Vaporize the Kaaba to reduce potential # of Jihadist recruits?

Question: should NATO (to spread the blame out among many nations) use a conventional bomb (MOAB, etc.) to vaporize the Kaaba rock in an attempt to reduce the potential number of recruits for NATO's enemy in this endless war? I've heard thinking that if ISIS/AQ/Taliban/Boko's potential recruits allegedly see that Allah can't even protect his holiest thing from the Infidel, that Allah is likely not real, and this might lead to (say) 25% of Muslims leaving Islam, and another 25% having their faith reduced so much that they no longer have enough Islamic zeal to potentially join the Jihad someday....a 50% reduction, reducing the number of potential Jihad recruits by around 800 million.

Me, I don't want to be that drastic, so I say "no".

What about you?
Trump and forum member Sundance seem open to using nukes even, so obviously there is some sentiment to ramp up this war.

Somebody mocked-up a photo suggesting that the Kaaba be "kaaba-knapped", until Islam lays down its weapons, then returned. They think the Kaaba is the "Achilles heel" of the Jihadist enemy.

 

This is a real sick suggestion.

 

I'm not for it, myself, but if this war heats up, then people like Trump, Cruz, and Sundance and other forum posters will likely suggest it so I thought I'd get the discussion going right now before things get out of hand.

- - - Updated - - -

I understand your reluctance, and I agree with you. However, there is much talk online about this, so it needs to be discussed: https://www.google.com/search?sourc...&oq=bomb kaaba&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l2.2881j0j9

Can you specifically spell out your reasons for saying "no". I assume that NATO would do it at night and/or use tear gas to clear out the people before bombing it or Kaaba-knapping it.
Thanks.

 

1. We are bombing many many places in Muslim countries, and killing many people with collateral damage, and if the people are cleared out at the Kaaba first, does it make more sense to bomb a rock than to continue to bomb people?

2. Do you believe that Allah would protect his most sacred artifact from the hell-bound-Infidel's weapons of war, since he's the all-powerful god of the Religion Of Peace? If so, should Muslims not fear this potential act at all, not give it one more second of worry?

 

That would work about as well as if terrorists bombed the Vatican. You would have a horde of new recruits flooding into the jihadi ranks at an unprecedented rate. In addition, moderate Muslims would also be deeply deeply offended. So if the goal is to increase the number of acts of terrorism by a hundred fold, then it would definitely be successful.

 

its not a rock

 

There's always the tactic of threatening that the next Islamic terror attack on innocent people anywhere in the western world, and we bomb Mecca into a parking lot.


.

 

It has a lot of granite, but you are correct. The real "rock" seems to be the Black Stone: ""the Stone will appear on the Day of Judgement (Qiyamah) with eyes to see and a tongue to speak, and give evidence in favor of all who kissed it in true devotion, but speak out against whoever indulged in gossip or profane conversations during his circumambulation of the Kaaba""

- - - Updated - - -

It would show, arguably, that Allah was not powerful enough to defend even his very most sacred thing (so he's a paper god?), so how much would it reduce Islamic adherence, in your opinion?

 

So are you saying that trying to end this war by striking at the very heart of the enemy's belief is WORTH causing "moderate Muslims [to be] deeply deeply offended"?

- - - Updated - - -

Atomic diplomacy?

 

At what point in this war would 50% of the American people be on board with that strategy, in your esteemed opinion?
Thanks.

 

Yeah, I think you could put it that way.

Whatever means necessary.

We don't need nukes to destroy Mecca.

Although, a tactical nuke would obliterate it quite nicely, and send a powerful message that were not playing around anymore.


.

 

How ignorant and dishonest can one survey be !!!! Eisenhower never nuked any cities. Ike was Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe we never used any nuclear weapons in Europe. If someone knew at least little bit of history that person would have known that in 1945 we only had two nuclear devices available to use against the enemy and we used hem both on Japan.

I wish that we had 25 -30 nuclear devices and that we vaporized that many Russian cities an/or military facilities but that was just not the case.

 

I don't know, take a poll.

 

Some believe that the Qur'an implies that Allah protects it:

AL-Fil 105:1-5
Have you not considered, [O Muhammad], how your Lord dealt with the companions of the elephant?
Did He not make their plan into misguidance?
And He sent against them birds in flocks,
Striking them with stones of hard clay,
And He made them like eaten straw.



This is regarding Abraha attacking it.

 

Yes, Harry, not Ike.

 

No you dont do that, it would be insane to do that unless you also kill just about every muslims on the planet. Because frankly if you do that, even the muslims that are innocent and never supported terrorists would come after you and for good reason.

Sorry, but you can't just bomb people in that manner but that is exactly what ISIS wants you to do.

 

Maybe.

But, ISIS does not want us to bomb Mecca into oblivion.

 

So use this as a THREAT (but don't actually carry through with the bombing - but never tell people that we won't bomb it of course)?

- - - Updated - - -

What do you think Trump's position will be on this, when he's asked?

 

Air-dropping 4 billion pounds of pig-fat on the place should do the trick nicely (if that doesn't work, then piping in Bieber music 24/7 would obviously finish the job.)

 

I dunno, I don't think they would really care if it brought them that much closer to establishing a world wide caliphate. I am sure they would sacrifice Mecca in exchange for world domination.

You got to remember, they have zero problem with killing their own people.

 

How the (*)(*)(*)(*) will that reduce jihadists. Does whoever made this poll think the Kaaba is some sort of factory which produces Muslims?

 

Most religions aren't based on logic, they're based on "faith" installed by varying degrees of brainwashing.

It wouldn't reduce Islamic adherence by any appreciable amount. It's not like the entire religion is based around the Kaaba though it is a definitive center of attention. Would there be ramifications? Probably, but again, we're talking about faith, not logic. They could just claim that God was punishing them for not being true believers or something along those lines.


Personally, it would upset me greatly to lose such a historical structure.

 

Feel free to not always use ad hominems.
I'm not advocating bombing it, I voted "More no than yes", I'm just asking questions to see how people feel.


The Qur'an implies that Allah does indeed protect it:
AL-Fil 105:1-5
Have you not considered, [O Muhammad], how your Lord dealt with the companions of the elephant?
Did He not make their plan into misguidance?
And He sent against them birds in flocks,
Striking them with stones of hard clay,
And He made them like eaten straw.

This is regarding Abraha attacking it.

- - - Updated - - -

....and on fear of the unknown.

 

How many lives would it have to save, just for argument's sake say it did reduce the enemy's number of recruits by, say for argument's sake 5% (reduced Muslim adherence by around 75 million people)? If it saved, say, 10,000 infidel lives (just for argument's sake) would it be worth getting 75 million people to leave Islam and therefore not be potential Jihadist recruits?

- - - Updated - - -

They are more concerned about religion than about politics, so I seriously doubt they would want the most sacred part of their religion wiped off the map.

 

Muslims say that the Stone was found by Abraham (Ibrahim) and his son Ishmael (Ismail) when they were searching for stones with which to build the Kaaba. They recognized its worth and made it one of the building's cornerstones. Most think it was a meteorite. Its important, but they don't worship it.

Long before Islam Bedouin tribes all over the ME and Levant carried their god from place to place to place in a box on a litter.. and apparently this stone was usually a meteorite or a piece of a meteorite.