I do believe that the nuclear threat against Mecca would indeed help to stop muslim terrorism. One thing, is being ready to die; another, completely different, is risking the destruction the material sacred center of the very religion that motivates them. A human body, or a bilion of human bodies, have absolutely no importance when compared to a single piece of holy land.

Posted by: Tautalos at July 28, 2005 6:58 AM

Word. No matter how politically incorrect it is, if they attack us, we have to hit mecca with our nuclear bombs.

Posted by: A.G.Frederick III at July 28, 2005 7:36 AM

I couldn't disagree with you more, RS. Just noting the hysterical reaction of muslims to the mere possibility is some indication of the deterrence value of the threat.

Anyway, we won't have to do it.

The Israelis will.

Posted by: CGW at July 28, 2005 7:56 AM

With modern precision bombing there is less need for nuclear attack and the subsequent nasty fallout. My friend has a good suggestion, precision bombing with the tasty British pub snack of pork scratchings. These are quite nourishing, although they can be a little fatty for my taste and the crunchy bits do require good teeth. Any unconsumed scrathchings will fertilise the ground around Mecca thus improving the soil for horticulture.
Thus a humanitarian act, which will not contaminate the innocent fish and birds of the Red Sea and Gulf.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at July 28, 2005 8:01 AM

Mr. Spencer, I disagree with you on this one. Moslems believe Allah is protecting them. Moslems believe Islam's simplistic world view. The destruction of the Kabah, and the mosques in Mecca and Medina will end Islam as such. Since the rock is from heaven and the zoum zoum water cannot be depleted, since the city needs to be available for the Haj, this will show these miserable savages that the rocks they are praying to are just that. Smash their idols and temples and they will have to consider they have been praying to the wrong god. The religion falls apart if Allah allows Mecca and Medina and their holy symbols to be destroyed. It will be unexplainable to the "faithful" and will suggest serious deficiencies in the religion. Perhaps it will humanize Moslems to think they must moderate their behavior as they have been punished. Allah punishes evil doers. The issues is not whether we nuke them, if they nuke us. The issue is if we have had sufficient provocation to destroy Mecca and Medina currently.

It is not necessary to kill the inhabitants. I am not a psychiatrist but destruction of the symbols will cause cognitive dissonace. The contradiction to their world view of Moslems will be overwhelming. Dissonace arrousal can lead to extinction of the offending behavior.

The question as I see it, is when the West will decide it has been sufficiently provoked to destroy the symbols of the attacking savages and to obliterate their symbols and invoke this potential therapy.

The Crusaders made the wrong strategic and tactical choice when they retook Jerusalem by attacking it. They would have succeeded better if they had obliterated Mecca and Medina. The Crusaders failed to realize the tactical significance of such a strike. For the Crusades to succeed, the Crusaders needed to obliterate Mecca and Medina.

The West is fighting an ancient war against a warlike ancient people. When their idols are smashed, they will be forced to consider that they have been praying to the wrong god.

Posted by: David England at July 28, 2005 8:03 AM

The destruction of the Ka'bah is one of the eschatological signs eagerly awaited by the Muslim community. Any deterrence effect of such a threat would be inversely proportional to the willingness of the man-in-the-street Muslim to have the United States precipitate the Islamic version of the Day of Judgement.

While the adherents of all religions with an eschatological doctrine profess with words their desire to see the "glory" of the End Time, most would rather it happen after they have each departed. If this is the case with Islam, then such a threat might indeed deter attacks on the United States of a magnitude that would trip the wire.

Posted by: DrMack at July 28, 2005 8:07 AM

Granny, good to see you popping around with the wonderful sense of humor we need first thing in the morning. Thanks!

Now, after we get our heads out of the sand, [re: of course, to, "I do believe that the nuclear threat against Mecca would indeed help to stop muslim terrorism"] we can get on with the business of [reality].

IF, and that's a big IF, that one act alone would STOP MUSLIM TERRRORISM it would have been done by now; if A N Y one act would STOP MUSLIM TERRORISM, it would have been done by now.

They will not negotiate. One, two or three acts of any nature, including Tancredo's off the cuff remarks, will not work; no one bombed the Vatican after hundreds of children brought hundreds of priests to their knees in shame for child-rape. Why? Because we are a civilized society, even if our enemies are not. We know not to cut off the head despite the fingers, toes, arms, and legs of the rest of the body.

Posted by: JW gal at July 28, 2005 8:11 AM

Destroying Mecca would just be another grievance like the lost glory of Al-Andalus and so on.

The obvious retaliation for targeting Mecca would be that Iran would nuke Jerusalem.

I'd rather start with a more sensible policy of saying that if our enemies are using mosques or holy sites, we accord the mosque no special status. In both Iraq and Afghanistan our enemies have used our good manners about religion against us.

Posted by: Miss Moneypenney at July 28, 2005 8:20 AM

While a small minority of Muslims are terrorists, it was not a small minority who cheered on 9/11. The majority of Muslims have nothing to loose when terrorists attack us. They have nothing to gain by reporting terrorists. If a terrorist act put Muslims or their shrines at risk, their attitude might change. The risk does not need to be nuclear unless it is a nuclear attack to which we are retaliating. The results of retaliation should leave no doubt that terrorist acts will have a high price to be paid by Muslims.

We can stand on high moral principles and still be killed. With or without supplying pretexts, we can be killed. Terrorism can not be countered by being nice. Some of the terror should be returned to the community supplying and supporting the terrorists.

Posted by: RichardB at July 28, 2005 8:20 AM

Nuke Mekka?

One used to get banned from the site for such suggestions.

"Daisy cutters" will do nicely!

No need for nukes: Just Daisy cutters...

Then we can say:

It was a plot by the Pygmys and the Eskimos did it since they are envious of the desert heat...

Posted by: Terminator at July 28, 2005 8:33 AM

I'd like to keep it as an option.

Posted by: Voltaire at July 28, 2005 8:37 AM

Ms. Moneypenny, you are definitely is on the money. Nuking Mecca would not be appropriate, but perhaps the strategic bombing of the residences of some Saudi royals along with some of the obvious mosque armories might be.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at July 28, 2005 8:45 AM

In agreement with the comments above, I would add that taking Tancredo's option off the table only legitimizes the 'sanctity' of these sites.

Recognize Islam, not simply as a religion, but as a theocracy bent on achieving a global caliphate .
Islam has no legitimacy.

Applying the Tancredo option ultimately removes any legitimacy to the theocratic holy sites. The reason for applying the option would be as a RESPONSE to attack against the US.

At that point, once the caliph's holy sites are obliterated, mosques and religious holdings will become state holdings for future disposal. There will be no reason for maintaining these sites anywhere - it would be senseless to allow the existence of any remaining structure dedicated to this failed, hostile entity. All organizations tied to Islam will be illegitimate and banned.

Each and every follower will, no doubt, be deeply humiliated and angered, resulting in the ultimate test of just how much each actually longs for death. Either they will wake to the realization that their belief system will no longer be legitimate or tolerated in the west - forcing some wise choices, or they will join the dust bin of their failed caliph.

War is brutal. In WWII the allies took out the enemy's infrastructure, weapons mfg., and anyone/thing that supported the enemy. We are at war. Should the US be hit with another strike
in the name of Allah, I say go with the Tancredo option. My tolerance for this ideology is at it's tipping point already.

It's time to make it very clear . . . THERE WILL BE TERMINAL CONSEQUENCES to further islamic terror in the US.

Tancredo '08

Posted by: miira at July 28, 2005 8:51 AM

"Dissonace arrousal can lead to extinction of the offending behavior" david england

when in 70 AD Titus destroyed Jerusalem non one perhaps thought that in 135 there would be a second large revolt in Israel. In fact in 70 AD the very temple in Jerusalem was destroyed - in fact the hope of the Jews was that God would never surrender the Temple (Jeremiah 7:4). He did it. Despite that fact there was no soul-searching what could possible have turned wrong and in 135 there was another revolt smashed this time for good with 19 centuries of consequences. I mean that history could present us the example of a religion that continued without one one of its pillars - the temple. actually accroding to the Torah, the jews today live without sin covering (kapparah) as ordained by the Law. And they carry on. They figured it out by proclaiming that the mere prayer can stand for the burnt offering. They somehow changed the way of worship.
In fact I thought also that since the Hajj is one of the pillars of Islam - the impossibility to perform it at least once in his lifetime because of Mecca's destruction would be a powerful deterrence for muslims willing to be just and go to heaven - without the Hajj prescribed by Mohammad how could they hope for heaven?

Still, the history teaches us that men could find a way to continue in their religion by simply discarding some of its tenets. Like the Jews did. I believe the bombing of Mecca would not stop the killings and the Jihad - they will find a way out. Unfortunately

"The destruction of the Ka'bah is one of the eschatological signs eagerly awaited by the Muslim community." DrMack

please can you state your sources. thanks

Posted by: adullam at July 28, 2005 8:53 AM

It could be the best thing that we ever did, or the worst thing that we ever did.

I'd hate it to be the worst thing that we ever did.

Posted by: Voltaire at July 28, 2005 8:58 AM

Robert,

One problem as I see it is the lack of definition of exactly what our goals are in this war. Is it all out war - overthrow the enemy and force his submission to our will? Or is it limited? How do we define the enemy? The "struggle against violent extremism" is laughable. Might as well be the "struggle against general disquiet," or the "struggle against the improper use of cutlery."

I don't think we can formulate a strategy for success until we define our goals. As you point out, the enemy's goals are clear. All aspects of his society tend to work toward the same thing, conciously and unconciously. We need to define what the future looks like from the point of view of what we want to create both short term (stop Islamic terrorists from killing our citizens) and long term (contain a defanged Islam within a defined set of boundaries, perhaps). These things are screaming for a definition.

In one sense the liberals are right that Iraq has been a distraction from thinking through the bigger picture and the administration's war thinking is much too Iraqocentric right now, to use Derbyshire's phrase from yesterday's Corner clash with Lowry.

We need to formulate POLICY first - then the military finds it's rightful place as an arm of that policy. The military cannot and should not the asked to define policy. We are asking the impossible from them - to win a war that has no definition of victory.

We must define what victory looks like. For one thing victory does not look like, is Iraq becomming a Sharia state allied with Iran.

I look forward to more discussion on these questions.

Rebecca

Posted by: Rebecca JW at July 28, 2005 9:13 AM

Many have argued that dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved a million or more Japanese lives, by preventing a bloody invasion of the home islands. Some have also claimed that, along with the firebombing of Dresden and similar atrocities, World War III with the Soviet Union was prevented, because the peaceful western democracies demonstrated to the world that they too are capable of terrible carnage when faced with an existential threat.

I fear that many millions of Muslims will die a violent death in the 21st century. Perhaps Israel will return a nuclear first strike from Iran; perhaps India will feel forced to a nuclear reply to the provocations of an Islamist-governed Pakistan; most likely it will be some scenario I cannot imagine. But things may be moving in this direction.

How can this nightmare be prevented? IF the obliteration of Islam's holy sites, perhaps coupled with a worldwide destructions of mosques and proscription of the Koran, etc. can save millions of MUSLIM lives, is it not a humane and loving thing to do?

I hope it doesn't come to this. Perhaps we have already seen the crest tide of Islamism, with the Saudis, Egyptians and others presently re-evaluating the results of the hatred they have done so much to promulgate.

In the 1930's no one could predict the outcome of Nazism. Hitler overpowered his conservative foes, including those in the army, maintained his radical, barbaric ideology, and we were forced to annhilate the Nazis, with the loss of millions of lives. But it could have happened differently, the conservatives could have won, and Germany could have gradually rejoined the comity of nations. Right now Islam is facing a similar internal struggle. If the radicals win, we have to determine the best way to preserve our civilization with the minimal loss of human life.

I'm glad I don't have to make these kinds of decisions, writing anonymous comments on the internet is a lot easier.

Posted by: Carl O. Witz at July 28, 2005 9:18 AM

Yes with Russia the chance of nuclear war
was lessened since both realized that it would
be the end of the world as we know it.
But to not use the nukes agains islam if they
use it on us is also the end of the world as
we know it. The fact is nuclear war at this point
is unavoidable. We either wait and let them
possible take out the western world with a first
strike or we target them now. The fact that
there holy sites are still there is proof to
them they are right. The fact we are wavering
in the possible use of nukes is farther proof
to them they are right. They have made it clear
that they would not hesitate to use them on us.
We should make it clear we would not hesitate
to rid the world of Islam should they try.
But we first have to get the government to
recognize what evil Ilsam is. Maybe we can even
unite with Russia to end this mental disease
before it destroys mankind.

Posted by: ecil_man at July 28, 2005 9:22 AM

One thing we should do is strengthen the walls between "church/mosque and state" making the preaching or advocating of any kind of theocratic rule, Islamic or otherwise, illegal.

Blowing up holy sites, like bombing churches would most likely be counterproductive on all fronts.

Posted by: f.g. at July 28, 2005 9:23 AM

Nice debate. I think we can all agree that we have a technological advantage over the enemy at this juncture. The question is how long will that last? Can we really give them the opportunity to get that far? What would be our fate now if they had what we have?

Personally I would like the gloves of civility taken off, & for all Islamic leaders around the planet to be told this in no uncertain terms.

In context, I guess we are talking about events post WMD strike against the US (I am English & know that we would never respond with WMD even if we were hit by a terrorists WMD - we are too soft, too liberal, too naive, too utopianist, too multiculturalist, too stupid).

I would definately leave the option of destroying Islamic holy sites on the table - to not do so shows weakness to the enemy - & we all know how they love to promote the idea that we are weak.

Posted by: albion at July 28, 2005 9:24 AM

Why not just ban Islam like Naziism, stop trading with Islamic nations, and require Muslims to 'convert' and change their name.

If you want more than you could go for the return of Constantinople.

When Constantinople fell to the Turks under Mehmet II, the Turks were quick to put their stamp on their greatest prize. When Mehmet II marched into the city he marched immediately to Hagia Sofia and changed the great church into a mosque

Return the favour by claiming all Mosques.

Posted by: raven_ at July 28, 2005 9:29 AM

I don't feel that Tancredo deserves the stench breath of CAIR trying to breathe down his neck. He's one of the few in our government with a spine.

He said on Hannity & Colmes the other night that he would do anything to protect this country. Did he say "nuke"? or did he say "Take out" Islamic site?

The best way to eliminate any type of threat is to first protect our own land, which would mean mass deportation. As long as President Gump keeps ignoring the Mexican border issue, how can we say that we're on war footing?

What nation goes to war and yet leaves its borders unsecure?

Posted by: DCWatson at July 28, 2005 9:32 AM

Congressman Tancredo, a former history teacher, has almost alone in Congress bothered to begin to investigate what Islam teaches, what it is all about. For this he deserves the support of everyone, and everything possible should be done to help re-elect him -- if for no other reason, than to ensure that at least one member of Congress will speak the truth about the belief-system of Islam. He deserves to be supported to the hilt, in any possible way.

And the Congressman did not recommend that "Mecca be bombed." While many people have in the past suggested that -- see the redoubtable Fred Ikle, for example, he who was so important in the Reagan Administration -- Congressman Tancredo said something different, and perfectly understandable.

He was asked about rumors that Muslim terrorists might have already smuggled into the country nuclear devices that they planned to set off, and what kinds of things might deter them. He mused aloud, that one of the things that might deter them would be the threat to bomb Mecca. That was all he said. It was hardly remarkable, and the only thing remarkable about it has been, as has been repeatedly suggested at JW (see, for example, the recent article by Rebecca Bynum)is that all the different ways to inflict damage on the belief-system of Islam have not been discussed. But on the other hand, as long as we are conducting either a "war on terrorism" or a "war on an ideology of violent extremism" that remains carefully unnamed, perhaps in the end it is not surprising that we have no discussion of the kinds of deterrents that would work, and on whom.

For example, there may be no way of deterring the groups and groupuscules of fanatics. But there are ways to threaten, and deter, the Saudis from continuing to send money abroad to support the entire Muslim infrastructure that, as the recent Freedom House report showed, encourages not merely Islam but the most hate-filled brand of Islam -- in other words, there are threats of seizure of assets that might get the atteention of the rulers of Saudi Arabia (and the U.A.E. riding pillion), to have them cease using the "money weapon" to pay for mosques and madrasas and Da'wa throughout the Western, Infidel world.

But Tancredo was addressing a different problem. and he did not offer an answer. He offered one among many possibilities that he thought deserved intelligent discussion. And he was right. And this is not a clear-cut case. There are many ex-Muslims, for example, who appear to believe that Tancredo is absolutely right -- that this may be the one thing which, if threatened, or at least considered, could cause Muslims to rethink. It is already clear that the change in the atmosphere in the Western world, the beginning of a glimmer of an understnading that the very matter of Islam needs to be examined, has caused such things as this absurd public-relations effort in damage-limiation, this so-called "fatwa" to be issued by some Muslim groups in America, and announced by that more than doubtful organization, CAIR -- of course the wording will require the closest kind of reading, the kind we ordinarily would reserve for Shakespeare, Keats, or Hardy, applied to the banal taqiyya of Muslim bureaucrats. But the mere fact that people who have been defending certain acts now feel they must, for Infidel consumption, seem to be distancing themselves, is a sign that when danger is perceived, there is a drawing-back. It is certain that the mere discussion of bombing Mecca has both good and bas aspects. The bad aspect is that it is the kind of remark that allows many to get on their high moral horse, and huff and puff, and "deplore" this wild man, Tom Tancredo. Anyone can imagine what editorials in The New Duranty Times and The Bandar Beacon deploring Tancredo might look like. But in our Infidel hearts, we are all secretly pleased, and relieved -- are we not? -- that such a discussion of deterrence has at least been begun. For without such a discussion, there is no way to begin to think straight about the problem of Islam world-wide -- not of "terrorism" but of Islam.

Every intelligent Western observer has noted what Tocqueville, who had been in Algeria, referred to as the "morbid" quality of Islam. Churchill, in "The River Wars," had nothing good to say about the foaming-at-the-mouth fanaticism of the Muslim warriors, but he did note that they did not fear death, for the sensual Paradise that awaited the warrior who died in Jihad was a reality.

And because the usual kinds of threats might mean little to fanatics, one has to figure out what might work as a deterrent. In Israel the punishment of destroying houses has some deterrent effect, given that the families of the "martyrs" will suffer -- and some "martyrs"are wiling to die, but don't want their family members left behind to have to build a new home. It is not true that such deterrence does not work. There are other possibliities. Much Muslim behavior inimical to the West can be deterred.

For example, the family that has seized, and treats as its private property, the vast territory of Arabia -- the House of Al-Saud -- both directly or indirectly helps to support, and even help to create, fanatics in two ways. Within Saudi Arabia, its own despotism and corruption causes young Saudis who are enraged by them to embrace, not Jeffersonian democracy, which is un-Islamic, but rather Al Qaeda or other groups, which provide them with the vocabulary, the imagery, the categories that Islam itself supplies to define opposition to a corrupt caliph or ruler. For it does not do, within Islam, to denounce someone as corrupt, or as a despot. The rulers, after all, are the rulers, and the habit of mental submission that Islam incuclates, and the inshallah-fatalism that is within Islam, helps in large part to encourage submission to the despot, however corrupt -- unless that despot can be seen as, defined as, placed in the category of, "Infidel." Then anything and everything can be done to destroy that "Infidel." And that is exactly what happens among those who oppose the Al-Saud, or the Mubarak Friends-and-Family stratokleptocracy in Egypt -- save for a pitiful, nearly nonexistent Western-style secular opposition in the latter, the opposition will always take on a Muslim cast. Muslims can do no other. And the corruption of the Al-Saud helps create the odd scion of plutocrats who, in Muslim terms most nobly, gives it all up to fight for "justice" against the corrupt rulers, but "justice," alas, Muslim-style, with the Muslim worldview, which means that all evil comes from Infidels, and all who are genuinely evil must be defined as, and treated as, Infidels, even if they may claim --- falsely, obviously -- to be Muslims, as do so many of the corrupt princes and princelings of Saudi Arabia.

That is one way the Al-Saud help swell the ranks of the Muslim terrorist groups.

The second way they do so is in building, and paying for the maintenance of, mosques and madrasas all over the world, but especially in the Infidel lands, the Bilad al-kufr, where those mosques, and those madrasas, can encourage the worst brand of Islam (this does not mean that a "milder" brand does not inculcate hatred of Infidels, for it must -- it is a question of with what intensity, with what fervor, with what single-mindedness, the particular brand of Islam inculcates what is common to all of them, part of Islam itself). Nearly $100 billion has gone from the Saudis as part of the propaganda weapon on behalf of Islam, as part of world-wide Da'wa, and to pay for Western hirelings who will do the bidding and promote the interests of, and deflect criticism from, the Saudis as they continue their malevolent activities throughout the world.

The Al-Saud are rational actors. They can be threatened, and forced to cease their support for the mosques and madrasas and hate-filled propaganda. they can be threatened with seizure of their assets abroad. They can be threatend with a total removal of American guarantees, that they assume are permanent, for their safety. They can be threatened with a loss of secure American or other Western refuges if and when they are overturned. They can be threatened with the removal of Western doctors, and teachers, and a refusal to allow their children to study in the West, or for them to find medical care in the West. These are very dangerous threats -- imagine if someone threatened you that you would never again be allowed access to advanced Western medical care. And in the end, if they think they have that ace-in-the-hole, oil -- you can show that you are willing to seize the oil in the al-Hasa province, oil conveniently close to tankers in the Persian (Persian, not Arab) Gulf, and that there are a thousand-and-one ways to deal with this situation. But this requires a complete change of tone to get the Saudi attention. Such attention will not be attained if those who continue to prate about a "strategic partnership" with Saudi Arabia, which one finds in such deplorable examples of the appeasement-of-the-Saudis mindset in the Op/Ed of one Flynt Leverett, described -- even more disturbingly -- as "former senior director for MIddle Eastern affaris at the National Security Council" -- and someone who has clearly been one of those who fails to undersand that Saudi Arabia is not, and never has been, and never can be, the ally of an Infidel country, but that, if treated correctly, certain kinds of behavior on its part can be prevented, and certain other kinds of behavior forced from its rulers.

Congressman Tancredo, in raising the question of what would, or would not, work as deterrence, was performing a great service to discussion. It is of course difficult to predict what bombing Mecca would do. I tend to think it would be far better to discuss all the other kinds of deterrence that one knows will work, on the rational actors or quasi-rational actors within the dar al-Islam. And as for the fanatics, one can consider how to limit access to Mecca, airfield by airfield, port by port, highway by highway, until it should be as remote as the highest Himalayas, or some impassable and steaming jungle, or the frozen wastes of Ultima Thule. Mecca would still be there, but to get to it -- that would be the problem. And that kind of deterrence would be a step-by-step affair.

But the question of the psychology of Muslims -- of their combination of grandiosity and living in some mythical great past, and resentment over the miserable and obviously miserable present, where murderous hatred of Infidels is so often part of some grotesque ten-step Self-Esteem Program for those Muslims who have tasted the West, may even have used drugs or lived as criminals and now wish to go straight, Islamically straight -- needs more examination.

However the debate over this or that kind of deterrence goes, the mere fact that such a debate takes place is good, for it automatically ends certain taboos. It makes clear that this is not a "war against terror" alone but a long campaign, very likely without end unless the migration of Muslims to the West is stopped and reversed (and while hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the U.K. claim to "wish to leave" one does not see any of them leaving -- but more significantly, one has not heard, even from the most antisemitic and anti-Israel brigages, any pleas for them to remain), and unless the unearned and entirely unmerited OPEC oil wealth is so diminished that the Saudis, and the rest of them, can be pushed back into that state of obscurity, poverty, and general irrelevance that they were in before an accident of geology gave them power. In the meantime the Infidels, for their own safety, must work to create those conditions -- or to do nothing to prevent the creation of those conditions -- by which, like those in the Soviet Union who concluced that their own system had failed, Muslims themselves will be forced to confront the evident political, economic, social, and intellectual failures of their own peoples and polities, and will have to attribute those failures, correctly, to Islam itself.

Finally, it is hard for Infidels to judge the effect of a threat on Mecca, or a threat to limit access to Mecca, on Muslims. Who might best have some insight into this? Possibly ex-Muslims themselves, the many articulate and acute students of minds formed by Islam, who managed to undo its manacles, and escape from its closed circle. One wonders what views they would have on the threat to bomb Mecca, or to limit access to Mecca, as something that might work on the groups and groupuscules that, unlike the sneering but carefully calculating members of the Al-Saud, are less subject to the ordinary threats of loss of income, loss of access to all the goods and services of the advanced Infidel world, even loss of life.

Posted by: Hugh at July 28, 2005 9:38 AM

All,

I believe the Tancredo option should be left on the table as retribution for any similar type attack on U.S. soil. Period.

That said, I'm uncertain - and admittedly uninformed - with regard to what the enemy believes the quran says with regard to any "end days" or apocalyptic-type prophesy.

If the book somehow promises the invincibility of Mecca and Medina as sites protected by allah eternally, then certainly their demise would - to the rational - disprove the legitimacy of such prophecy and perhaps the book itself.

But again, to the rational. As has been posted, there's no doubt that many muslims would simply modify their worship and beliefs to accomodate such an inconvenience.

The dilemma seems to be that since these animals don't value much other than death itself on this earth, we desire to find *something* of value to them that could be removed for the purposes of deterrent.

This is why Mecca and Medina - and other holy sites come to mind.

Once they're gone - they're completely gone as a physical presence.

I don't think it would work as intended to stop or even slow jihadist violence.

I do think it would serve our own simplistic desires to take from them a location that is hugely important in return for the loss of the WTC and the thousands of innocents lives lost there.

At least Tancredo has something resembling a plan for retribution that bests the castrated PC responses currently being provided by U.S./U.K. "leadership".

As a deterrent, leave the option on the table. If another attack comes in the U.S., then be prepared to execute the option.

Posted by: NVRambo at July 28, 2005 9:38 AM

Ms. Moneypenny
You are definitly wrong on this one.
Iran will nuke the US or Israel no matter
what. If Isreal is nuked first they may just
set it off and claim it was allah who
destroyed Israel. This is world war III
the longer we take to realize this fact
the more likely mankind will lose.
I feel we may have already lost the
US governemnt is doing nothing about it.
We could have given the Iraqs our Bill
or Rights the first ten. It worked for
us but our government no longer belives
in the first 10. I fear Bush who I voted
for has lost his way and will not realize
the lost opportunities he had.
I hate to say it China may be the only
force in the world with the balls to stop
Islam I think they understand it for what
it is.

Posted by: ecil_man at July 28, 2005 9:42 AM

But, Islamists shouting "death to America" is perfectly ok, and supported by Muslim Clerics who often join in the chanting.

When-oh-when are these media apologists for Islam going to read the Koran and hadith for themselves?

Posted by: Mullahmasher at July 28, 2005 9:44 AM

i do believe that the nuking of mecca would be overkill and heavyhanded. we should simply close mecca as a religious center, if it is within our power. we should also close all mosques that are within our power, such as within the usa.
i believe we must force islam's hand and force every muslim to decide between freedom or islam. if by banning islam we lose access to crude oil, then we need to take the oilfields militarily with whatever allies will join us. china and india hopefully would be interested.
otherwise, if we don't force islam's hand now to see where we actually stand, most or all of moderate islam will eventually side with radical islam and sharia. in fact, no muslim will probably give up islam because islam is a brainwashing, controlling cult of the worst kind.
so to protect our freedom now, as many regions of the earth as possible need to be declared as islam-free zones where even the possession of a koran is banned. remove the legitimacy and the legality of islam. don't support or respect islam in any way. make islam the pariah religion and scorned and ridiculed as a destroyer of life and glorifier of death in every form of media.
if moderate islam is reasonable and considerate, then moderate muslims will lay down their right to have islam as a religion for the good and peace of the world.
if moderate islam is stubborn and indignate about giving up islam as it's culture, then we will know for sure we did the right thing about banning islam worldwide. then we will need a lot of manpower to govern and babysit these islamic territories. let islam go underground in order to follow allah. remove the legitimacy of islam to exist.
there is no need for nukes at this point as i see it. we just need to be firm and resolved in banning the cult of islam. if the more moderate factions of islam will agree with us and go along with us, then we will not have to govern and monitor them.
that is where we are as i see it. force islam's hand to be on our side or against us right now because radical islam is doing the same thing and gaining adherents daily.
if moderate islam is insulted about having to leave islam, they would have been insulted later on anyway when the stakes were higher for the west and freedom.

Posted by: listen to realanswers.net at July 28, 2005 9:47 AM

NUKES!!!!!! No way, there is a better way.
Fill a giant C5 transport with pig fat and spray Mecca and any/all iaslamic sights. Everytime they strike desecrate them with pig fat, spray there graveyard, the dead jihadists and anything else they hold holy. If I remember correctly such desecration stops them from going to Islamic heaven. Hit en where they live - in ther eown beliefs, not ours.

Posted by: Darkwing Duck at July 28, 2005 9:47 AM

Any unconsumed scrathchings will fertilise the ground around Mecca thus improving the soil for horticulture.
Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at July 28, 2005 08:01 AM

The ground in and around Mecca is so evil, nothing will grow there, no matter how much camel poo you mix into the ground.

If Mecca is not the anus of the earth, they have a good view if it from there.

Posted by: Mullahmasher at July 28, 2005 9:48 AM

Re the parallels between the possible destruction of Makkah and that of Jerusalem in 70 and 135 AD, I make the following observations:

The peak Jewish population of the Roman and Persian Empires was around 7,000,000 persons out of perhaps 40 millions. Han China, at the same time, is estimated to have had about 20,000,000. Why, then, isn't the world Jewish population a couple hundred millions by now? I suspect that the destruction of Jerusalem resulted in the pganaization and Christianization of a large portion of the Jews of the time. Judaism also survived the destruction of its geographic center once before, in the early 6th century BC, when Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon conquered the kingdom of Judah and destroyed Jerusalem.

If Islam expects the destruction of Makkah as an eschatological sign, what happens when it's destroyed, the dead remain in their graves, and the sky remains in place? Maybe a lot of Muslims will be ready to see the misrepresentations in the Qu'ran for what they are.

Posted by: Kepha at July 28, 2005 10:21 AM

Killing the main tumor only causes metastatis.

This has shown us This Path and of course arrogance is what blinds our eyes and will eventually lead to our destruction.
Our duty is to attack the wicked who support the propagation of evil.
Everything else will end as a disaster as it is not our charter to directly fight evil.

"We will burn the wicked in the fire of Truth as only This can fight evil."

When all the wicked will have surrounded or joined evil forces, This will force evil to retreat within its retreat.
Then all the faithful will converge to it and everybody in the world will understand the true nature of evil.

The retreat will remain, well guarded as humanity will need to remember all This suffering forever.

This will be in 2048 or This won't be.

Posted by: ila at July 28, 2005 10:32 AM

With regards to parallels to the effects of the loss of the temple by the Jews, yes it might cause Muslims to discard the Haj as part of their faith. But it might also cause them to discard the violent aspects of their religion. In other words, Jewish moderates gained the upper hand after it was shown that the radicals would only fail in their insurrection attempts. Nuking Mecca might cause the same thing with Islam. The moderates might gain prominence and the jihadists fall out of favor.

Beyond nuking Mecca for a WMD attack in the US, I believe we need a policy that publically lays out the consequences for certain jihadist actions. For instance, let's say a dirty bomb is used in a US city. It's not really a massive WMD attack so nuking Mecca would be overkill. How about stating that such an attack will result in the US bulldozing The Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem and turning it over to the Jews to rebuild the temple. Having a list of responses allows two things:

1. Policy is set ahead of time so there isn't endless political wrangling.
2. The jihadists will definitely test the lower end responses to see if we follow through. If we do, the nuke Mecca option suddenly becomes a real threat.

If Muslims are unable to understand a reasonable policy response to a WMD attack, then we are obviously dealing with the insane and need to stamp them out of existence.

Remember in WWII, no power used chemical weapons against anyone who could possibly retaliate in kind.

Posted by: Terrahawk at July 28, 2005 10:33 AM

Propagate This Faith.
This Faith is born on the Internet and spreading through the Internet.

As This Faith only claims Truth and Freedom,
as it claims that all books and prophets are invention of evil,
as it claims the equality of woman and man,
fundamental children rights,
the respect to all animals.
I found nothing bad with This Faith.
On the contrary, I thought it was good for others and for me.

I decided to convert to This Faith which is spreading fast in the world through the Internet and to help propagate This Faith.

I ask you this question :
do you see anything wrong with This Faith ?

This is the Time 07/28/2005.

This is the Faith:

This Religion is Truth and This Church is Freedom
This can be prayed as many, one, or none.
This has no name and can be given any name.
This has created everything.
This creatures are all pure and sacred and all deserve the same rights.
This needs no prophet and raised no prophet: all these are inventions of evil.
This needs no book and inspired no book: all these are inventions of evil
Human union is between one woman and one man.
A human child has the right to have one mother and one father.
evil name is lie, child of jealousy and envy.
The wicked lost their ability to distinguish Good from evil and became evil slaves.
We will burn the wicked in the fire of Truth as only This can fight evil.

This is the Prayer:

I acknowleged the nature of evil.
I will spread the Faith on Earth with all my might.
I will fight the wicked till they come back to the path of Truth or die.
Then peace will come to Earth and This will will be accomplished

Don't talk to evil.
Don't argue with evil.
Don't touch evil.
Don't even approach evil.

Posted by: ila at July 28, 2005 10:39 AM

The Muslim elites aren't stupid. Their plan was created decades ago. They realize that the West eventually will become fed up and learn enough about Islam to do the things that Hugh has proposed. The contemporary jihad is a push to get through their agenda before the oil runs out, while the elite are in catbird's seat and able to blackmail or dupe the West into handing over trillions of dollars and allowing millions to vanguard settlers in to do their worst through natural increase and Da'wa.

Posted by: epg at July 28, 2005 10:46 AM

"I hate to say it China may be the only
force in the world with the balls to stop
Islam I think they understand it for what
it is" ecil_man

well Russia too. and Russia has also a tormented past with China. and Russia has also petrol. unbelievable quantities of petrol and gaz. I ask the americans on the thread - why not switch policy and keep a course of future strategic friendship with Russia? You win a friend against Islam, China and a possible entrance to siberia's riches (by paying of course - which money will go into a western style economy and not fund the islamofascits) ? why not ?

to Kepha. Nevermind why the jews are not as many as the chinese now. I believe the chinese were not subject to 19 centuries of poor existence and wandering. How many killed in Ukraine alone, how many in Russia, Poland, Germany, France etc.? The fact is that muslims could rationalize the bombing of Meccah and carry on their terrorism UNLESS as stated - the destruction of Meccah has some eschatological significance but I still wait to see what silamic sources say that ... it'd be interesting.

To terrahawk - yes moderates or let's say at least not zealots - gained the upperhand after ... 135 AD - i.e. 65 years after the destruction of the temple. It took time. If it takes (IF) as much time for muslim to re-think their doctrine in a more peaceful shape, then the world has indeed hard time ahead. It took a second massive devastation of Israel for the jews to stop forever their revolts. Not one. Two devastations. It's the long haul and we never know whether they will re-think their theology one day ... My point was that they could rethink it but NOT in the way we expect - to leave behind the madness of their doctrines and carry on with the peaceful aspects. It could be that they do NOT change in that way but simply rethink the doctrines in a way to discard the Hajj and continue on the path of Jihad.

Posted by: adullam at July 28, 2005 10:57 AM

Robert-

Some interesting points in your article, though I can't help but feel you're using the opportunity of Tancredo's remarks to (somewhat opportunistically) position yourself against the unfair charges of extremism that have been levelled against you and Jihadwatch because of your blunt-spokenness and candor. But given the stakes involved, I don't think anyone should be trying to play Bill Clinton to Tom Tancredo's Sista' Souljah.

The point about violating our Western notions of justice is important to bring up, but can be quickly dismissed. In extreme situations (whether war, famine, or natural disaster) we revert to utilitarian ethics and the situation upon which Tancredo premised his remarks (i.e. the nuclear destruction of an American city) is nothing if not extreme. In war we accept the fact that despite our smart bombs and best efforts to limit collateral damage civilian casualties will still occur. That did not stop us from invading Afghanistan (rightly), or doing what had to be done in WWII. If a nuclear attack succeeds on the U.S. thanks to weapons provided by the government of Pakistan or Iran would we do nothing or destroy their cities in retaliation? How is this any worse in terms of human suffering than destroying the relatively small citiess of Mecca and Medina? That you think such behavior is "increasingly thorny in this post-Hiroshima, post-Dresden world" makes me smell opportunism, because in all other contexts you attack the same ahistorical, pacifistic, and West-hating lines of thought that are behind such stupid WWII revisionism.

As for the argument from utility, there is really no way to settle this a priori. Yes, the destruction of their two holiest sites could just inflame (or rather spread) Muslim eschatological fury. But your analysis leaves out the cash-nexus of Muslim psychology, which is the need to avoid (though this does not preclude a delight in inflicting) humiliation. Wouldn't the proof of their own impotence by the destruction of that which is most sacred to them be an unbearably searing experience, one to be avoided at all costs? Do you think bin Laden (or any other Muslim) wants to go down in history as the author of such an abjection?

The terrorist's behavior seems insane to us. After all, they certainly know we have the preponderance of military power, including almost half the world's nuclear arsenal with the means to deliver it anywhere. Why does bin Laden attack us then, and think a single lucky nuclear strike by him would destroy the U.S. rather than the Muslim world? The answer, I think, is because he thinks (perhaps rightly) we lack the resolve to retaliate in kind. A public declaration that we in fact do have this resolve would change the calculus of the situation immensely, if not for bin Laden then at least for the "majority of peaceful Muslims" who are in effect the terrorists' collaborators, cheer-leaders, and human shields. The declaration of this policy now has the potential to save millions of lives later on, yet it is a symptom of the sickness of the Western mind that it cannot even be broached in "respected society" without instant, mindless condmenation (referring to others here, not you, Robert).

In my comments on a related thread I suggest execution of terrorists' family members as a way to stop regular, non-nuclear terrorism: http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/007377.php#c113314
If policies like that, combined with immigration reform, are pursued then hopefully all this talk of apocalyptic scenarios will look as quaint in a generation as bomb-shelters from the Cold War look to us now.

PS: Regarding the destruction of the Jewish 2nd Temple- yes, this did not prevent future revolts, but the firm crushing of those revolts ended Jewish militantism for all time. This is a relevant example, since Islam resembles nothing so closely as ancient Judaism.

Posted by: emperor_diocletian at July 28, 2005 11:02 AM

I believe that the Saudis can do alot more to control Jihadists everywhere. They just need a little motivation. Make me President-For-A-Day, and I will send King Fahd a one-page fax. I will tell him to use it as a bookmark for his personal copy of the Qu'ran. The one page would be a printout from a targeting computer in a missile silo in Minot, North Dakota, showing Mecca, Medina, and most of the palaces of the House of Saud. "Flight time over the North Pole is less than 45 minutes. Take whatever action you deem appropriate, Your Highness."

Posted by: SteelGuy at July 28, 2005 11:09 AM

I propose "Counter-Jihad" as the name for the war we are in. This name as the advantage of accuracy, implied strategy and definition of victory.

albion wrote: "Personally I would like the gloves of civility taken off, & for all Islamic leaders around the planet to be told this in no uncertain terms."

Right on, Brother Albion! The purpose of the threat of nuking Mecca is to lay out the consequences of Jihad to the moderate Muslims. They must take control of their societies and defeat the Jihadists or the consequences for them will be too horrific to stomach. In any case, we have needed to stop pussy-footing around and let the Muslims know, that they are playing with fire. We need to let them know, that America will NOT lose this war. The only question is how many deaths it is going to take for the Jihadists to lose.

terrahawk wrote: "...I believe we need a policy that publically lays out the consequences for certain jihadist actions." [snip]
"1. Policy is set ahead of time so there isn't endless political wrangling."
[snip]
"If Muslims are unable to understand a reasonable policy response to a WMD attack, then we are obviously dealing with the insane and need to stamp them out of existence."

For years I've been telling my anti-war friends, that if they oppose war, they ought to be supporting George Bush in his "soft option" to defeat the jihadists. If America is defeated in Iraq, that doesn't mean the end of the war, it means victory for the jihadists and an inevitable escalation on their part. That means the American and Western response will escalate.

I've warned them, that if the Dar al-Harb, ie the infidels, come to the conclusion that Islam cannot be reformed, that as long as Muslims are alive, the Jihad will continue, that will only lead to the deaths of millions, tens of millions and even hundreds of millions of Muslims. The softer option would be to deport Muslims out of Dar al-Harb into the Muslim world, then quarantine them. A part of this policy would be to confiscate the oil fields near oceans and use the oil to finance the war.

In the harder option, the infidel world may skip the quarantine option and go straight to extermination. That is the logic of Global Jihad. So, it is up to the Muslim world to end Jihad to avoid the inevitable consequences.

I'm not advocating anything, I'm just trying to lay out the logic of events. The world was horrified by the bombing of Guernica in 1937 with an estimated 1650 deaths. The firing bombing of Tokyo just 8 years later with 100,000 deaths is virtually unknown. War has its own logic and this needs to be discussed, so that the Jihadists, Muslims and the West continue with eyes wide open. It does no good to fool ourselves, mislead the Muslim world and stumble and bumble our way into a huge tragedy.

Posted by: Jabba the Tutt at July 28, 2005 11:22 AM

emperor_diocletian, I doubt that threatening to execute the families of terrorists would work, since family values in the Muslim world seem a bit strange, to say the least. Wives can be discarded like old shoes, and female relatives are often murdered in "honour killings". Not to mention the fact that parents are proud of their children if they become "martyrs".

Posted by: Doctor Phibes at July 28, 2005 11:24 AM

It took a second massive devastation of Israel for the jews to stop forever their revolts.
_______________

Revolts? JEWS? WTF are you referring to?
_____________________

As always, a devastating attack on Mecca or Medina will be followed by the screams of...
"The Jews did it...The Jews are responsible!"
And, for once, they will be right!!!
Cause you can bet your bottom dollar that I'll be flying the plane!

Dr G Friedman

Posted by: docgary at July 28, 2005 11:38 AM

JtT, I agree that removing Muslims from the West and isolating Islam is the best policy with the least likelihood of massive slaughter. However, almost no one in authority seems to even consider it since they are wed to multiculturalism and tolerance. Muslims realize this and use it to their advantage. So, we'll go on like this until the pressure gets to great and we have anarchy and slaughter.

Posted by: Terrahawk at July 28, 2005 11:39 AM

"Why does bin Laden attack us then, and think a single lucky nuclear strike by him would destroy the U.S. rather than the Muslim world? The answer, I think, is because he thinks (perhaps rightly) we lack the resolve to retaliate in kind. A public declaration that we in fact do have this resolve would change the calculus of the situation immensely"

Perhaps the knowledge that Israel would be certain to respond in kind is what stays massive arab attacks, and just relegates the job, for the present time, to their "palestinian" shock troops. The iranian mullahs are calculating how much they can afford to lose (will the Jews stop at just taking out Teheran?) An Israeli threat against islamic holy sites must be part of the calculus.

Posted by: NonProphet16 at July 28, 2005 11:51 AM

If mecca were destroyed muslims would be huriedly trying to figure out how who did it was an ethiopian
to further prove Mohammed was a real prohet.

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at July 28, 2005 12:23 PM

please see
http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/Checkmate%20-%20How%20Isreal%20Can%20Survive.htm
for the complete paper.
__________________

...."Checkmate" is a blueprint.

The first step is for the Israeli Air Force to attack and destroy the holy mosque in Medina. It is the closest to Israel, and not as important as Mecca's. Destroy the mosque using conventional weapons. Don't touch the city. Don't touch the people. Do it at first light, because Israel may need as many hours of daylight as possible, on that day. Do not do it during a Muslim holy day. Acting very early in the morning ensures fewer casualties. It also ensures the Western leaders will be disturbed from their precious sleep to "handle" the crisis. She should also destroy a Saudi oil rig - only one - as a message to the world.

At the same moment, have the IDF destroy the two mosques on the Temple Mount. Once again, almost nobody needs to get hurt. If possible, set up a close circuit to Ramallah, so that Arafat can watch it without knowing what it is all about. Then within one minute or two, kill him. It is better this way. Arresting and putting him on trial is likely to lead to many deaths or kidnappings of Jews in Israel, and attacks against Israeli interests abroad, in order to free him. On the other hand, it might not.

Why attack both Medina and the Temple Mount? Why not only one? Because if Israel destroys only the Jerusalem mosques, the Muslim reaction will be one of rage. While if Israel destroys only the Medina mosque, the Muslim reaction will be one of fear. Israel needs both feelings to be present - rage and fear......

Posted by: docgary at July 28, 2005 12:27 PM

Why just Mecca? Why not the whole of the Middle East, excluding large swathes of land around Israel?

Of course we would have invented/ discovered the alternative wonder fuel before then.

Posted by: SaveEurope at July 28, 2005 12:31 PM

http://www.beecy.net/frank/

I can see it now just like in the movie with Peter Sellers??

The plane is flying to the target and the mission is real and some cowboy riding the bomb all the way to destruction waving his cowboy hat as if riding a bronco??

Yea HOOOO!!!!

God Bless them Cowboys the mission will be will be done!!!

I also have said won't end the war but it would be a good feeling to those who fight agianst these monsters??

Since the mulsum world has shown their cards??

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45479

Muslim nations throttle
U.N. terror resolution
Criticism of suicide bombers censored by global body's Islamic member states
Posted: July 28, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

The intent was for the U.N. Human Rights Commission "to condemn calls to kill, to terrorize or to use violence in the name of God or any religion."

AND WHAT DID THEY DO??

Roy Brown, president of IHEU, said the censorship is "part and parcel of the refusal by the Islamic representatives at the U.N. to condemn the suicide bombers, or to accept any criticism of those who kill innocent people in the name of God."

YEA HOOO!!!

Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and ALL who Fight with her give them Strength, Wisdom, Sight, and Courage to stay the course to Destroy ALL Islamic Terrorist and ALL who Support them Let Not the World be Deceived by them give the World Courage to get MedEvil on them Amen

PS
Is this not the same thing just a little bigger bomb??

PSS
In Redneck country there is a saying??

Pay Back is a Mother F**ker

YEA HOOOOO!!!!

Posted by: Catherine at July 28, 2005 12:32 PM

The West is fighting an ancient war against a warlike ancient people. When their idols are smashed, they will be forced to consider that they have been praying to the wrong god.

And what was the first thing that Mohamed did when he arrived back to Mecca
He smashed all the idols,and muslims have been doing this every since,smashing churches,shrines and temples forcing civilisations to consider that they have been praying to the wrong god.
So it is time for them to have the same treatment,and what better place than Mecca

Posted by: shiva at July 28, 2005 12:33 PM

Nuke Meca? Perhaps in the future, as a retaliatory, or maybe preemptive, option.

But now first I propose to expell 3/4 of the Muslim population in every Islamic terrorist attack on the West. If we had begun this policy before the London attacks, a population of 10 million Muslims would have been reduced to less that 1 million. Very convenient: our countries are our holy land.

Posted by: Joel Català at July 28, 2005 1:04 PM

Yep.

Robert Spencer:

The way to win a war is to establish a large graveyard and populate it, lavishly, with the enemy. Destroying Mecca is an excellent place to begin ... signaling unequivocally that:

"There is no limit to what we will do to defend the West from islam. This includes the wholesale destruction of muslim holy sites, muslim culture, and the muslim people."

As long as muslims see us holding back, we offer hope that they can prevail - and, so, the terrorism continues. We need to show them what the end of muslim 'civilization' looks like.

Robert, you are a nice guy, but - your background as a cloistered academic is showing. Apparently, you really believe that we can make muslims like us. Count me skeptical.

We can make the muslims fear us - of that, I am certain. I don't need their friendship. Do you?

Posted by: Havoc at July 28, 2005 1:08 PM

The threat, real or imagined, of nuking Mecca is something Muslims understand.
THERE MUST BE A CONSEQUENCE TO THEIR ACTION SHOULD A DIRTY NUKE GO OFF IN ONE OF OUR CITIES!
With all due respect, Mr. Spencer, Your argument that it might have a cause and effect that could make things worse is self defeating.
The West cannot go on forever seeking out individuals and associates of bombings, suicide or otherwise. It does nothing to deter them. In fact, it does everything to incite them and rally others to their cause.
They will not stop from their present course of blackmailing the West into getting what THEY WANT by THEIR THREAT, real and NOT imagined, of their bloody, unmerciless killing, of innocent people.
It is irrelevant to me what they might or might not do. I WANT THEM TO KNOW THAT THEY WILL SUFFER AS MUCH OR MORE THAN WE WILL IF THEY NUKE ONE OF OUR CITIES.

Posted by: infidella at July 28, 2005 1:10 PM

Leaving aside right or wrong -- I sent Tom Tancredo a $100 contribution, just to thank him for casting off the wet towel of political correctness which the Muslims and their Western protectors are slowly suffocating us to death with -- We need to stand up and not be embarrassed by our innate decency to call this enemy out -- POLITICIANS IN WASHINGTON: STOP THE WHITEWASHING of FASCIST ISLAM! -- 'We the People' are getting awfully fed up with your obfuscations. Whatever happened to the idea of Government staying away from sactioning religion? -- Here we have a situation in which all the evidence points towards Islam itself being the instigator of a world wide terror campaign, and our representatives spend most of their time cloaking and masking the truth about this malignancy --

Robert -- I firmly believe that the reticence to even discuss matters such as bombing the piss out of the Saudis only lends backbone to their jihad -- and encourages them to continue waging it -- After all, their hollow condemnations of terrorism, when matched with our Western Leaders cheerleading for Islam is the perfect cover to continue their abominations indefinitely.

The Muslims are going to escalate this into a world wide conflagration anyway -- we're in the midst of it !!! WAKE UP -- why wait for them to hinder our economy through devastating attacks agains our infrastructure? Why wait for them to kill 300,000 or 3,000,000 innocent Americans before we let them know what they're up against? Why continue this charade that there is any such thing as a 'moderate' muslim, or that Islam will ever reform. It is a metastatic malignant tumor which grows every day, and destroys more of the world's healthy tissue... ENOUGH -- TIME FOR IT TO STOP --

Tom Tancredo may not be totally correct, but he should receive the Congressional Medal of Honor for having the guts to say out loud what many of us know in our bones -- our enemies must begin to fear us -- They must learn, and we must be willing to utterly DESTROY them !!! Let's discuss what that would entail -- if not nuking their 'holy sites' then what? WHAT???

Posted by: jsla at July 28, 2005 1:14 PM

Some people feel easy with writing about killing milloions of Moslem by-standers in attacks on Islam the poligion, but how many of our same readers would actually go out and shop-lift?

As Spencer has written now for close to two years, let's think strategically, not some phantastic nonsense about ridding the world in a day of our enemies but of how we might rid our neighbourhoods of one mosque in the course of a couple of years.

Many of us are immigrants or from families of such, and it is in our nature to rove and roam. We look at our neighbourhoods and see Moslems have joined us in a new land. Movement is natural and unstoppable. So, let's move. Not all of us, not many of us, not those of us who are settled and middle-aged and tired, but those who are young and energetic and vibrant and adventurous. Let's do as our forebearers did, and let's go somewhere else to start up again in a new land.

Again, I urge that we invade Sweden.

Malmo is on the edge of becoming the first full-fledged Moslem city in Europe, if reports in the archives here are accurate. Immigrants make it so, and immigrants can make it not so. Immigrants from immigrant lands can migfrate to Malmo and take it as easily as have the migrants from Molsem lands. What they Moslems have we can have, and we can have it by taking it, fighting for it, invading in the guise of tourists rather than as refugees, and then living on the avails of what we can get from Moslems in the illegitimately ruled city of Malmo. Make our enemies finance our project.

Is it a crime to live off the Moslems in Malmo? Not if the rule is illegitimate. If we consider that majority rule is not legitimate simply by virtue of majority, then we can look at Malmo as an enemy state-within-a-state. If a Quisling government under enemy occupation enacts laws against our right behaviour, should we see ourselves as criminals or as law-breakers? The two are not necessarily the same. Would the Swedes be upset? Who knows? And really, who cares?

If counter-invasion is an act of agression, so what? If the end result, the utilitarian act of making more people happy than not, is greater than staying home to write letters, then we should act even if on the face of it we seem to be doing something illegal--but not, I repeat, criminal.

If Swedes are leaving Sweden because of Moslem invaders, we should replace the Swedes and remove the Moslems. No nuking involved, darn it.

And thus, the spread of Modernity will again gradually become the world mission of the West, one nation at a time, even if one city at a time.

If the Moslem populations of Europe are our sources of funding the manifest destiny of the modern West's universality, then it's not a crime to make them pay even if they don't want to. And it's even a legitimate and moral requirement for us to make the Moslems pay for our enterprize.

Everything we take from our enemy is something they can't use against us; and everything we take from them can be used against them. We can make them pay for their own destruction, not by nuking them but by shopping in their stores when circumstances are advantagous, and so on.

And in time, mosque by mosque, we can extend our reach right to the gates of Mecca.

One of us, by the time we reach Mecca, will likely have lost and eye, and it is he whom I would put on a donkey to ride into the city to proclaim himself the new ruler. Now that would be a real victory over Islam.

But let's think strategically. How do we make ourselves so unpleasant in the community that the Moslems will find it easier to leave us their goods and their women and their camels than to stay to fight us? Gee, I can't think of anything.

Posted by: sonofwalker at July 28, 2005 1:27 PM

The only good argument against nuking or conventionally destroying Mecca is the one raised by Dr. Mack above: ESCHATOLOGY: that Muslims would regard any destruction of Mecca as a literal and immediate and supremely important event of the Last Days.

If this is true, such an event with its psychological impact on the Muslim mind could galvanize a billion Muslims to go stark-raving suicidally mad in a Final War of the End of the World (as interpreted in their minds), wreaking mayhem and murder probably not ever seen before in the history of the world.

Hugh a couple of weeks ago questioned my assertion that Islam inculcates the most psychologically intense TOPOLATRY in the history of world religions: look at the Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca) that has been performed for centuries -- MILLIONS of Muslims each year going to Mecca and performing the most anally meticulous rituals that last for days with regard to the sacred spaces of Mecca. No other world religion has such a massively slavish and literalistic rite of pilgrimage.

Posted by: metaxy at July 28, 2005 1:48 PM

docgary said "...so that Arafat can watch it without knowing what it is all about".

Newsflash: Arafat died of AIDS almost a year ago. If he's watching it, he'll be watching it from the deepest pits of h*ll.

As for the article, I like the way Hugh put it: I disagree that nuking Mecca and Medina is the answer, but our current path (attacking Iraq and claiming Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as our friends) is not the answer either. At least the dialogue can begin. How will we defeat this enemy who has declared war on us?

We should realize that before Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, the U.S. public was overwhelmingly opposed to entry to WWII. They were in denial, just as we are today.

Posted by: special_guest at July 28, 2005 1:53 PM

docgary:

I think the Israelis (and the world) would be better off picking off the Iranians' nuke facilities (and the Saudis' too as I suspect they may have them). And this time out, I don't think the usual claque will dare shreik with indignation the way they did when they bombed Osirek in '83. ...or at least not as vigorously.

As deserving as they may be of having their venerated sites demolished, it would serve little purpose other than to further enflame passions and result in more bad PR for the Israelis.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at July 28, 2005 2:13 PM

Tancredo was remarking on what should be done in retaliation to a WMD attack.

The answer:

Anything.

As long as it deterred a further WMD attack.

What else are we doing in this fight if not trying, first of all, to survive? By any means at our disposal?

And to preserve the fundamentals of Civilization: freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of conscience, and freedom of movement... -in essence, the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

Whatever the hell will stop the avowed enemies of Civilization and Freedom, use it.

Or surrender to their unrestrained warfare.

Pussyfooting encourages lunatics.

Iron in the fist smacks them down.

But I thought we'd answered this earlier:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005444.php

(and scroll down)

As the last lines went:

"Turning the old M. in 'Mutually Assured Destruction' (M.A.D.) to Muslim, instead.

Unless they will listen to mere reason.

And that's as likely as a woman ayatollah.".

Keep our 'holy warriors' worrying.

Psy-ops is half the fight.

USE IT!

Posted by: BigSleep at July 28, 2005 2:29 PM

Hugh Chrysostom-

Your suggestions always deserve the most respectful consideration, but the ones from the lower half of your list are a little too operatic in their emotional flourishes, and much too impractical to implement in reality. Placing a cultural/technical/economic embargo on the Gulf Arabs would be emotionally satisfying but little else. Would Europe go along with the denial of medical care to the Muslim-Arab world when it can't seem to bring itself to condemn Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons? And even if such an embargo could be effected, holes and all, what stops the Saudis from simply throwing around their petro-dollars and, as in all other things, importing the needed expertise? It may amuse us to watch the Saudis' fumbling efforts to try and protect with the left hand the experts whose presence in kaffir-free Arabia will so infuriate the young fanatics they cultivate with the right (after the inevitable attacks on the foreigners' compound: doctor heal thyself?) but it will do us little good.

To quote "Dr. Strangelove": "The whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost if you keep it a secret!" Similarly there is no point in a deterence policy against terrorist attacks with nuclear weapons if we do not formulate it NOW rather than later. Hugh, maybe advocacy of the harsh measures needed to defend civilization at this moment fly in the face of your own self-image (and I vouch for it) as a cultivated, "Singing Detective"-watching, civilized person but it really should't. The Romans were the most sophisticated, advanced people of their time. And they knew it. Which is why they never shyed away from the measures needed to protect their civilization.

docgary wrote:

It took a second massive devastation of Israel for the jews to stop forever their revolts.
_______________

Revolts? JEWS? WTF are you referring to?

The reference was to the destruction of the 2nd Temple and later revolts by the Jews against Roman rule. For a gentle introduction to the parallels between ancient Jewish fanaticism and the current Palestininian variety I recommend "Monty Python's Life of Brian".

Doctor Phibes wrote:

I doubt that threatening to execute the families of terrorists would work, since family values in the Muslim world seem a bit strange, to say the least. Wives can be discarded like old shoes, and female relatives are often murdered in "honour killings". Not to mention the fact that parents are proud of their children if they become "martyrs".

But I think it would definitely work! Muslim parents are proud of their shahids in largely the same way Western parents are proud of the sacrifices their soldier children make. It does not mean the child wants the parents harmed. Ex-wives are another thing, but part of the Muslim idea of honor is protecting one's women, which extends as well to sisters, female cousins, etc. Again, the main problem and evil with Muslim societies are their treatment and conception of the outsider, the non-Muslim, the "Other". Internally they are recognizably human, though.

Posted by: emperor_diocletian at July 28, 2005 2:32 PM

Mr. Spencer,
To say I'm disappointed in your weak, dhimmi argument is an understatement. I feel that we've just lost a great warrior on the war against jihad.

Since we now know that you wouldn't support a nuclear counter attack on the enemy, what the hell WOULD you suggest we do after millions, MILLIONS, of Americans die in the name of Islam?

Posted by: PIGMAN at July 28, 2005 2:39 PM

I respectfully disagree with your assesment.

1. Americans over 60% are already really ticked off at muslims and Islam but so far have held back

2. Americans have risked our own sons and duaghters PROTECTING muslims in bosnia, Kuwait, saudia arabia, and now Iraq.

3. The moment any mass casualties are reported in
The following IS going to occurr

A. Every American with a gun is going to go Hunting for ANY Muslim.

B. No Mercy will be shown..

C. Then all the Governemtn officials and laywers who are even PERCIEVED as helping protect the muslims will be dealt with.

D. Then the entire country is going to WAR...
This includes Totally Annilating anything and any country that EVEN SMELLS or Looks Islamic...

I hate the thought of it but i can see something the Muslims dont want to see or Aknowledge
America is Already Angry and now we are ready to PLAY for KEEPS...

Posted by: jingoist at July 28, 2005 3:35 PM

The "heat" that Tancredo is enduring is just more evidence of the diseased mindset of too much of the United States when it comes to the true nature of our enemies.

If anything, Tancredo should have a seat in the Senate for simply stating what most of us have been thinking for years.

God bless a man with the conviction to do the right thing and the will to stand up to the enemies of what's truly decent and good in this screwed-up world.

Posted by: Foehammer at July 28, 2005 4:11 PM

Oh, and I also know now that the deletion of one of my postings yesterday was not my imagination. I know this because Mr. Spencer's stance on this particular matter is evidence that he does not always stand as firmly on the subject at hand as one like myself would like.

But, we all have our own thoughts on the matter and levels of tolerance I suppose.

For me, my patience is worn out with Islam.

Period.

And in my opinion, there is nothing more dangerous than allowing Islam to perpetuate itself longer with some illusion of pacification brought on by some unlikely reformists -- it would only be a means to an end for the Muslims to continue to overpopulate the planet and one day raise their knives again at the throats of our children.

I will not stand by and allow that idiocy to take place without a confrontation.

Posted by: Foehammer at July 28, 2005 4:15 PM

What an interesting board! Thanks to all posters. The threat of retaliatory nuclear destruction in mecca may scare some muslims, but wiping out everything vertical to the horizon and 3 feet of topsoil ( sand... whatever ) will still leave a big chunk of real estate called " mecca " and a religion of death in place. The declassification of islam as a legitimate religion, further exposure of its violent mandates, and an end to the west`s suicidal tolerance of it might begin to remedy things.

Posted by: Fire LT at July 28, 2005 4:19 PM

I try not to repeat myself, but the most compelling argument against destroying Mecca (whether by nukes or conventional missiles) is ESCHATOLOGY, ESCHATOLOGY, ESCHATOLOGY.

Look up the word. Google it + Islam. Muslims believe in the Last Days literally, and it is a powerful psychological factor in what they do.

Posted by: metaxy at July 28, 2005 6:07 PM

Qur’an 3:56 “As for those disbelieving infidels, I will punish them with a terrible agony in this world and the next. They have no one to help or save them.”

OH MY??

Qur’an 5:72 “They are surely infidels who say; ‘God is the Christ, the Messiah, the son of Mary.”

OH MY??

Bukhari:V4B56N814 “There was a Christian who embraced Islam and he used to write the revelations for the Prophet. Later on he returned to Christianity again he used to say: ‘Muhammad knows nothing but what I have written for him.’”

OH MY COULD THIS BE THE MATH THEY TALK ABOUT OH YEA PRYMIDS BUILT WAY BEFORE MO-HAM-OD??

Qur’an 3:54 “‘Lord, we believe in Your revelations [the Torah and Gospels] and follow this Apostle [Jesus]. Enroll us among the witnesses.’ But the Christians contrived a plot and Allah did the same; but Allah’s plot was the best.”

NOW THIS MAKE SINCE IF THEY BELIEVE IN THE END OF THE WORLD??

REMEMBER IN THIER BOOK IT SAYS TO BRING THIS ABOUT AND their god WILL CHOOSE WHO IS WORTHEY???

Bukhari:V4B55N657 “Allah’s Messenger said, ‘Isa (Jesus), the son of Mariam, will shortly descend amongst you Muslims and will judge mankind by the law of the Qur’an. He will break the cross and kill the swine [Jews] and there will be no Jizyah tax taken from non-Muslims. Money will be so abundant no one will accept it. So you may recite this Holy Verse: “Isa (Jesus) was just a human being before his death. On the Day of Resurrection he (Jesus) will be a witness against the Christians.”’”

NOW THIS IS A BIG SUPRIZE TO THOSE WHO ARE CHRISTIAN THAT MULSUMS WOULD TEACH THIS AND THEN SAY SOMETHING ELES TO THEIR FACE??

Qur’an 4.171 “O people of the Book (Christians), do not be fanatical in your faith, and say nothing but the truth about Allah. The Messiah who is Isa (Jesus), son of Mariam, was only a messenger of Allah, nothing more. He bestowed His Word on Mariam and His Spirit. So believe in Allah and say not Trinity for Allah is one Ilah (God)…far be it from His Glory to beget a son.”

SO THEY HAVE BEEN LIEING??

Qur’an 61:14 “O Muslims! Be helpers of Allah: As Jesus the son of Mary said to the Disciples, ‘Who will be my helpers (in the Cause) of Allah?’ Said the disciples, ‘We are Allah’s helpers!’ Then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: But We gave power to those who believed against their enemies, and they became the victorious.”

WHAT DOES THIS SAY ABOUT THE 67 WAR??

OH BUT THEY LIE TO THEIR PEOPLE SAD SAD AND MULSUMS IN THE WEST KNOW THE TRUTH IT IS THE MULSUM WORLD WHO LIVES IN HELL BECAUSE OF THEIR HATE YET INSTEAD OF TELLING THEIR PEOPLE THE TRUTH THEY MAKE WAR???

Qur’an 48:11 “The desert Arabs who lagged behind [in fighting] will say to you (Muhammad): ‘We were engaged in (looking after) our flocks and our families.’ We have prepared for them a Blazing Fire!”

THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE USING TO CALL TO FIGHT NOW!!

Qur’an 4:78 “Wherever you are, death will find you, even if you are in towers built up strong and high! If some good befalls, they say, ‘This is from Allah;’ but if evil, they say, ‘This is from you (Muhammad).’ Say: ‘All things are from Allah.’ So what is wrong with these people, that they fail to understand these simple words?”

Ubl [yellow coward who runs away] USE THIS TO TAKE OUT THE WTC NOT SOME THING HE THOUGHT UP??

Qur’an 4:88 “What is the matter with you that you are divided about the Hypocrites? Allah has cast them back (causing their disbelief). Would you guide those whom Allah has thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah has thrown aside and led astray, never shall they find the Way.

YEA RIGHT LOOK AT EVERY MULSUM COUNTRY A SHIT HOLE!!
” Qur’an 4:89 “They wish that you would reject Faith, as they have, and thus be on the same footing: Do not be friends with them until they leave their homes in Allah’s Cause. But [and this is a hell of a but...] if they turn back from Islam, becoming renegades, seize them and kill them wherever you find them.”

PRETTY CLEAR TO ME??

Qur’an 47:21 “Were they to obey, showing their obedience in modest speech, after the matter (of preparation for Jihad) had been determined for them, it would have been better. Is it to be expected that if you were put in authority and given command that you would do mischief in the land and sever your ties of kinship. Such men are cursed by Allah. He has made them deaf, dumb and blind.”

AGAIN CLEAR WHAT IS HARD TO UNDERSTAND THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE TEACHING??

Qur’an 4:97 “Verily, when angels take the souls of those who die wronging themselves (by staying home), they say: ‘In what (plight or engagement) were you?’ They reply: ‘Weak on the earth.’ Such men will find their abode in Hell, an evil resort!”

THEY TEACH IF YOU AINT FIGHTING YOU IS A WHIMP GET IT??

Qur’an 4.:8 “Except those who are feeble—men, women and children—who cannot devise a plan nor have the means or power. These are those whom Allah is likely to forgive.”

SO WHY IS IT THAT THE ISLAMIC TERRORIST KILL IRAQI CHILDREN BECAUSE THEY ARE YELLOW COWARDS!!

Qur’an 9:38 “Believers, what is the matter with you, that when you are asked to march forth in the Cause of Allah (i.e., Jihad) you cling to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? Unless you march, He will afflict and punish you with a painful torture, and put others in your place. But you cannot harm Him in the least.”

YEA more Islamic terrorist dead TODAY BY THE USA & NEW IRAQI ARMY NOW WHO IS ON GODS SIDE?
NOW I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THEY AINT FIGHTING FAIR AND THIS IS WHAT MOST IN THE WEST CAN'T GET THEIR HEADS AROUND??

BETTER TO LEARN TO FIGHT WITH STRENGTH AND WIN!!

Qur’an 9:45 “Only those ask for exemption (from Jihad) who believe not in Allah and whose hearts are in doubt, so that they are tossed to and fro. If they had intended to march out to fight, they would certainly have made some preparation and readied their equipment; but Allah was averse to their being sent forth; so He made them lag behind. ‘Sit you among those who sit.’ If they had marched with you, they would not have added to your (strength) but only (made for) discord, spying and sowing sedition. There would have been some in your midst who would have listened to them. But Allah knows well those [peace-loving Muslims] who do wrong and are wicked.”

MAY BE WE NEED RINO SHE HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DAVID KORISH AND HIS CULT??

BURNED THEM TO THE GROWN AND THEN SAID BUT WE WERE PROTICTING THE CHILDREN??

Qur’an 9:48 “They had plotted sedition before, and upset matters for you until the Decree of Allah [to fight] became manifest, much to their disgust. Among them are many who say: ‘Grant me exemption to stay back at home (exempted from Jihad). And do not tempt me [with promises of booty].’ Have they not fallen into temptation already? Indeed, Hell surrounds them.”

WHO ARE THESE MONSTERS WHO SAY IT IS OKAY TO KILL IRAQI CHILDREN? FROM SAUIDI ARABIA EGYPT JORDAN PALESTINIANS, SYRIA, ENGLAND, FRANCE, GERMANY,? YES WESTERN MULSUMS WHO LIVE IN FREEDOM CHOOSE TO GO KILL IRAQI CHILDREN WHY????????

Qur’an 9:75 “Some of you made a deal with Allah, saying, ‘If You give us booty we shall pay You the tax.’ But when He gave them booty, they became greedy and refused to pay. As a consequence of breaking their promises, Allah filled their hearts with hypocrisy which will last forever.”

COULD THIS BE THE UN AND THE OIL FOR FOOD OR THE ARAB LEAGE WHO HOLD THE IRAQI PEOPLE PRISNOR TO THE YELLOW COWARDS?

Qur’an 9:77 “He punished them by putting hypocrisy in their hearts until the Day whereon they shall meet Him, because they lied to Allah and failed to perform as promised. Allah knows their secrets. Those who slander and taunt the believers who pay the zakat (for Allah’s Cause) voluntarily and throw ridicule on them, scoffing, Allah will throw back their taunts, and they shall have a painful doom. Whether you ask for their forgiveness or not, (their sin is unforgivable). If you ask seventy times for their forgiveness Allah will not forgive them.”

THINK ABOUT ALL THE MONEY THE WEST PAYS TO MULSUMS BECAUSE THEY ARE LAZY AND CAN'T GET OFF THEIR ASS AND WORK FOR THEM SELVES??

OH THATS RIGHT JIZZI TAX????

Qur’an 9:81 “Those who stayed behind rejoiced in their inaction behind the back of the Messenger. They hated to strive and fight with their goods and lives in the Cause of Allah. They said, ‘Go not forth in the heat.’ Say, ‘The fire of Hell is fiercer in heat.’ If only they could understand! So let them laugh a little, for they will weep much as a reward for what they did. If Allah brings you back (from the campaign) to a party of the hypocrites and they ask to go out to fight, say: ‘You shall never go out to fight with me against a foe. You were content sitting inactive on the first occasion. So sit with the useless men who lag behind.’ Do not pray for any of them (Muhammad) that die, nor stand at his grave. They rejected Allah and disbelieved His Messenger. They died in a state of perverse rebellion.”

SAUDI ARABIA WHO WILL NOT COME TO THE AID OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE WHO FIGHTS THE YELLOW MONSTERS WHO CUT OFF AMERICANS HEADS AND IRAQI CHILDRENS HEADS BUT SUPPORT THE MONSTERS?
WHAT THEY TEACH DON'T FEEL SORRY SO IF WE HIT THEM??

Qur’an 9:85 “And let not their wealth or (following in) sons dazzle you or excite your admiration. Allah’s plan is to punish them with these things in this world, and to make sure their souls perish while they are unbelievers. When a surah comes down enjoining them to believe in Allah and to strive hard and fight along with His Messenger, those with wealth and influence among them ask you for exemption from Jihad. They prefer to be with (their women), who remain behind (at home). Their hearts are sealed and so they understand not.”

PRETTY CLEAR TO ME??
IF YOU AINT GOT THEM BUY THEM AND LOCK AND LOAD???

Qur’an 9:93 “The (complaint) is against those who claim exemption [from fighting] while they are rich. They prefer to stay with the (women) who remain behind (at home). Allah has sealed their hearts. They are content to be useless. Say: ‘Present no excuses: we shall not believe you.’ It is your actions that Allah and His Messenger will observe. They will swear to you by Allah, when you return hoping that you might leave them alone. So turn away from them, for they are unclean, an abomination, and Hell is their dwelling-place, a fitting recompense for them.”

PRETTY CLEAR TO ME IF YOU AINT FIGHTING??

SO THIS IS WHY TAKEN THEM OUT FRIST IS SO IMPORTANT I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD WAIT FOR A COUPLE OF MILLIN TO BE KILLED BY MULSUMS TO TAKE ACTION??
I THINK 3000 IN NYC WAS ENOUGH FOR ME TO DESTROY OUR ENEMY!!

Qur’an 9:97 “The Arabs of the desert are the worst in unbelief and hypocrisy, and most fitted to be in ignorance of the command which Allah hath sent down to His Messenger. Some of the Bedouins look upon their payments (for Allah’s Cause) as a fine and wish disasters to fall on you (so that they might not have to pay). Yet on them be the disaster of evil.”

WHAT THEY USE TO BRAINWASH THEIR PEOPLE IF YOU SUFFER TO BAD IF YOU DON'T FIGHT YOU WILL SUFFER LOOK AT ALL MULSUM COUNTRY'S SH-T HOLES EVEN WITH ALL THAT MONEY WHY BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY BELIEVE....

PROBLEM IS THEY WILL NEVER JUST KEEP TO THIER SAND BOX AND THEY DON'T PLAY WELL WITH OTHERS AND KILL THE OTHER KIDS??

WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE THESE MONSTERS KILL???
SHAME ON THE HUMAN RIGHTS LIKE WHERE WERE THEy ON THE 300,000 GRAVES OF saddam[yellow coward found in a hole don't shoot i'm a coward]THESE PEOPLE MAKE ME SICK BUNCH OF LIB'S!!!
WAKE UP PEOPLE THIS IS WHAT THEY TEACH THEIR CHILDREN!!!

The truth about what Mulsums believe??
Read and learn about the peace they bring to your door??

Tabari VII:148 “Amr said, ‘Let’s wait here until the cry has died down. They are sure to hunt for us tonight and tomorrow. I was still in the cave when Uthman bin Malik came riding proudly on his horse. He reached the entrance to our cave and I said to my Ansar companion, ‘If he sees us, he will tell everyone in Mecca.’ So I went out and stabbed him with my dagger. He gave a shout and the Meccans came to him while I went back to my hiding place. Finding him at the point of death, they said, ‘By Allah we knew that Amr came for no good purpose.’ The death of their companion impeded their search for us, for they carried him away.”

Tabari VII:149 “I went into a cave with my bow and arrows. While I was in it, a one-eyed man from the Banu Bakr came in driving some sheep. He said, ‘Who’s there?’ I said [lied], ‘I’m a Banu Bakr.’ ‘So am I.’ Then he laid down next to me, and raised his voice in song: ‘I will not believe in the faith of the Muslims.’ I said, ‘You will soon see!’ Before long the Bedouin went to sleep and started snoring. So I killed him in the most dreadful way that anybody has ever killed. I leant over him, struck the end of my bow into his good eye, and thrust it down until it came out the back of his neck. After that I rushed out like a wild beast and took flight. I came to the village of Naqi and recognized two Meccan spies. I called for them to surrender. They said no so I shot and arrow and killed one, and then I tied the other up and took him to Muhammad

Ishaq:434 “Amr and an Ansari waited until they were asleep. Then Amr killed them, thinking that he had taken vengeance for the Muslims who had been slain. When he came to the Messenger, he told him what had happened. The Prophet said, ‘You have killed men for whom I shall have to pay blood-money.’”

THE BLOOD MONEY IS TO CRY NOW ABOUT THE SUICIDE BOMBERS WELL THEY ARE THE MONSTERS DO NOT CRY FOR THE KILLER CRY FOR THE VICTIM DID WE CRY FOR HITLER??
TORTURE:

Qur’an 5:33 “The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and His Prophet and make mischief in the land, is to murder them, crucify them, or cut off a hand and foot on opposite sides...their doom is dreadful. They will not escape the fire, suffering constantly.”

READ IT AND WEEP FOR THOSE WHO THESE MONSTERS HAVE KILLED BY THEIR BOOK PEAR,BERG,JOHNSTON,HENSLEY,BISLEY,HEAGAN,AND THE LIST GOES ON MANY IRAQIS MEN FROM NEPAL FROM THE PHILLIPENS AND JAPAN AND HOW MANY IN OUR LANDS??

Tabari VIII:122/Ishaq:515 “The Prophet gave orders concerning Kinanah to Zubayr, saying, ‘Torture him until you root out and extract what he has. So Zubayr kindled a fire on Kinanah’s chest, twirling it with his firestick until Kinanah was near death. Then the Messenger gave him to Maslamah, who beheaded him.”

AGAIN THIS IS WHAT THEY TEACH THEIR CHILDREN AROUND THE WORLD!!

Bukhari:V4B52N260 “Ali burnt some [former Muslims alive] and this news reached Ibn Abbas, who said, ‘Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, “Don’t punish with Allah’s Punishment.” No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, “If a Muslim discards his Islamic religion, kill him.”’

YES THEY WILL NOT LET THEM BE FREE??

Qur’an 48:27 “If the Muslims had not been there, We would have punished the unbelievers with a grievous torture.”

Qur’an 9:5 “When the sacred forbidden months for fighting are past, fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”

THIS MEANS WE CAN GIVE NO QUATER??

Qur’an 5:37 “The [Christian] disbelievers will long to get out of the Fire, but never will they get out there from; and theirs will be an enduring torture.”

EXPLAINS ITS SELF

Tabari IX:6 “The chief sheep tender sent out spies to obtain intelligence. But they came back with their joints dislocated. When he asked what had happened, they said, ‘We saw white men on black horses. Before we could resist, we were struck as you see us now.”

THIS IS CAIR AND THE HUMAN RIGHTS THAT HAS BEEN SWADED BY THE MONEY OF TERRORIST??

Qur’an 8:12 “Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: ‘I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.”

SO TO THEM THE BOMBERS ARE DOING THIS
THIEVERY & SLAVERY:

Qur’an 8:1 “They ask you about the benefits of capturing the spoils of war. Tell them: ‘The benefits belong to Allah and to His Messenger.’”

Ishaq:327 “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”

SO THEIR BOOK SAYS ISRAEL HAS THE RIGHT TO SLAUTER THE PEOPLE WHO WANT THEIR LAND

Tabari VII:64/Ishaq:307 “The Messenger of Allah gave orders concerning the contents of the camp which the people had collected, and it was all brought together. Among the Muslims, however, there was a difference of opinion concerning it. Those who had collected it said, ‘It is ours. Muham