What Happens if Someone Nukes the Black Cube?

Ten years ago I used to discourage discussion of nuking Mecca. There were two reasons for my aversion to the topic: (1) I felt it was intemperate, and (2) I thought, in my naïveté that the bellicose advocacy of such wanton destruction would alienate people who are currently sitting on the fence about Islam.

There’s been a lot of water under the bridge since then. Nowadays I don’t worry about discussions on nuking the Ka’aba. But that doesn’t mean I think it would be a good idea, strategically speaking. To believe that destroying Mecca would demoralize or discourage Muslims is to make a fundamental strategic error.

The text below is adapted from a response I made earlier today to a commenter who advocated nuking Mecca. I think it’s important to understand the likely effect that would have on Muslims, based on the way they interpret the core teachings of Islam.

If you believe that nuking Mecca will “show” Muslims anything, then you don’t understand Islam.

The cult of Mecca — black stone, shrines, etc. — is considered idolatry by the Islamic State and other Salafists. It represents putting something before the worship of Allah, and is thus a form of shirk, or polytheism. The Islamic State has already promised to destroy the “idols” of Mecca.

If anyone were to nuke Mecca, they would be understood by devout Muslims to be carrying out the will of Allah. It would be seen as a punishment sent by Allah against those whose faith is less than pure, and a warning to Muslims everywhere.

The net effect would be to turn the survivors — which would be the vast majority of Muslims, even if the destruction occurred during the hajj — into Salafists. Islam, in effect, would be purified.

For those Muslims who consider themselves the true practitioners of Islam — the original form of it from the time of the Companions of the Prophet, al-salaf al-salih — the shrines of Mecca are just a racket set up by servants of Satan to divert Muslims from the true faith.

So be careful what you wish for. The future commanders of any operations against Islam — if we ever have any such — should study Islam very, very closely. They should immerse themselves in it. They should learn to think the way Muslims think (which is not quite what we call “thinking”). Every single one of them should be required to sit through Major Stephen Coughlin’s 12-hour briefing on Islam. And that should be only the beginning of their education, a basic introduction pointing them towards all they must learn.

You must know the enemy.

102 thoughts on “What Happens if Someone Nukes the Black Cube?

    • If this :

      happens, say by Iran, using a huge helicopter, and hurl the Ka’aba into the Arabian Sea, near where Usama bin Laden is waiting for doomsday hell,

      Britain and America will rush to recover the submerged Ka’aba, put it together again, place it in its original place, beautify it better than before all that . . .

      To win the hearts and minds of their beloved religion of eternal blood and corpses.

      • Haha. If they’d have actually gotten him they wouldn’t have dumped the body.

        • Even Benazir Bhutto said Osama died ‘ years ago’ just before she was assassinated which was in 2007 and so before before ‘ osama” was killed.

  1. Thank you baron for your wise advice.
    I can imagine the ayatollahs doing such a thing and blaming Israel.

  2. “Wanton destruction”, nuking the Kaaba? Yes, I do see what you mean Baron, but for over 1400 years moslems have been the enemy–and they still are, as you know. The Koran tells them so, and they follow it literally.

    We’re not supposed to even think about blowing their black stone to pieces, but they blow up churches with gay(?) abandon, not to even mention all the other atrocities they commit against us with impunity. Personally, I’m sick of hearing islam described as ‘one of the great religions’, and westerners handling moslems with kid gloves; FGS, look where it’s getting us!

    Admittedly it’s only a personal opinion, but I think you’re being far too nice

    • Read my post — you’re missing the point!

      It’s not whether it would be nice — it’s whether it would be EFFECTIVE.

      Nuking Mecca would be a gift to the Islamic State. They’d be delighted.

      • It will be effective. Most moslems are not ISIS. Most moslems revere Kaaba highly. Indonesia is the most populated moslem country, with > 200 million moslems. In almost every house you see the picture of Kaaba, they don’t consider it shirk (pronounced like ‘see rig’). Majority of moslems globally make every effort to perform hajj.

        Japanese lost their faith to their caesar (Hirohito) after that symbol is (partially) cracked. We can demoralize MAJORITY of moslems if Kaaba is nuked. Stephen Coughlin know a lot of moslems and Islam, but he does not live among moslems for his live.

        • We will not be fighting Indonesians when the time comes. Their feelings about all this will be irrelevant.

          We will be fighting the Islamic State, or a successor state, made up of Sunni zealots, mostly Arabs. There may be several hundred thousand active fighters by then, and their numbers could well double after the Ka’aba is nuked. The ISIS fighters would consider their cause to have been purified, and would be even more zealous.

          Nuking Mecca would be strategically unwise.

          • “We will not be fighting Indonesians when the time comes. Their feelings about all this will be irrelevant.”

            If you mean ‘we’ as European, you may be right. But if ‘we’ is global non moslem civilization,
            may be not. Indonesian feelings will be relevant. Indonesian president Joko Widodo advanced the
            agenda of Palestine for non-aligned summit countries, a huge block of countries. Indonesia is
            chosen as mediator for Iran – Saudi. When countries like China, Philipine, and Thailand face
            problems with moslems of their own; they come to Indonesia for opinion. It’s unwise to disregard
            Indonesian feelings in the matter of moslems globally.

          • No, I don’t mean to disregard the feelings of Indonesians generally. Not at all. But, yes, we will be fighting the Islamic State, or something closely resembling it. And by “we” I do mean all non-Muslims. Because the Islamic State intends to rule the entire world, beginning with the Muslim parts of it.

            IS plans to first cleanse the Muslim areas of impurity. That includes Indonesia — they will eventually confront Indonesians who don’t worry about such things with the same stark choices they are now presenting in Mesopotamia and the Maghreb.

            And I can guarantee you that they will not be concerned in the slightest with the feelings of Indonesians.

            After that they plan to move on to subdue the rest of the world. They won’t succeed, of course. But there will be a lot of fire and blood and slaughter before they’re quelled.

      • I have to disagree.
        You are right insofar as you would get more radicalised Muslims by destroying any of the so called holly sites of Islam.
        But with the Kaaba it´s different.
        This is the single most important place in their cult, actually you could call Muslims stone-worshipers.
        It`s hard to find a similar holy site in other religions, and even if you can compare it, they all could be rebuilt in case of destruction (or like the jewish jerusalem temple even depend on being rebuilt in future).
        Also because any destruction would contradict the islamic theology and their concept of religious and cultural supremacy.
        And if the heavenly black stone in the kaaba is gone, its gone for ever.
        This site and the stone doesnt belong to muslims, they only worship there – it belongs to Allah!
        Muslims even have some myths and legends about the end of days.
        But not in any of them the Kaaba is destroyed.

        Its a bit like cutting the holy oak-trees of the old Germans – the gods Odin, Donar or Wotan didnt prevent it from happening, so they may be powerless or may not even exist at all.
        Yes, there would be rage, violence and an outcry, but in the longterm (!) it would weaken or even destroy Islam.
        Because Islam is a very worldly and materialistic orientated religion.
        But anyway, we are only theorizing. *sob*

        • But the Salafists don’t feel that way about the Black Stone — they think it’s an idol, and they WANT to destroy it, along with all the other shrines in the Hijaz.

          If the Salafists will be our principal enemies in the coming war — and I believe they will be — and if the Salafists will be encouraged, energized, and turbo-charged by the destruction of Mecca, then why should we do it?

      • I did not miss your point Baron, I simply point out that whether you realize it or not you’re taking the same old tired path of saying in effect:
        ‘Don’t nuke the kaaba, and for goodness sake don’t get the moslems riled-up–they might riot!’

        • No, I’m not saying that. If I had meant to, I would have said precisely that.

          I’m just opposed to actions that will interfere with our long-term strategic interests. If nuking Mecca serves to strengthen our enemies and extends their shelf-life, then we should not do it. It’s as simple as that.

          I could be wrong, of course. But this is my considered judgment after studying copious data on the subject.

          • If we can not destroy it we should make it in to a pleasure spot for all the world. Like a arab Disney World-freak show. Free entrance of course.

            If I could choose I would rather see it in smithereens.

          • Sorry put that in the wrong place.I meant to say I agree with the points made by Peter 35, an Indonesian and astuga

    • Why are we talking about nuking Mecca when unlimited hoards of Muslims are invited to Europe and the US?

      It seems to me there’s a disconnect. We want to initiate violent, probably immoral, annihilation of a city that has never taken violent action towards us, and yet our governments don’t take even the most rudimentary, obvious steps to keep the enemy out of our midst.

      So, which do you think is more beneficial: nuke Mecca and continue to allow Muslims free access to immigrate; or leave Mecca and peaceful Muslim countries alone, cut off Muslim immigration completely, and expel all non-citizen Muslims?

      The US has been a major player in toppling the basically secular government in Iraq, the anti-Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt, the secular government in Libya, and is trying hard to topple the secular government in Syria. With that history, what do we gain by nuking a city with a civilian population? All we had to do was keep our noses out of the (sordid) affairs of Middle East secular dictatorships…and of course, close off Muslim immigration.

      Far more ethical than nuking a civilian city, don’t you think?

      Of course, I’m assuming that our government actually wanted to limit the influence of Islam and made disastrous mistakes. In actuality, our government for the past 8 to 16 years has been neutral at best, and likely in favor of, the spreading of Islamic people and culture (if you can call anything Islamic a culture).

      • Ronald,

        There is not a disconnect between the two. Muslim immigration should be stopped as well and those whom are already here should be put on notice that any advocacy for sharia, jihad, or oppression of women and other religious groups will be met with immediate deportation of them and their families.

        The problem as I see it is that we have attempted to apply fair play and Western rules of war and rule of law to an enemy who has never and will never play by our rules. Terrorist groups such as ISIS exist by the tacit approval of and in some instances outright support of other muslim countries. At the very least, those who are in positions of religious and political authority do not speak out against the excesses or challange the theocratical basis of the brutality done at the hands of ISIS.

        As this war is as much about symbols as well as symbolism, the act of nuking Mecca and other centers of muslim population and political and religious governance, sends a powerful message to the followers of the Religion of Peace. The message is this: “We are stronger than you, more ruthless and determined, and if you persist in threatening us, we will continue until you are no more.”

        As for innocents, there is no such thing. Those among them who dislike the excesses done in the name of their religion do not oppose the actions in any meaningful way; no rioting in the streets against the beheadings and the rapes, no recall or boycott of the political and religious leaders who provide justification and enabling of the barbarous acts done in the name of Islam. And opinion poll after opinion poll has borne this out.

        So what does one do except exterminate or threaten to exterminate all who follow such a barbaric and cruel doctrine?

          • Yes. Islam is in a way the meteorite, or it’s’ eternal existence’ . Most Muslims believe the stone will never be destroyed because ‘ allah protects it’ it’s destruction cuts at the heart of their very faith’s authenticity and supremacy.
            I am not for nuking anything or anyone if possible really, so wouldn’t a few ‘ordinary bombs ‘ not do the trick. ?

        • Nuking Mecca would be immoral, counterproductive, and totally ineffective as far as protecting our society and culture.

          If we exclude Muslim immigration, expel Muslim non-citizens, and police the remaining Muslims as you suggest, what do we need to drop bombs in Muslim population centers for? The real danger of Islam is infiltration and subversion.

          The Baron has already detailed how the most fanatic Muslims are themselves opposed to the idolization of Mecca, and how they would destroy it themselves if they had the chance.

          In the absence of a formal determination to defend ourselves from Islam, nuking Mecca would not stop the slide towards subversion of our country and culture. In the presence of such a determination, nuking Mecca would be superfluous at best, and most likely extremely damaging to us.

          • Ronald,

            The point of such an act as vaporizing the holiest Muslim site on the planet is to demoralize the vast majority of Muslims who do revere the Ka’aba, even at risk of encouraging the fanatical among them who would be glad to see such a heretical site destroyed.

            Such an act of destruction would not exist in isolation. The scenario I see unfolding is some fanatical group of muslims releasing a bioweapon such as plague or Ebola into a Russian city as retaliation for Russian bombing of ISIS. Putin, not a man to be trifled with, would most likely order the nuking of Mecca, Riyadh, and Ankara, along with putting other muslim nations on notice that further attacks on Russia will not be tolerated, and will be responded to in the same manner. Of course, this will not deter crazies who think killing infidels gets them an eternal paradise full of sexual debauchery, and the attacks will continue.

            The point of destroying population centers is twofold. First, it demoralizes the enemy to know that we are more powerful and can destroy them with impunity if we wish. Second, this fight is exisistential, and in an era when a single terrorist with a vial of Ebola or pneumonic plague and an airline ticket can obliterate millions, the only sure way to deal with the threat is to kill them all, along with purging those in the West who act as a fifth column and provide comfort and support to our enemy. Destroying population centers is the most cost effective way to achieve this objective. As Ridley said on “Aliens”, “I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.”

            FWIW, I don’t see any way out of most of the predicaments the West faces including moral decay and subversion that doesn’t involve an unimagineable amount of bloodshed. And even with all of our unrealized strength, the outcome, in my opinion, is still in doubt.

  3. Ten megatons or so.
    Still, It would certainly leave quite a mark………..
    ESPECIALLY if it were accompanied by a few thousand airstrikes on mosques.
    A day.
    For a few weeks or so, or months………or years.

    I personally would rather cancel their EBT cards–but that would be waaay too inhumane.

    • Ah, and aren’t you the evil one? I don’t know where you are, but in our neck of the woods getting downwind of a pig farm (factory) can be a most unpleasant experience. Nothing quite like it. I remember when a hurricane went further inland in North Carolina than it usually does and flooded the swine swill…poisoned some of the local water for a while. I wish there were a way to get rid of the massive animal factories. It feels karmically wrong. I’d rather do with less meat…

  4. Maybe it would not discourage true believers or stop terrorists from committing atrocities against innocents, but it would be a long-overdue response to the political system that is Islam and their wanton in-your-face mockery and disregard of anyone who is not one of them. Force and violence is the language that Islam speaks in and understands. If an operative of Islam comes at us with aircraft loaded with jet fuel and innocent passengers, our response should be to come back at them with aircraft loaded with hydrogen bombs. And when they retaliate, we hit them back far harder; even with disproportionate levels of violence. For every car bombing or mass shooting or mass raping, we wipe another of their cities off the map. And thus continue until none of their cities remain.

    We are stronger than them, yet we are crippled by our lack of will and paralyzed by fear of what others will think of us. Islam will never, on any timescale that is relevent, go through the equivelent of the Reformation. Therefore, the answer of what to do about Islamic attacks and provocations becomes not a political problem, but a military one. One must ask the question; if Islamic countries had overwhelming numerical advantage, superiority in modern weaponry, nukes and the means to deliver them, does one not think that they would hesitate to use them to wipe us out?

    • Once again, you’re not reading what I’m saying.

      I’m not arguing about whether nuking Mecca is justified, I’m arguing that it is strategically unwise.

      The Islamic State is the “strong horse” in Islam right now, and ISIS wants the Ka’aba destroyed for sound theological reasons: from their point of view, the veneration of the Black Stone is idolatry; it’s people worshipping a rock — shirk, the worst sin in Islam (except maybe for kufr, unbelief).

      Nuking Mecca would strengthen the Islamic State. Millions of Muslims would conclude that ISIS were exactly right, and join the cause. And the Salafists would be ecstatic to see the Ka’aba turned into green glass.

      • I believe there is a point of misconception here.
        It may well be that salafis and and others like them are offended by the worshiping in Mecca.
        But that goes for the other places there (and especially the mosque and tomb of Muhammed in Medina) and how the hadjj is organized.
        But I doubt that they reject worshipping the Kaaba itself.

      • “Once again, you’re not reading what I’m saying…”
        We are, Baron, but some of us don’t agree.
        As The moon is a harsh mistress, above says, retribution against islam is long, long overdue, yet all we see–everywhere–is appeasement and ‘submission’.
        You say we are fighting isis, no, we are fighting islam “there is no moderate islam, there is only islam” (Erdogan) and should sit through a 12 hour ‘briefing’ to learn about islam; you can’t be serious! All any sane person needs to know about the murderous, backward cult could be learnt in ten minutes!
        The Allies fought against Hitler and the Japanese; they were the enemy. Now the enemy (and a worse one) has actually, insanely, been invited into our own countries by cowardly lunatics calling themselves our leaders, and far from stopping the invasion is escalating!
        isis could be dealt with very quickly if western forces were given the go ahead; they haven’t, and this time they won’t be stopped at The Gates of Vienna, for they are already in all our countries.

        • ISIS is currently the strongest war engine of Sunni Islam, so it is that we will be fighting. The rest of the Sunnis are supporting ISIS, covertly or overtly, directly or indirectly. Both aspects of the problem — the warriors and their support matrix — must be dealt with. Assuming, that is, we ever decide to deal with the problem at all, rather than topple secular dictators and engage in “nation-building”.

          Those Muslims who become “radicalized” — that is, whose faith has been purified — will either join the jihad or support it. During that process they will study more closely the doctrines of the pure faith. They will learn that to erect a shrine around a black stone and revere it is to worship an idol, no matter its provenance. They will therefore consider the destruction of the shrine their Islamic duty, and vow to destroy it, just as they did the tombs of the Shi’ite saints in the territories they conquered in Iraq.

          This is the dynamic into which our nuking of Mecca would be inserted.

          The purified faithful would cognize what happened as Allah’s using the filthy infidel as an instrument to destroy the filthy idols erected by the mushrikun who have polluted the hijaz. The would rejoice at what happened, and feel themselves vindicated. Their hatred of us would not diminish a whit, of course — we would simply be the instruments of Allah’s judgment against the mushrikun.

          The effect on other Muslims, the non-Salafists, would be harder to predict. But I doubt they would apostatize just because the Ka’aba had been destroyed. The exultation of the Salafists would saturate the airwaves in the Islamic world, and an undetermined number of Muslims would listen to it and say, “By gum, you know they’re right! I’m going to support the Islamic State from now on.”

          That’s the scenario, as I see it. And all of that would inform the motivation, decision-making, planning, energy, and zeal of the vicious Muslims who are already amongst us, the ones who give us Beslan and Brussels and the Bataclan and San Bernardino and all the other jihad attacks.

          Thus, it is incumbent upon us to understand as well as we can the way Muslims think about these things, because it will have a direct causative effect on the number of casualties we will have to take.

          Knowing the enemy does matter.

          • Baron, of course I could also be wrong.
            What I would like to know is, what makes you think that Salafis want to destroy the Kaaba?

            Are there any sources, quotations etc.

          • Yes, but it has been two years or so since I saw the quote (or the video). According to the purest of the pure, the black rock is an idol, if I understand it correctly.

            And it makes sense, in the larger context of Islam. The rock is an object being venerated, and Islam in its purest form always opposes such veneration. Only Allah (and his messenger Mohammed) may be venerated.

    • Actually, it is not the Reformation per se, but the 30 Years War and the Treaty of Westphalia that are the critical transformation. Arguably, the Salafis and Wahabbis represent Islam’s equivalent of the Protestant faith communities of the Reformation. They arose as an effort to sweep away the various compromises that had arisen over the centuries and return to an older, purer form of Islam.

      Part of the problem lies in the differing theology of scripture in Christianity and Islam. Mainstream Christianity holds the Bible to be the inspired Word of God, but that while the Holy Spirit guided the various authors, each of them were left free to express concepts in their own words, appropriate to the time and place in which they were written.

      By contrast, the Qu’ran is held by Muslims to have been dictated to Mohammed from an eternal and perfect original held in Heaven. It would be unthinkable to have anything comparable to the charming bit in one of the Pauline epistles in which Paul writes that he is glad he only baptized a couple of people — and then starts remembering additional names. Even the stories of Shaitan corrupting some of the verses and Allah having to send corrected versions in subsequent visions are a very touchy subject (yet there are also other stories of various issues arising in the early Muslim community and Mohammed just happening to receive a convenient new revelation).

      This belief that every word of the Qu’ran was dictated from a perfect divine original makes it exceedingly difficult to re-interpret it to adapt to modernity. Quite possibly impossible — attempts seem to either be crushed or split off into new religious movements. It also means that the various Islamic sects have a great deal of trouble accepting the possibility that there could be legitimate differences of interpretation of various passages of the Qu’ran. Hence we see the same extreme levels of violence between various Islamic sects as we see directed toward members of other faiths.

      The Peace of Westphalia and the rejection of religious warfare was at least partly the result of Western Christendom having gotten a bellyful of war amidst the horrors of the 30 Years’ War. So I had been hopeful that, if we could just summon the cultural will to fight hard enough to give the Muslim nations involved in the current conflict a bellyful of war, they too would decide that religious war just wasn’t worth it and move beyond it. But if the nature of their theology of scripture makes it impossible for them to reinterpret it in a way that they can put religious warfare behind them, it looks likely that the only way for Western Civilization and the modern world to survive is to render Islam impotent and marginalized. But if the seeming obvious solutions are apt to have the opposite result and stiffen the resolve of the enemy instead of breaking it, this is going to be a long, hard fight.

  5. I would consider confiscating it.

    It would be a lot funnier.

    But the factors that you list would be worth examining carefully before.

    I would do so by asking many Muslims how they would react. If they react by saying that it would be the will of allah, then I wouldn’t do it. If they react by getting immensely angry and saying that “allah won’t let you do that”, then I would be in favour!

  6. We would accomplish much more by drying up their sources of income – namely from KSA and the Gulf States.

    [intemperate additional recommendations redacted]

  7. Since there exists one copy of this genius architectural design in heavens, they can rebuild it even if someone nukes it. It is recommended to nuke the heavens in advance, to eliminate any chances of copy-pasting it onto earth one more time.

    How to find the reference black cube:
    “According to the Traditions and the inventive genius of Muslim writers, the Ka’bah was first constructed in heaven (where a model of it still remains, called Baitu ‘l-Ma’mur) two thousand years before the creation of the world. Adam erected the Ka’bah on earth exactly below the spot its perfect model occupies in heaven, and selected the stones from the five sacred mountains,…”
    Ref: http://answering-islam.org/Books/Hughes/k.htm

  8. Depends how many jihadis are there at the time.

    One theory holds that slam believes allah protects the cube and the vagina stone. That destroying it is the undoing of that belief.

    Others hold that islam crumples the minute that infidels present a strong defense as it means the time for jihad is not at hand.

    Another theory holds that nuclear weapons are very expensive and it would be much better to send in a dozen municipal workers with jack hammers and steam rollers and certainly considerably cheaper, even if they are union.

    My feeling is that it isn’t so much the vestigial remnants of the Meccans and their temple to the gods as much as it is the millions of muslims that visit it every year and are ready to do harm to guarantee islamic primacy.

    If we can deal with them then keep the Kabaa intact and run it as a P. T. Barnum exhibit.


    • “send in a dozen municipal workers with jack hammers and steam rollers and certainly considerably cheaper, even if they are union”

      My best laugh of the day!

  9. “To believe that destroying Mecca would demoralize or discourage Muslims is to make a fundamental strategic error.”

    Indeed. If Muslims around the world go [REDACTED: primate-fecal-matter used adverbially] when someone draws a mere cartoon, a Ka’abashima would likely trigger serial explosions of major civil unrest by over 90% of all Muslims throughout the West literally running amok in stabbing, shooting, vehicular homicide, and bombing sprees (see my essay on the phrase “running amok” and its connection to Islam: http://tiny.cc/utocby)

    • Yet the Islamic State would rejoice in the destruction. That’s paradoxical, but Islam doesn’t object to paradox (or even recognize the concept).

      • Sure Baron; I think Islam has always courted the chaos that unfolds from terror. Their end goal isn’t even conquest; it’s their eschaton: the final jihad.

        • It always strikes me as odd to see how much ISIS’s reverence of destruction resembles that attributed to Shiva, the Hindu Destroyer/Creator/Preserver.

          But of course Islam, being fully revealed at one time, couldn’t *possibly* have any points of cultural diffusion from India, could it? [wicked grin here]

          • Well, just think of the islamic Huri (heavenly virgins).
            They resemble equally to the greek goddesses called Horae and the hindu Apsara (or persian Peri).
            And some belive that there are references in Islam to the God Shiva (one of his symbols is the crescent moon with a star).
            But you seem to know that allready. 😉

            Greetz from Vienna to beautiful California!

      • Indeed, it could be a way to start the inevitable while the West is still collectively stronger.

        • Vlad and Mike, I thought of that already before I posted. In a way, one can’t object to such a view given that our West isn’t waking up to the full catastrophe of Islam, and the hour is getting late; and so in a way, the problem is getting like a boil that need to be lanced anyway…

          • Here’s the thing: it’s very much in the Islamist mentality to start conflicts. We don’t need to do it for them.

            They’ll eventually overplay their hand and do something massive that will lead to a Western reaction. Being stupid, they’ll probably do it too soon.

            Imagine the scenario of a 9/11 attack, but even larger, directed at Russia.

            Putin will blow a gasket, because he’ll know that if he doesn’t do something major, he’ll lose all credibility.

            While I don’t like Putin all that much, on THAT day, he’ll have my FULL support. I’ll be demonstrating in front of the Russian consulate, in SUPPORT of whatever he wants to do.

  10. The only way to find out for sure is to nuke Mecca and see what happens as a one off experiment. Do you think Trump would be up for it?

    • That’s the big question. No one really knows what Trump would do in a given situation. Even Trump probably doesn’t know. He’ll be in new territory.

  11. If I recall correctly, Ali Sina (founder of faithfreedom.org, author of ‘Understanding Muhammad’), and several other authors — like Raymond Ibrahim in JihadWatch — theorize that most moslems do not want the annihilation of non-moslems. They just
    want to dominate/govern the non-moslems. I believe it’s true, and it is relevant to why ISIS is (and perhaps will still be minority).

    Humans want to master others and be wealthy. Wealthy people and middle-class people don’t want daily chaos, they don’t want to daily kill people. That explains why even Saudis do not want to nuke Israel (though Iran may).

    ISIS is rejected by majority of Indonesian moslems. Mind you, Indonesia is the largest moslem country in the world, > 200 millions; one fifth of global moslem population. The thinking I mention apply to them, and to Malaysia too (Indonesia neighbor).
    High and middle class moslems need non moslems to do many works; they know it, they want to keep it that way.

    So, nuking Kaaba is effective, for demoralization of moslems. We’ll win a battle, a huge win if that is done. Even Iran who despise/envy Saudi revere Kaaba. If Kaaba is nuked, they’ll be paralyzed, like a child seeing his desired toy crushed. Many moslems think that Kaaba is a proof of Allah, is a proof for their faith (in Indonesia there is a story of how flood took over arab, but Kaaba isn’t sunk). Imagine that proof is destroyed.

    • Muslims ultimately want Paradise; and in the Islamic mythologoumena, Paradise comes two ways: after being killed in battle against the Kuffar enemy (for those few lucky enough to die killing per Koran 9:111); or at the end of history eschatologically. Islam is intensely eschatological. The Counter-Jihad seems to have forgotten this.

  12. A reconquista is far better and more effective than nuking Mecca (leave that to the Iranians) in demoralizing Muslims. Liberating the occupied Christian and Jewish lands of North Africa and the Levant from Islam would be much more disturbing to the Muslim psyche than a purely symbolic and reckless act of leveling Mecca. The liberation of Iberia and Israel causes endless grief and agitation for Muslims because it’s a manifest contradiction of Islamic inevitability.

    Of course, there is very little chance of such a reconquest, especially with a feminized West that’s under siege and in grave danger of succumbing to the Islamic invasion abetted by its traitorous political elite. Western Europe will do well just to survive.

    • It’s actually why Israel annoys them so much in reality.

      If Israel weren’t there as a focal point, the West would be “getting it” much worse already.

  13. For now i think the Baron is right. Why nuke the black stone- and removing one of the 5 pillars of islam- already?

    We can have so much fun with blackmailing islamic groups and islamic leaders by threatening to nuke Mecca.

    • How about just removing it from there and taking for safekeeping to, say, Antarctica. “You can have it back when we think that you’ve behaved well.”

      Like taking away a kid’s toy…

      • only if we have a graffiti draw mohamed contest on the kaaba first. I am thinking Amsterdam as a location for that event…

  14. Tunnel under the Kaaba and place a source of neutrons such that everyone who visits within 30 meters receives a total body dose of about 600 Rads.

  15. I think the nuking would prove more advantageous. Yes it would make Muslims more radical (or as I would call it show their true face.) The real danger of Islam spreading is the way they slowly take over countries breeding out of control and hijacking the democratic process to slowly turn western civilization into third world sharia state. That is the real danger! ISIS not a big deal to fight if western countries can ban Islam deport Muslims and a clear state of war between the parties. Like activating the immune system against an infection.

    • But why do something that our enemy welcomes, and that might well make him stronger? I don’t get it.

      • ISIS is a small force compared to the 1.7 billions of Muslims whom essentially share the final goal with the minority radicals. The ultimate goal is to eradicate the CULT of Islam and if this move short term strengthening them, ling term will help humankind. I am sure you played chess and sometimes you need to sacrifice a piece…

        • ISIS could only have victories because US government heavily supported them armed them and gave support to them. Islamic groups have great influence in there already the Muslim Brotherhood pulling the strings. Once we are in open conflict they will lose all this support.

      • I believe what the original commenter is getting at is this: One could have an illness working away within one’s body, and it may very well have a fatal outcome if not treated. However, if the symptoms of that illness flare up, and the patient is taken to hospital in the back of a blue-light ambulance, then treatment can begin.

        That treatment may be aggressive, it may involve firing doses of radiation at the patient – it may make the patient feel horrible, throw up, lose their hair etc – it may be something that no one wants to have to do.

        But it’s the patient’s only chance – if they want to survive.

        In short – a flare up of symptoms can lead to the successful treatment of a potentially fatal illness.

  16. Well, if anyone nukes the Kaaba then it probably won’t be the US. Mecca is in territory that’s supposed to be under US influence. Hard to say how long it will stay that way.

    So who would do it? Perhaps the EUSSR since Islam will start to become a liability after it serves no useful political purpose for them. But by that point it probably wouldn’t be necessary (assuming it even “worked”) since they could just use the same totalitarian tactics used in xinjiang or Tajikistan.

    The Baron might be right. Islam has a way of twisting everything into pro-Islamic “will of Allah” type stuff. It would probably get blamed on the corruption of the Saudis, on idolatry, on not fighting the infidels hard enough, neglecting the duty of jihad, etc., and thus just Allah’s punishment for Muslims being “bad”.

  17. I don’t think understanding Islam is important. Beyond knowing about death for apostasy, the impossibility in the Muslim mind of obeying any infidel law or being friends with an infidel, Islam’s ridiculous take on natural world, and seeing the poor Jordanian pilot being burned to death, what else does one need to know that there’s not much else you need to study up on. Perhaps one could keep a picture of the leering Anjem Choudary in one’s wallet to keep one’s hatred at a white heat but that’s about it.

    I’d love to hear Maj. Coughlin’s briefing but, bottom line, the mission of the U.S. Army infantry, among others, is to find, fix, and destroy the enemy. Understanding him isn’t part of that formula.

    For the U.S. the elephant in the living room has always been the despicable Saudi regime and our licking their boots. The destruction of every Saudi royal family “palace” and Al Azhar “University” in Cairo, demanding the Turkish abandonment of Constantinople, and the confiscation of all Muslim property in the West in the first 30 days of a proper war against our deadly enemies would be a good start. The killers of Lee Rigby should be suspended by a spike by noon tomorrow. And Choudary beside them.

    Short of such chastisement, we won’t get the Muslim’s attention. And our present ultra-legal approach is for civilized men but, faced with the uncivilized, the medieval use of the device of declaring those who offend as outlaws needs to be brought back post haste.

    Consider this a Gordian Knot approach, which Alexander cleverly saw through. The Muslim invades our countries and then cast up a web of lawfare and contumacious garbage and waits for us to thrash about in nets of our own creation. Dutifully so far, we advance meekly and obediently to our destruction while patting ourselves on the back about what fine fellows we are for never having abandoned due process and always having sought the approval of the U.N. We need to wage war without lawyers, priests, and NGOs and after we achieve The Great Reset we can go back to being fine fellows again.

    One of the first principles of fighting a civilizational war to the death is to understand that you’re in one. So far, that hasn’t happened.

    • You forget one thing, dear Colonel: if we destroy the House of Saud, it will be replaced by the Islamic State, or something very similar. A pure Islamic regime, in other words.

      This is a choice between two devils we know — one very bad, one MUCH worse. I can’t think of any good solution. “Hama rules” would be about the only thing that would work. But that would have to be applied to the entire region to be effective.

      Since our political leaders are unwilling even to say “BOO!” to the Arabs, this is all just mind games, anyway.

      • I’m afraid that “our leaders” are thinking the same thing as you, but just in a more extreme way.

        The Saudi regime is a danger not because of what it does locally, but because of what it exports (they basically paid their crazies to spread it elsewhere instead of making problems locally).

        Removing them might be a last option: credibly threatening to UNLESS they do X, Y and Z is probably more effective.

        If the West doesn’t deal with the problem, eventually they’ll do something to Russia, and the Russians will deal with them, Russian-style.

      • True but the initial result of the invasion of Iraq was to scare the Iranians and to cause Gaddafi to foreswear his nuclear project. Message received! Then Bush got in touch with his inner moron and away we went down the nation-building road-with-no-end. “Educational punitive strike” became “quagmire.”

        The successors to any Saudi regime would be free to create whatever society they want but it could only be in the context of the world’s having decided to end the threat of Islam to civilized people forever. We have tried to live side by side with conniving, vicious, Muslim obscurantism for centuries without drawing a clear line as the British did with Indians and the practice of suttee and the Nationalist Chinese did with the native practice of foot binding. Similarly, we should announce that the doctrine of death for apostasy has at long last been banished from the earth and that any advocate is an enemy of mankind with a bounty on his head. Sort of one of those fatwa thingies. It’s probably the key doctrine of that “faith” that keeps it alive. Control by fear. Gone!

        The competing sappy or mendacious view that Islam is a ROP will likely prevail, so, in place of a definitive settling of scores, the terrible menace of Islam will be dealt with, as always, by meting out 15-year prison terms for Rigby’s killers and reducing Choudary’s welfare benefits by 3%.

        That will be useless and Europe will fall. Does anyone don’t that that is inevitable?

        So my question is When do decent people say “enough”?

        You know there was a time in the Winter War where the Soviets just had had enough of the Finns running circles around them. They piled on with new fury and resolved matters after a fashion but it did require them first to be disgusted with their ineptitude. Surely there must come a time when we are simply just repulsed by our own failure to remove (legally) the Ryans, the Soroses, the Camerons, the Blairs, the Sarkozys, the Merkels, the Timmermans, and the Reinfeldts. And if now is not that time, when is it?

        My distemper is not directed at you.

        • That’s really what’s needed: taking over those areas, and EDUCATING them over a period of generations.

          The last European colonisation of North Africa (for example) calmed them down for quite a while, AND has had lasting positive effects to this day, if you compare with what went on there before.

          It’s time to do the unthinkable: put the fear of the USA into the Gulf monarchies, enough so that they’ll now have a huge interest in keeping their crazies under control, and doing what they’re told.

          Here’s how I would do it: I’d pick the worst of them and the easiest target, Qatar. Why are they the worst? Because they’ve financed and stirred up enough of this garbage. Unlike Saudi, they’re also easy to take over. Read on.

          Step #1: Foment discord within Qatar, with foreigners making demands to no longer be treated shabbily.

          Step #2: Wait for the inevitable repression, and so on. Now, here’s the perfect excuse to get involved.

          Step #3: Invade Qatar, depose the Royals, exile them to Saudi with $50 million each. Any attempt to come back, and they will be shot.

          Step #4: Make everyone who has been resident for at least 5 years citizens. This will more than double the number of citizens overnight, who will be quite happy with the new state of affairs and strongly support the new force.

          Step #5: Run it as a dependent territory over the next LONG time, gradually introducing democracy, if it works. If it doesn’t, continue running it as a protectorate. Secularise all public functions. The place has LOTS of gas, so all of this can pay for itself with relatively little initial investment.

          Step #6: Consolidate military forces there by recruiting lots of the non-Arab new citizens into the forces. They’ll be the most motivated to keep the status quo going, and will be massively loyal.

          Step #7: Watch Qatar become the best country in the region. Do not lose control of the education system.

          After this, the rulers of the other countries in region (like the Saudi Royal family) will be quite scared of having the same done to them. They’ll now behave.

          • Mike, Qatar (interesting that the English pronunciation, more or less, is Gutter) won’t be that easy. It falters at “depose the royals” – that would be akin to “let’s make the desert a moderate climate” in terms of being achievable. Just because we can conceive of something doesn’t mean it can be achieved.

            Obama’s plan, to let Iran build their nukes and give them money to fund the Shi’ite terrorists, is probably the kind of evil genius you’re considering because it is certainly in the process of destabilizing the whole of MENA. The Sunnis are scared, as well they should be. Iran wants to annihilate its Sunni enemies but it also wants to destroy the West so it’s hard to say where the evil eye will turn first.

            Behind most of the Muslim mayhem – Qatar or Saudi Arabia – is a modicum of rational thinking. Not so with Iran’s irrational beliefs about the 12th Imam and what they need to do (destroy everything)

            Note that Persians are smarter than Arabs generally speaking, and the latter know that. They are also not congenitally averse to getting their hands dirty, which is a particular weak point for Arabs historically. Combine Persian initiative with their intelligence and you have a problem not easily harnessed since they don’t need to hire foreigners to accomplish the building and maintenance of war materiel, including the nuclear fireworks they’re planning.

            The internal discord – with added fear now – is already in place. As Iran gets stronger, look for the groups they feed to begin to dominate in Lebanon and Jordan/Palestine. That puts Israel at ever greater risk.

            The internal group dynamics are enough to bring down the whole house of cards if we could just learn to stop messing in the region. Hardening our own skies against Iran’s EMP plans – which so far only Maine seems to be doing – would be a good defensive place to start.

            IOW,it’s our own fences we need to mend, our own defense we need to maintain.There have been thousands of terrorists attacks since 9/11 but the majority are Muslims killing each other.

  18. I’m with the Baron on this one, but for reasons different to his. I also share Col. B. Bunny’s view that it is not important to understand Islam, any more than is necessary to deem it persona non grata. Po-faced Islamic Scholars may consider it noble to spend half a lifetime studying the most sadistic way to rape a baby then cut its head off, but I don’t.

    I have come to the conclusion that Islam is like a cancer in humanity, and apparently it is not necessary to go to the huge, often self-destructive lengths necessary to totally destroy it, as long as you contain it. The sad irony is that ruthless, secular-style despots throughout the Middle East were doing precisely that until the West, in its ignorance, decided to depose them.

    With the West’s immune system fatally weakened by Lefty-Liberalism the Muslim cancer cells then exploded into its territory. But there is no need for world-wide war to defeat them; Islam only needs to be ruthlessly cut out to the point where it can be contained. Both Europe and America can essentially do this quite simply, and almost bloodlessly, by totally banning the practice and teaching of Islam, destroying all the mosques, and forbidding entry to Muslims.

    There is no need to deport, imprison or kill the ones already here – with their programming switched off they will just run round aimlessly like beheaded chickens (The ‘mastermind’ behind the recent Brussels bombings was described by his own lawyer as having “the intellect of an empty ashtray”). Succeeding generations should then produce an ever-increasing number of offspring who, without indoctrination from birth, will likely grow up to be human; and the oldies will die off.

    Who then cares what happens in the Middle East as long as it stays there? All the West has to do is put suitable despots in charge of the various cesspits and all will be well. Refusing to trade with them will help, too. As will facing up to the fact that the threat is Islam, not ISIS. The trumpeting by politicians that “ISIS is losing ground” would be called ‘displacement activity’ by a zoologist.

    • Both Europe and America can essentially do this quite simply, and almost bloodlessly, by totally banning the practice and teaching of Islam, destroying all the mosques, and forbidding entry to Muslims.

      Saying that something can “simply” be done ignores the fact that it is manifestly not being done, simply or otherwise. It hasn’t been done, it isn’t being done, and there is no sign that it ever will be done.

      Why is that?

      In point of fact, Islam is in the process of defeating us. It may already be too late to turn the tide; it’s hard to tell. But it has massively infiltrated us, found our weakest societal points and used them to its advantage, and disabled our ability to resist — compromised our cultural immune system, if you will.

      How did an indigent, feeble Islam manage to do this to the strongest and most affluent civilization that has ever existed?

      By knowing the enemy.

      Islam is it war with us, and considers us its enemy. So Muslims infiltrated us and studied us, learning how we live and how we think. They attacked us at our weak points, using our own foolish intellectual and cultural fads against us — political correctness, fairness, equality, “racism”, you name it; anything that wins the argument and forces us to cede ground.

      They managed to do all this without our understanding them to be the enemy, or even understanding that a war as on. In fact, they induced us to chant the mantra “WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH ISLAM” over and over again, of our own volition and against all the evidence before our eyes.

      And now they are among us, placed at strategic political and cultural nodes of our societies. If we suddenly wake up and realize that we are their enemy, and they ours, then we will be in a civil war from that point onwards, as Matt Bracken has pointed out.

      This is a major accomplishment, one of the greatest victories ever achieved by one civilization against another. And they did it all without open warfare, without their enemy’s awareness that there was a war on.

      How did they manage to do that?

      By knowing the enemy.

      And yet you say: “It is not important to understand Islam”!

      It is because you and others like you share this misguided notion that we are losing this war, all without its ever turning into an open kinetic conflict.

      We are losing, I tell you, and losing badly. It may already be too late to turn it around. And it is definitely too late if we fail to realize that we need to understand Islam thoroughly in order to defeat it.

      • I don’t disagree in principle with what you say, Baron. However, in my defence, I did qualify “It is not important to understand Islam” with “any more than is necessary to deem it persona non grata”.

        Once you have established that, you can simply (yes, simply if you have the courage and determination) remove it from your country, by taking the basic steps I outlined. If your house is infested with cockroaches, all you need to understand about cockroaches is that they are in your house, you don’t want them there, and in the garage is a packet of stuff that will get rid of them.

        The fact that “it is manifestly not being done, simply or otherwise. It hasn’t been done, it isn’t being done, and there is no sign that it ever will be done”, does not detract from the fact that it should be done. It simply illustrates how pathetically reluctant Western authorities are to face up to doing it.

        In contrast, the Japanese strictly limit the influence of Islam in their country, banning prayer and proselytising in public, banning religious interference in politics, and tightly controlling immigration. The Muslim population is kept way below the risk limit of about 3%. So of course it can be done; although the longer it is left, the harder it is. And, in Europe certainly, it may be too late; the populations are already well above the danger mark. How do you ban Islam if Muslims and Lefties have wormed their way into all the high legal, social and political positions? The USA, however, is probably still in a position to reject Islam should it be sufficiently determined to do so.

        “Know thine enemy” for most folk only has to mean “recognise it as enemy”, not “understand all its history and political/social nuances”. If Western governments would recognise Islam as the enemy they could snuff out the threat with a few phone calls. It is the refusal of the West to recognise the enemy, not its failure to understand it, that permits the invasion. And if it continues to do so then soon Islam will be the Establishment, and Westerners will be the enemy. Muslims will have no difficulty recognising that, and dealing with it accordingly.

  19. what happens? Champagne for all.
    and again: Nelson Demille’ s novel Wildfire is about this plan and MUCH more. And full of politically incorrect humor from agent Corey.

  20. and according to Demille’ s bad guy, there won’ t be many surviving moslems to protest.The few survivors will stealth through the rest of their lifes.Get the picture?

  21. Spray it with bacon fat from outer space. That’s the only way to be sure.

    Actually, that might work; it might be inconceivable to them that Allah would permit that stone to be desecrated. it might destroy the faith of many.

  22. OCCUPY MECCA and the MOTHER of all MOTOONS

    I have been thinking of the ‘nuke Mecca’ solution for a while, and thought it was a good idea, and I am glad Baron has come up with this information and published it and showed me it was wrong. He is right that the enemy needs to be studied well in order to understand how to defeat it. Thanks for informing us.

    Following these thoughts from Baron, I worked on a possible alternative. I would like to have it evaluated by the collective wisdom of the counterjihad, including Baron’s, and I wish to put it forward here for that purpose.

    What about ‘Occupy Mecca’ rather than Nuke Mecca? As far as I know it doesn’t have the problems Baron identified, and in fact it may even be considerably more demoralizing to Muslims if Mecca were occupied by hostile infidels rather than destroyed. In this option, we would not damage or desecrate Mecca or the Kaaba at all, in fact keeping the ‘pagan Idols’ there, and in fact we would encourage continued pilgrimage of unarmed Muslims under the watchful eye of ourselves, an armed occupying power.

    A full two of the five pillars of Islam are Mecca-related. There is the daily prayers in which they bow towards Mecca, and also the Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca. Muslims would have no real excuse to cease either, while if Mecca were radiated they would have an excuse for not doing the Hajj. If Mecca were occupied by infidels, both of these two pillars would become very demoralizing.

    The real question, as one of the observers above commented, is whether Muslims would see it as something that Allah should not be allowing, and I think they would. I think it would cut to the core of their supremacism.

    Baron, you have explained that ‘nuke Mecca’ would play into the hands of ISIS. Would ‘occupy Mecca’ do the same thing? It seems not to me, but I want to hear your opinion.

    There are variations on the ‘occupy Mecca’ theme: troupes of Infidel tourists, under armed guard, could be allowed to parade around the Ka’aba also while the unarmed Muslims do, with infidel girls dressed as Infidel girls, and lots of flag-waving, including of American and Israeli flags, both the Great and Little Satan dancing with the Muslims around the Kaaba.

    There is a way to take the ‘occupy Mecca’ option to a whole new demoralizing level. I call this option ‘the Mother of All Motoons’. You know those giant ‘parade balloons’ of say, Mickey Mouse? They can be huge, say 100ft tall. Well, my idea is to make essentially a 3-D motoon, a cartoon of Muhammad, using this parade-balloon technology, and put it guy-wired and sitting on the Kaaba. I thought of an actual sculpture instead, but no, cheaper is actually better. A sculpture is too dignified and less demoralizing. Besides, the giant balloon motoon could be changed regularly as needs arise.

    The ‘Mother of All Motoons’, sitting on the Kaaba, should protray Muhammad as evil, but also pathetic and laughable. The current common Bosch-Fawstin type portrayals, which are directed more towards non-Muslims to show Muhammad as menacing, are perfectly appropriate for Bosch Fawstin’s usual intended audience, but something different is needed here. I propose that Muhammad looks evil, ugly, sad, mean, and is childish and crying and is throwing a tantrum, and has a pig-like nose. Maybe he is holding a baby rattle. This is a cartoon, so there is no rule that Muhammad must be in historically-correct 7th century dress. There are many other dimensions of symbolism possible. For example, maybe a bloodied pair of young girl’s panties hangs out of Muhammad’s pocket (which we know to be a young girl’s because they are very small and have a pattern of bunnies and teddy-bears). The cartoon design should go to competition.

    Pictures of the ‘mother of all Motoons’ sitting on the Kaaba would make great demoralizing propaganda, as ads all around the world, and possibly as leaflets dropped from airplanes. Prominent representations should be compulsory wherever Jihadists are incarcerated, such as in their prison dining hall.

    Note: apologies to Baron and Dympna if this is on the boundary for post length, but I still think this is the place for it.

  23. Keep it right where it is. When the faithful arrive for the annual festival, they are greeted by the internationally recognized symbol of peace and goodwill, now sandblasted permanently into all four sides, “coexist”. Below, graze an array of the Creator’s finest, heavily represented by the canine and porcine families. Open bar, and the finest tobacconists line the perimeter. Hashish and viagra are easily obtained via the prostitutes of various sexes that wander the crowd. Atop the once hellish cube is a lovely canopy, with flowing gauzy curtains containing the lighting and television cameras of the “Caitlyn Jenner Show, Live From Black Rock” Large video monitors surround the arena for the special guest’s greeting message from the Florence Supermax, where a tall, lanky orange-jump-suited figure, once prominent on the world’s stage, and famous for re-purposing monuments, now sends his regrets and well wishes for a successful and fulfilling bacchanalia.

  24. How about firing a cruise missle right into it with a special warhead loaded with pig poop?

    Now that’s what I call a dirty bomb!

  25. Oh dear Lord, I just wish the freaking Muslims would go away. I don’t mind the ones that assimilate and there are such, but the others? Go back to your home country where yu will feel more comfortable. And the Muslim in the White House would NEVER dream of doing anything about it, no matter how many Americans die. He has proven that. One more year (or less?). Thank God for small mercies.

  26. Excellent debate! Delicious opinions all around!
    For myself; I have always been of the opinion that since we do not actually know where Moses came down out of Mt. Sinai from the burning bush with the ten commandments to find the Israelites had built a golden calf to Baal, Mecca is as good a place in my mind as any, and the kaaba is just a reconstruction of that former “graven image”.
    So, my answer would be posed in sort of a question; What would Moses do?
    We are all (Christian/Jewish) well aware that islam is not really a proper religion, so intimate knowledge of it’s ideas is wasted time, I say. Islam is more a Satanic death cult, and mohammed is a well-known false prophet. Allah himself is just a made-up deity from the twisted mind of Mo, and I’m fine with that.
    Back to the nuke question.
    David didn’t run from Goliath in fear of the others coming after him should he win the battle, he charged forward with the mantle of God, questioning, “who is this uncircumcised Philistine that he should defy the armies of the living God? After-which he put Goliath to the ground and cut off his head.
    Why should we worry if the entire world were kaaba worshiping sons of Satan out to destroy the ten of us who band together in the name of God Almighty, who’s name we do not know. We cannot lose!
    Mohammed? He’s a dead man! Isis? they are dead! Islam? DEAD!
    Are we of the blood of David, or are we not?
    How long will we continue to allow the armies of darkness to ravage our world and stand obstinate in the face of OUR God?
    Of course, therein lies the problem. We are not the sons of David, or at least his God is no longer ours.
    Moses should have just walked away when God tasked him with confronting Pharaoh.
    Christ would have been better off just denying he was the Messiah.
    Noah? What rain?
    Can any of us really say the world is better off because we didn’t go along with Hitler?

  27. Islam was reduced in stature in the past, how did that happen? It wasn’t a military operation. The world simply moved on, but Islam didn’t. They were isolated in a land with few resources, locked in a dead end religion. Those conditions are still present except for oil.

  28. Forget Mecca. Just turn the whole place into a flat glass parking lot. No one in the civilized world will give a damn.

  29. My belief is that a war party be sent to Medina; dig up the skeletal remains of Mohammed, strap them to the outside top of a Saturn rocket, then launch it at the moon. Allah will get his Prophet back. This could be followed up by Israel hiring a huge lighter than air airship, lifting the Dome of the Rock off the Foundation Stone and drop it on the Ka’aba. These two events could be followed by an airburst explosion of a large neutron bomb over Mecca. The pilgrimages could continue and the Saudi’s could charge more because two holy sites are now in one place. Its an all around win.

  30. Nuking this center of evil out of existence would not achieve anything strategically, that is true. It would even do the opposite if done as a pre-emptive strike. But it is the ultimate retaliatory measure, and the only one capable of delivering the message that the rest of the world is not dead and ready to submit, should anything like 9/11 ever happen again. There is to be a chain of escalation, and it has to be made crystal clear: Every attack on non-muslim soil will be retaliated, and another attack on the beating heart of civilisation will absolutely result in the attacker being excoriated. It is to be demonstrated with one lesser target first. This is the only language they understand, but we have forgotten to speak it. They are teaching us again, bomb by bomb.

  31. Surely you have to destroy the enemy within before you can even consider destroying the enemy without?
    Merkel still struts the international stage without one hint of political embarrassment, applauded by her equally stupid acolytes Hollande, Sutherland, Juncker and Cameron, rushing to Turkey to cater to an Islamic Despot at his every whim.
    When people see these traitors to the west in chains, in court and then incarcerated for life, their families exiled to the Islamic countries of their choice, and let’s include Blair and Mandelsen who started the rot in the UK, they may just wake up and send the third world chancers back to their own continent. Stop reacting to the emotional blackmail too, if you set to sea in a leaky boat, with pretend life jackets and cannot swim it is YOUR choice, YOUR responsibility and have no divine right to be rescued.

  32. As a young boy, when the schoolyard [bully] decided to poke me with the proverbial stick, I did all I could to avoid an unpleasant confrontation. When it became obvious his desire for physical conflict outweighed my ability to diffuse the situation, I resigned myself to the fact we were headed on a collision course and proceeded to kick him in the nuts and drop him into the dirt. I didn’t particularly enjoy it, but the aftermath and the resolution of the building “tension” of the preceding weeks was better than living with “what if”. He never bothered me again.

    I have resigned myself to the fact a fight is coming. It will not be pretty, and will certainly be more unpleasant than knocking someone’s lunch out of their stomach via a steel toed boot to the balls, but dammit I’ve had enough. If it’s a fight they hunger, I say we send the girls inside and get on with it. Will turning the black box into a glowing crater scare off the pretenders and harden the resolve of the zealots? Perhaps. But then we will all know who is who and our foe will be clearly defined. And when it starts, we need to fight it on terms the enemy, with his Pygmy intellect, can understand. They need to be hit so hard, so fast, and with such violence of action that their children’s children are still doubled over. Then, let them erect a 6th pillar of Islam when it’s over that reads “Don’t piss those guys off”.

  33. I care little about the symbolic importance of this holy shrine or that holy spot to Islam. Just nuke every major Islamic city and leave it to Allah to sort out. For if it wasn’t Allah’s will, then why would he allow it to happen.

    The sooner the world deals with the cancer that is Islam the better. 14 centuries without progress demonstrates how little the world needs Islam.

  34. I totally disagree with the article! The author/writer of the article seem to be very uneducated on the subject of islam.
    There’s a complete chapter in the Qur’an named “The Elephant” it describes an ancient incidence where an army containing elephants came marching towards the Kaa’ba to destroy it, So allah sent his birds to pelt stones on that army, so the entire army got decomated and the elephants turned into chewed grass.
    Nuking Mecca will be sending a very strong message to all the muslims worldwide that their allah is not the true god, since Kaa’ba is known as the house of allah, The message will be that allah couldn’t save his own house, what kind of allah is he?
    There are two kinds of Sunnis, 1. The spiritual one, they think that allah is beyond imagination and that he is omniscient or omnipotent, and whenever he says “Be” and it is.
    The other kind of Sunnis are the True Sunnis i,e Salafis or Mohammed’s Sunnis, the Sunnis of the early days of islam. They are quite honest about their religion, Quran and hadith describes Allah having a Shin, two hands (Both are on the right side), fingers, a face, etc. They believe that allah does his work through muslims’ hands.

    Majority of the Sunnis won’t turn Salafists just for this reason, the spiritual Sunnis might pick up another faith or become atheists but they wont become Salafists just for this reason.

    You should read an article by Ali Sina where he describes that Nuking Mecca will do more good than harm in the long run by giving the example of a snake whose head when cut off, it’s body squirms for a while (i.e Jihad will become 100x intense) but it will soon stop, Same is the case with Islam.
    Here’s the link to his article – faithfreedom(dot)org/oped/VernonRichards50806.htm

    And let’s for a moment believe that all those Shias and Sunnis turn to ISIS, then that’s not a problem either, we can surgically bomb their entire populations, and re-design the world economy.
    Atleast it will do good for our coming generation they wont have to live in fear of any terrorist attack or anything, plus it will solve the problem of overpopulation.

    So, it’s a win-win situation for humanity (And btw I don’t consider muslims to be a part of it since they choose to follow a inhumane barbaric pedophile [epithet] for a prophet) if our leaders adapt the same thinking as mine, the world will become a heavenly place to live.

  35. If a western government was already at the point of using sizable nuclear weapons on the Kaaba, then i would rest assured that any mass civil unrest by muslim nations against western nations would simply become bathed in nuclear fire as well. within 24 hours around 3/4s of all muslims worldwide could be wiped out.

Comments are closed.