The Case for Nuking Mecca

In this post I make the case that nuking Mecca would be a rational deterrent to radical Islamists bent on using WMD against American civilians. However, even if there is no deterrent effect, attacking Mecca and wiping out the central locus of Islamic ritual worship may be in the long-term interests of the US and Occidental world.

Ace: What would we do if we get nuked? Continue to "hunt down the terrorists" who nuked us? At what point does the desire to survive outweigh the desire to be merciful and sparing in the use of force?

Bill Whittle: If a suitcase nuke detonates in Times Square, or Long Beach harbor, or outside the Capitol building, what do we do? Nuke Mecca? Incinerate Damascus? Because – so help me God, I tremble to say it – that is exactly the response our enemies would hope for. They care not a whit about their own people because they have no allegiance to anyone but themselves and their vision of a vengeful and bloodthirsty Allah.

In response to Bill Whittle's and Ace's considerable thought on how you deter terrorists, I thought I'd add a couple of thoughts that have been ruminating between my ears for awhile now.

Let me make a couple of points first. One: I do not advocate using nuclear weapons. Two: I do not advocate killing Muslims or any other follower of any religion. Three: I do not imagine in any way possible the US government actually doing this--or even thinking it. Four: These are rudimentary thoughts. This post is used as a sounding board only. Much of what I say may be wrong and all is subject to revision. The purpose of this post is to start a conversation.

First point: Bill's major argument about deterring terrorists is well taken and mostly on the money. I think he's right, for the most part: you cannot deter these guys, only defeat them. And if incinerating Damascus were the only threat we could use to deter terrorists then certainly a MAD scheme would not work in this new Cold War we find ourselves in.

However, Mecca is not Damascus. It plays a central role in Muslim worship. Five times a day Muslims pray toward it. All Muslims who have the means are expected to make the Hajj--a pilgrimage to Mecca which revolves around the Kaaba stone. The Kaaba stone is really the reason Mecca is considered holy. Muslims believe the site was used for worship as far back as Adam and that the shrine around the stone was first placed there by Abraham (Ibrahim). There is a 12 mile zone around the stone that infidels are restricted from entering. It's that holy. No non-Muslims near it. In fact, without Mecca and the Kaaba stone, Islam would be very different.

Mecca, then, is quite unlike any other place in the world for Muslims. It is an entire city dedicated to Muslim worship. A place set apart. A holy place. It is an entire city that is thought to be the Temple of God.

Islamist terrorists also consider Mecca the holiest place in the world. It is central to their mode of worship. They face it when they pray. They too believe they must make the hajj. If we take them at their word, then the reason they commit terrorist acts is because they take their religious convictions so seriously. When they kill us, it is because they believe that this is what their God wants them to do.

So, ask yourself the question again: Can terrorists be deterred from using WMD against American targets?

Maybe they can. If Islamic extremists really love their religious institutions in the way that they claim they do, then pointing an ICBM at Mecca may not be the most irrational thing to do. They may not care if the rest of the world goes up in a nuclear mushroom cloud, as Bill points out, but Mecca is not the rest of the world. Would they really risk blowing up New York City if they believed the consequences of such an action would be a 30 kiloton nuclear explosion over the Kaaba stone? After all, the nuclear destruction of Mecca would end Islamic forms of worship as they presently exist.

If I might misquote Sting for a moment, "Is it such a crazy thing to do, if the Terrorists love their Mecca too?"

Second point: Why would destroying Mecca have potentially beneficial long-term affects to US and Occidental interests?

I have already made the case that Mecca is central to Islamic forms of worship. Mecca, I have argued, is a Temple City. Although many Muslim theologians will deny that any place is holy in Islam, there is at least a de facto holiness ascribed to the area surrounding the Kaaba stone. In many ways the city of Mecca is central to Islam in just the same way that the Temple of Solomon was central to ancient Judaism. It is this similarity which is so striking, and why the destruction of Mecca might do to Islam what the final destruction of Herod's Temple in Jerusalem did to Judaism. While the bloody events surrounding Rome's sacking of Jerusalem are indeed disgusting and tragic, that event forced Jews to rethink their relationship with God. More importantly, that event forced Jews to rethink their relationship with their fellowman.

Without wishing to reduce all of Jewish history or life to one paragraph, and thus leaving out the many facets of ancient Hebrew worship, let me go ahead an do that anyway (with many apologies up front--and welcoming any corrections or differing opinions). Ancient Judaism had a legal structure which was similar to Islamic sharia in that they both unify the religious codes thought to be handed down by God with secular authority. In fact, the Old Testament laws seem just as draconian as any I would find in sharia. There is just something about stoning adulteresses that I kind find of harsh, that's all. I know such applications of Mosaic law were probably rare, but Muslims would argue the same thing about the strict application of sharia law in the ideal Islamic state.

Ancient Judaism also had another commonality with Islam: worship was centered on a holy place of ritualistic practice. After the destruction of the Temple, though, Jews had to ask new questions about the meaning of being holy. Stateless, they found that strict religious codes of conduct could not be enforced in the same way as before. While the Jewish Diaspora had already begun the process of transforming Judaism, the final destruction of Temple centered worship forced this transformation on a broader scale.

Jews found that God no longer had a place to reside in. Jews found that they could no longer perform the rituals required by God to be purified. Jews found that they could no longer enforce God's law. Jews found that their specialness was different than they had previously supposed. Worship changed. Everything changed.

What I propose is simply this. Would destroying Mecca begin a similar process for Muslims? Perhaps only the threat of destroying Mecca would be enough.

Radical Muslims believe they are in a race to bring about the world wide Caliphate. They believe that Muslims are destined to rule the world. What I propose is simple: show them that they cannot rule the world. Show them that Allah is not on their side--at least, not in the way that they believe.

Osama bin Laden once famously said that people will choose the strong horse over the weak horse. What if Islam is shown to be the weak horse? What if one of the central tenants of Muslim worship, the hajj, was gone? Would this not force some serious rethinking in the Islamic world?

Today we are told by Muslims that the true meaning of jihad is internal struggle. Unfortunately, the actions of too many Muslims shows that they believe jihad means armed struggle against the infidels. Destroying Mecca may have the long-term affect of convincing radical Muslims that Allah really doesn't want sharia law around the world. That all that stuff about killing the infidels in the Quran--that's all metaphor.

After all, if Muslims can be convinced that the whole hajj thing is just metaphor, then what else might they consider as metaphorical? Perhaps jihad. Perhaps sharia. Perhaps the global Caliphate.

These are just some thoughts. No one should take them too seriously.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:54 PM


1 Very well thought out. I appreciated it. That said, lets start the timer to see how long it takes for you to be intentionally taken out of context and harangued.

BTW, except for the peoples of Caanan, you don't see alot of Jewish jihad. Just my two sheckels.

Posted by: gordon at October 06, 2004 05:41 PM

2 The rock stuck into the corner of the Ka'aba is a meteorite, right?
So it's portable - Mecca is simply the rock's most recent resting place.

Posted by: -keith in mtn. view at October 06, 2004 06:24 PM

3 Would like to think it would work but I doubt it. Islam Extremists will merely come up with some such nonsense that Mecca, being a "spiritual" place is not of this earth as such and so even though it doesn't physically exist, that doesn't stop them facing the direction of where it has always resided "spiritually".

In any event, the whole concept of religion is based on things that do not exist in reality, I don't see why the disappearance of a stone or a whole location should stop them believing in nonsense.

That all said, I think you're right and we should do it just to see what happens. It couldn't make things any worse.

And if a few Muslims come round to thinking, "Actually, it was just a stone..." all the better.

Posted by: Red Devil at October 06, 2004 06:29 PM

4 Nuke Mecca.... Okay, suppose that we do, bust a cap a quartermile over the city in retaliation for a strike against one of our population centers? And? You want to get the point across, right? Bust another over the same locale a day later and one more the next day.
Part of the reason that our troops are still having to fight is simply because the Iraqi army and insurgents were beaten but, they weren't devastated. We have lost that edge, that ability to devastate an entire country. The last war that was prosecuted in a correct manner ended in August 1945. You just don't win, you must destroy your enemies will to fight.

Jihad? Big deal. You stomp em hard and they won't fight. It's been proven time and again.

Posted by: Dick at October 06, 2004 06:31 PM

5 Without reading the whole thing, destroying Mecca and the Hajj highway should have been thought of a long time ago - that and a few other places. Maybe it's time we jihaded them

Posted by: firstbrokenangel at October 06, 2004 06:47 PM

6 I think nuking mecca would prove to the muslims that allah is impotent, not omnipotent. Proving the American military is more powerful than their god, should cause them to think about islam and it's inherent insanity.

Posted by: Phil at October 06, 2004 06:51 PM

7 Aren't we going back to the "nuke 'em all" mentality on the other forum, when we were so outraged by the beheading of the first of the three hostages, Armstrong?

If we thought it would do any good, wouldn't we have done it by now? And, as another poster said recently, we nuked during WWII, but did it stop future wars from other countries from invading us? NO. You'd think so, but it didn't. The wars and hatred continues: witness 9/11.

Anyone who thinks Iraq wasn't involved in some way should listen to O'Reilly's Spin Zone. Zarqawi travelled all over the place, including Afghan., Bagdad, Iraq, etc. He trained future terrorists. He was shot in the leg by American forces and was treated in a hospital known to treat Al Qaeda members. If he wasn't one of them, do you think they would have treated him there?

Bush did have a reason to go to Iraq. When invading Afghan. didn't do any good, it was time to move onto Iraq. It's not just hunting Osama, it's snuffing all these bastards out. Problem is, how DO you snuff them all out?

Okay, for argument's sake, we nuke every country we think hates us, or is terrorist related, then what? We cannot be fooled into thinking we've got em all. There are cells in this very country, training for the next big "attack", whenever that may be.

I feel for the current administration and whoever leads this nation for the next 4 years!!! Does Kerry think he can do any better should he win? I doubt it.

This is an invisible enemy.

Posted by: Laura at October 06, 2004 07:22 PM

8 "Jews found that God no longer had a place to reside in. Jews found that they could no longer perform the rituals required by God to be purified. Jews found that they could no longer enforce God's law. Jews found that their specialness was different than they had previously supposed. Worship changed. Everything changed.

I won't argue all of the points you made, Rusty, but will point out that Jews never thought of the or a Temple as where G-d resided. The Temple was home to Torah which was generally carted around in portable Arks on the backs of donkeys or camels or carried by men. It's the Torah that has the importance, not the building. An Ark was installed in David's palace, deemed a "Temple" and Jewish tribes gathered there as the Temple was the center of Jewish life as it was known then and just like they are today. Temples started out more as a center for learning than as a place of worship but, then, people worshiped too.

No, everything didn't change with the destructions of the Temple or the Diaspora but enough did change to give us another way to go .. because we were forced to and had this weird survival instinct. The "strong horse" won in the case of the Jews. We survive today despite all.

BTW, remnants of the Temple are still in Jerusalem .. under that mosque .. that's why we pray at the Western Wall. It's symbolic because Jerusalem was then and has been the only capitol city the Jews have ever had .. not necessarily for religious purposes.

Also, our reference is "Original Text" or "Hebrew Scriptures", not old testament and ours are in the original ancient languages which differ somewhat from other language translations of them. Talmud is the explanation of our ancient laws which we still abide by today .. having had sense enought to bring them into new times and places throughout history, not by literal interpretation. Torah was and is meant to be fluid and open-ended, not literal. Man evolved in society (not because of the Temple's destruction) enough to understand the stories between the letters (of the language).

I wouldn't say nuke Mecca or Medina but carpet bomb them to smitherenes just once. See if a Phoenix arises from the ashes and has better manners this time around. The human instinct for survival is very strong. I would also take that rock and stick it where the sun don't shine of the first cleric who started that incidious rock throwing. Talk about a throw back to ancient times. What the hell will they do if they ever run out of rocks to throw? ;-)

Posted by: bj at October 06, 2004 07:39 PM

9 You brave man.

Posted by: Salman Rushdie at October 06, 2004 09:11 PM

10 What I would like to see is some tit-for-tat start happening. How about some American militants to kidnap some Iraqi transplants and threaten to behead them if they touch another hair on our people's head. And here's the key. FOLLOW THROUGH.

I spent some time over in Saudi Arabia. In Riyadh, near the old palace, there is a town square called Deera Square. It's also called chop chop square. They still hold regular criminal sentencings there and chop off hands and heads. This is how arabs deal with crime, and they consider the allied forces criminal trespassers.

I know this will never happen, and the humanitarian in me wishes no one else harm. But, this has to end. And to end it, we will have to win by force and fear.

Posted by: Ricky V at October 06, 2004 09:14 PM

11 No, No, No, No, NO!

This is so wrong it left me brain stunned and I have not yet regained my full intellectual capacity but here's a thought or two:

1) It would turn a fifty year war into a 200 year war because it would push over everyone to the other side. I believe in our Muslim allies in liberty, whether they be the Palestinians killed for advocating a renounciation of the right of return, or the Yemeni editor in jail for exposing corruption in search of a truer democracy or the Bangladeshi editor killed for the same reason, the Saudi reformers and the Iranian reformers, the Syrian Kurds: these are our unseen allies. They have a critical role and with the correct help, and their help, we can turn a fifty year war into a thirty year war.

2) I'm the one who believes Islam is what it is percieved to be by the particular Muslim involved. If a billion Muslims believed in bin Laden's definition of jihad, we'd all be dead. I am quite convinced that the majority's experieince is a personal one and like other religions, it provides a moral frame work, values, and a reason to sacrifice for the good of society. It may be that the current jihad will result in a reformation or a secularization, but that natural process of adjusting dogma to reality is only inhibited and stymied by the external conceptualization that the whole religion is worthless. What's needed in the areas of the greatest extremism is literacy, so they can read the Koran for themselves and not depend on crazy power hungry clerics to tell them what it says.

3) The Jews think they are the chosen people, Christians say if you don't accept Jesus and baptism you don't get to heaven, and Muslims think that Mohammed was the final prophet. While many have fairly criticized Presient Bush for declaring a war on terrorism and not radical Islam, it is also true that what we are stiving for here is a new regilious, not political, pluralism, a post modern allience of all civilians against all terrorists, against all breeches of states power, against inter-national constructs that allow no voice for civilians. Religious pluralism would postulate that all Gods love all good parents, and all children equally.

Posted by: Jane at October 06, 2004 09:37 PM

12 With all due respect, you can't be serious, Rusty.

The best way to deter terrorists is to give them a reason to live. I don't mean the ones already committed to jihad - they have to be killed. But the terrorists of the future, the young Muslim men who have not yet been recruited, have to have a future worth looking forward to. This ideology could never exist in a free society with egalitarian opportunities for prosperity, and the rule of (secular) law. These societies are still formed around 9th Century ideas. Some of these people are still organized into tribes, for crying out loud. Give them democracy, give them capitalism, give them secular government, and kill the ones who seek to thwart those goals.

Assuming the Afghan elections are successful and their fledgeling democracy takes off, that country will not be a source of terror in the world. No democracy ever is. Iraq is on its way there, too.

Millions of these people live under the thumb of tyrants who sell them anti-Semitism as a scapegoat for the ignorance, poverty, and backwardness in which they suffer. Get rid of the tyrants and you'll get rid of much of the misery. Get rid of the misery, and you'll get rid of the need for a scapegoat. Get rid of the scapegoat, and you get respect for differences and secular government.

We're doing exactly what should be done. This is not a short-term fix. We face the prospect of many more attacks here before the job is done. And we can't forcibly liberate the entire Middle East. But Afghanistan and Iraq are a good start. Iran can't be far behind. It's the old Communist domino-theory, only this time for the cause of freedom.

And maybe it won't work. In which case, nothing will, and we're all doomed. Which I don't believe.

Posted by: Johnny Walker Red at October 06, 2004 10:23 PM

13 Three questions:

The goal is to cause a secular reformation among Muslims, right?

Do you believe that nuking their holiest shrine will facilitate this?

Are you speaking metaphorically or have you lost your mind?

Posted by: Leopold Stotch at October 06, 2004 11:34 PM

14 "If a billion Muslims believed in bin Laden's definition of jihad, we'd all be dead."

Actually, they would. Nukes aside, a fully militarized US would easily be able to wipe them out.

For those asking Rusty if he's lost his mind, please differentiate between doing it as retaliation and "for their own good." The former should not be beyond the pale. The latter is still and interesting intellecutal exercise.

Posted by: Dylan at October 07, 2004 12:25 AM

15 And the Vatican, Canterbury, St. Basil's, Salt Lake City's Temple, the National Cathedral, and the Redundant Life Free Will Holy Ghost Pentecostal Church in Iron Stob, Oklahoma all get visits from swarthy guys in bulky vests within a week.

That may be inevitable anyway. But it's a guaranteed retaliation if we nuke Mecca.

Posted by: See-Dubya at October 07, 2004 01:16 AM

16 OK, has Rusty lost his mind, with all the chemicals in the air today, probably, I lost mine YEARS AGO and I haven't had more fun than now since then. That said, I think some-times that a catastrophic event is not an all too horrible concept to THINK ABOUT! What is worse, thinking that you will be shot if you commit a crime, or getting shot? We do far worse things to ourselves when we think about what the consequences of our actions are than others could do to us. That is evident in horror movies (now and then). Think about the worst part of the scariest movie you've ever seen, quite possibly you're thinking of something you imagined, because all that was on the screen was nothing at all. A director will show the "villian" behind the "victim" then the screen goes dark and you hear a scream. No one could EVER create something that is the "worst thing immaginable" to everyone, so they depend on the individual to scare the daylights out of themselves (kinda makes you want to quit paying for that doesn't it). As for Rusty's idea, first off, the discussion was started, so he succeeded there, but as he said, and other's agreed with, wouldn't merely the THREAT of "nuking mecca" do the job? I agree that the physical place isn't worth the dirt it's made of, but it's what the individual person associates with it that gives the power. So, in order to "save mecca" would these "jihadis" really lay down their (errrr...) bombs? Worth a try or at least the thought of trying, in my book anyway.

Posted by: Smoke Eater at October 07, 2004 06:52 AM

17 I think nuking Mecca and Medina and the destruction of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem are all a great start.

What some of the "peace freaks" here do not understand is that we are not dealing with Sweden and Canada. We will eventually have to destroy their religion before Islamic terror ends.
The "nuanced" and well reasoned approach advocated by some here will only result in many more deaths. Islam is the enemy of Western civilization and they will never cease in their attempts to destroy us as long as most Muslims draw breath.

The destruction of Islam must begin immediately and we should not wait for the mushroom cloud over America. That will surely happen as soon as the radicalized Muslims can obtain a device.

Posted by: Jimmy The Clam at October 07, 2004 06:58 AM

18 I hate to say it but you guys are starting to sound like two high schoolers who are picked on, then plan to cause this "big awakening" in your tormentors by bringing guns and "showing them" your brand of justice.
Don't act so lame guys you know just as anyone else nukes will never be used unless there is a nation level war declared, i.e. Iraq's missle attack's on Israel during the first gulf war.
That or you might want to continue living in those deep underground bunkers and keep watching those tattered copies of "Red Dawn".

Posted by: Salamander at October 07, 2004 07:16 AM

19 Great! No WMD found in Iraq! Ironically, Bush was right invading Iraq but for the wrong reason. Zarqawi IS connected to the Al Quada, why couldn't he have used THAT excuse for invading? This should be interesting to see how this effects the votes now.

People are pissed off enough that we're in Iraq, this is just more fuel for the fire. No pun intended!

Posted by: Laura at October 07, 2004 08:31 AM

20 Thanks for the input everyone. I will try to update this post later, or write a new one after having thought through your answers.

Initial reactions?

1) I should have added something about Bush's present dream of turning Iraq and Afghanistan into Islamic 'shining cities on a hill'. The current attempt is to change Islamic culture through positive steps. I hope they work. On the other hand, I'm skeptical.

2) Thanks for BJ's clarification on Judaic history. However, I would disagree with much of it. In my mind, BJ, you are coming at this from a religious viewpoint of history which is sort of biased in a way that projects present views of God back into history. I simply think it is a modern notion to think of ancient Israel walking around in the desert thinking of the 'symbolic nature of the Holy of Holies' or the post-captivity Jews thinking that the whole Temple rebuilding thing is cool, but not central to religious life.

3) Islam is not Christianity nor is it Judaism. I'm sorry Jane, I understand most Muslims just want to feed their families and what not, but you overlook the role of ideas in motivating people to do things. Ideas do matter. Inasmuch as a central ideas in Islam are jihad and sharia, then Islam is in need of reformation. Christianity has nothing, nada, zilcho, in it's core ideas even similar to sharia. In fact, the central idea in Christianity vis a vis government is seperation of religious worship and government. As I've argued before, yes Christianity has had it's moments of horror, but it took quite a bit of intellectual sophistry to go from 'turning the other cheek' to 'let's kill some non-believers as we sack Jerusalem.' Passificism seems central to Christianity, and it was only after years of experience that Christians learned that (or decided or whatever) that passificism was wrong. They had to invent a way to justify violence. On the other hand, it would seem that violence is a central tenant of Islam. Muslims still haven't been able to find away to reject that central tenant, it would seem.

Ok, I'll return to this later. So many good comments, so little time.

PS-Yes, I do hope I'm wrong. Way wrong.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at October 07, 2004 08:32 AM

21 If Bill's essay is food for thought then it is the intellectual equivalent of junk food. Though I may disagree with some of your views,Rusty, Bills are vile and ill thought out, because he has neglected to think of the consequences.

Posted by: James at October 07, 2004 08:41 AM

22 Surely it is for the Muslims to decide if they want a reformation of their religion. Why is it that we are holding Islam responsible for the war? Surely it is only a minority of muslims? Should we condemn every catholic priest because some priests were and are child abusers? I'm sure if we sat down and disected the bible or some other holy work we would find some passages unpalatable. The problem is not the message from these religions, but rather the messengers, the priests, the mullahs etc etc.

Posted by: james at October 07, 2004 08:52 AM

23 !!! Regarding James' comment just above, I would respectfully suggest that James *read* the bulk of Mr. Whittles' work, in particular "Strength."

In the first 15 paragraphs os so of that essay, Mr. Whittle actually makes a very salient point *against* nuking Fallujah or the equivilant: he quotes Den Beste "the object of Terrorism is to provoke an overwhelming response," then goes on to say "... we did not level Fallujah, and we did not do it because those bodies on that bridge were *bait*..."

I submit that his arguement extends to nuking Mecca: this would merely raise up even more dedicated assasins and terrorists, fueled by hate and revenge. No. We are in for a long, patient, SLOGGING war of hunting down the guilty parties, and attempting to minimize the damage to the "innocent."

From my reading of "Deterrence," and I admit I didn't *study* it, Mr. Whittle is advocating the use of "surgical" nukes. This type of weapon is far more precise than a "city-buster" with risks of radiation damage greatly reduced. (I would refer you to this article at the American Thinker as well:

These weapons do not hold the threat of mass destruction over the heads of tyrants so much as they make those tyrants, um, "personally accountable," shall we say? I mean, what despot worth his salt cares about the people under his control? He's *much* more worries about his own lizard-like skin (with apologies to lizards...).

At any rate, that's my take on it, FWIW. Your mileage may vary.

Posted by: Romeocat at October 07, 2004 09:17 AM

24 Fundamental rule of good military strategy: don't spin your wheels. Every tactic should further the strategy. Every strategy should further the objective.

Presumably the objective being advocated here is either a) destruction of Islam per se or b) secularization of Islam through destruction of the holy places. In the short term such action would provoke an understandably angry response. The short term result would emphatically not be to achieve the objective.

So it's wheel-spinning. A poor approach.

Posted by: Dave Schuler at October 07, 2004 09:32 AM

25 Romeocat.....The mere suggestion of even making the threat will galvanise Muslim opinion that the west is seeking the destruction of Islam as a whole. The implications of this are not too difficult to imagine. And since when is the war on Islam, I was led to believe it was part of the war on terror? Saddam was a murderous tyrranical despot but terrorist, I think thats stretching it a bit.

Is the world a safer place? Lets ponder on that for a moment. Firstly Iraq was a contained "problem" and secular. Secondly the Islamic extremists were held in check by Saddam because he recognised that they posed just as much a threat to his power as did the west. With saddam behind bars we're told that the world is a better place. Personally I disagree. Dealing with saddam is unpalatable at any time, but there was always the possibility of bringing him to heel like a dog. In otherwords he could be dealt with. Islamic extremists on the other hand are not easy to deal with. They believe in their cause, misguided as they are and as we have seen are quite happy to lay down their lives for that ideal. Thanks to messers bush and blair, we now have a potential catastrophe on our hands.

The war on Iraq is a disaster from every perspective and does not appear to be improving the lot of the Iraqi citizen. So perhaps you can now see why i have little time for morons like Bill "whoever" advocating the use of nuclear strikes.

Posted by: James at October 07, 2004 09:51 AM

26 Well, James, it seems we will have to disagree.

Personally, I think Mr. Whittle's worldview corresponds to reality far more accurately than your own. I think that the world *is* far better without him in power, and that Iraq has a better chance, now, of joining the civilized world.

Is it going to be a mess? Certainly - I will even conceed that it is already a mess. However, I am firmly of the opinion that it is a more hopeful mess than it would be if we merely tried to *contain* Hussein. He was waiting for *any* chance to resume his WMD development, and that justifies, to me, a pre-emptive strike. Please do *not* forget that he had over 10 years where - per UN santions! - the burden was on HIM to prove he didn't have them.

Even with the terribly faulty info provided to President Bush AND Congress, I believe we did the right thing. If we fail now, it will be because we turned away from finishing the job. It is a nasty, messy, difficult and dangerous job, yes. But it must be done, and we are there, and we *must do it. I believe in the long run - and Bush never promised a quick war, remember - the world will be safer for it.

Again, YMMV, and I am blessed to live in a society where indviduals like us can disagree profoundly in a courteous way. Thank you for your thoughts, I appreciate hearing your side of the story.

Posted by: Romeocat at October 07, 2004 04:52 PM

27 Sigh.

"Him" in the second paragraph, second sentence, meaning Hussein, of course.

*smaks head* PREVIEW AND EDIT! (grin)

Posted by: Romeocat at October 07, 2004 04:55 PM

28 I am not normally racist in any way when it comes to people or religion of any sort but having been so occupied with it like many others of itself, I disagree with our policy on Israel. I'm totally against what they are doing, how they are doing it and think that Ariel Sharon should leave altogether; he's a mindless killer no better than Zarqawi or Osama Bin Laden or any leader that does what he does - except he gets away with it and I don't like it one bit. Whenever I see that stupid button to press that says "Save the United States and Israel" I would prefer to rip it off the page. Israel needs someone to stamp on them and put their foot down on Sharon's head because he is going to start a world war and I will not be on his side.

Posted by: firstbrokenangel at October 07, 2004 11:58 PM

29 Romeocat...Good morning.

Read your comment with interest. Unlike others whom I may disagree with, you are courteous and respectful, though I will never be convinced of the legitimacy or the legality of the war, no matter how eloquently the argument is made.

Saddam at some stage did possee WMDs, this is indisputable because we have seen him use them on his own people. The recent report on Saddam's weapons stockpile refutes the argument made by messers Bush and Blair. The line that he was intending to develop a new programme of WMDs is convenient to say the least and does not vindicate the reasons for going to war. As I have said before Saddam was indeed a tyrranical despot but he was not a threat to world peace. Only Bush and Blair know the real reasons for Saddam's removal and they have yet to share this with the world. WMDs and state sponsors of terror does not wash. I believe that the invasion of Iraq was part of the Bush agenda from the day he became president. We have been lied to and in the process, thousands of innocent lives have been lost. The biggest threat to world peace is another four years of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

I am not opposed to waging war if it is wholly justified, such as in Afghanistan where it was necessary to remove the Taliban who were providing refuge to bin Laden. But there is no justification for the invasion of Iraq and as far as I am concerned messers Bush and Blair should be charged with war crimes. Bush may have duped the American population into believing that what he is doing is right but Blair has failed to convince his own people. Which is surpring if you think about it, Bush is a brain dead puppet whilst Blair is suppose to be smarter than your average bear.

Presumably you are American, perhaps I am wrong? Could you explain to me why Saddam was a threat to the US?

Posted by: James at October 08, 2004 04:11 AM

30 James, actually it was Clinton who dropped the ball. During his term, Kerry believed Saddam was a threat and wanted unilateral action against him - totally different than what he's doing and saying now.
Not Bush - Clinton and it was also Clinton who dropped the ball so many times that we got attacked on 9/11. He didn't pass on the information - he was too busy with sex stuff to do his job properly.

Posted by: firstbrokenangel at October 08, 2004 04:38 AM

31 Jimmy the clam has broken it down to the truth of the matter. The fact is that their religion calls for the distruction of not only other religions but even those who don't practice religion. The only reason they are not attacking us now is they don't have the ability. When they do they will attack and kill us in the name of their GOD WHO IS ALL GOOD AND MERCIFUL. The destruction of the religious idols out of the question? Was the destruction of the giant buddas in Afghanistan out of the question to them?

Posted by: greyrooster at October 08, 2004 06:23 AM

32 Cindy......I cant comment on kerry to much as I don't profess to know a great deal about him. However as a presidential candidate, he can be no worse than the idiot in office at the moment.

You say Clinton dropped the ball. Presumably you mean he was ineffective in dealing with bin Laden. You are right. He was ineffective but I doubt such ineffectiveness had anything to do with Miss Lewinsky.

However to suggest that Clinton failed to inform the president elect of any or all threats to the safety or sovereignty of the U.S is groundless. If such an accusation was proven to be true, think of what Clinton would have to lose. Moreover what would he have to gain? My own belief is that Bush was hell bent on Saddam's removal at all costs. Miss Rice, the head of the NSA, was given a remit to garner as much intelligence on Saddam as was possible. This was why the CIA and FBi had no intelligence on the 9/11 attacks because they were too busy fabricating evidence on Iraq.

On that basis one can surmise that Clinton was guilty of being ineffective where-as Bush is guilty of dereliction of duty, endangering the lives of the American people and adding fuel to the fire that is the Middle East.

Posted by: James at October 08, 2004 06:27 AM

33 for your interest
there's a headline on Bloomberg that Ken Bigley has been beheaded. 12.32 BST

Posted by: James at October 08, 2004 06:37 AM

34 Good morning, James. Yes, I am an American by God's good grace (as the song goes...).

Well, frankly, you are not going to like my reply very much. I admit, it give *me* pause, because I don't care for America to be cast in the role of the world's policeman. However, it seems that no one else is around to sick up for the "little guys," so my duty as a citizen is to attempt to help steer the US to be as moral as possible in conflict. (Geeeze, what a sticky job!)

From my understanding, the report on Hussein states clearly that he was *NOT* going to stop pressing to re-acquire WMD. The moment the sanctions were lifted, he intended to build again.

Considering the man's character, his apparent mental instability, and his obvious, um, "dislike" for the US, I strongly support taking action *before* he could use those "assets" against us or our allies. I do *NOT* want any possibility of another 9/11, or Spanish bombing, etc... I believe he would have used his resources to assist terrorists to do just that.

To get this thread slightly back on track (sorry Randy!), I am not sure, in his case, whether even the threat of a bunker-buster delivered right to his lap would have stopped him. The nature of his rule, the lack of character (to be polite) exhibited in his sons, the sheer brutality and insanity and - dare I say - meglomania he displays just do not give me warm fuzzies.

In my opinion, this man had the personality, the means, and the desire to hurt us, and hurt us bad. He could eventually have done it directly, but certainly would have used other agents (even ones he personally despised) to do his dirty work for him and leave him "plausible deniability." At the least, I see no reason why he would refrain from continuing to kill his own people, whether by gassing them or torturing them or starving them (and he didn't have to have sanctions lifted to do *that*), hence my comment above about "sticking up for the little guys."

At any rate, I need to drop my munchkin at school so I must go. I'm sorry if I am not too coherant this morning, the coffee is really zooming through my veins and not kick starting the brain like it's supposed to. I plan on being home today, but I may not be able to reply over the weekend (going to Grandma's house ). James, if you wish, please feel free to use my e-mail addy (if it's accessible to you - I don't really know how that works in the comment section) to reply.

I wish everyone a safe and fun weekend, and hope the debates go well (I'll be driving ). God bless.

Posted by: Romeocat at October 08, 2004 06:41 AM

35 Romeocat......maybe you dont care about being cast as the world's policeman, but let me assure you there are very few people on this planet who would take kindly to American interference in their own matters. The UN might not be the most effective arbiter of justice in the world but as a fully sigend up member to that organisation, any unilateral action by the US would be in direct contravention of the laws of the U.N and give carte blanche to other countries to act in a similar fashion. Thus we might as well disband the UN and let the world revert to anarchy. Surely that is not what you are proposing?

I refute the view that Iraq was a direct threat to the US. Please refer to previous postings this morning. Perhaps you haven't heard but Read on Bloomberg that ken Bigley was killed today.

Have a good day. Try some tea, its far healthier for you than coffee!

Posted by: James at October 08, 2004 07:05 AM

36 James, I don't drink coffee because it's *healthy!* (grins)

As for disbanding the UN, Lord, I *wish!* It has proven itself to be ineffective and corrupt, and I certainly cannot go along with its trend of stepping on US sovreignty (I know, I know...I'm getting there...) I cannot allow our troops to be under any authority than our own, although I certainly agree that international cooperation is very important.

I agree that the US shouldn't operate in a vacuum (touching on the sovreignty point), but I have fundamental difficulties with the whole "global test" issue. *Every* country has their own interests, of course. Each ought to be taking the safety of its citizens very seriously. I understand that one country's concerns may not apply to another country. Given that, I still believe that it is necessary for a country to act, on occasion, in its own interests *first.*

I am *not* against the US going before the world, presenting its case, and attempting diplomatic solutions. Far from it: in most circumstances I prefer it. War is an option when other options have failed to the extent that your citizens are endangered. However, it *is* an option which must - hopefully rarely - be exercised.

I believe that President Bush had reasonable cause to take Hussein out. I agree that he acted on bad intelligence, but he did not act *alone* on that intel. This intel pointed to a threat that Hussein *was* developing WMD, and as for *direct* threat, see my remarks above.

I also believe that he had grounds to take Hussein out based on more than 10 years of failed diplomacy and UN sanctions. Of *course* we have national interests as well. I feel others have dicussed those pros and cons quite extensively, so I shall not.

Personally, I feel that for us to stand by and watch Hussein flout the UN requirements, twist the Oil-for-Food program, murder and terrorize his people and still live lavishly is an affront to the honor not only of the US, but also of the UN. Yes, that's a "moral" arguement, but since when are moral arguements completely invalid? Sometimes, you need to STFU and do your duty, no matter that it's a distasteful duty. The world and the US had a *moral* duty in Iraq, and the UN shirked its duty. The UN spouts repeatedly about human rights violations, and the world court, and yadda yadda yadda, but they don't have the balls to *do* anything. The US does.

I realize I'm displaying a more nationalistic outlook to this arguement. *shrug* I'm not a diplomat or a politician - I don't *do* "nuanced." As the man once said, "Here I stand, I can do no other." I also understand that you will not find my reasoning satisfactory. OK. I can't change your mind *for* you, and vice versa. If we were all the same, life would be pretty boring.

IS the US wrong? Perhaps. But I saw a situation that needed to be handled because of a threat to the US, the world, and the citizens of Iraq. We live in an imperfect world, with imperfect information, and imperfect motives. I have not seen another possible response discussed which takes in the information *as we had it,* as well as the plight of the Iraqis, and gives a more satisfactory solution. Sorry. I'm not Einstein, or a Nobel Peace Prize intellectual.

As for Mr. Bigley, I mourn. But the thugs and barbarians who killed him are in no way part of the solution. They are part of the problem. If they really wanted a solution, if they really wanted REAL power - respect and responsibility and honor - they would not act in such a cowardly and irrational manner.

Posted by: Romeocat at October 08, 2004 08:23 AM

37 Romeocat.....lets leave it at that and agree to disagree. Who knows, maybe we might find ourselves in agreement one day. Have to go as the marktes are moving and I have spent too much time flopping about! L8rs

p.s what does wmmv mean?

Posted by: James at October 08, 2004 08:39 AM

38 "YMMV" oops - your mileage may vary.

Have a profitable day!

Posted by: Romeocat at October 08, 2004 08:48 AM

39 Keeping in mind that you only posit these thoughts without actually believeing in them yourself...

I'd have to say that "nuking Mecca" would prove nothing except that whoever does the nuking is not morally superior than those they're trying to punish. Why punish the tens of millions more Muslims that have never uttered a negative thought towards America or its allies? Why effectively end any partnership (or future partnership) with existing Muslim allies such as Oman, Quatar, UAE, etc.?

People that say "nuke Mecca" (or any other kind of blanket "retaliation") surely don't know the consequences of these kinds of actions.

Posted by: Venom at October 08, 2004 12:08 PM

40 Nuking Mecca and dismantling The Dome on the Rock sending the pieces to be buried in pig manure does make sense and will have to be done. Simply, the Republic will not stand if this isn't done. Americans aren't going to accept the rule of a government incapable of defending the citizens. It will is that simple. Total war has to be the reponse and the massive death that will come from that.

The Islamic crazies cannot be deterred this is true, but the crazies cannot function without the help of the more normal Muslim. This is also true. It the latter Muslims who hide, fund and protect the terrorists. All Muslims have to be made to understand that a devastating attack on the U.S. will be met with the instant nuking of Mecca. It's destruction will hit at the heart of Islam in that their Alah is not helping them like they thought. This alone will give Muslims pause. Dimantling Islamic holy sites and buring them in pig manure will also be a sober reality check. Invasion of Muslim countried converting them into full functioning democrazies were women can vote, divorce and homosexuality run rampant will also give Muslims food for thought.

We have to make sure that all Muslims clealy understand that unlike Lebannon, the United States will not collabse into chaos leaving the Islamic garbage that tore Lebannon apart in tact. Rather everyone will be going down and all religions power to protect believers shown to be absolutely zero.

The United States must do to Islamic nations what Rome did to Israel after during the 1st century. Jerusalem was razed to the ground and Israel destroyed. The United States has the power to do the same on a larger scale and must if attacked. Muslims have to understand this.

The answer to Muslims hatting us is simple. Muslims have always hated the Judo/Christain West. After all, it took Spain 700 years to push out the Muslim invaders and reunite the nation unlike Serbia and Croatia. The Ottamon Empire destroyed by the West was Muslim and not a friend. It was Muslim Turkey that slaughtered 1 million Christains long before Hilter came along with not a peep from any nation.

Posted by: Arnold at October 16, 2004 07:01 PM

41 killing 1.4 billion muslims would be a good start
declaring islam dead as a religion....priceless

Posted by: ktm at December 01, 2004 12:47 AM

42 Destroying Mecca is not the answer. Destroying Mecca during Ramadan is the answer. If you're going to take the place out, might as well get a few hundred thousand heathens, too.

Posted by: islamicide at December 03, 2004 11:45 AM

43 Nuking Mecca or threatening to Nuke Mecca is the best idea- deterrent that I have heard. The word needs to be put out that America will not tolerate violence against its people. If you hurt or attack America- you will face total annihilation of your so called "holy land."
These extremists need to be exterminated, euthanized and put down like the animals that they are.

Posted by: Erock at January 10, 2005 07:57 PM

44 I think a count down would be more effective, say the top five Islamic holy sites with Mecca being #1.
The Muslim world already knows that George W. means and does what he says so after #5 and #4 get vaporized, even the densest jihadist would get the message and sue for peace.

Posted by: Paul Manoogian at January 17, 2005 05:57 PM

45 here's the truth : you're an idiot.
List of human like gods :-
1. The greeks had human like gods called thor, zeus, asshole, etc
2. The Eygyptians had human like gods called seti, amon, asshole, etc
3. The buddhists has that fat looking human like god
4. The hindus has that human like god with an elephant nose(?!)
5. The christians turned the man jesus into god
6. The Jews worshipped a man shortly after moses left them to meet the One God Allah.

I mean, how stupid can you get? that's a lot of gods if you ask me.
yep: my suspicions confirmed : you're an idiot.....big time

p/s:- only informing you of the truth

Posted by: iguana at February 09, 2005 12:14 PM

46 all this talk abt nuking mecca, if you assholes got the balls why don't you try??

all forces attempting to attack or nuke mecca ended up being vaporised. The last was the Christian forces from Yemen leaded by Abrahah, his army was scattered just outside of mecca just before the attack.

check your history, i think george w knows his history that's why his balls become the size of a peanut each time he thinks of nuking mecca.

there are powerful forces protecting mecca and madina. if you don't believe me, try nuking or attacking, but i don't think you'll live to tell what happened after that.

you guys should stop being jealous......i'm only speaking the truth.

Posted by: iguana at February 09, 2005 12:21 PM

47 Shoot, if them Muslims is the problem, why don't we round them up, put them in camps, make them build weapons used against their bretheren, and then kill the ones who won't work.

I bet that would break their will.

Posted by: Idiot at March 03, 2005 12:38 PM

48 The only way to deter a so-called "terrorist" is to give them nothing to be mad at, our presence in their countries for example. Let's pull back and take care of our own. G-d knows we have enough problems to solve in our own backyard. Most of the above comments seem ignorant of the fact that self serving and violent american foriegn policy is to blame for other's anger at our nation (and by extension, their violent retaliation). It has been proven that when we interfere in other's lands acts of terrorism increase. hence, to make them go down, stop interfereing in other countries' affairs. It's that simple you brain washed idiots.

Posted by: jesus at March 03, 2005 01:19 PM

49 jesus has it right on the money. Stop fucking with them, they'll stop fucking with you.

Posted by: christismybitch at March 03, 2005 04:55 PM

50 as every moslem terrorist is killed, bury him or his body parts in a pig skin shroud in an unmarked grave

Posted by: difin at March 04, 2005 07:12 AM

51 Threatening to "Nuke Mecca" as a DETERRENT to terrorism? Wow, that's just mind-numbingly stupid.

Even threatening such a thing would be a catastrophe. Instead of having a tiny percentage of Muslims willing to commit terrorist attacks and give their lives fighting America we would then have over a BILLION of them spread across the globe.

They would not be held hostage by the thought of Mecca being nuked. They do not worship Mecca, they worship Allah, and they will just say that whatever happens is the will of Allah and they must do their duties as Muslims etcetera.

Do you think Christianity would disappear from the Earth if the Vatican was nuked? No, on the contrary, if the Vatican were attacked like that it would militarize Christians the world over (Catholics in particular) and lead to a massive escalation of conflict.

If Mecca were "nuked" or attacked, it would transform ALL of Islam into a doomsday cult and instead of praying towards Mecca five times per day, they would curse America and pledge to destroy us five times per day. It would have the exact opposite result that you desire. To say that it would "increase terrorism" is a gargantuan understatement. It would likely precipitate bloodshed on an unprecedented historical scale, it would destabilize THE ENTIRE WORLD and we'd have a billion Muslims launching non-stop attacks on us.

America would lose every single ally it has on planet Earth other than Israel maybe, if Israel still existed at that point, and I don't think it would for very long.

Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Nuke Mecca and we'll see how "western oriented" Musharraf is, he'd either declare war on us or be dead in about 15 minutes - his own mother would probably strangle him if he sided with America at that point. I do not think Pakistan has the capability to deliver payloads to America via ICBM or aircraft, but I'm pretty sure they could manage to vaporize Tel-Aviv if the entire Muslim world was united to see it done. Both Iran and Pakistan have missiles capable of reaching Israel.

You say they wouldn't do that because they have shrines in the region as well? Bullshit, if you nuke Mecca you've just crossed every line - once the holiest site is gone, it would be a small matter to sacrifice the rest of them in order to exact revenge.

Oh, and the rest of the non-Muslim world? They would be so horrified by what we had done that they certainly wouldn't remain allied to us, likely many major powers (even non-Muslim) would declare themselves against us, even if they didn't go so far as to launch immmediate retaliatory strikes.

China, Russia, India, France, Germany - they have plenty of nuclear options to deploy, maybe not as many weapons as America, but then it just doesn't take all that many of them to level entire cities and civilizations, does it?

We'd be considered the greatest outlaws in the history of the world, a step below Hitler.

Oh, so just kill ALL the Muslims you say? Well, then you're a brutal pig. Sorry. Advocating genocide means you're a total monster, period.

We lost how many people on 9/11 - about 3,000? And that was due to the actions of how many Muslims, around 20 (the entire Al Qaeda membership was only ever in the hundreds to a few thousand ).And in response to these 20 scumbags, you think we should kill a BILLION people? Even if this was feasible (it isn't) the level of savagery and barbarism required would defy comprehension.

Nuking Mecca alone could very well precipitate a doomsday conflict; attempting to slaughter a billion Muslims on top of that - with nukes or any other weapons - almost certainly would cause a nuclear apocalypse. We'd never succeed, obviously, we'd be under such a sustained assault from all directions so very quickly that our offensive would quickly turn into a route and then retreat and then defeat. Our Army isn't so advanced that it can defeat every other nation on Earth, we'd go down in flames in a matter of days or weeks.

At that point, I myself would be attacking the American Gov't - tens of millions of Americans might very reasonably go into open revolt to change our leadership, who we'd have lined up against a wall and shot summarily for being the greatest war criminals of recorded human history and for putting the blackest stain on America's name conceivable.

Suggesting things like "Nuke Mecca" or that we hold Mecca hostage with nukes is the absolute height of American arrogance and meglomania.

As a strategic consideration, the proposal is retarded. From a moral standpoint, anyone who seriously would advocate or carry it out would have to be a psychopath - we'd be a nation of psychopaths to support it.

Anyone who expressed support for this idea, even just here in this forum, needs to see a psychologist and get some help.

--- NK, St Paul, MN

Posted by: Liberesio at March 04, 2005 10:33 AM

52 Rusty, I hope you die soon. Same goes for all of those "kill the Islamics" friends of yours. You people, and limbically driven retards like yourself all over the world, are the reason for the existence of Jihad and every other form of pseudo-righteous anger. The only way to stop such anger is to view human beings as individuals, not as members of an enemy race. There will be some growing pains, but if you can't take them, then perhaps you'd rather live in a postapocalyptic wasteland.

Go play in traffic, if there is any in your bumblef$%k neck of the woods, you racist shill piece of crap!

Posted by: Non-Moron at March 30, 2005 10:17 AM

53 One main thing this childish author fails to mention is that, contrary to ignorant American beleifs, the terrorists don't live in Mecca. Terrorism is worldwide, and its' bases, camps, sleeper cells, etc. are all over. So for us to nuke mecca would only infuriate the terrorists and their agents AROUND THE WORLD. Hence they would return the favor and it would be just be a game of ping pong until civilization ends.

Posted by: Ephraim Halvey at March 30, 2005 01:04 PM

54 You guys make one mistake over and over again and that one mistake is costing you your country and life.

You think that your enemy is just opposite of you, that you are so very different.

Like in so many wars before, there exists a number of fundamentalists war mongers on both sides. Then there are the people who would have liked to live in peace, but are easily "awakened" to "defend" their tribe when some fundamentalist founds way to lure them.

And then, in the process of war, anyone can be relatively easily converted to person who would be called psycopath in normal circumstances. Terrorists on both side, shooting also the innocent. And so the wheel starts to turn and there is no turning back. In mythical stories a'la Hollywood nearly psycopathic hero would stop the process, people cannot face the harsh reality that they and their culture are going down the toilet.

Until one day people get enough of killing - or are dead. It is clear, that there is no victory worth winning available, only more dead people and slavery.

But go ahead dudes! Show them what you got! Let's start the "I die day later than you, haha!" -game!

Posted by: not gonna tell you at March 31, 2005 03:31 AM

55 hi

i dont see any logic in your comments!

at the moment the people fighting what they call Jihad are a minority of the huge Muslim population of the world. if you were to attack Mecca you would push the Muslims who are in the middle to one side. i would say the majority of the muslims would be pushed to the side that is totally against what america and the west represents.

destroying something that is so central to a group of peoples central beliefs is never a good idea. further isolating isolated groups of people is never a good idea.

anger breeds hatred and hatred leads to the terrible violence we are witnessing in the world today.

trying to understand why people fight might help!

poverty? trade barriers? biassed political relations between certain countries? unfair representation in the UN? to name a few

Posted by: smile at March 31, 2005 04:20 AM

56 After posting my initial message I read the thread to see if there are any individuals that share authors extremely naive world view. And many of the messages are so stupid that they make me sick.

You MUST stop playing those damn video games and watching faery tale movies. They do not tell you about reality. You have SERIOUS REALITY DISTORTION. 90% of world people lives outside USA. The ability to nuke any country at will does not solve a thing. Its only use was (is) for cold war balance (you nuke me -> I nuke you -> we are both happy).

I live in northern Europe and we do not have enemies, but many, including me, feel that the two _most_ dangerous countries nowadays are USA and Israel. No, we are not of course fearing that USA would attack Europe, but that the wars that you so willingly start reach us too. And don't give me that 9/11 crap. If your current goverment were serious about securing your country, they would not allow thousands of _unchecked_illegal_ immigrants pass the border every good damn day. Irak is about fantasy dreams of oil and bulding democracy with bombs.

You guys REALLY need to learn empathy (=understanding what the other guy thinks via imagining yourself in the same situation). Imagine for example that it turns out that your election turned out to be faulty and your goverment would turn USA in to police state. Then China or Russia would say "we will bring democracy to you!" and level couple of cities, send nervous (and often rasistic) kids to "help" (that kill occasionally innocent people) - and you would welcome them? Or would you perhaps (maybe after your relative, father, mother or sister dies in one of those "accidents", or by one of those bombs) unite with the resistance?

How can it be that I know such many brilliant americans and USA is lead by idiots?

Posted by: not gonna tell you at March 31, 2005 04:25 AM

57 Much of the material here is certifiable. In my profession I have heard much the same lines of discourse in mental asylums - in the closed wards. Muslims are not your enemies, rather it would pay to closely scrutinise the foreign policies of Western governments - even those who allegedly friendly to the Muslim states.

The whole image-making machinery of the Western media machine has been working tirelessly for decades to produce the desired image of 'Muslim as Terrorist' to replace the old Evil Red Empire.

Imperial expansion demands an enemy, a pretext, for global conquest. It is just unfortunate for Muslims that they sit on top of vast quantities of black gold, that is easy to extract and is of high quality.

To blame 911 on 'Islamic Terrorists' or somesuch is to ignore who who benefit the most from such an action. Insider job it certainly was - media brainwashing notwithstanding.

Just grow-up and look at yourselves rather than wallowing in a sea of misinterpreted history and misdirected anger.

Posted by: Pogoman at March 31, 2005 04:44 AM

58 All these post prove to me (not all most) is that the majority of Americans are brain washed...silly people should read more and not be so gulable.. sad fact is that i'am ashemd to be american... it's people like you guy's that need to be dealt with along with the terrosists then we would have true peace killing the terrorists alone will not solve anythng because these people willl create another enemy few years down the line... was it not the Russians that were going to destroy the world not to long ago??? and have the Amricans living the lifes of communists???? what nonsense!!!!!

Posted by: Stephen at March 31, 2005 04:49 AM

59 First I would like to say that the idea of nuking Mecca is truly disgusting.

People need to go and understand why some people are driven to the level of extremism, and try to solve the problem from that route. I think an honest inquiry into this matter will prove that the problem is much closer to home. The muslim does not desire war, Islam does not support such a doctrine. Muslims generally live by very strict rules and acts of Terrorism are condemned by the highest Authority for Muslim belief, The Quran. If the so called Muslim world was truly Governed by Islam, these terrorists would be punished on the spot.

Also, I think it's the most rediculous thing to say that Nuking Mecca will solve the problem. Muslims owe no Alegiance to anyone, if Mecca is destroyed a True Jihad will ensue. This time with unity of 1.5 billion muslims around the world. You would be gravely mistaken to think that the faith is revolved around Mecca or Medina. Muslims believe that only God is their helper, the ritual practices is actually very symbolic. Prayers would still face the ruined Mecca five times a day, Pilgrimage would still continue in some form or another. Islam is purely based on belief and spirituality and not Material things. In the event Mecca is destroyed, All hell will break loose. You will be giving Muslims the legitimate excuse to wage a Struggle against aggressors of the faith. And keep in mind that there is a muslim population in almost every country in the world. I think chaos would be an understatement.

And on a side note, There is a wide belief that 9/11 was carried out by the US government, There is VAST evidence to support this, the official story is full of loope hole on end. And some of the 'Hijackers' are still alive today, go figure.
yeah, something reeks, and it smells real bad.

Posted by: mojimo at March 31, 2005 03:16 PM

60 Forget nuking mecca zionist racist muthafkrs u cant even beat the iraqis or afghanis they constantly stomp down on ur heads everyday sending ur sons to hell. u will never be able to nuke mecca u sad s o bs keep dreaming u will have a beter chance at sodomising ur mommas and poppas and sons and daughters like u do anyway.remember israel will be destroyed no matter what u try to do its a matter or time and dont u know it.those parasites have been a scourge on society since day 1 an evil disease that will be terminated.remember hezbollah? not everyone like the poor palastinians are disarmed the shitty idf will crumble once its in a real fight just like the good old us of a army is getting splattrerd all over iraq and afghanistan. i know how chicken shit zionists are i have beat he hell outta plenty myself in fist fights.

Posted by: SALLAHDIN at April 01, 2005 02:05 AM

61 If I was a Muslim terrorist who truly believes in Allah (SWT), your threat of nuking Meccah would not stop me. I would want to force your hand to prove that Allah exists and to see Allah's retribution.

Posted by: Ackie00 at April 04, 2005 03:01 PM

62 the whitehouse should be nuk sorry i ment the dog house monkey face bush should get beheaded and give it to it to the dogs the time is coming bushey you son of a monkey however whants to nuk meccah this is a message burn in hell

Posted by: sultan at April 08, 2005 07:29 PM


Posted by: BIG RED at April 12, 2005 01:01 AM

Alls I can say is; Whenever all y'all wanna play "Cowboys & Muslims", y'all come ta Texas. It didn't work out so good for th Indians tho, so come ready. I just wish G.W. would stop pussy-footin around and just let us fight all the muslims, not just the terrorists. An all you messed-up Americans whose daddy didn't smack the fear a God into them, growing their beards an having their girls wear those garbage bag burbas or whatever,wanna-be muslims. Your asses are mine.If y'all don't run away from a religion that promotes barbaric acts then you must support those actions. That makes you the enemy. America needs a real war, like what we done to them Japs.

Posted by: gofuckacamel at May 15, 2005 09:22 AM

65 Let's nuke those smelly Sand Niggers. The world will be a safer and better place without Islam. Let's gather up all the Korans we can find and make a big pile. Cover them with pig and dog crap and set them on fire.

Posted by: Victor Cruz at May 21, 2005 08:14 AM

66 Since it's creation, Israel has fought six wars against you bloody Arab Sand Nigger Apes. In each case you Sand Nigger Arabs have started each of these war. Israel has won all of these wars. This is because God is on the side of Israel. God is not on the side of you bloodthirsty Muslims. God gave Palestine to the Jewish people. Read this fact in the Torah. You Arabs are a bunch of filthy, smelly savages. Your body odor smells like shit. You Arabs are a bunch of smelly apes and monkeys. The entire Saudi royal family has evolved from the monkeys and apes. Your Allah god is not the same god as the Jews and the Christians.

Posted by: I. Shiek MyDrawers at May 21, 2005 10:30 AM


Heavens/Earth came together at creation. (Surah 41:11)
Heavens/Earth were ripped apart at creation. (Surah 21:30)

Creation took six days. (Surah 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, 25:59)
Creation took eight days. (Surah 41:9-12)

Earth created first. (Surah 2:29)
Heavens created first. (Surah 70:27-30)

All angels obey Allah. (Surah 16:49-50)
Not all angels obey Allah. (Surah 2:34)

Pharaoh drowned. (Surah 17:103, 28:40, 43:55)
Pharaoh did not drown. (Surah 10:92)

All of Noah's sons were aboard the ark. (Surah 21:76-77)
Not all of Noah's sons were aboard the ark. (Surah 11)

One angel spoke to Mary. (Surah 19:17-21)
Several angels spoke to Mary. (Surah 3:42-45)

Paradise has one garden. (Surah 39:73, 41:30, 57:21, 79:41)
Paradise has many gardens. (Surah 18:31, 22:23, 35:33, 78:32)

Allah can have a son. (Surah 39:4)
Allah can't have a son. (Surah 6:101)

Face Mecca while praying. (Surah 2:115, 144)
Face Jerusalem while praying. (Surah 2:115, 144)


The Bible vs. the Koran

Bible: Noah's ark landed on Mt. Ararat. (Genesis 8:4)
Koran: Noah's ark landed on Mt. Judi. (Surah 11:44)

Bible: Abraham's father was Terah. (Genesis 11:31)
Koran: Abraham's father was Azar. (Surah 6:74)

Bible: Abraham attempted to sacrifice Isaac. (Genesis 22:1-12)
Koran: Abraham attempted to sacrifice Ishmael. (Surah 37:100-112)

Bible: Pharaoh's daughter adopted Moses. (Exodus 2:1-10)
Koran: Pharaoh's wife adopted Moses. (Surah 28:8-9)

Bible: Jesus was crucified. (Mark 15:25-32)
Koran: Jesus was not crucified. (Surah 4:157-158)

Bible: Abraham lived in the Valley of Hebron. (Genesis 13:18, 23:2, 35:27)
Koran: Abraham lived in Mecca. (Surah 14:37)

Bible: God loves us even though we sin. (Romans 5:8)
Koran: God does not love sinners. (Surah 2:190)

Bible: Husbands to love wife as themselves. (Eph. 5:25-28)
Koran: Husbands may beat their wives. (Surah 4:34)


The Koran teaches the hatred of Christians and Jews

"Do not take the Jews and Christians for friends"
(Surah 5:51)

"fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness"
(Surah 9:123)

"fight those who do not believe in Allah"
(Surah 9:29)

"and fight them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah"
(Surah 8:39)

"fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace"
(Surah 9:14)

"Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them"
(Surah 9:30)

"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
(Surah 8:12)

The Unbelievable Koran

Heaven is a place of sex and wine. (Surah 2:25, 4:57, 11:23, 47:15)

Mary (Jesus' mother) was Moses sister. (Surah 19:28)

Jesus taught people even in his "old age". (Surah 5:110)

Moses lived at the same time as Noah. (Surah )

According to Surah 18:86, The sun literally sets
into a muddy spring here on Earth and
Surah 18:90 mentions a specific place
on Earth where the sun rises.

Posted by: Justa Crusader at May 21, 2005 11:46 AM

68 To all those people who say are all pacifist and $hit, grow up and face reality. Maybe y'all need to experience some reality before you make those stupid ass comments.

MUSLIM PEOPLE ARE BRAINWASHED. Read the last few posts about the stupid teachings of the Koran. The only way to wake those people up is to destroy their foundation! Nuking mecca is one choice that I highly favor.

An alternative is to topple those stupid picnic-cloth-wearing-wife-beating-oil-hogging-women-abusing Saudi's, or any other Muslim country - they'll fall like dominoes. You know what ticks me off? There was a REPORT of the Koran being flushed down a toilet (please do more), and now the whole muslim world is protesting, burning American flags and all that crap. Do you see America burning any DAM muslim country's flag? Do you see America protesting like a bunch of monkeys when they don't allow Christianity in their SACRED country? Do you see Americans desecrating the Muslim religion as much as the muslims desecrate other religions? That is the point, Americans have HEART and LOVE, but at the meantime, we ain't no crap ass hippie, meaning we are smart, we are strong, and we believe in what is right. On the other hand, the Muslim people have NO HEART and NO LOVE.

All in all, Muslim people are BRAINWASHED. There has to be some way to find an end to their confusion.

If no one is gonna take action, I will in the future.

Posted by: Bushido at May 26, 2005 08:10 PM

69 "When it is said to them
'make not mischief on the earth'
they say, 'Why we only want to make
Peace!'. Of a surety they are the
ones who make mischief but they realise

Does that sound like Bush and his call for 'world democracy', and the West in general? Yes?

The above is straight from Qur'an, addressed to
war mongering Western nations lead by the US.


Posted by: True Muslim at May 29, 2005 10:36 AM

70 look nuking mecca has one major benfit. to say it would not stop islam from attacking us is foolish... We nuker japan and despite becomeing the 2nd most powerful country to date they have yet to invade another country in 50 years... if you ask me nukes are the onyl way to resolve the issue of islam... as for the affect of the destruction of the temple of jews... it spread them out a large percentage converted to pagan relgions of areas they spred too. the only thing that keep judaism going was the most likely false rumur that the arks had escaped(soldiers surronded the temple so would have killed and looted anyone with anything that looked valuable) as for jews not being extreame lol what about the zelots... isreali was the biggest hot bed of resistance to rome because where rome went rome built roads hospitals runnign water(sounds like another couontry today) the temple was destroyer because romans had enough of this and resistance by jews to rome occupation faded right after the temples destruction.. yes it is time to nuke mecca histroy and the american way support it

Posted by: Denny at July 09, 2005 02:31 PM

71 Governments should publicly deplore the concept of nuking Mecca. Non-government organizations should discuss and publish plans and techniques for nuking Mecca. The best of both worlds.

Posted by: Refined Method at July 13, 2005 12:19 PM

72 Nice satallite photo at

Mecca, Saudi Arabia: 21 degrees 29 minutes North Latitude, 39 degrees 45 minutes East Longitude

Posted by: Click Link for Photo at July 13, 2005 01:43 PM

73 Possible scenario #1 for NGO would be:

Advance notice to allow evacuation (or to allow martyrs to congregate)

Delivery by private jet

100-300 kt device

Surface blast

Posted by: Possible Scenario at July 14, 2005 12:49 PM

74 Scenario #1 for NGO delivery:

7-day warning for Medida (to allow evacuation, or to allow martyrs to congregate)

100 kt device

Delivery by private jet

Air Burst 2000 feet

7-day warning for Mecca (to allow evacuation, or to allow martyrs to congregate)

300 kt device

Delivery by private jet

Surface Burst

Posted by: Scenario #1 at July 14, 2005 01:14 PM

75 fuckin kill 'em all. Death from above!

Posted by: joe at July 21, 2005 11:31 AM

76 To the fool who posted the Korans contradictions. Did you actually bother to check the Surahs you quoted. Or did you just rip it blindly off some weird anti-religious site.

Your points are farcical. A quick example:

All angels obey Allah. (Surah 16:49-50)

"[2.34] And when We said to the angels: Make obeisance to Adam they did obeisance, but Iblis (did it not). He refused and he was proud, and he was one of the unbelievers."

Not all angels obey Allah. (Surah 2:34)

"[16.49] And whatever creature that is in the heavens and that is in the earth makes obeisance to Allah (only), and the angels (too) and they do not show pride."

The 16th chapter obviously comes after the 2nd chapter, which has already determined that Iblis (Satan, Shaitan) was a fallen angel. The verse in the 16th chapter already assumes the exclusion of Iblis as one of the following angels who "... do not show pride".

"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
(Surah 8:12)

"I" is in reference to Allah. It isn't referring to Muslims enacting his range against unbelievers. As far as I can tell Christianity also promises the fires of damnation and God's wrath for those who do not believe in Christ. And the difference is...?

Face Mecca while praying. (Surah 2:115, 144)
Face Jerusalem while praying. (Surah 2:115, 144)

"[2.115] And Allah's is the East and the West, therefore, whither you turn, thither is Allah's purpose; surely Allah is Amplegiving, Knowing."

There is no mention of Jerusalem anywhere in here. It's purpose is to highlight that Allah is everywhere.

Get your shit together before you decide to deface another persons religion.

See I can do it to:

Kill All of Babylon
"Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. "Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction". (Jeremiah 50:21-22 NLT)

Kill Your Children
If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

Kill Everyone in 7 Nations
When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are about to enter and occupy, he will clear away many nations ahead of you: the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. These seven nations are all more powerful than you. When the LORD your God hands these nations over to you and you conquer them, you must completely destroy them. Make no treaties with them and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them, and don't let your daughters and sons marry their sons and daughters. They will lead your young people away from me to worship other gods. Then the anger of the LORD will burn against you, and he will destroy you. (Deuteronomy 7:1-4 NLT)


Posted by: I can read too at July 22, 2005 02:14 AM

77 Yes, i am vzry like with this situs

Posted by: Nasrul Affan at July 22, 2005 10:55 AM

78 Nuking Mecca is an option that becomes more reasonable by the day. But, it must be done in unison with expelling all Muslims from Western nations. Essentially, Islam will have to be torn apart from top to bottom. All other Muslim nations are to then be put on notice. One false step. If even one citizen of any Western nation is harmed by any Muslim anywhere in the world, another major Muslim city is to be destroyed. Only an enormously disproportionate response will ultimately bring them to their knees, and it's to their knees where they belong.

I am completely open to the idea of ultimately wiping the world of Islam alltogether. If they continue to seek the subjugation of the West, they will in turn face total extinction. It's the kind of final solution I can get behind.

Posted by: EJ at July 22, 2005 08:59 PM

79 Do you really think that nuking mecca will force muslims to sit back and re-think their ideology ? Did 9/11 make the americans think about their foreign policies ? No, it made the americans very mad, and thirsty for revenge. This is exactly how muslims will react. At the moment there is a very small minority of muslims who are willing to attack the 'infidels'. Any attack on Mecca (or Medina, which is also a very holy site for muslims) will cause just about every muslim in the world to seek revenge on America. it's not just America who has nukes. if America nukes Mecca, it can expect to be nuked right back.

Posted by: Mohammed Shakil at July 26, 2005 07:22 AM

80 If America nukes Mecca, it can be expected to be nuked right back?

Mohammed Shakil,
Are you in your right mind? The scenario to nuke Mecca only depeneded if America was nuked first. May I suggest that you polish up on your English.

Posted by: wade crowe at August 06, 2005 02:30 PM

81 Yes nuking mecca is a possible option but these backward savages would probably see it as some kind of divine intervention and start worshipping the hole in the ground where mecca was. Personally I'd to see the every muslim and arab on earth given a fatal dose of zyclon B gas... but the sand monkeys still occupy the oil lands. Until the supplies run out there will be no nuking.

Posted by: John S at August 22, 2005 05:40 PM

82 Why bother to nuke mecca, we could go in with tanks and bulldozers and dig it up. The false god Allah would be shown as such even to these ignorant heathens too.

Posted by: Saracens dead at August 22, 2005 06:00 PM

83 to the 'true muslim',

why, your verse is exactly what the world is telling the ladenites- dont make mischief in the name of islam (peace)!

Posted by: littlebrownman at August 28, 2005 12:14 PM

84 the view of rusty is not very improbable. if we remember that after AD 70, the jewish resistance changed its opinions about uprisings shows that the temple did play a crucial role in the extreme jewish beliefs of the day. again, the jewish resistance did not revive between the fall of the roman empire and the rise of the arabs- showing that the jews have changed betting upon god's active support in judea.

to the present topic, the destruction of the islamic holy places may play a crucial role in convincing the muslims that god might indeed discourage religious monopoly. while it would be debatable how effective it would be as a deterrent, it can be assured that such a retaliation is inevitable as a reaction to some horrendous terrorist act, like killing huge population. at least some individuals from america, israel or britain may be provoked to this vengeance. missiles and powerful bombs are well within the reach of private citizens in US, let us remember.

Posted by: littlebrownman at August 28, 2005 12:33 PM


reading these will help. Before you jump to conclusions about who's right and who's wrong, you simply need to do a little research on the matter. Obviously you don't want to be biased, so try and gather information from unbiased sources (unfortunately they're all biased lol). I wanted to know the reason behind the islamic attacks in the first place, so, I read about the islamic faith and their five pillars and all the rest, but I also visited another site which tried to explain the situation regarding the suicide bombings. Turns out that the islamic extremists had in fact misinterpreted the scriptures and were not actually following the koran accurately. It also made retaliatory references to christians in response to the suicide bombing issue - child molestation and homosexuality. These issues came about thanks to followers of the Catholic faith. Catholicism and Christianity are not the same... he got confused ^_^ just like so many other people out there do. Catholics are not Christians (although the definition of a "christian" is a follower of Jesus Christ, which Catholics do) Christians are protestant of the Catholic view. Galatians 3:10 - to all the Catholics out there. Anyway back to the issue..

Use nuclear weapons on Mecca? I don't think that's a very good idea. Y'see it's actually better to keep that option as "potential". If we DID nuke, ALOT of people would be extremely angry and there would be some from the islamic faith who would feel as if they had nothing left to live for and no doubt do everything in their power to retaliate as hard as possible.

But having the ability to launch nuclear weapons at will makes much more sense. Consider the fact that it will deter islamic extremists from going too far as they know that if they continue then eventually they're going to get more than what they bargained for. I think if a major city was attacked with a nuclear bomb, then yes, it may seem like a cold hearted option, But if you think that it would be genocide killing all of those innocent people... remember - it was from those "innocent people" that the terrorists emanated.

Really, It would be good if things didn't have to be like this. Even discussing the use of nuclear weapons on a distant country feels sickening doesn't it? But if they want to start a war, then don't blame the U.S. if they end up dying from radiation poisoning or being obliterated as a result from a nuclear blast.

P.S. I'm not an American. I'm an Aussie. G'day mate!!!

Posted by: Davey G at September 04, 2005 01:00 PM

86 I pray this never happens, but I've thought for a couple years now that it would make a VERY volatile FILM:

Let's say, that in 2021, a group of 30-something "Christian" radical right-wing extremists insanely effected by 9/11 (maybe one or two of them lost his (or her) mother or father in the tragedy) and Islamic extremism decide to hatch a plot to crash an airliner loaded with a Nuke into Makkah (not Mecca, I just learned) during Ramadan...


Posted by: Little Blue PD at September 06, 2005 01:52 AM

87 See EDGE OF GOD, a new thriller regarding Little Blue PD's comment. In this novel, suitcase nukes are used by both Islamic fundamentalist and right-wing Christian terrorists to achieve their own ends. If a nuclear threat affected, for example, not Mecca but a lesser Islamic holy site it would send the message that terrorism can work both ways. Interesting to speculate on the effect it would have on the Wahhabis.

Posted by: Grumbletune at September 11, 2005 12:19 PM

88 Nukes in a western capital the response is hard to
predict. If it happened in India, then there will be an immeadiate convential attack on Pakistan with the aim of dismembering that state.
Islamic radical would be crazy to detonate a nuclear device in the US, the response from the US would most likely be on a large scale.
I recommend a cautious approach, no nuclear attack, but a conventional attack, blessed by the UN. Secure the supplies, disarm the entire muslim world and seal it off. Occupy the islamic world and build a wall as the Israelis have done.

Lets hope none this never happpens. We all breath the same, we are all human, we sould be able to
at least coexist.

Posted by: V Ramakrishna at September 11, 2005 10:58 PM

89 I've read all of the above posts. Most people who are against violence (except for Bushido, who posted many Koran fragments) don't seem to know this one detail. This detail being that there just isn't any form of complete peace possible as long as there are muslims. Almost every page in the Koran calls for violence against the "infidels". Islam was created to be spread over the entire world. Spread over the entire world by means of violence, of course. One of Rusty mentioned the horrors of the Jerusalem killings by crusaders. I'm surprised still no muslim poster played that card, it's usually done in the first minute or so. Jerusalem was awful after the first crusade, but let us not forget the violence, raping and killing the muslims commited in their conquering. I have read reports written between 600AD-700AD, telling the horrors of entire towns slayed. Islam calls for violence, no matter what muslim "apologists" claim in the media. These are people who won't settle until their final goal (the worldwide caliph, islam as only religion in the world) is reached. I may sound a bit harsch now, in my statement that there cannot be true peace when there are muslims lurking. I know, but this view is the result from years research. Research not on websites where anyone can post anything, but actual Koran translations, talked to many muslims about it, too, and of course I studied the history of islam. I'm not a warmonger, I only want to be convinced that islam is not all that bad. Yet after years of research I became more and more disgusted about "the muslim way". I really want people to read my post and prove me wrong, prove to me that there is a chance of peace. Anyone with the standard lines "islam is a religion of peace" and things like that I hear all the time would be fine, as long as they post facts and data. I know far too much of this religion that my mind wont be changed by apologists without real data. I will read any post with great interest, I hope someone tells me where my thinking went wrong. The way I feel now is not very good for muslims. Their religion cannot be all bad, can it? yet it looks like so. prove me wrong, please.

Posted by: Fred at September 28, 2005 06:28 AM

90 stop talkin n try nuke macca u will be burnin hell bushido dosent know anything about islam r u muslim i dont think so shut up u ppl massicared muslims in the crusade ok
muslim jews chirstien belive in da same god and we belive most of the prophts

Posted by: sultan at November 03, 2005 05:10 PM

91 Thanks to Grumbletune for pointing me towards, it looks like a great read that could also be a great movie, let's hope someone in Hollywood has the balls to make it someday.


Posted by: Little Blue PD at November 05, 2005 03:33 AM

92 A different approach to nuking Mecca at http:/

Posted by: malikrik at November 09, 2005 05:24 AM

93 A different angle on nuking Mecca at "Islams zro sum gamble"

Posted by: malikrik at November 09, 2005 05:31 AM

94 I TRYING to FIND my wife

Posted by: ANDRE at February 07, 2007 09:11 AM

Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.0184 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0085 seconds, 102 records returned.
Page size 109 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.