I Can't See Nuclear War Occurring Anywhere Near Jerusalem, Ever (I Change My Mind)

Well that article's title is misleading. Since when is renovation=destruction?

It's not just renovation: it's commercial expansion at the expense of historical sites and buildings are that are central to Mecca and Islam, such as The Grand Mosque.

The mosque expansion project, intended to accommodate an additional 1.6 million worshipers in the Grand Mosque, is just one element of this upgrade. The lavish Abraj al-Bait Towers, a hotel complex featuring shopping malls, a helipad, luxury residences, and the world’s largest clock face, is another. Its centerpiece, the Fairmont Makkah Clock Royal Tower hotel, is the third-tallest building in the world, the size of six Big Bens, built at a cost of $15 billion. A new 10,000-room mega-hotel, set to become the biggest in the world when it opens in 2017, is Mecca’s next expansion target.

The additional cost of Mecca’s construction campaign, besides billions of dollars, has been what observers refer to as an assault on the city’s aesthetic and cultural character: Development has displaced or destroyed dozens of historic sites and shrines around the holy city — and incensed critics around the Muslim world.

The Ajyad Fortress, a sprawling stone citadel built in the Ottoman era, once overlooked the Grand Mosque from the crags of Mt. Bulbul south of the shrine, a bulwark for more than 200 years against threats of invasion and banditry. When construction crews leveled both the fortress and Mt. Bulbul in 2002, Turkey’s then-culture minister called the act a “cultural massacre.” The Makkah Clock Royal Tower now stands in their place.

Within the mosque complex, pillars dating back to the Abbasid era, many marking traditionally significant sites, have been torn down, ostensibly for being in the path of construction. As Sami Angawi, founder of the Hajj Research Centre, told the Guardian in 2012: “They are turning the holy sanctuary into a machine, a city which has no identity, no heritage, no culture, and no natural environment.”

Other historical sites relevant to the life of the Prophet Mohammed have also been demolished or built over in recent decades. A Hilton Hotel and a Burger King now stand over the house of the Prophet’s closest companion and Islam’s first caliph. The home of the Prophet’s wife, Khadija, is now the site of 1,400 public lavatories.

These actions, critics say, are the realization of the ultraconservative Salafi ideology of Wahhabism endorsed by the Saudi monarchy, in which historical and cultural trappings are gateways to the sin of associating divinity with anything other than God. The prescribed solution to those trappings in Wahhabi Salafism is, frequently, obliteration. “The plans could have been easily implemented and worked around the historical sites,” Alawi said, calling the destruction of traditional landmarks and historic sites “a deliberate cost.”

This website has some pictures of the transformation, specifically the Grand Mosque being torn down and rebuilt for tourists:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...y-relics-are-being-demolished-in-8536968.html
 
I will say, I've watched and read some material that suggests that some or a lot of the construction that is cementing up the region of mecca is doing so, in part, because there is literally little ancient archaeological findings that corroborate the ancient historical claims of Islam (particularly as it compares to the earliest fathers of Judaism/Christianity in Israel, Egypt and regions hundreds of miles north of Mecca).

That doesn't seem right to me. The expansion of Islam was a massive force that changed Africa and Europe. Can you link me to these articles? I'd like to read them. The historicity of Islam seems about as cemented as anything from 2000 years ago can be.

The Foreign Policy article I linked/quoted to another poster says that historical sites are being torn down because of the tenets of Wahabbism.
 
That doesn't seem right to me. The expansion of Islam was a massive force that changed Africa and Europe. Can you link me to these articles? I'd like to read them. The historicity of Islam seems about as cemented as anything from 2000 years ago can be.

The Foreign Policy article I linked/quoted to another poster says that historical sites are being torn down because of the tenets of Wahabbism.

It's more to do with claims surrounding Abraham and Ishmael in Mecca prehistory. Trade maps from the period etc don't even place Mecca. Ie. There's no chance Abraham and the prehistory of the region. That's the most I can offer at the moment.
 
It's more to do with claims surrounding Abraham and Ishmael in Mecca prehistory. Trade maps from the period etc don't even place Mecca. Ie. There's no chance Abraham and the prehistory of the region. That's the most I can offer at the moment.

ah gotcha. If you ever find them again, I'd like to read them. I studied history of Christianity and history of Islam in University, but hadn't heard this aspect of Islam before.
 
ah gotcha. If you ever find them again, I'd like to read them. I studied history of Christianity and history of Islam in University, but hadn't heard this aspect of Islam before.

Sorry, just remembered a few other things. The earliest qiblahs pointed to Petra not Mecca. Also, while towns and landmarks verify Abraham's travels about 300 miles north (1500 yeard earlier or whatever it was) there's no reason and possibility he would have strayed into the wasteland that wasn't on any trade map 300 miles south. Nothing existed there. From memory, Mecca wasn't on any of the trade maps prior to . . . Like the 8th century or something crazy. And trade maps were everything for locating civilization and commerce. But again, it's been awhile and I'm just typing this from me phone.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, just remembered a few other things. The earliest qkblahs pointed to Petra not Mecca. Also, while towns and landmarks verify Abraham's travels about 300 miles north (1500 yeard earlier or whatever it was) there's no reason and possibility he would have strayed into the wasteland that wasn't on any trade map 300 miles south. Nothing existed yhere. From memory, Mecca wasn't on any of the trade maps prior to . . . Like the 8th century or something crazy. And trade maps were everything for locating civilization and commerce. But again, it's been awhile and I'm just typing this from me phone.

Ah, interesting. We never covered that stuff at all, re: the legitimacy of it's religious lore.
 
No WWIII happening. Same for the nukes. Assholes flexing, saber rattling, yelling and pulling dicks out, yes. Terrorists on street level, quite possible.
 
I support Israel, but I just can't see there being a legit chance of a nuclear war in the region. It would have to be a rogue country like North Korea or maybe China that would launch nuclear warheads there as far as I can see it. There's a slight chance that Russia might be a threat but I'd see them as much a threat as the US.

For Judaism, Jerusalem is the religion's most important, holy city.

For Islam, it's their second most-holy site/city. I can't see Iran, Turkey or any other anti-Israel power launching warheads for fear of killing innocent Muslims and destroying the Dome of the Rock along with other mosques in the region and making the land uninhabitable with lasting effects for centuries.

Christianity values the region in a more passive sense, but I can't see countries with Orthodox ties like Russia doing anything like launching warheads. Similarly I can't see the US doing anything of the like for similar reasons.

Contrasting that, I "could" see places like Iran, Turkey, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia/Mecca being targets (except for reasons of Israel's current ties with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan). Note, I'm not advising this or suggesting this would/could/should happen, it's just that the scenario is more plausible than anything centering on Israel and in particular Jerusalem.

Anyway, long story short, I think any sort of major offensive against Israel would be largely fought through traditional warfare methods.

I'd like to hear a good argument as to why Israel should have legitimate concern about Iran being a nuclear threat to their existence? The only slight chance would be if someone had the moxie/balls to "right off" the region for centuries in order to wipe out Jews permanently. But then again, it's part of Islamic prophecy that Jesus is going to do this. So, I think Israel's fears of nuclear attack don't make a lot of sense to me. Other major - most likely ground, gorilla - offensives? Yes. Nuclear offensives? No.

*edit - I've changed my mind on this. Maybe it's not such a remote possibility that a crazy extremist gets a hold of the ability and carries it out. I'm surprised I've had my mind changed on this. See page 2.

Of the top ten cities with Jewish populations about four are in the US. After Jerusalem, New York City has the highest population of Jewish people in the world. Nuking Jerusalem isn't going to wipe-out all-Jews.

If you add up the various reigns Muslims have controlled Jerusalem for about as many years as Jews.
 
There will not be a nuke war. I said it long ago and I still hold that firm.

Some small rogue regime might make it their last act in existance to launch a nuke somewhere... After that they will quickly disappear.

You can't find the fear or popular support required anywhere to start this shit, noone wants it (except maybe a handful of people who wants to fire them and hide).

Aint gonna happen.
 
I still have a hard time connecting the motivations and results.

I can't see the value in nuclear war generally except by combatants on practically other sides of the planet. US/North Korea is about the only half-sensible one.

I suppose, maybe, India/Pakistan because they're such enemies.
I don't think there is any value in nuclear war, just the thread that someone insane or deluded will initiate one.
 
There will not be a nuke war. I said it long ago and I still hold that firm.

Some small rogue regime might make it their last act in existance to launch a nuke somewhere... After that they will quickly disappear.

You can't find the fear or popular support required anywhere to start this shit, noone wants it (except maybe a handful of people who wants to fire them and hide).

Aint gonna happen.
I'd like to believe that you're right and no one could get popular support to launch a nuke, but even if it were true, popular support isn't necessary.
 
Back
Top