Article

2005-01-07 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Yosemite Sam 2005-01-07 12:50:20 PM|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 What would be in the ellipses is the threshold for causing the retribution to rain down. No sense showing them where that line in the sand actually is.

Posted by eLarson 2005-01-07 1:13:48 PM|| 2005-01-07 1:13:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 While I'd like to believe this is true, it sounds like BS to me. More likely the reason we haven't had another terrorist attack is due to hard work, but we wouldn't want to give any credit to the evil FBI, CIA or any other capitalist pig enterprises, now would we. No, just the evil Bush and a giant nuke.

Nuking Mecca would be OBL's dream come true. It would turn him into a GOD and start the holy war he dreams of. I don't buy it.

Posted by 2b 2005-01-07 1:19:04 PM|| 2005-01-07 1:19:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Finding out what your enemy values most and designing your strategies to defeat him based on that reality makes sense to me.

The tricky part for me comes in with this whole collective punishment idea, though. I'm not sure how to reconcile it. If you are killed because of something someone else who is somehow like you does (your brother, someone of the same religion or nationality), what purpose does that serve? Make a parallel scenario to the OBL one-Washington DC is attacked-it is the symbol of Western power just as Mecca is the symbol of Islamic power-because a different Western power wronged someone. What do you guys think?

Posted by Jules 187 2005-01-07 1:31:07 PM|| 2005-01-07 1:31:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 the fascinating part of this for me is that while it would take a lot more horror for us to even remotely consider such an option, that's not how OBL et al see it.

They project the worst attributes onto the US and Israel (i.e., we're all infidel babykiller sons of pigs and monkeys who have waged war on islam). If they believe that, having seen what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, and after experiencing "cowboy Booooosh" a simple rumour that we'd decimate mecca would sow enough doubt in their feeble brains to get them to consider the possibility. And that doubt -- and fear -- is enough to prevent an attack.

So, I think we should do whatever we can to promote the notion that we'd be more than happy to flatten mecca at the first opportunity.

After all, if the tables were turned, they'd do it in a heartbeat to us!

Posted by PlanetDan 2005-01-07 1:51:35 PM|| 2005-01-07 1:51:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Jules-not sure if Washington is the symbol of western power. I feel more like the WTC was. The Citadel of Capitalism was toppled in New York, the "Big Apple". This seems to me to be more of the symbol of Western power and influence than DC. That 9/11 gut shot made me reconsider just how vulnerable we are. The Saudi's for one do nothing to enhance our image (to put it mildly) in eyes of their people. This radical Islam is allowed to fester and grow and is directed outward toward us. The House of Saud is complicit in 9/11 attacks not overtly, but ideologically. Nuke Mecca and UBL has his global Jihad. The problem being is that if there are no moderate voices directing the masses then the masses will be lead to violence. Violence begets violence. We are losing the war of hearts and minds which will continue to push us towards armed conflicts. They knocked down our symbol of power. Perhaps the threat of knocking down their's may be the only threat they understand.

Posted by Rightwing 2005-01-07 2:03:39 PM|| 2005-01-07 2:03:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 I think DC is just the current seat of government, Jules. My world would not come to an end if it were gone, although I would be severely annoyed, and might even shout and swear more than a bit. Before doing my bit to support those who would ensure that the culprits would never be able to desire to do so again.

But destroying the center of all the varieties of Mohammedism would bring a crisis of faith to them all. Going on haj is one of the five pillars of their faith, required of all Muslims able to do so. Separately, the foundation of their faith is that Allah is on their side, and can intervene at will. If He cannot protect his Holy Place from infidel destruction then, like the pagans of old, His worshippers will be forced to consider that either He is not the Supreme and Only God, or that they are not deemed worthy of his favour.

Separately, the proof given that Mohammed was correct is that Islam never loses -- whether the slow invasion or the quick conquest. But if the Holiest Place is permanently destroyed, there goes their proof, and the bedrock of their faith. I would expect the nuclear destruction of Mecca would be followed by deathly silence, then a brief outburst of violence as the radical Muslims attempt to bring Allah back into the picture on their side, then when that fails, quiet despair. And lots of conversions away from the religion of the god who failed them.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-01-07 2:04:40 PM|| 2005-01-07 2:04:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Your post made me think, Jules. If Allan allows Mecca to be destroyed, would it be an indication that they weren't being Islamic...enough?

Posted by Seafarious 2005-01-07 2:08:39 PM|| 2005-01-07 2:08:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Just my $0.02, but my instincts tell me this story is bogus. Not that it wouldn't be useful to have the hajjis wondering if we might just do something extreme if sufficiently provoked. And they probably are, since we've toppled two regimes by force so far, and keep hinting there may be more to come. They have to be wondering, where will it end?

Posted by Dave D. 2005-01-07 2:11:35 PM|| 2005-01-07 2:11:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 RW-I'm totally on board with you regarding what the Saudis are made of. But destroying Mecca hurts more than the Saudis-it punishes, what is it, 1/4 of the world's population, for Osama's murderous psychosis? Can you imagine something like that happening to Jerusalem or Bethlehem? Still, I am not convinced in the long run it couldn't come down to that. All this points out why it is essential that if we are to believe in the notion of moderate Muslims, there better be such a thing, and they better get off their heinies and start talking and walking that way, and snuff out this poison in their ranks. I have only met one moderate Muslim in my life-it's a depressing sign.

The Arabs are very good at calling bluffs, so unless we are mentally, physically, and economically prepared to act on our bluff, I wouldn't want to go too far down that road. Maybe that is why this has remained so hush hush.

TW-It sure felt like NYC was the center of the Western world that day :<

Posted by Jules 187 2005-01-07 2:22:43 PM|| 2005-01-07 2:22:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 I don't think this is a credible enough threat to deter Osama, whose confidence in the western media is enormous. He therefore realizes that the defeatist mantra, "you'll only create more terrorists", still holds sway over millions.

It is very unlikely that Jack believes it himself. It is probably disinformation designed to cow the legendary Arab Street and keep them as timid as they have always been.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2005-01-07 3:05:13 PM|| 2005-01-07 3:05:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Some good points in this thread but I think we all should consider what trailing wife said and then add to it, if Bin Laden is such a believer would he take the threat seriously since Allah could stop such an attack of course.

I wouldn't doubt that this is one of a billion psyops we've tried over the past few years. One with deniability built in since the President has been kissing Islamic butt with his rhettoric since 9/11. Religion of Peace my ass.

Posted by rjschwarz 2005-01-07 3:13:32 PM|| [http://rjschwarz.com] 2005-01-07 3:13:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 If you are killed because of something someone else who is somehow like you does (your brother, someone of the same religion or nationality), what purpose does that serve?

This is an easy one: it serves to force the capitulation of the followers/citizens/subjects of one ideology/nation/force to another, a necessary prerequisite to the cessation of hostilities in any conflict. Itâs undeniable that at least a portion of Islam has declared war on the West in general and the US in particular; since there exists no formal Islamic leadership that can reign in this wing of their ideology, punishing the entire ideology might well be the only way to effect a victory in this conflict.

In a strategic sense the destruction of Mecca in response to a 9/11 scale attack by Islamist terrorists would be a no-lose proposition for the West. At best it might force Muslims to rethink the righteousness of their cause and their infallibility which could lead to the moderation of or, in the best case, the decline of Islam. At worst it would draw out passive supporters of those who would destroy us thereby making it easier to identify those enemies we must eliminate in order to prevail in this conflict.

Posted by AzCat 2005-01-07 4:52:27 PM|| 2005-01-07 4:52:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Bogus, more likely that they were threated with B-52 Friday frozen Mackrel bombing. An ArcLight mission carrying nothing but frozen mackrel would effectively destroy arabian society. Naturally a day of no vapour trails would be required.

Posted by Shipman 2005-01-07 5:40:33 PM|| 2005-01-07 5:40:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 And before you ask, yes, a case for red herring could be made. But mackrel in the moonlight is still the prefered freak-out of choice.

Posted by Shipman 2005-01-07 5:41:47 PM|| 2005-01-07 5:41:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Bin Laden doesn't have any more use for the ruling Saudis than us--well maybe slightly more. The connection between Binnie and Mecca is thin--i doubt that he would care that much if Mecca were glassified other than to rally Muslims to his jihadist cause.

Posted by John Q. Citizen 2005-01-07 5:52:05 PM|| 2005-01-07 5:52:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Don't you think UBL is a true believer? Do you think he would risk the destruction of the relic he covets in an attempt to take it?

That being said, I'm not sure I buy it. But from a Mutually Assured Destruction point of view, it is useful as long as the enemy believes in your determination. Is the threat explicit? Of course not; who would you deliver the threat to? That is one of the systematic risks of these types of games (in the technical sense). With both sides unsure of the other's spectra of available responses and resolve, it makes making your own moves rather perilous. Both sides may end up with a payoff that neither one of them desired.

"He may not have expected the reaction he got, but he had to expect a reaction."-Pulp Fiction

Posted by Mark E. 2005-01-07 7:32:27 PM|| 2005-01-07 7:32:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Has U.S. threatened to boom Mecca?

If not, why?

Next: The Dome of the Rock! :)

Posted by Asedwich 2005-01-07 7:45:02 PM|| 2005-01-07 7:45:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Jules, you are right of course about NYC on 9/11. But, destroying NYC, or DC, or even my own hometown, would not destroy the foundations of our universe. That's what I meant.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-01-07 11:39:19 PM|| 2005-01-07 11:39:19 PM|| Front Page Top

04:12 diaspora every 79 years
00:15 Mike Sylwester
00:03 .com
23:57 .com
23:55 .com
23:48 nada
23:47 SR71
23:45 AJackson
23:41 .com
23:39 AJackson
23:39 trailing wife
23:37 Shipman
23:35 trailing wife
23:34 gromky
23:16 Pappy
23:15 Atomic Conspiracy
23:13 Dave D.
23:13 Silentbrick
23:02 .com
22:59 Dave D.
22:57 .com
22:52 SwissTex
22:50 2b
22:45 Barbara Skolaut