127)

Before the days of Islam, the Hebrew Bible confirmed the existence of this pilgrimage to Mecca: "O Lord Almighty, my King and my God. Blessed are those who dwell in Your house; they are ever praising You. Blessed are those whose strength is in You, who have set their hearts on pilgrimage. As they pass through the Valley of Beca, they make it a place of springs; the autumn rains also cover it with pools" (Psalms 84:4-6).

originally posted by: demus
a reply to: Vasa Croe

another thing to consider is that Saudi Arabia actually has an army unlike Iraq and is not in civil war unlike Syria; Saudi Arabia is (still) American ally and USA has "some" bases in neighboring Qatar.

and knowing location of Mecca in Saudi Arabia and geography of Saudi Arabia - good luck to anyone with that.

You make it sound like access to the Grand Mosque and Kaaba for militants is nothing to worry about and nearly impossible but it's only been 35 years since several hundred militants over took the entire Grand Mosque and held hostages for 2 weeks while engaging the Saudi military in gun battles. The situations weren't very different than what IS/ISIL whatever theyre calling themselves this week... is striving for. Back in 79 the militants claimed their leader was the Mahdi and all Muslims needed to obey him so the rhetoric at least is pretty much the same. That was with four or 500 militants. It would take far fewer militants to strap themselves with C4 and attempt to blow the Kaaba taking countless pilgrims with them. This is nowhere near as unrealistic of a scenario as you try to portray it, in my opinion.

originally posted by: demus

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: demus
a reply to: Vasa Croe

yes I get that but that is my whole point; not every building is the same and it doesn't represent the same, it doesn't hold the same significance.

what I'm trying to say is: How many buildings you know that hundreds of MILLIONS people believe were first built by Abraham - Ibrahim and his sons as a House of Worship of One God?

Yeah....trouble with that statement is the word "first"....Abraham didn't rebuild it every time after. So they are holding a false significance to the building...maybe that is why ISIS wants to reduce it to rubble again....the Muslim world is paying homage to a false relic.

brother - it is not a relic.

Muslims believe that the Ka'bah was the first place of worship built by the first human, and the first prophet, Adam. It was later rebuilt on the same foundations by Abraham and his son, Ishmail, and declared as a shrine dedicated to the belief and worship of one God (2:125-127)

Before the days of Islam, the Hebrew Bible confirmed the existence of this pilgrimage to Mecca: "O Lord Almighty, my King and my God. Blessed are those who dwell in Your house; they are ever praising You. Blessed are those whose strength is in You, who have set their hearts on pilgrimage. As they pass through the Valley of Beca, they make it a place of springs; the autumn rains also cover it with pools" (Psalms 84:4-6).

I was using the term VERY loosely in relation to your "built by Abraham" comment. Shrine would obviously have been a better term but does not embody the "built by Abraham" part as a relic would.

Either way, the one they are walking around right now was not built by Abraham.....

a reply to: peter vlar

1. Their goal was not to destroy Kaaba

2. They did it from inside Saudi Arabia

3. We were discussing complete destruction that would require some ground force for occupation afterwards - tell me how is big enough ISIS force going to arrive at the spot?

I'm not to judge what various sects of a religion believe about relics, icons, idols and statues, as long as they leave those of other faiths in peace.

When the Taliban blew up the Buddha statues in Afghanistan it made me wonder about their reasoning (it's just stone), considering their stone relic in Mecca.

But while ISIS are on a roll, I wonder if they'd offer to remove the Dome of the Rock from the remains of the Jewish Temple in Israel?
I'm sure that would be much appreciated in many quarters.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: demus

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: demus
a reply to: Vasa Croe

yes I get that but that is my whole point; not every building is the same and it doesn't represent the same, it doesn't hold the same significance.

what I'm trying to say is: How many buildings you know that hundreds of MILLIONS people believe were first built by Abraham - Ibrahim and his sons as a House of Worship of One God?

Yeah....trouble with that statement is the word "first"....Abraham didn't rebuild it every time after. So they are holding a false significance to the building...maybe that is why ISIS wants to reduce it to rubble again....the Muslim world is paying homage to a false relic.

brother - it is not a relic.

Muslims believe that the Ka'bah was the first place of worship built by the first human, and the first prophet, Adam. It was later rebuilt on the same foundations by Abraham and his son, Ishmail, and declared as a shrine dedicated to the belief and worship of one God (2:125-127)

Before the days of Islam, the Hebrew Bible confirmed the existence of this pilgrimage to Mecca: "O Lord Almighty, my King and my God. Blessed are those who dwell in Your house; they are ever praising You. Blessed are those whose strength is in You, who have set their hearts on pilgrimage. As they pass through the Valley of Beca, they make it a place of springs; the autumn rains also cover it with pools" (Psalms 84:4-6).

I was using the term VERY loosely in relation to your "built by Abraham" comment. Shrine would obviously have been a better term but does not embody the "built by Abraham" part as a relic would.

Either way, the one they are walking around right now was not built by Abraham.....

no problem and once again legitimate question, so we come to the:

Black Stone:

The Black Stone was revered well before the preaching of Islam by Muhammad. By the time of Muhammad, it was already associated with the Kaaba, a pre-Islamic shrine that was revered as a sacred sanctuary and a site of pilgrimage.

now there is only a fragment in one corner of Kaaba...

and I repeat again - the building itself is not important and your words prove the point.

originally posted by: demus

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: demus

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: demus
a reply to: Vasa Croe

yes I get that but that is my whole point; not every building is the same and it doesn't represent the same, it doesn't hold the same significance.

what I'm trying to say is: How many buildings you know that hundreds of MILLIONS people believe were first built by Abraham - Ibrahim and his sons as a House of Worship of One God?

Yeah....trouble with that statement is the word "first"....Abraham didn't rebuild it every time after. So they are holding a false significance to the building...maybe that is why ISIS wants to reduce it to rubble again....the Muslim world is paying homage to a false relic.

brother - it is not a relic.

Muslims believe that the Ka'bah was the first place of worship built by the first human, and the first prophet, Adam. It was later rebuilt on the same foundations by Abraham and his son, Ishmail, and declared as a shrine dedicated to the belief and worship of one God (2:125-127)

Before the days of Islam, the Hebrew Bible confirmed the existence of this pilgrimage to Mecca: "O Lord Almighty, my King and my God. Blessed are those who dwell in Your house; they are ever praising You. Blessed are those whose strength is in You, who have set their hearts on pilgrimage. As they pass through the Valley of Beca, they make it a place of springs; the autumn rains also cover it with pools" (Psalms 84:4-6).

I was using the term VERY loosely in relation to your "built by Abraham" comment. Shrine would obviously have been a better term but does not embody the "built by Abraham" part as a relic would.

Either way, the one they are walking around right now was not built by Abraham.....

no problem and once again legitimate question, so we come to the:

Black Stone:

The Black Stone was revered well before the preaching of Islam by Muhammad. By the time of Muhammad, it was already associated with the Kaaba, a pre-Islamic shrine that was revered as a sacred sanctuary and a site of pilgrimage.

now there is only a fragment in one corner of Kaaba...

and I repeat again - the building itself is not important and your words prove the point.

Huh? You have been saying all along how important the building is.....

originally posted by: demus

what I'm trying to say is: How many buildings you know that hundreds of MILLIONS people believe were first built by Abraham - Ibrahim and his sons as a House of Worship of One God?

As for the fragment of black stone...I am pretty sure it can be reduced to dust with a large enough explosion as well...that or it could be taken again and hidden somewhere.

originally posted by: demus
a reply to: peter vlar

1. Their goal was not to destroy Kaaba

the goal is irrelevant. the ability to carry out the attack is what is pertinent.

2. They did it from inside Saudi Arabia

Again, the origin is irrelevant. It only take a handful of individuals with the appropriate mindset and tools to carry it out. we're talking extremists not rational thinkers.

3. We were discussing complete destruction that would require some ground force for occupation afterwards - tell me how is big enough ISIS force going to arrive at the spot?

I disagree. I don't see why they would need an occupying force immediately after destroying the Kaaba or Grand Mosque. In fact, it would be more beneficial to them for "martyrs" to expire during the course of such an attack. If Saudi forces are concentrating on Mecca and the Iraqi border it allows the IS to adapt similar tactics as they are using now in Iraq and Syria. It's a text book divide and conquer tactic. Besides, its more about the show of power and fear, chaos and power vacuum it will create. They're not going to care about occupying a destroyed shrine when their real goal would be removing the House of Saud from power thereby controlling the flood of pilgrims and their consequent access to Saudi holy sites. I'm not implying this would be easy to accomplish but it is a feasible scenario that has to be considered.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I said: "you can kill a building but you cannot kill an idea, haven't I?

it's more than just a building, that's why it doesn't matter - it has been rebuilt before.

black stone is just a stone - it holds a great deal of meaning and the destruction would have big effect but it just a place of worship.

I hope I didn't say something to confuse you (or myself)

a reply to: peter vlar

I agree it is possible but I would think that it would be extremely difficult to achieve.

and why would they destroy Kaaba if their goal was to get money from pilgrims?

not even ISIS is so crazy, this is just (as I already said) half - news.

"some ISIS member" said that they will eventually do it.

the leader said he will conquer Rome, are we going to take that seriously as well?

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: milomilo

There was plenty of suffering and death in Iraq prior to the invasion, except none of you lot seem to care much about that, instead you act like Iraq under Saddam was Heaven on Earth and we just had to roll on in there and ruin the party....

No, sorry , that lies dont work anymore.. There is no massive civilian slaughter in iraq before US illegaly invade and occupy it. Living under saddam is better than today's iraqi goverment which led to endless civil war created and supported by US and Saudis.

The world would be a better place if US stopped their illegal invasions to sovereign countries..

a reply to: milomilo
I'll just take prisoner's word I CAPTURED over where ever you read your stuff.A 2LT was asking if we would kill Saddam he stated the were mass graves and they were kind of expecting us,UNFORTUNATELY that was not my mission.
I guess all those dead bodies were PLACED there as were the chem ammo.
GIVE IT UP.