• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Did the GWB-Unit threaten to decimate Mecca?

Status
Not open for further replies.

KiNeSiS

Banned
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42272

Has U.S. threatened to vaporize Mecca?
Intelligence expert says nuke option is reason bin Laden has been quiet

Posted: January 7, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Why hasn't Osama bin Laden's terror network executed an attack on U.S. soil since 9-11?

Simple, says Dr. Jack Wheeler, creator of an acclaimed intelligence website dubbed "the oasis for rational conservatives": The U.S. has threatened to nuke the Muslim holy city of Mecca should the terror leader strike America again.

On his website, To the Point, Wheeler explains how the Bush administration has identified the potential of wiping Mecca off the map as bin Laden's ultimate point of vulnerability – the Damoclean Sword hanging over his head.

"Israel … recognizes that the Aswan Dam is Egypt's Damoclean Sword," writes Wheeler. "There is no possibility whatever of Egypt's winning a war with Israel, for if Aswan is blown, all of inhabited Egypt is under 20 feet of water. Once the Israelis made this clear to the Egyptians, the possibility of any future Egyptian attack on Israel like that of 1948, 1967, and 1972 is gone."

Wheeler says talk of bin Laden's Damoclean Sword has infiltrated the Beltway.

Writes Wheeler in his members-only column: "There has been a rumor floating in the Washington ether for some time now that George Bush has figured out what Sword of Damocles is suspended over Osama bin Laden's head. It's whispered among Capitol Hill staffers on the intel and armed services committees; White House NSC (National Security Council) members clam up tight if you begin to hint at it; and State Department neo-cons love to give their liberal counterparts cardiac arrhythmia by elliptically conversing about it in their presence.

"The whispers and hints and ellipses are getting louder now because the rumor explains the inexplicable: Why hasn't there been a repeat of 9-11? How can it be that after this unimaginable tragedy and Osama's constant threats of another, we have gone over three years without a single terrorist attack on American soil?"

Available only to subscribers of To the Point, Wheeler ends his column by explaining the effectiveness of the Mecca threat.

"Completely obliterating the terrorists' holiest of holies, rendering what is for them the world's most sacred spot a radioactive hole in the ground is retribution of biblical proportions – and those are the only proportions that will do the job.

"Osama would have laughed off such a threat, given his view that Americans are wussies who cut and run after a few losses, such as Lebanon in 1983 and Somalia in 1993. Part of Bush's rationale for invading Afghanistan and Iraq – obviously never expressed publicly – was to convince Osama that his threat to nuke Mecca was real. Osama hates America just as much as ever, but he is laughing no more."

Wheeler says bin Laden is "playing poker with a Texas cowboy holding the nuclear aces," so there's nothing al-Qaida could do that could come remotely close to risking obliterating Mecca.

Writes Wheeler: "So far, Osama has decided not to see if GW is bluffing. Smart move."


I found this article in a thread at a Florida State off topic board. You should have read their reactions, their dicks got hard.

But if this is true, this is some of the sickest shit I've ever read and it contradicts the whole "This isn't a war on Islam" claim. In the unlikely event they would nuke Mecca, there would be hell to pay.
 

KiNeSiS

Banned
DeadStar said:


True dat! I co-sign.

He is a theif steals presidential elections,
Steals oil.

Iraq isn't a threat now north Korea on the other hand.....
If were worried about weapons of mass destruction why not do something about them?
 
KiNeSiS said:
It is strange that they only attacked us once though.
I disagree. It's not as if the events of September 11, 2001 came out of nowhere; they took years of planning and a lot of luck. That it hasn't been duplicated with a lot more attention being given to the subject doesn't surprise me.
 

bionic77

Member
I am sorry to say that I have heard a few crazy right wingers throw this idea out more then once since 9-11, but I really can't believe that this is our foreign policy these days in dealing with terrorists.

I hope our country never sinks to the level of dropping nukes on civilian targets ever again.
 

MIMIC

Banned
What the fuck is it that people don't understand about the fact that events like 9/11 take years of planning and preparation?

We were attacked in 1993. SEVEN YEARS LATER, we were attacked again at the very same site on 9/11.

It's only been four years.

9/11 was not a car crash. It was not an accidental house fire. It was not a computer glitch. THESE events occur often. Events like 9/11 do NOT.
 

maharg

idspispopd
MIMIC said:
What the fuck is it that people don't understand about the fact that events like 9/11 take years of planning and preparation?

We were attacked in 1993. SEVEN YEARS LATER, we were attacked again at the very same site on 9/11.

It's only been four years.

9/11 was not a car crash. It was not an accidental house fire. It was not a computer glitch. THESE events occur often. Events like 9/11 do NOT.

A) Are all the terrorists in the world capable of hatching only a single plot every 7 years?
B) How many people do you figure were actually involved in 9/11. There's the people who actually did it, who had to go and get pilot training. And........... who else? The instigators, to be sure. Bin Laden and/or whoever. The people who supplied fake ID and all that (who are there anyways and probably don't give a shit what it's used for). Who else, and where's the time consuming part?
C) Irish and Chechen terrorists, hell even Islamic terrorists in their own land, don't seem to have so much trouble carrying out terrorist attacks on a regular basis. Your claim rests on the notion that all terrorist attacks must be on such a grand scale.

I'm not going to draw any conclusions from any of that, because it's not really enough information to get a useful one from, but I think what you said there was a little rash.
 

KiNeSiS

Banned
bush_bonesman_small.JPG

Kuwabara!!! Kuwabara!!!
 

Socreges

Banned
MIMIC said:
We were attacked in 1993. SEVEN YEARS LATER, we were attacked again at the very same site on 9/11.

It's only been four years.
Actually, it's only been about 3.3 years. Because it was, in fact, EIGHT YEARS after 1993. ;P

That's beside the point, of course. I agree with maharg, of whom I believe I share a name.
 

Macam

Banned
That's absolute nonsense considering we've had nukes for some time, regardless of the recent Middle East invasions on Bush's part. We've been meddling in the Middle East for over half a century now anyway, and I don't think Bin Laden or any other terrorist would think that an attack like 9/11 would occur without any potential consequences or retribution. If anyone's looking at the history books to predict US behavior, just look at the US' response to Pearl Harbor, which was a far, far less disastrous event in comparison to the attack four years ago. This argument is little more than absurd justification for the neo-cons and I would sincerely question any foreign affair scholars supporting such garbage.

Bush really isn't waging a war against Islam as much as he is against the US politically.
 

Jdw40223

Member
KiNeSiS said:
True dat! I co-sign.

He is a theif steals presidential elections,
Steals oil.

Iraq isn't a threat now north Korea on the other hand.....
If were worried about weapons of mass destruction why not do something about them?


Correction, he only stole the first election. And we cannot steal what is ours= THAT OIL IS MINE!! hehe :)
 

Master Z

Member
Even Bush isn't stupid enough to nuke Mecca. Every muslim in the world would become suicide bombers aimed straight at America.
 

MIMIC

Banned
maharg said:
A) Are all the terrorists in the world capable of hatching only a single plot every 7 years?
B) How many people do you figure were actually involved in 9/11. There's the people who actually did it, who had to go and get pilot training. And........... who else? The instigators, to be sure. Bin Laden and/or whoever. The people who supplied fake ID and all that (who are there anyways and probably don't give a shit what it's used for). Who else, and where's the time consuming part?
C) Irish and Chechen terrorists, hell even Islamic terrorists in their own land, don't seem to have so much trouble carrying out terrorist attacks on a regular basis. Your claim rests on the notion that all terrorist attacks must be on such a grand scale.

I'm not going to draw any conclusions from any of that, because it's not really enough information to get a useful one from, but I think what you said there was a little rash.

OK, before I respond, let me get one thing straight: are you actually basing al-Qaeda's lack of attack in the United States on what this article claims?; that they're being kept-in-check because of a threat to nuke Mecca?
 

Miburou

Member
The ka'ba in Mecca can not be destroyed by anyone; God will not allow it. At least that's what many Muslims think.

This article has about as much bullshit as the one that said that Israelis were using the threat of dipping Palestinians in pig-blood (and thus denying them access to heaven!) to keep them from executing suicide bombings.
 
Haha, Jack Wheeler. He's the fuckin' nutjob that runs WorldNetDaily.


When even Ripclawe won't parrot your spin, you KNOW you're at the bottom of the conservative shitpile.
 

maharg

idspispopd
MIMIC said:
OK, before I respond, let me get one thing straight: are you actually basing al-Qaeda's lack of attack in the United States on what this article claims?; that they're being kept-in-check because of a threat to nuke Mecca?

I don't have to agree with what you're arguing against to think your argument is weak. In this case, no I don't.
 

gofreak

GAF's Bob Woodward
What muslim countries have nukes? Any?

Cos, presumably, nuking mecca would, you know, really piss them all off.

I wouldn't take this seriously though. The idea of it is just ludicrous.
 

DarienA

The black man everyone at Activision can agree on
Drinky Crow said:
Haha, Jack Wheeler. He's the fuckin' nutjob that runs WorldNetDaily.


When even Ripclawe won't parrot your spin, you KNOW you're at the bottom of the conservative shitpile.

:lol :lol :lol :lol
 

bionic77

Member
gofreak said:
What muslim countries have nukes? Any?

Cos, presumably, nuking mecca would, you know, really piss them all off.

I wouldn't take this seriously though. The idea of it is just ludicrous.

Not many countries have nukes period. I think Pakistan is the only Muslim country with nukes and I don't think they have the capability yet to reach America.
 

Manics

Banned
gofreak said:
What muslim countries have nukes? Any?

Cos, presumably, nuking mecca would, you know, really piss them all off.

I wouldn't take this seriously though. The idea of it is just ludicrous.


Not to mention the reaction from the rest of the world.
 

Azih

Member
bionic77 said:
Not many countries have nukes period. I think Pakistan is the only Muslim country with nukes and I don't think they have the capability yet to reach America.
No but Pakistan would launch its entire arsenal at Israel.

I mean really, all bets are off in that kinda scenario.
 
So how exactly did Bush convey this threat to Osama while keeping it secret from the world at large? If you'll recall, we haven't found him yet.
 

bob_arctor

Tough_Smooth
Lucky Forward said:
So how exactly did Bush convey this threat to Osama while keeping it secret from the world at large? If you'll recall, we haven't found him yet.

Leak it in the street, word of mouth, have any implanted agents make sure the "right" people hear it. It would get back to him eventually. Again, not saying any of these claims are true, just pointing out that it is not difficult to obscure the masses while still getting your message across.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom