Has U.S. threatened to vaporize Mecca?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by specialasianX

Muslims dont hate the US, its stupid ignorant remarks like that that make people want to hate Muslims. Radical Muslims hate the US, but they make up less than 1% of the islamic population...
For a place that tries to deny ignorance, ATS is sure full of ignorant people and statements sometimes.... maybe we should adopt some sort of screening process.



Um, do I sense a contradiction here...


the liberal chatterers are ALWAYS going ON AND On about how the Muslim world hates america because america... er, um... america... exists (though they don't actually say why the muslim world hates the US... they just say that it does while hoping that self-inflicted guilt will make everyone in the room come up with a legitimate excuse for the reason why this is so. To be frank, then, people can't make the 'we have to appease the muslims because they hate us' argument at the same time that you call someone ignorant for saying that muslims hate america. It's a logical contradiction.

Also, I think it's funny for someone to call me ignorant after saying that only 1% of muslims want to get the US. I mean... there's even a thread on this site about how 60+% of muslims in Britain want to see Shariah law enacted in the UK. So, yeah, the muslims wouldn't hate america if we made islam the state religion...
They don't hate america or the western world. They just hate the fact that americans aren't muslims. They hate the fact that western governments have... western laws and not shariah.

So, yeah, they don't hate us. They just hate the fact that we're not muslims.

BTW... if the kabaa was destroyed I doubt you'd see an uprising of muslims. On the contrary... I think you'd see a lot of muslims realize that a rock is just a rock and that Allah either won't protect it or doesn't even exist.




posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Nygdan - I'm confused by your posts...You make it sound as though US catholics would turn on the US for nuking their Mecca. I'm Catholic, and I wouldn't turn on my goverment.

specialasianX - Sounds like you would rather ingore the threat of terrorism until it goes away. But it doesn't work that way. You also cant make peace with (most of) these people, So the only option left is to eliminate the threat, and that is what the US is doing.

I partially agree with DrHoracid, If we bomb there Mecca, we would see a slight backlash for it, but not as big as everyone thinks. Some more people would become anti-america, but i'm getting used to that, so I could care less what they think of us. Despite what some of you think, this wouldn't cause nuclear powers to start launching their ICBM's.



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Do you think that the US will have to lock up most of its italians and catholics after making that threat? And if it followed thru, do you think catholics across the world would join the fight against the US? Like say, all of south america?

What does the US have to gain from nuking mecca, outside of a sense of retailiation?


Hmmm. I see your point. Maybe that's what all the detention camps are being set up for. To house all the pissed off muslims in the US in case we have to destroy mecca.


I had been hoping the camps were going to be used for all those hate America liberals, but this makes sense as well.

[edit on 1/8/2005 by centurion1211]



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
Nygdan - I'm confused by your posts...You make it sound as though US catholics would turn on the US for nuking their Mecca. I'm Catholic, and I wouldn't turn on my goverment.

Its a different situation of course, since there aren't any catholic terrorists (outside of falangists, who aren't particularly active anyways).

Why wouldn't you have a major problem with the government f it nuked the vatican tho?

And do you think muslims in general woudl be more or less angry with the US if the US nuked mecca?


Some more people would become anti-america,

Well, I suspect that muslims in general, at least right now, tend to be more dedicated to their religion than westerners, and would react much more strongly against having mecca bombed. Also, doing so would obviously be an attack on saudi arabia, which would openly joing the war, and that would signal other islamist governments to enjoin the war also. I don't see how its supposed to stop attacks, or even how it can result in anything but an escalation of the war.



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Myself? I don't believe in making threats, especially on a magnitude of this proportion.

We need to secretly vaporize Mecca and make it look like France did, oh, I mean North Korea did it and then we could, to save face with the world (like I really care what the world thinks of us anyway) nuke the crap out of France, oh, I mean North Korea.

Just a thought.



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 12:38 AM
link   
America can not make a nuclear attack on Mecca without starting a serious conflict with other world powers, and I believe I can give a convincing explanation as to why.

Wars are not typically fought for ideals, so the question is not one of a nations' willingness to fight over "a pagan rock". Wars are fought for material reasons; there is no art of war, only a science of strategy- with some margin of error, the prospects for war can be calculated. Get your pencils ready.

We have agreed that the destruction of Mecca will create a very strong militant reaction in the Muslim world. The effects have been underestimated because secondary effects have not been considered.

Not enough terrorist can possibly reach America to make matters that bad for us directly, but they can cripple oil production and likely topple the government in any Islamic nation which will not halt oil production to the West.
This creates two simultaneous situations:
1. World powers must diversify their energy sources and not rely on an unstable middle east which is in the midst of revolutions.
2. World powers will be jockeying for position in the middle east, hoping to gain influence and economic gain from this situation.

We run into a host of problems here.

To be brief, we are looking at having to defend Iraq and Afghanistan and possibly make other incursions. This will be done in the face of a much tougher sea approach because of the broad opposition we face. Vietnam style Russian and Chinese support on a much broader scale is possible because they will be looking to improve their standing there. If things got really out of hand we could even see France, Russia, and China basically hijack the UN, make concessions to the islamics, and help them kick America out of the region, which has nuclear war written all over it.

We're also looking at a major flare up in the former Yugoslavia because for the Jihadists, that's the road to Rome.

Last but not least, oil producing regions outside of the middle east will have increased importance. This will lead to political manuevering, military tension, and the prospect of war for all major powers.
The "sum of all fears" in this case would be that China and Russia launch a joint operation through Alaska and later open a second front in the South from Venezuela and Cuba.



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 01:19 AM
link   
1.We're still assuming that the militant islamic world would be energized by an attack on Mecca. Keep this in mind: Even though the world powers do not base their decisions on some rock, the jihadists do. The destruction of the sacred stone, for them, would be tantamount to a revelation that Allah -- at least as he is presented in the Koran -- does not exist. The destruction of said stone would cause a catastrophic crisis of existential proportions among the various terrorist movements. The fundamentalist muslim mindset does not factor in things like allegory and symbolism... to it, the world IS a direct expression oif Allah's presence and will. Should the holy city or sacred stone be destroyed.... that destruction would immediately jar muslims into questioning the truth of the muslim religion, as it would imply that the world is beyond allah's control or that, all along, the sacred stone was just a pagan artifact that allah wanted vaporized to begin with (many scholars believe that Mohammed incorporated pre-muslim pagan beliefs into his religion so that it could survive... among those practices was worship of the sacred stone. 'Perhaps', a good muslim might ask after an attack on mecca, 'the sacred stone was never a part of allah's plan to begin with?').

2.You guys keep assuming that Russia and China will rush to the defense of the muslim world. To the contrary, both nations have always seen islam as a threat.

3.In the case of an oil crisis, keep in mind that we have boots on top of many of the major middle eastern oil fields right now. We control Iraq... at least the oil fields... remember?



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by onlyinmydreams
The destruction of the sacred stone, for them, would be tantamount to a revelation that Allah -- at least as he is presented in the Koran -- does not exist.


Just under 2000 years ago, on the VERY SAME SPOT, there was another temple which was holier than all others, and it housed another artifact which was holier than all others. The religion which worshipped there caused problems for a superpower, so the superpower destroyed it. The Roman Empire doesn't exist anymore. Judaism still exists.
I'm not saying for sure that your plan is a bad one, I'm just saying it didn't work last time.



The destruction of said stone would cause a catastrophic crisis of existential proportions among the various terrorist movements.


Probably not. Even if religion weren't an issue, there are a lot of scores to be settled over there. This is like a gang war. It doesn't matter who started it or who is right. Payback begets payback. There is land, pride, and vengeance to fight over- the religions were just where the problem began.



The fundamentalist muslim mindset does not factor in things like allegory and symbolism... to it, the world IS a direct expression oif Allah's presence and will. Should the holy city or sacred stone be destroyed.... that destruction would immediately jar muslims into questioning the truth of the muslim religion, as it would imply that the world is beyond allah's control


You're assuming that a population with a low level of education and literacy and a strong religious tradition and heirarchy is going to take it upon themselves as individuals to ask some very deep theological questions instead of getting angry because somebody attacked the thing that matters most to them. It's a dangerous assumption. What happened to the Jews when they lost the temple? What happen to Christians when they lost Christ? They came up with an idea as to why God allowed it and they tried to keep following the will of their God.
What about when the twin towers got knocked down. Did we question our system? Did we question our religion? Or did we get seriously pissed off?
Don't dehumanize the enemy- don't think of them as zombies under a mind control drug. These are their beliefs which they are passionate about, which they place their absolute faith in because in some deeply personal way it has convinced them. You're going to crush that by setting a building on fire? Good luck.



2.You guys keep assuming that Russia and China will rush to the defense of the muslim world. To the contrary, both nations have always seen islam as a threat.


You didn't even read my last post did you? It has nothing to do with defending the muslim world. It's about doing whats best for themselves. The muslims have the freakin oil. If you upset the balance of power in their nations by creating a religious fervor, you upset the flow of oil. That means China and Russia have a huge personal interest in restabilizing the region and making sure we don't mess with their economic future anymore.

Wars are fought for material reasons, not ideals. The Chinese and Russians will have a material reason to stand off against us, support our enemies, and possibly even fight us directly in several different regions and several different ways.



3.In the case of an oil crisis, keep in mind that we have boots on top of many of the major middle eastern oil fields right now. We control Iraq... at least the oil fields... remember?


No, we don't control Iraq. We have a relatively small force which is designed to put down riots, and if necessary hold off Iran until reinforcements arrive. If we nuked Mecca we are looking at an Iranian invasion with support from most neighboring nations, perhaps even Turkey. We couldn't just land reinforcements in Iraq, we'd have to start in Israel or the bottom of the Arabian peninsula and fight our way in. By the time we got there the entire force in Iraq would be history.

Besides that, Iraq is hardly "many" of the middle east's oil fields. Iran has more, Saudi has more, Kuwait and Qatar are exceptionally rich especially for their size. Iraq has quite a bit, but its by no means a monopoly, and we couldn't pump oil from there anyway until we had subdued both sides of the Persian Gulf, or it would just end up at being sunk. We'd need a conquest of Saudi and Iran. Do you think China is gonna stand by and let us make a monopoly of Middle East oil?

I love America, I am very proud of our long history of beating stronger nations within an inch of their life, but it's precisely that history which taught me that being a superpower isn't everything. If "heaven and earth" (morale and the situation on the ground) don't favor you, all the weapons in the world can't bring you victory. So think beyond the issue of national pride and seriously contemplate the whatifs. We're not gonna win just cause we're the good guys, we have to be shrewd when we consider international affairs. How do you think we got where we are?



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Very interesting replies, well thought out.

I wonder if the 'average' Muslim would deny his religion though if Mecca were gone? I would tend to think not because these spots are symbolic are they not?

What would make them 'think' about the truthfulness would be to see Muslim nations falling to the 'infidels' one after the other.

Then again, that has happened in the past with the British Empire. How did the Brits handle the Muslims? With FORCE and lots of it.

I just wish that the Muslim leaders of the world would be more vocal and outspoken against the violence.

Reminds me of the "Left Behind" series of books and the Muslim positions in that series.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by onlyinmydreams
They already hate us and always will. If they could form an army and attack us en masse, with any chance of success, they already would have done that.


thats not quite true. Most of the people in arab countries do not genuinely hate the US for being the US. Yes, most people are very resentful of the grossly unfair aid given to Israel, but that is not enough reason for any such massive military action.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply withdrawn.

[edit on 10-2-2005 by Johnny Redburn]



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 03:40 PM
link   
we challenge the United States to beat Mecca

America will fall

i am from saudi arabian

The Islam = peace and the womb were believed



islam vary good
but muslims is vary bad


bye

[edit on 11-2-2005 by almasad]

[edit on 11-2-2005 by almasad]



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by almasad

we challenge the United States to beat Mecca

America will fall

i am from saudia arabian

[edit on 11-2-2005 by almasad]


Right, you and 19 of the 9/11 hijackers


Yes, well the previous countries, or whatever, that thought like you don't have a very good track record for ultimate success.

The only way for "Mecca" to win would be for the U.S. to do something really stupid like elect a bunch of pacifist appeasement freaks.


[edit on 2/11/2005 by centurion1211]



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   
The rule = the americans CIA


America cheats the world
So that she you roots out the Islam

I leave the politicians about you

after 40 years
he truth becomes uncovered

aumk



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Nice theory by Dr. Jack Wheeler however the statements are complete fantasy. The white house has never made such a declaration, not even quietly, as a threat.

Mecca is not on trial. It amazes me that everyone here seems to be commodity ignorant. OPEC puts out 30million bbl a day. If we nuked Mecca we would nuke our economy. We have the largest (bought from OPEC) reserves of oil on the planet currently over a half billion strategic bbl. Wer produce about 4 million bbl a day from mexico and alaska. However that does not determine ourt market - information does. Oil commodities are traded on a daily basis and if you didn't know you can buy a crude oil contract for about $4,000.00 which gives you trading power of 110,000 bbl of oil.

Any tid bit of energy department info released to the public, or world news concerning oil effects how those trade oil in the pit. Why do you think Chevron/ Texaco and Exxon are globally seizing as much oil CONTRACTS as possible? They are not only balancing OPEC (Muslim) power but
changing the psyche of the pit trader. It's simple economics people. It comes down to this if the brokers know and understand that America holds 50% of world oil contracts it will make the market less volatile as he holds the largest chunk wins in the minds of those trading commodities. I don't know if you guys a getting this but thats the way it works. Trade is not based on what we have but on what we believe on a day to day basis. It's called gambling and is how our stock market trades daily. You can either sell a commodity short or buy it long either way. Those selling to the residents of the country are buying futures a year ahead with todays prices in the market and those prices change daily on how the market trades.

Why do you think Bush family is nicey nicey with the Saudi's and drives them around in golf carts at camp David? To threaten their Holy Shrine would be an insult to the King. Both Chevron texaco and Exxon have oil companies in Saudi of which both Cheney and Coni Rice ran as directors. The King has been a long term friend of the Bush clan and will remain such as long as the greenbacks keep flowing.

Nuking Mecca is like saying what would happen if we nuked New York? It's just an asinine question. We see the results here as blood pressure immediatley gets rasied when you say you are going to blow up someone's holiest shrine. The Saudis know exactly what's going on with the oil, and they still have plenty of oil to dish out and we still have much to buy from them for years to come.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Well I guarantee that they would not be pulling this stuff if Reagan was in office, but then again Bush is doing a fine job in the regard.

I believe that Reagan would have been less concerned with Political correctness.......



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 06:21 PM
link   


Mecca is nothing but a "pagan" rock. Plant a Nuke in a building nearby, arm it, booby trap it, and move on folks. Let those "pagans" set it off trying to "disarm" it.


[sarcasm] Yesiree Bob, and while wer'e at it let's Nuke the Buddists, The
Wiccans, Taoists and anoyone else that doen'st conform to our Ideals
and Beliefs[/sarcasm]




posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by almasad
The rule = the americans CIA


America cheats the world
So that she you roots out the Islam

I leave the politicians about you

after 40 years
he truth becomes uncovered

aumk


Just what does this mean? Is this a threat? Why are you tagging my name on the end of your post?



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   
I think he is being disfunctional........


Americans are all not CIA just as all Arabs are not mullahs.


If you folks only knew how many times the CIA has done good things but they are never publicized, just the mistakes....



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Sounds like an idea of a bunch of meglamaniacal, hyopcratic fascists. Good thing they aren't in office.....oh wait..





new topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join