The comment is completely wrong. I answered it on this thread but I'll copy-paste it:

Your friendly redditor has engaged in a nice bit of "let's make stuff up and hope people don't actually question what I'm saying."

He seems to think that the Kaaba was somehow seen as a symbol of Muhammad by the Arabs of his time. The Kaaba predated Muhammad by centuries and pagan Arabs in the area would have revered it just as much as Muslims did. Furthermore, the actual physical building of the Kaaba is a product of each time. Other than one stone, the building is rebuilt periodically. The location is what is sacred in Islam, not the structure.

Moving forward, I have no idea what he means by "Arabs who have traditionally hated Muhammad have expressed their desire of doing so, probably out of spite of what Muhammad represents." What Arabs? What are the sources that state this? There have been some groups (e.g. Qarmatians) that have wreaked havoc in Makkah but they, in their own twisted logic, would have argued that they were doing it out of love for Islam/Muhammad/God.

Now, on Yazid ibn Muawiyah. The poster is mixing up people. Yazid ibn Muawiyah was the caliph at the time.....in Damascus. The man who "attacked the Ka'ba" was Hajjaj ibn Yusuf (quite an infamous character in Islamic history). Furthermore, it's quite deceptive to describe him as "attacking the Ka'ba." The background is that a man named Abdullah ibn Zubair (grandson of the first caliph, Abu Bakr) had also laid claim to the caliphate and was supported by the people in Makkah and the surrounding areas. Hajjaj ibn Yusuf (a general, under Yazid ibn Muawiyah) was attacking him, not the Ka'ba. In the battle, yes, the Ka'ba was destroyed. However, to suggest that this was purposeful is ludicrous. In fact, when the Ka'ba was accidentally destroyed by the catapults, people in Hajjaj's army began defecting, sure that this was a sign that they were on the wrong side. Hajjaj (ever the shrewd politician) convinced his soldiers that they hadn't destroyed the Ka'ba, Abdullah ibn Zubair had. After all, if he had surrendered without a fight, they wouldn't have been forced to use the catapults, right? So really, this was his fault. The point I'm making is that yes, the Ka'ba was destroyed, but it was far from purposeful, let alone part of a expression of hatred towards an ideology.

Next line, wow, even more pseudohistory. I've heard some pretty strange descriptions of Wahabism, but to say that they wish to erase Muhammad's heritage and establish the supremacy of the Banu Umayyah is the equivalent of someone saying the Republican party wishes to establish the supremacy of the descendants of Robert E. Lee and erase all aspects of George Washington's heritage. Literally, that's the comparison of how his statement sounds. Wahhabism is, in a very short nutshell, a puritanical (for lack of a better word) movement that attempts to bring Islamic theology and law back to its foundations by relying solely on the first three generations of Islam and removing Islam of any characteristics it has picked up in its 1400 years that was not present at its founding. Their destruction of these heritage buildings is mainly two reasons, one theological the other practical. Theologically, a lot of these buildings were taken as shrines or holy places. However, the earliest Muslims did not consider these locations to be holy so in the eyes of the Wahhabi movement, these are innovations which should be removed to return Islam to its original state. The other, practical reason, is that the buildings needed to be demolished to make room for the new construction.

Finally, the idea that there has been a long class struggle between "Muhammad and his followers" and the rich/elite does not hold up to historical scrutiny. Yes, even a lot of Muslims will claim that the vast majority of early Muslims were poor and downtrodden and that the rich and powerful opposed Islam but this really isn't true. If you actually do an analysis of the earliest converts and group them by their clan affiliation, you'll see that they span all economic and social groups. Yes, you have Bilal and Abdullah ibn Masud who were slaves and clients (poor people without a strong tribal affiliation). But then there are plenty of early Muslims from the strong and rich classes like AbdulRahman ibn Awf and Al-Arqam ibn abi al-Arqam. Heck, out of the first four caliphs, all were from elite tribes. The first three were merchants and relatively wealthy (the third exceptionally so).

TL;DR: Friendly redditor has spun a nice fictional yarn