It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WTC the financial MECCA of the USA

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Okay so let's say you intend to simply target mecca with a conventional missle or offshore heavy guns. Think about every Muslim who will be at prayer the next day. They'll all be praying to a smoking crater.

How do you think they will react? Do you imagine that they will quietly sit down and westernize? I imagine they would see it as an armageddon-type provocation. What do you think would happen after that?




posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Okay so let's say you intend to simply target mecca with a conventional missle or offshore heavy guns. Think about every Muslim who will be at prayer the next day. They'll all be praying to a smoking crater.

How do you think they will react? Do you imagine that they will quietly sit down and westernize? I imagine they would see it as an armageddon-type provocation. What do you think would happen after that?


I admire you. I was attracted to this thread because the poster made so little sense, and I wanted to see what's going on. You, on the other hand, are stoically persistent in your quest of extracting common sense from JudahMaccabi. I wish you good luck but am afraid none will be found.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
With this in mind, wouldn't it be fair to say that should the US be attacked again on its soil by Muslim fundamentalists, the US would be Justified to bomb MECCA?

What? No, it would not be justified to attack civilian targets. Furthermore, it'd be dumb, attacking mecca would be attacking islam, and that would make all muslims very antagonistic to the US, and force the hands of every muslim government. Right now, its a few covert governments and an argy populace, after that, it'd be a Turk-Egyptian lead alliance firing nukes into europe and sending war fleets across the mediterrean, while actual special ops soldiers from those militaries invaded and destroyed facilities all throughout the US.
Attack mecca? Thats like blowing up montana because of Mcveigh, or nuking the vatican because it has preists that molest children.


But why should the US become a punching bag for a LARGE group of thugs supported by Arab/Muslim countries.

Why should the US murder hundreds of thousands of innocents who are in mecca and have nothing to do with anything? How would it be 'getting at' the terrorists? They won't care if mecca is destroyed.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Yeah but AMM, how do you propose to go about 'threatening' them? Should we move ourselves to DEFCON2 or something like Kissinger and Nixon did in 1973? Mobilize our missile boats and play wargames in the persian gulf?


Nope - nothing like that is needed. All thats needed, like I said, is the PUBLICALLY STATED POLICY. Nothing more. We don't need to do wargames because we aren't facing nuclear defeat from them. Just make it known to them that IF we are nuked by Islamic terrorists, we destroy Mecca.


Don't you think the international court of law would see us as having antagonized Iran and arabs in general? I say the answer is yes. We (the USA) already have stated that our policy is pre-emptive warfare. What do you think that means for the Busheir reactor and any tenuous middle east peace?


How could we be antagonizing Iran? Iran is not threatened at all. As for Muslims in general, it is their Muslim religion that threatens us. We are playing by THEIR rules - an eye for an eye. One of them attacks our most important city with a nuke, we attack theirs. It's THEIR law - surely they can respect their own law can't they?

And how are we being pre-emptive here? It is very clearly reactionary policy. We don't get nuked, we don't nuke any one else. Thats the beauty of it in a sense - it is a sort of nuclear truce. Muslims can only blame their own if they were to get nuked.



It is foolish to talk so glibly in regard to nuclear weapons. Would you propose a ground-burst nuke? Something that'd carry lots of lethally irradiated silica into India and beyond? You cannot threaten with nukes because that just makes people's trigger-fingers even more itchy.


Actually, history says otherwise. If the US and USSR never came to nuclear blows, why would the US nuke Mecca unless they were first nuked? Personally, the THREAT (and I emphasise the word threat for anyone who hasn't read the last few posts I have made) would be from a tactical bomb, hopefully the ground penatrating low yield type that the USAF has asked for. That way there is little fallout.

And YES, you CAN threaten with nukes! That is the way both sides avoid conflict. It's called MAD - mutually assured destruction. It has worked for 50 years now in times MUCH more dire and MUCH more drastic.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
As an American, I have never made a pilgrimage to the WTC and I do not plan to do so.

I also do not pray, daily, in the direction of Wall Street.

It is too bad you did not make a pilgramage to WTC. I think most Americans who visit NYC make a HUGE effort to go there. I guess that American patriotism and solidarity is beneath you.

As for playing to Wall Street. I sit in an office with someone who checks whats going down in Wall Street at least 7-10 times a day. That is more than the 5 daily prayer salvos of the Muslims.

It is too bad you cannot open your mind enough to comprehend this because it is quite simple.

[edit on 13/4/05 by JudahMaccabbi]



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
He is also very aware there's no way in hell he's going to convert America, or the west in general. We stand squarely in the way of what he wants, and he and other fundamentalists have made it perfectly clear we are the enemy.


Agreed. And that is why he WOULD use nuclear weapons on us. He doesn't value human life the way normal people do - be they Muslims or Christians. If we do not convert to HIS idea of how the world should be, then we are all worth nothing to him.

In my mind that means that as of this moment, he has every reason in the world to use nukes against us, and not a single reason not to. That means once he gets them - and he most likely will eventually - he will use them at the first opertunity.


How can you not take into account the value extremists place on martyrdom, and why would the most extreme not feel an attack on Mecca to be the ultimate martyrdom to carry out the will of god?


This ties into what I said above. I do not believe there is any way he could want to use WMDs MORE. I can't stress this enough. He was on record recently as saying he would use nuclear weapons. The only thing preventing him is that he does not have them.

So what does it hurt to threaten Mecca? Clearly it can cause no more harm to us by him - he will nuke us if given the chance regardless. What it might do is make him think for a moment "do I really want Mecca to be uninhabitable for hundreds of years?"



I'm aware that you mean to threaten. That was my first point, that if they took the threat seriously, it wouldn't be a threat but an invitation. And if they didn't take us seriously what's the point anyway?


First point see above. Second point, if they don't take us seriously then who cares? We get nuked and we have far bigger problems to deal with. Thats the point - in my mind it can't hurt us at all from the standpoint of us getting nuked by an Islamic nut-job. All it could do would help.



I tend to agree, but I wouldn't say there's no way. That's why I stated the possibility of Russia getting involved, but I guess that's irrelevant if we're just making empty threats.


I'll say no way. If Russia nuked, say, Costa Rica would we then nuke Russia? In the immortal words of Ricky Watters "for who, for what?"





They would probably start by attacking our interests overseas and drawing our soldiers to them, from there who knows where it would go, or who would be on who's side. Whatever would happen, chances are would suck.


Well, if we got nuked I think our soldiers are going overseas to them regardless. I think they can count on that.

By the way, I whole-heartedly agree - it would most definatly suck. This is not something to take at all lightly, as the chances are at some point the world WILL have to deal with a nuclear attack on a major city by a terrorist. Honestly though, I feel it is more likely to happen in Europe then it is the states. Getting that weapon in there would be a lot less trouble.

One final thought on my idea. It can not even be thought about untill we have an alternate energy source, IMO, seeing how Mecca resides in a not so trivial country.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi

As for playing to Wall Street. I sit in an office with someone who checks whats going down in Wall Street at least 7-10 times a day. That is more than the 5 daily prayer salvos of the Muslims.


Checking the stock market 10 times a day instead of praying... Wow, that's some spirituality right there... Some enjoy worshipping the golden idol...



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi

As for playing to Wall Street. I sit in an office with someone who checks whats going down in Wall Street at least 7-10 times a day. That is more than the 5 daily prayer salvos of the Muslims.


Checking the stock market 10 times a day instead of praying... Wow, that's some spirituality right there... Some enjoy worshipping the golden idol...

And I thought Uranium was dense!!!



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 03:11 PM
link   
this is the most screwed up thread ever


To indiscrimantly bomb/nuke Mecca, and kill however many of its 1.4 million citizens seems utterly beyond reason. Not only that but its in Saudi Arabia, a supposed ally of the US.

To equate the WTC to Mecca is also stretching things. A major world religious site and, as smallpeeps said, an office building, are in no way related. Yes thousands of people were killed and it was one of the most disgusting terrorist attacks ever, and it was the heart of the world economy, but it should not have held a place equatable to a religious centre, the fact that it seems to is a sad indication of the way money has become so important in the world.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi

Originally posted by Aelita

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi

As for playing to Wall Street. I sit in an office with someone who checks whats going down in Wall Street at least 7-10 times a day. That is more than the 5 daily prayer salvos of the Muslims.


Checking the stock market 10 times a day instead of praying... Wow, that's some spirituality right there... Some enjoy worshipping the golden idol...

And I thought Uranium was dense!!!


It is indeed very dense, and heavy to lug around.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrpaddy
this is the most screwed up thread ever


To indiscrimantly bomb/nuke Mecca, and kill however many of its 1.4 million citizens seems utterly beyond reason. Not only that but its in Saudi Arabia, a supposed ally of the US.


When I said Mecca I meant the mosque in Mecca not the city. I never said Nuke. I was mearly attempting to pose a hypothetical situation where if the US would again be attacked on its soil by a large magnitude Mega-terror attack like WTC. Would it be acceptable to oblige the enemy with attacking his own sacred shire.

I see the proposal of attacking Mecca as a deterent to additional attacks. As I mentioned before the attack can be covert so that the masses do not identify it as a military attack but as an accident or a natural phenomena. This will in effect provide:
A- Deterence.
B- Stability
C-if covert - unaccountability



To equate the WTC to Mecca is also stretching things. A major world religious site and, as smallpeeps said, an office building, are in no way related. Yes thousands of people were killed and it was one of the most disgusting terrorist attacks ever, and it was the heart of the world economy, but it should not have held a place equatable to a religious centre, the fact that it seems to is a sad indication of the way money has become so important in the world.


I see religion as a set of beliefs for one it could be Christinity for the other Capitalism and for the next Darwinism. It is what set of beliefs one selects to live by. I think that in the mind of the WTC attack perpetrators their attack was an attack at the pride of the US - an equivalent to attacking a religious center. Just as they attacked the Synagauge in Algeria. As they planned to kill the Pope. www.cathnews.com...
As they planned to destroy the Vatican msnbc.msn.com...
the fact that they attacked WTC does not mean that this is not a religious war.

In orer to avoid further higher magnitude attacks a threat must be imposed to deter the enemy.

I think in a manner of speaking what Bush is doing is the exact opposite of what Bin-Ladin and his fundamentalist cronies want. A democratic and possibly capitalist Arab world. The virtual conversion of Muslims to a democratic capitalist set of beliefs.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita
It is indeed very dense, and heavy to lug around.


LOL, thanks for making my point for me.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
It is too bad you did not make a pilgramage to WTC. I think most Americans who visit NYC make a HUGE effort to go there. I guess that American patriotism and solidarity is beneath you.

Whats with the abusive comment? A person doesn't need to go to lower manhattan to be a good american. Thats just silly.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
It is too bad you did not make a pilgramage to WTC. I think most Americans who visit NYC make a HUGE effort to go there. I guess that American patriotism and solidarity is beneath you.

Whats with the abusive comment? A person doesn't need to go to lower manhattan to be a good american. Thats just silly.


Are you trying to tell me that you never visitied ground zero after the attack and if in Manhattan you would not bother to go there either?



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
It is too bad you did not make a pilgramage to WTC. I think most Americans who visit NYC make a HUGE effort to go there. I guess that American patriotism and solidarity is beneath you.

Whats with the abusive comment? A person doesn't need to go to lower manhattan to be a good american. Thats just silly.


The atmosphere around the crater smacks of a tourist attraction and I find this offensive. It's not as much about "solidarity" as it is about rubbernecking.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi

Originally posted by Aelita
It is indeed very dense, and heavy to lug around.


LOL, thanks for making my point for me.


And what was your point? That I'm denser than Uranium? Pathetic.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 05:23 PM
link   

And YES, you CAN threaten with nukes! That is the way both sides avoid conflict. It's called MAD - mutually assured destruction. It has worked for 50 years now in times MUCH more dire and MUCH more drastic.

AMM, threatening with nukes is utter suicide on a long enough timeline. I posted at length about this here: [Deterrence Theory is a Fraud]

MAD is an illusion because nobody's destruction can be mutually assured. The Soviets and the Chinese will have many survivors of a US nuclear strike because they have a different mentality than the US. They have civil defense. They have bunkers and tunnels. Did you notice how the Vietnamese were able to tunnel around, even directly under US bases? Do you think these people's destruction will be 'assured' just because we lob our nukes at them? I say many of them will survive our surface blasts. What has been gained when this theory is tested?

The term Mutually Assured Destruction means nothing and is essentially a non-concept. Even if you were holding your pistol to your opponent's head and you both pulled your triggers, you could not assure your enemy's destruction. To posture with nuclear weapons is simply to hasten the eventual breakdown in an interconnected system.


It is too bad you did not make a pilgramage to WTC. I think most Americans who visit NYC make a HUGE effort to go there. I guess that American patriotism and solidarity is beneath you.

Judah, are you familiar with the term 'Jingoism'? If not, you may want to look it up. You are trying to lead us toward your own view of patriotism, but you're on your own with this one. The WTC was not America. The WTC was a building. Those who lost their lives are casualties in a war, yes, but the enemy has yet to be clearly identified, for me and a lot of other American citizens.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Judah, are you familiar with the term 'Jingoism'? If not, you may want to look it up. You are trying to lead us toward your own view of patriotism, but you're on your own with this one. The WTC was not America. The WTC was a building. Those who lost their lives are casualties in a war, yes, but the enemy has yet to be clearly identified, for me and a lot of other American citizens.


Jingoism would be a well suited term for those willing to loose their life for their country and those willing to sacrifice their children for their country. It perfectly defines Palestinian nationalism. Going to ground zero is far from being extreme it is simply human. The WTC was an international tragedy it is more than an American 'thing'. If you go to Dallas would you not go to see Dealey Plaza - only one person was killed there.
Those who died in the WTC are not casualty of war but victims of terrorism, no different than the holocaust victims.

If you loose sight and forget what the WTC attack was about in the eyes of the enemy then you are destined to repeat that mistake.


[edit on 14/4/05 by JudahMaccabbi]



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
As I mentioned before the attack can be covert so that the masses do not identify it as a military attack but as an accident or a natural phenomena. This will in effect provide:


Nuclear attack, or natural disaster, the thing is thousands of innocents, including very young children which make up a majority of the population in those parts of the world, will die. How could that ever be acceptable? Suppose Mecca was located in Indonesia, I'm sure you remember the tsunami. Do you remember how horrible all the dead babies and toddlers washed up on the beach and entangled in trees was? Would the victims of 9/11 have wanted all those poor children to have been killed by an intentionally created natural disaster on their behalf, and in their memory? I can guarantee not ONE would have wanted that. Besides accountability, there is no difference between somehow intentionally causing a devastating natural disaster, or using a nuclear weapon. Thousands of innocents die either way, and due to our strength and ability to project it on a whim, we would be far worse than those pieces of $hit terrorists that attacked us, in fact we would be in competition with the devil himself.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Judah, are you familiar with the term 'Jingoism'? If not, you may want to look it up. You are trying to lead us toward your own view of patriotism, but you're on your own with this one.


I have a feeling that regarding Judahmaccabi's patriotism, or jingoism, one needs to identify to which country it is directed. From many of Judah's posts, that country appears to be Israel.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join