Has U.S. threatened to vaporize Mecca?

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Actually, Bodrul is right, Bush is in bed with the Saudis, and further more, with Bin Laden's family. And nuking the holy site of all Muslims in the world, will lead to blood baths everywhere, and our future generations will look back and spit on us.

It really is very telling about the mentality and character of some people, to actually consider this and attempt to justify it. You better hope hell is a fairytale, because otherwise you're going there

Why would nukeing a city full of civilians wich poses no real threat be good?
Do the muslims control the terrorists?
No, they are just the soldiers and followers, the real leaders are extremists that means they believe its a worth while sacrafice against the evil america

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree Ed. No sense going back and forth when nobody's mind is changing. Just for the record though, I think you're about as wrong as you'll ever be on this one. It's all downhill from here .

EDIT because I spell like I drive.

[edit on 15-2-2005 by The Vagabond]

Look I am not saying that it would be the best option, but it damn sure as hell is an option.

The difference is this,

Catholics have a problem with priests and little boys because of the 'turned' eye toward homosexuality in the seminaries. When this became public, the ENTIRE Christian world spoke out against this behavior and condemned it.


When the radical Muslim's attack civilians in the manner they are doing now, the Muslim work as a whole remains silent.

Nothing would make me happier if THEY cleaned house, but the silence speaks for itself. They want to declare a Holy War, then they can and they will loose. It will be bloody on both sides for sure but they can not win.

Ask yourself what would this world be like today IF the ENTIRE Muslim world erupted in a frenzy against the act of 911? Would we be in Iraq? Possibly not but Osama would sure as hell be dead now........But in reality what uproar did you hear from them? The only thing is how the baby killing Americans are deliberately killing civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq....

There will be no peace, just as with the Jews there will not be...Isalm itself will not allow it...

Therefore a viable Target, but not necessarily the best target depending on the situation at hand....but that is for people far smarter and more capable than I.

This is one mighty sick thread, history seems to be repeating itself.
Nazi Germany sort of rings a bell when they exterminated 6 million jews.
Now its going to happen to the muslims.
Amazing how some people think its a good idea.

Firstly; out of all the "Terror" arrests in Britain, since September 11th, the majority of these people have been Irish - Christians not Muslims, so they also have this problem. It's not a "Muslim Problem" most "Muslims" are against terrorism. Sorry to inform you of this.

Also, if they bomb Mecca say "Bye, bye" you your oil.
Say "Bye, bye" to Israel.
And see what a Muslim Holy War would do, when every single Muslim in the world was against America.
How would you protect your interests over seas? In these Nations or the Muslim scientists, doctors, police men, army officers - sorry to inform you but they'd do a lot more damage then a few Government trained "terrorists".

Remember, most of Asia has a high Muslim population, I'm sure those American tourists would love their next vacation there.

Grow up, read a book, try the Qu'ran, you seem to know nothing:
www.usc.edu...

And then come back and comment, it's because of people like you who think Islam is Evil, that is forcing it to happen. It wasn't Islam who had a 600year war to kill people. Now was it?

Originally posted by colin_hal
This is one mighty sick thread, history seems to be repeating itself.
Nazi Germany sort of rings a bell when they exterminated 6 million jews.
Now its going to happen to the muslims.
Amazing how some people think its a good idea.

Sick thread - I agree - But it is a sick world. Remember the Taliban regime. Women were not allowed to leave their house without a male escort, women were property who can be 'put to sleep' if their husbands so desired.
In Nazi Germany more than 6 million Jews were killed. There were Russians, Homosexuals, Gypsies and those who did not suit the Aryan, Nazi regime.
This will not happen to Muslims but most probably it wil happen to non-Muslims.
In Nazi Germany those labeled as unfit were moved to concentration camps in masses and either exterminated or taken to forced labor. Where is the US doing this.
What I do see is that Fundamental Muslims kill ~3000, decapitate people for being American, Nepalese or Italian, for that matter anyone not in-league with the fundamental Muslims. It is actually the Muslims who are engaging in ethnic/religious based murder.

I had this idea on another thread.

It is MAD for radical Islam, and I think it would work(or as this artical claims, has worked).

I need to add something - In no way shape or form do I support the attack of the shrine in MECCA in the current situation. What situations do I think that attacking MECCA would be necessary?
1- Most of the Muslim/Arab countries would become fundamental shaaria states (e.g. Iran).
2- These states were unified and at war with the Western world.
3- Saudi Arabia is overthrown and become a Wahabist Fundamental state.
4- Muslim oil is withheld or overpriced for the free world.
5- Muslims begin a religious war where the Vatican and other religious symbols are attacked or threatened.

This would justify in my view the attack on the shrine of Medina. The threat of attacking MECCA would be a deterent against further aggressions.

ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion
2 : violent and intimidating gang activity —ter·ror·ist /-ist/ adj or noun —ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective


Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


terrorism

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

Fight a match with a flametrower? Or threatening to do so anyways ...

I really hope none of you guys are actualy serious about thinking the "Nuke Mecca" option is a good or acceptable or smart one in any way?

The only thing it would make you is a bunch of brainless dumbass rediculous TERRORIST rednecks that should be in Guantanamo Bay instead of alowed access to a computer spouting this noncense.

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
1- Most of the Muslim/Arab countries would become fundamental shaaria states (e.g. Iran).

You want to say; that most of the Muslim/Arab states are not in control of the West - under the occupation of Isreal or USA? You want to say that the West does not control the vital resources in the Middle East and the countries that have them?

2- These states were unified and at war with the Western world.

What about when Western States Unite under one banner and attack One Muslim/Arab state? Then they have the Right to Nuke Vatican? Then, judging by your statement, Saddam had every right to Nuke Vatican.

3- Saudi Arabia is overthrown and become a Wahabist Fundamental state.

Saudi Arabia already is in the hands of the Terrorist Supporters of the Prince Bendar - who supported and founded Most of the terrorist organisations, therefore making Saudi Arabia the Muslim-Arabic Terrorist Supporter Numero Uno!

4- Muslim oil is withheld or overpriced for the free world.

What if the Muslim Oil is stolen and withheld by the West to the entire Free World?

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
1- Most of the Muslim/Arab countries would become fundamental shaaria states (e.g. Iran).

You want to say; that most of the Muslim/Arab states are not in control of the West - under the occupation of Isreal or USA? You want to say that the West does not control the vital resources in the Middle East and the countries that have them?

Is Saudi Arabia being occupied by the US or Israel, Iran, or any other Arab state aside from Iraq? Palestine - you will say. I will ask when you say Palestine are you talking about West Bank and Gaza or more than just that?
As far as I recall there are many very, very rich Arab shieks who are in control of the oil and finance terrorism with their riches.

2- These states were unified and at war with the Western world.

What about when Western States Unite under one banner and attack One Muslim/Arab state? Then they have the Right to Nuke Vatican? Then, judging by your statement, Saddam had every right to Nuke Vatican.

Sadaam in 1991 was attacked by a coalition that included the Arabs. In the more current war the US and Britian were the only real armies involved in the campaign it is hardly a gang of Christians or Crusade against the Islamic Iraq. Your arguement is irrelevant.

3- Saudi Arabia is overthrown and become a Wahabist Fundamental state.

Saudi Arabia already is in the hands of the Terrorist Supporters of the Prince Bendar - who supported and founded Most of the terrorist organisations, therefore making Saudi Arabia the Muslim-Arabic Terrorist Supporter Numero Uno!

You said it not me.

4- Muslim oil is withheld or overpriced for the free world.

What if the Muslim Oil is stolen and withheld by the West to the entire Free World?

Why would that be necessary?
If the Arab/Muslim countries decide to blackmail the world with oil as they did in 1973 what do you think the world should do? Submit to blackmail?

Originally posted by Souljah

2- These states were unified and at war with the Western world.

What about when Western States Unite under one banner and attack One Muslim/Arab state? Then they have the Right to Nuke Vatican? Then, judging by your statement, Saddam had every right to Nuke Vatican.

Of course he had the "right" to. War is a great big wrong, and everyone has equal rights to do wrong (equal at zero, but it happens none the less). The problem is that he didn't have a nuke, and the only real rule is capability. The rules are the things you can and can't do right? So is capability. Capability = rules. If there was no rule against murder, I could do it. There is a rule, and I would be stopped. See?
As they say, "War is not about who is right. It is about who will be left." Saddam's rights concern me not a bit.

What if the Muslim Oil is stolen and withheld by the West to the entire Free World?

You'd be amazed how a person's morals change when gas hits 2.60 a gallon! I think I'll just bite my tongue.

Dropping a nuke on Mecca...home of the regime which supports wahabiism, which is the most fanatical element of Islam....Brillliant Idea! What makes Mecca any different than Japan during ww2?

However, this will never happen, since it was'nt Osama who bombed the WTC or the Pentagon for that matter. But I digress!

Night Of The Living Thread

Wow, just when I thought a stake had been driven through its heart, this thread claws its way back out of the grave.

Oh well, some chestnuts never die.

Since I am hypocritically complaining about the thread while helping to keep it alive -- sort of like bagging on McDonald's while biting down on a Big Mac -- I may as well throw my tuppence in again.

The reason the United States still exists is because we don't go around randomly nuking people. If we did, we would have been put out of our misery by Russia and China a long time ago.

No, we're not going to nuke Mecca, and yes, it's a really, really stupid idea.

Fortunately, and apparently contrary to popular but tragically misinformed opinions, the people in charge of America's nuclear arsenal aren't a bunch of drooling idiots.

Feel free to think otherwise, however, if you are fond of lying to yourself for emotional effect.

I'm not worried about it at all, and I've been living under the “shadow of the mushroom cloud” for over four decades.

To each their own.

I agree we wont but what if we threatened that we would?

Personally, I do not see the 'need' to do so. We can take whatever we wanted conventionally anyway, but 1945 showed that we won't.

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
Is Saudi Arabia being occupied by the US or Israel, Iran, or any other Arab state aside from Iraq? Palestine - you will say. I will ask when you say Palestine are you talking about West Bank and Gaza or more than just that?
As far as I recall there are many very, very rich Arab shieks who are in control of the oil and finance terrorism with their riches.

Saudi Arabia is not occupied by USA - Saudi Arabia is an ally of the USA, with many bases on their territory, with many weapons sold to them, with many arm deals going on. Prince Bendar is more then happy to sell his oil to the USA, and so that he can buy all the wonderfull Warplanes and Bombs and Missiles! And so that he can visit USA everytime he wants to buy new horses and new suits - knowing that he will have the Right to leave even if the Entire American Airspace is CLOSED. Saudi Arabia is also the main World Wide Terrorists Sponsor - like the United States. All that money from the USA gets washed a couple of times, and sooner or later it gets into the hands of Terrorits that the USA are "hunting". So the Circles is Complete.

So lets see what countries in the Middle East, with alot of Oil Reserves, does the West Control: Saudi Arabia, Quatar, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates - and the newly "conquered" Iraq and Afganistan and ofcourset the mighty fortress of Isreal.

Sadaam in 1991 was attacked by a coalition that included the Arabs. In the more current war the US and Britian were the only real armies involved in the campaign it is hardly a gang of Christians or Crusade against the Islamic Iraq. Your arguement is irrelevant.

Yes what a Mighty Coalition that was indeed: Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, The Netherlands, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States itself. Hmmm, why is there not Iran on the list, the enemy of the state of Iraq for a long time. Was this war really about liberating Kuwait, or was it more of "setting the stage" for the Second Gulf War, that really put USA Flag in Baghdad. And I would call it more USA Coalition, not international, since almost 3/4 of the troops in the First Gulf War, were US soldiers. US troops represented 74% of 660,000 troops in the theater of war. Many of the coalition forces were reluctant to join; some felt that the war was an internal Arab affair; others feared increasing American influence in Kuwait.

Why would that be necessary?
If the Arab/Muslim countries decide to blackmail the world with oil as they did in 1973 what do you think the world should do? Submit to blackmail?

Man, cant you see WE ALL are already Blackmailed by the Oil Companies and other Big Bad Corporations, that do not want to give up their hold on Natural Resoureces and they do not want any progress made in this direction. They keep this world Hostage by taking the last drops of this resource - a basic war material since the second world war. Why? Because all the War Machinery, all the planes, the tanks, the ships, everything runs on Oil Fuel and in order to keep this War Machinery rolling, they must OWN most of these resources. The American people are vey spoiled when talking about oil consuption - they are the Oil Spenders Number One - and they need all the oil from the Middle East to keep their War Machine rolling.

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
Is Saudi Arabia being occupied by the US or Israel, Iran, or any other Arab state aside from Iraq? Palestine - you will say. I will ask when you say Palestine are you talking about West Bank and Gaza or more than just that?
As far as I recall there are many very, very rich Arab shieks who are in control of the oil and finance terrorism with their riches.

Saudi Arabia is not occupied by USA - Saudi Arabia is an ally of the USA, with many bases on their territory, with many weapons sold to them, with many arm deals going on. Prince Bendar is more then happy to sell his oil to the USA, and so that he can buy all the wonderfull Warplanes and Bombs and Missiles! And so that he can visit USA everytime he wants to buy new horses and new suits - knowing that he will have the Right to leave even if the Entire American Airspace is CLOSED. Saudi Arabia is also the main World Wide Terrorists Sponsor - like the United States. All that money from the USA gets washed a couple of times, and sooner or later it gets into the hands of Terrorits that the USA are "hunting". So the Circles is Complete.

Can you offer any proof that the US funds Al-Qaida knowing that that money wil kill US civilians? I am interested to know.

So lets see what countries in the Middle East, with alot of Oil Reserves, does the West Control: Saudi Arabia, Quatar, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates - and the newly "conquered" Iraq and Afganistan and ofcourset the mighty fortress of Isreal.

Israel has NO oil. Gas in Israel is a killer in terms of its price.
You forgot quite a substantial one the mighty fortress and terrorist state of IRAN!

Sadaam in 1991 was attacked by a coalition that included the Arabs. In the more current war the US and Britian were the only real armies involved in the campaign it is hardly a gang of Christians or Crusade against the Islamic Iraq. Your arguement is irrelevant.

Yes what a Mighty Coalition that was indeed: Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, The Netherlands, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States itself. Hmmm, why is there not Iran on the list, the enemy of the state of Iraq for a long time. Was this war really about liberating Kuwait, or was it more of "setting the stage" for the Second Gulf War, that really put USA Flag in Baghdad. And I would call it more USA Coalition, not international, since almost 3/4 of the troops in the First Gulf War, were US soldiers. US troops represented 74% of 660,000 troops in the theater of war. Many of the coalition forces were reluctant to join; some felt that the war was an internal Arab affair; others feared increasing American influence in Kuwait.

Kuwait is a major oil supplier and it was in the interest of the world to liberate that country from Iraq. THAT IS THE PRIMARY, SECONDARY AND TERTIARY REASON FOR GOING TO WAR WITH IRAQ IN 1991!!

Why would that be necessary?
If the Arab/Muslim countries decide to blackmail the world with oil as they did in 1973 what do you think the world should do? Submit to blackmail?

Man, cant you see WE ALL are already Blackmailed by the Oil Companies and other Big Bad Corporations, that do not want to give up their hold on Natural Resoureces and they do not want any progress made in this direction. They keep this world Hostage by taking the last drops of this resource - a basic war material since the second world war. Why? Because all the War Machinery, all the planes, the tanks, the ships, everything runs on Oil Fuel and in order to keep this War Machinery rolling, they must OWN most of these resources. The American people are vey spoiled when talking about oil consuption - they are the Oil Spenders Number One - and they need all the oil from the Middle East to keep their War Machine rolling.

The need for OIL is not about war but business. When it cost more to ship products it becomes less affordable. Its simple economics high oil prices low stock prices, high inflation it is called stagflation. This causes economic problems, unemployement and therefore unrest. It destabilizes democracies - That is why it is essential to make sure that OIL is available and supplied at reasonable prices at stable supply.
Yes the US is spoiled with its oil consumption but that is internal US problem whuch motivates the US to stabilize this natural resources. The OIL used by the US 'war machine' is negligible.

[edit on 18/4/05 by JudahMaccabbi]

Originally posted by edsinger
But I don't see the Islamic nations speaking OUT against Osama, deep down they root for him and you know it....

That's bull. Saudi Arabia was and is a fervent enemy of Osama's, and they are a major nation. Yemen has prosecuted and executed the perpetrators of the Cole bombing. Until the US invaded Iraq, most of the Egyptians were quite moderate and friendly to the US, hence not pro-Osama. In Iraq, Saddam was getting gothic on anyone sympathising with Al Qaeda, until he was well, removed from power. And I really doubt that Syria would root for OBL. He creates problems for most everyone.

It has some:
Although oil exploration in Israel has not proven successful in the past (current output is less than 1,000 bbl/d), drilling is being stepped up. Israel's Petroleum Commission has estimated that the country could contain 5 billion barrels of oil reserves, most likely located underneath natural gas reserves, and that offshore gas potentially could supply Israel's short-term energy needs. Geologically, Israel appears to be connected to the oil-rich Paleozoic petroleum system stretching from Saudi Arabia through Iraq to Syria.

www.eia.doe.gov...