| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Has U.S. threatened to boom Mecca? |
| 2005-01-07 |
| Why hasn't Osama bin Laden's terror network executed an attack on U.S. soil since 9-11? Simple, says Dr. Jack Wheeler, creator of an acclaimed intelligence website dubbed "the oasis for rational conservatives": The U.S. has threatened to nuke the Muslim holy city of Mecca should the terror leader strike America again. On his website, To the Point, Wheeler explains how the Bush administration has identified the potential of wiping Mecca off the map as bin Laden's ultimate point of vulnerability — the Damoclean Sword hanging over his head. "Israel 
recognizes that the Aswan Dam is Egypt's Damoclean Sword," writes Wheeler. "There is no possibility whatever of Egypt's winning a war with Israel, for if Aswan is blown, all of inhabited Egypt is under 20 feet of water. Once the Israelis made this clear to the Egyptians, the possibility of any future Egyptian attack on Israel like that of 1948, 1967, and 1972 is gone." Wheeler says talk of bin Laden's Damoclean Sword has infiltrated the Beltway. Writes Wheeler in his members-only column: "There has been a rumor floating in the Washington ether for some time now that George Bush has figured out what Sword of Damocles is suspended over Osama bin Laden's head. It's whispered among Capitol Hill staffers on the intel and armed services committees; White House NSC (National Security Council) members clam up tight if you begin to hint at it; and State Department neo-cons love to give their liberal counterparts cardiac arrhythmia by elliptically conversing about it in their presence. "The whispers and hints and ellipses are getting louder now because the rumor explains the inexplicable: Why hasn't there been a repeat of 9-11? How can it be that after this unimaginable tragedy and Osama's constant threats of another, we have gone over three years without a single terrorist attack on American soil?" Available only to subscribers of To the Point, Wheeler ends his column by explaining the effectiveness of the Mecca threat. "Completely obliterating the terrorists' holiest of holies, rendering what is for them the world's most sacred spot a radioactive hole in the ground is retribution of biblical proportions — and those are the only proportions that will do the job. "Osama would have laughed off such a threat, given his view that Americans are wussies who cut and run after a few losses, such as Lebanon in 1983 and Somalia in 1993. Part of Bush's rationale for invading Afghanistan and Iraq — obviously never expressed publicly — was to convince Osama that his threat to nuke Mecca was real. Osama hates America just as much as ever, but he is laughing no more." Wheeler says bin Laden is "playing poker with a Texas cowboy holding the nuclear aces," so there's nothing al-Qaida could do that could come remotely close to risking obliterating Mecca. Writes Wheeler: "So far, Osama has decided not to see if GW is bluffing. Smart move." |
| Posted by:Yosemite Sam |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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. It’s 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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |