I agree that Islam is, structurally, a totalitarian, fatalistic and solipsistic belief system designed like some interlocking logical mosaic pattern.- - - - - - - - - -
System statements include:
- Islam will prevail over all others regardless of historical, scientific, or cultural evidence to the contrary.
- Anyone leaving Islam should die or return.
- All who are not in Islam should die or convert.
- Anyone in Islam who dies wins in paradise.
- All statements criticizing Islam by non-Muslims.
- Critical Muslims or apostates are false.
- All statements by Islamists about Islam are true (even if they are contradictory).
- All lies by Islamists about Islam are permitted in order to accomplish all enumerated goals listed above.
And therefore I understand the tendency to want to break that logical knot by attacking the first premise — the fatalism of Islam, the magical realism and fantasizing aspect of Islam.
But I don’t have much time for the “Nuke Mecca” meme, especially when used with ad hominem arguments that dismiss any other approach as lacking in rigor or realism or military experience or analytic depth or whatever. I think the idea is morally bankrupt, and basically nihilistic. Like all nihilism, it is the lazy fellow’s way out of actually engaging in the hard work of working politically and using the legal tools of information warfare. It’s a reversion to the Dresden or Hiroshima bombings — a third generation warfare solution to a fourth or fifth generation warfare problem.
The Nuke Mecca meme itself is a prime example of “magical thinking,” a kind of solipsistic enjoyment of the fantasy of removing a great danger with a grand technological feat, dismissing all critics of the idea as appeasers or ameliorators. At the very least, were it actually to be done, the iron law of unintended, unforeseeable consequences would apply.
Having said that, the need addressed by the Nuke Mecca meme is real — each of us longs for a way to blast through the fatalism, the internally locked logical system of Islamic supremacism and intra-Muslim discourse.
I don’t have an answer, but I would challenge the readers of this blog to consider whether there are any other ways to break the knot — ones that don’t actually involve the deaths of tens of thousands and a nuclear holocaust in the Middle East.
OK, readers — rise to the bait!
Remember: she’s asking for solutions besides “nuke the ragheads”.
61 comments:
Don't be disingenuous. There are other places to deal with, places we haven't invaded, and can't. Those will require different strategies.
Inshallah.
Islam has to be taught to the children by someone.
Make that job, or taking that job very unattractive or even the last job they will ever have.
Then let the dogooders send in teachers to teach them "in the right way" something other than worshipping death and conquest and blaming the unbelievers for all their troubles and problems.
With a change in teachers it is possible to change the attitude and character of a nation and it's population.
Just look what forty years of liberal, socialist teaching has done to America.
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
"...but I would challenge the readers of this blog to consider whether there are any other ways to break the knot — ones that don’t actually involve the deaths of tens of thousands and a nuclear holocaust in the Middle East.
OK, readers — rise to the bait! ..."
OK, so what are the alternatives?
1. Reason and dialogue. Perhaps reasonable Muslims will at last prevail. (The Denial alternative.)
2. Military force in the middle east, including neutralizing unintended consequences that arise from action there. (I see only social/political disunity and moral confusion in the west. Without the appearance of a 'strongman' I see no option here.)
3. Wait out the circumstances of the present age, insistently believing in a good outcome. (The do nothing option.)
4. Recruit allies. Somehow revive Europe with the goal of soliciting substantive support there. (Anyone see Catch-22? Remember the scene of the old man whipping the dead horse?)
5. Other.
To my way of thinking, the other option is an acknowledgement that the present conflict is of a spiritual nature. Have I now lost all readers?
"Though we live in the world, the weapons of our warfare are not of the world...... Rather they are divinely powerful for the pulling down of strongholds.....
I think we need to keep our stores of oil filled. (As in the parable of the ten virgins....)
I'd like to hear intelligent, informed responses to this.
She is making a rather large assumption in her statement, that Islam is amenable to change through political means. But what if Islam is fine and dandy with the way it is, thanks very much- just like other tyrants who only manipulate the political process to further their own ends?
As eloquently stated in the American Digest says "ALL WELL AND GOOD if the current leaders and policy makers in Europe and America are right; if Islam can be, with enough time and money, assimilated into the Western way. But what if they are wrong? What if, as has been repeatedly stated by Islamic spokesmen in their media and their capitols and their mosques, Islam has neither the interest in nor the capacity for assimilation? What if Islam continues, as it has for many centuries, to be implacably hostile to the West? What if, in a series of increasingly violent incidents coming quickly over a relatively short number of years, what we so tenderly term "Islamic radicals" continue to attack the cities and nations in which large numbers of Muslims live in relative isolation from the body politic, and it is known that those attacking come from and fade back into these unassimilated populations?".
What then?
And another question that needs to be addressed is to what level are we willing to risk our lives and culture to convince Islam it is best to change? How many of our civilians and soliders would need to die before we would say "enough"? It's real people, OUR people, who are risking their lives to change the world of Islam.
To make of the implacable-hostility-to-Islam meme a literalist "nuke-Islam" strawman is itself disingenuous.
No one seriously wants to drop megatonnage on Islamic countries, its just that a lot of people don't want anything to do with alliances with allegedly moderate Islam.
Many people don't want it on principle, because they don't want to sleep with the enemy, and others, myself included, don't think its a good idea from a practical propaganda standpoint.
In my opinion, making alliances with supposedly moderate Islam would have bucketloads of downside and very little upside potential. Its like making an alliance with Hess during WW II...he had no strength and no say in German affairs, and he represented the bad guys to boot. Where's the gain?
I may be wrong, but that's not even the same debate as Christine is initiating...she's just presenting a strawman in the form of a radically literalist "nukem" stance and hoping someone will shoot themselves in the foot by defending it.
Well, the way I always phrase it is this: I am concerned for the continuation of human civilisation - one that respects reason, science, individual rights and the individual mind. If this means coexisting with Muslims, I support that, if this means reforming Islam, I support that - and if this means erasing Islam utterly from existence so that there is not a Qur'an left unburnt, not a Mosque left standing, and not a Muslim who has not been converted or killed, I support _that_ too.
Baron,
I'm as opposed to the "Nuke 'em" meme as Christine, Dymphna and you are (title of my post for October 1, 2006: No to "Nuke the Ragheads"), but there's a point in it that goes beyond knee-jerk, magical thinking.
Namely: Judaism has survived for nearly 2,000 years now (praise be to our mighty G-d) after the the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem by the Romans. Will the same hold true for Islam if, by some way, not necessary nuclear, that black stone in the cube were to disappear? Perhaps that would kick-start that reformation of Islam people speak of so often.
Shabbat Shalom.
"It’s a reversion to the Dresden or Hiroshima bombings — a third generation warfare solution to a fourth or fifth generation warfare problem."
Technically it's a 2nd generation warfare ("putting fire on targets") not 3rd generation (maneuver warfare) solution to a 4th generation (aysymmetric warfare to destroy target states at the moral level) problem. There is no 5th gen warfare yet, and likely won't be for decades, 4th gen is still emerging.
Zionistyoungster
"Namely: Judaism has survived for nearly 2,000 years now (praise be to our mighty G-d) after the the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem by the Romans."
1) What about the destruction of the first Temple at Jerusalem by the Babylonians?
or managing to survive the Greeks and Hellenists.
2) The reason IMHO is due to the fact that Jews do not believe they're on a one-way ticket to rule the world unlike most muslims.
"Will the same hold true for Islam if, by some way, not necessary nuclear, that black stone in the cube were to disappear?"
I would have to say no, because islam has that aura of Invincibility as long as it's enemies refuse to destory (in what ever method) everything it holds sacred out of a dangerously misguided sense of benevolence and fair play.
"Perhaps that would kick-start that reformation of Islam people speak of so often."
I've had this view for a while now, reformation of islam IMHO can only be successful once islam is totally defeated, otherwise we'll constantly be taken advantage of in trying to reform islam before it's even defeated.
Separationism.
Remove all Muslims from the West and end all Muslim immigration to the West.
The Muzzies can fight Western armies succesfully on battlefields within Muslim societies. Their strength lies in persistance, hiding and masking and raiding. But they can't beat through Western military formations, they hardly ever beat a Western force. So in areas where both the population and the military are Western, the Westerners will prevail.
Get on with our lives. If the Muzzies attack us, retaliate.
Keep on making Westerners by having babies and teaching Western values in society.
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006854.html
Robert in England: "I would remind folk that Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended a war, without costing us the possible million casualties of an invasion of Japan."
And that is the long and the short of it. Taking any option off the table will only lead to more casualties on our side. If you absolutely refuse to use a weapon, under any circumstances, then there is no point in building it. Kitchener did not refuse to use his Maxim guns at Omdurman, and he won. He would not have won otherwise.
When the nuke Mecca theme came up last year, after Tom Tancredo's comments suggesting same, a question came up whether this would really be a deterrent. As the article below shows, maybe this is not such a deterrent.
The destruction of Mecca: Saudi hardliners are wiping out their own heritage
p.s. to my previous comment, nuking the city and shrines of mecca might not solve the civilized world's issues with islam, but using nukes in the war would certainly help.
The inability of The West to "stand together" against the jihadis will result in the nuking of Mecca, but only after they have nuked several of our cities, and we, as a civilization have been put in extremis.
We can prevent that by working together to wake our people up to the danger. Then, they wake our leaders up, or replace them in the next election-cycle.
Meanwhile, we amass evidence, distribute it, and awaken as many as we can before it is too late.
Besides, I think Riyadh would be a much better target, especially if a certain family were having a reunion.
Some of you are not getting the point.
Nuking Mecca (or anywhere else) is not being ruled out.
We're questioning the effectiveness of resorting to the extreme action as a primary response, as if there were no other alternatives.
Nuking anyplace has to be one of the last steps. What are the earlier ones?
Actually, if there is a major mass casualty attack inflicted on the west by Islam, think a small nuclear device initated in a major western city, Mecca and Medina should disappear in a flash from multiple 225 kiloton devices arranged around them in interlocking triangles of death, ensuing that both cities are completely flattened.
>Jesus Christ Supercop said...
>>praise be to our mighty G-d
>This has been puzzling me recently. If you're going to say something like that, why do you censor "God?"
>If you feel that you're saying God's name in vain, then why say "praise be to our mighty G-d" at all? Just don't say it, if it isn't important.
It isn't censorship, or taking the name in vain. There are several Divine Names which, (including that usually translated as "God") which, if written in Hebrew letters, may not be erased, obliterated or torn. As a result, these not-to-be-desecrated names are generally referred to by a circumlocution (eg "Hashem" [Hebrew for 'the Name'] for the 4 letter Name or the Name is written out with a critical letter altered. Otherwise, the page containing the Divine Name must be treated with reverence and respect, such as burial in a cemetery or permanently archived (the famous Cairo Geniza was largely a collection of writings archived for this reason.)
So Zionistyoungster's writing "G-d" is a pious reminder of this, although many authorities don't consider it obligatory in alphabets other than Hebrew. And while being displayed on a computer display isn't considered to be writing for this purpose (closing the window or turning off the display isn't erasing, etc.,) many people just do a copy/paste/print for things they want in hard copy, so Zionistyoungster's use of "G-d" can be considered "not putting a stumbling block before the blind" (ie, Zionistyoungster is acting in such a way as to prevent someone else's inadvertent desecration by any and all opinions.)
They demand complete surrender from us and you don’t want us to respond with our full ability. Why is this reasonable?
“This war differs from other wars in this particular: We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make young and old, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war” while that could have been said yesterday, provided we could find a leader that would drop the newspeak, it is actually a quote from General Sherman. Does it apply today; If not why?
I realize that you are aghast and horrified by the brutality of war but if there is some good reason we should needlessly prolong the war and the suffering beyond your own sensibilities lay it on us.
In offering suggestions for pre-total war steps in dealing with the islamist threat, i am torn between what we should do, and what can (maybe) be done. In the first category, i think islam should be outlawed, and all muslims politely offered the possibility of converting to another relgion of their choice, or opting out of religion, with the state providing legislation making it a very serious offence indeed to utter any threats to anyone, in any way, of retribution for apostasy. It may sound harsh, but renouncing islam would be a wise thing to do, before the nuke(s) go off in Chicago and LA. It would be important to make it clear that the issue is most certainly not race. We need to uproot and destroy the political ideology that threatens our very existence. Since reform of islam is, apparently, impossible, it should be repressed and shut down on our soil.
In the second category, profiling according to religion and national origins would be a regrettable, but necessary step. Profiling in many places, at airports, at job interviews, university admissions, etc. The goal? To make it damn near impossible to slip through various cracks in the system, that allow the enemy to set up a comfy base camp amongst us. Any hint of islamist sympathies or connections, immediate arrest, and deportation within 48 hours. Absolutely no exceptions. Yes it is extreme, but the situation is extreme. Their is a war going on, and there are enemy aliens who should face up to that fact, and make it absolutely, crystal clear who's side they are on.
It is only a question of time, I fear, until something very bad happens in N America. It is in everyone's interests that we make some tough decisions now, before the shit hits the fan.
I hate sounding apocalyptic, but there you go.
Get real.
The only other option is to convert or die.
Looking for another solution? A way to end this struggle? Forget it. This is exactly the way they want it and it will never change: it's either all Islam or nothing... and they will NEVER STOP TRYING TO KILL OR CONVERT US. Ever. It is all they do, all they live for, all they want, all they've ever done. And you can't trust them: it is a Muslim's duty to kiss the hand of their enemy until they can cut it off. Their word for this is: HUDAIBIYA
Check out the post I did on it a few days ago on my blog:http://jillosophy.blogspot.com/2006/12/islamofascist-word-of-day-hudaibiya.html
And Gordon Pasha said...
"I hate sounding apocalyptic, but there you go."
What is truly apocalyptic is what Christine and the 910 group espouse. When I hear what they say should be considered, I KNOW it's hopeless.
I suggest everyone check this out:
Here's must-see video: "Open Season"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymLJz3N8ayI
Baron,
Consider that sometimes it's easier to bomb a target overseas (ok, not necessarily Mecca) than it is to take firm action against the enemy on our home soil. In all the western countries we allow known radical islamist continued residence and freedom of movement. This has to stop.
For the sake of argument, why would it necessarily be a last resort and not a first step? It would put a whole new twist on bowing to Mecca for prayer five times a day wouldn't it? Allah, in fact, would have had to will it. Cognitive dissonance in the Islamic world would result on a truly unimaginable scale. Earth-shattering. The triumph of the Djinns, created out of smokeless fire. A whole new understanding of the Ka'ba would ensue. That would have to be the intention. Certainly not to kill a few hundred thousand Arabs. What would that inself accomplish? Maybe Qom gets it too, at the same time.
I have just spent half an hour trying to think of an alternative to not bombing mecca and medina that would work . I simple just cannot think of one. If we had an enemy that would be willing to compromise, then all well and good, but an enemy who says Islam is good for you and you are going to have to accept it whether you like it. Then the bombing Mecca and medina is the only alternative. If you have an organisation that will not compromise then what choice have you. The fallacy is thinking that you do have an alternative. Grant Sherman and Sheridan and Lee understood this during the American Civil war or in your case Baron the ( WAR OF THE NORTHERN AGGRESSION ) Churchill and Roosevelt understood this when at Casablanca unconditional surrender was written into there war aim. Islam is out to destroy the world as we know it ( it is written in the Koran which is the word of God and therefore cannot be changed), then I see no moral or ethical problem in destroying Islam. Go straight for the Jugular, destroy Islam and the bombing of Mecca and Medina with dirty bomb would seal Islams fate. Imagine how the Muslims would feel about a god who couldn't defend his own holy places, that type of God isn't really worth defending. They might retaliate kill the Pope for example destroy the Vatican, but it wouldn't make much difference the Cardinals would come together is a conclave and a new pope would soon be elected. Imagine what would be going through the minds of 1,300,000,000 muslims who would be not be able to partake in the Hadj's pilgrimage one of the pillars of Islam, they would be banned from paradise. Cut off the head and the serpent would soon wither and die. I wish there could be an alternative but I see the bombing of Mecca as inevitable, the destruction of Israel has always been one of the tenets of there faith they have promised it and they will attempt it. Israel has 3 dolphin Submarines which they have bought from West Germany. These submarines have enlarged torpedo tubes for launching cruise missiles. The Israeli's have had atomic weapon for at least forty years. It is not inconceivable that they have miniatured there atomic weapons. Iran bombs Israel either with a dirty atomic weapon smuggled in to one of there harbours of are attacked by long range ballistic missiles . A wounded Israel would certainly lash out against there neighbours to make sure that they wouldn't take advantage of the situation. You don't have to have a phd in Physics to realise that the destruction of the Aswan Dam, would keep Egytpt out of the fray. Israel would certainly turn Damascus into a green glass parking lot which would certaingly concentrate their minds. The bombing of Mecca and Medina well that follows naturally. I am sorry Baron but I don' t see any alternative
Yorkshireminer,
It's interesting that you bring up the War of Northern Aggression (aka the War for Southern Independence). I'm a Southern partisan, as you may know, but the South didn't have a moral leg to stand on. Our cause was not just.
The only moral cachet we could claim was what we gained from being invaded by, then burned, then starved, and then occupied by the curséd Yankees. What we actually fought for had no moral righteousness whatsoever.
Morality matters. Pre-emptive slaughter on the scale you imagine, tempting as it may be to solve all our problems with a single stroke, would leave us with such collective moral scars that we would never recover.
We must find another way, one that we could at least try. We lose our collective soul otherwise. The nuclear option always remains when it becomes clear that nothing else will suffice.
Another thing -- remember that I am not really talking about government action. Even if I agreed with you, our governments would never undertake what you suggest.
I am looking for practical suggestions about what ordinary citizens, banded together with a common purpose, might realistically hope to achieve.
All the other talk is just so much wind. Sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Baron: The idea that one must necessarly be left with moral scars following an atrocity (in this case a nuclear attack)is a product of a very recent shift from absolutism to relativism.
Rome destroyed Carthage utterly, and boasted about it for the next 1000 years. The Germanic tribes arguably slaughtered, to a man, the Romano-Celts left in the wake of provincial Rome, and we don't hate them for it because we ARE the Germanic tribes. The British cut swathes of arbitrary retaliatory destruction through India at the tail end of the Indian mutiny and kept ownership of the sub-continent for another 100 years. The northern US did to the south much the same thing on a very much smaller scale, as you know. In more recent times, the Allied rain of destruction that fell on Dresden and Hamburg was unparalleled in history, and has remained so since.
Both the inflictors and the inflictees have recovered from any moral judgements. We do what has to be done, and then we move on. The hoopla over head tax and Japanese-American incarceration and other alleged "sins" we committed in the recent past are a result of a self-destructive impulse we have developed in the postwar period...and its silly, because we spend more time apologizing for these relatively benign events than Japan ever has for the Bataan Death March or the rape of Nanking or the POW atrocities or any number of outrageous actions it took. Its also silly because we'll end up doing it again in a heartbeat if we have to.
IF, and its a big if, we end up wrecking the middle east, then we ought to boast about it for 1000 years, like Rome did. It tends to keep the barbarians on the other side of the wall.
What bordergal said, and I'd add this:
Talk of the nuclear option is useful inasmuch as it will serve to condition people in the West who still believe that dialogue will solve the problem.
Talk enough about nuking Mecca, and the assassination of imams and Arab leaders begins to look moderate.
Which, given the threat to our civilisation, it is.:-)
Bodissey:
"the South didn't have a moral leg to stand on. Our cause was not just."
Secession was not ilegal per your United States Constitution, and not immoral, IMO. Attempting to secede from a federation you no longer wish to be part of is neither immoral nor unjust.
I hope my people secede from the EU, one day.
As another Southern Partisan, I am glad that I did not live back then, and have to make the choice to fight for Southern Independence.
Would it have been immoral to invade Germany before Poland?
At the time, we did not know it would have succeeded, and saved more than 50 million lives. Imagine the repercussion faced by a leader bold enough to do so. We cannot change the past. We can only learn from it, if we will.
I cannot draw an exact parallel between then and now. Maybe it is Sound and Fury to discuss nuking a city as a pre-emptive action, I also believe that it is the duty of every thinking person to assist their government to change their policies to better serve National Interest. We do this by banding together, coming up with options, and acting on them. One option I happen to be very found of is creating a meme of resistance, amplifying it, and directing it to where it does the most good.
Perhaps movements of like-minded citizens are an incarnation of Churchill's angst, and warning, of a gathering storm. I feel it in my very soul. I also believe that history will judge our leaders as Chamberlain Squared, or Cubed.
I believe Plan A should involve several dozen well-placed detonations in the region we are discussing, however, since our leaders do not possess what I believe to be wisdom, courage, or backbone, we pursue other options. Our enemies abroad, and most especially at home, have made the use of nuclear weapons anathema except in extremis, and perhaps not even then. The use of such devices would certainly serve to separate the wheat from the chaff, all around.
Plan B involves using a weapon greater than any ever forged by mankind, the human mind. We just have to learn to open the eyes of as many minds as we can before too many of us are forced to convert, submit, or die; and not necessarily in that order.
Self-Organizing Groups are the beginning of Plan B.
And in the interest of Mind-Numbing Twists in Conversation, Merry Christmas, and Happy Chanukah everyone!!!
Vol-in-law,
The moral cause that was not just was that of slavery. Many of my fellow Southern partisans say that the war was not really about slavery -- that it was about states' rights, high tariffs, etc. -- but they are obfuscating. The war was primarily about the right to own other human beings as chattel, and thus was morally indefensible.
Secession may have been constitutional (I think it was), but that does not give our cause any higher standing.
I still mourn the death of Stonewall Jackson. Yet it is fortunate that he died, for had he lived the South might have won, and slavery persisted for another half century or more.
It's a tough balancing act, being a Southern partisan. The war never sheds its difficult ambiguity for us.
One of the things that I find very worrisome about islam is the teaching that one is born muslim, and that one leaves that religion upon pain of persecution, and possible death.
If only Western governments would pass Freedom of Conscience legislation, imposing very heavy penalties for anyone who verbally threatened or physically agressed any person who chose to leave any religion. The left would squirm and squeal, but they would vote for it, how could they not? It would be a pure human rights law. It would also send a clear message that sharia does not transcend the rule of man-made law.
Perhaps something like that is on the books, I don't know. If it were, it should be dusted off and enforced.
Aside from all PC platitudes, there is one major drawback to even discussing the Nuke'em option: it relies on Government--the same Government that has abdicated its duty to govern in favor of perennial campaigning for self-perpetuation. So, like many other propositions like mass deportation or passing of this or that law, the Nuke'em option is almost certainly a moot point in today's political climate. If our leadership didn't even have the fortitude to employ *regular* bombs to take out Al Sadr when they knew exaclty where he was; if our leaders are only timidly considering rattling the smallest possible saber at our avowed enemies Iran and Syria--how can we even dream (or fear, depending on who you are) that they will seriously consider nuking Mecca?
Incidentally, I am one of those who would enthusiastically wage the most absolute of wars on the sponsors and exporters of Jihad--we know who they are (hello, Mahmud)--up to and including using nuclear weapons. I would gladly be a new Banastre Tarleton against any and all who field evil schemes against America and the West. But in today's climate at least, none of this is likely to happen.
So I think the question--in keeping with the 910 Group's mission, if I have understood it correctly--is what do WE, the Citizens do, NOW? Beside our long-term goals, what are our short-term objectives?
The problem is, we don't have much time, and a lot of factors are against us. National torpor is at an all-time high. Our National press' main objective is helping elect Democrats. The Democrats' main objective is keep and consolidate their newly-gained power--thereby seeing Republicans, not Jihadists, as their clearest and most present danger. Curricula in schools all across the country are designed to expressly vilify our traditions while exalting others'. And while all this happens, our enemy is acquiring nuclear weapons from the outside and treacherously embedding itself in our national guilt-complex to the inside.
So while I see why to many the dream of a Nuke'em option may seem like the awakening from a nightmare, it is nothing more than that--another dream. No different from the dream of banding together as armed citizens, marching on our respective State capitals, smashing the presses of our fifth column media (like our forefathers did) and demanding that our country retain its Western identity. This, as I have said before, may happen--but not before a major, catastrophic event that shatters most rules of what's "normal" in our lives--and by definition, we can't hope for that to happen, even if it is to justify some tough medicine.
So the question remains: what do WE do NOW that has a short-term impact on this struggle? What are the realistic short-term goals of centers like the 910 Group, of which we are all a part?
I am not waiting for someone to tell me the answer--I'm looking for it myself.
There is nothing that we can do, aside from commiserating with each other here in cyber space. Democracy is a failure, it just puts the stamp of legitimacy on those who best manipulate the indolent, ignorant and self serving electorate. American politics is a shell game where the two almost indistinguishable parties mouth platitudes and cliches to their partisans, while ensuring the uninterrupted flow of power, wealth and privilege to each other. Their model has evolved from the nation-state into the multinational corporation. The political, financial, cultural and media elites are a new global community which seeks to keep a lid on things that are bad for business. This is not a secret conspiracy, it's in the open and as plain as the nose on your face. We can talk to people at BBQ's and PTA meetings, but the decision makers are immune to the influence of people like us. I believe there are two possible futures; a Frank Miller style dystopia of accomodation to sharia, ultra-violence and consumerism as religion, or a nuclear exchange that will kill hundreds of millions and impoverish the entire planet. Enjoy what you have today, pray that a leader will arise to head off the coming disaster, and hold tightly the ones you love. We're in for a bumpy ride no matter what we do.
cmon nuke mecca is the only way to go
medina, riyahd, tehran, baghdad, damascus, and cairo too
might as well throw in london and paris
by the way i would asymmetric nuke them while pretending to be pals
taste of their own medicine
I think the moral question concerns the people who actually get killed or maimed.
I mean, who do we kill? Is it ok to kill civilians? What if we maim small children - and so on.
Because the problem with nukes are basically that they kill civilians not soldiers.
So when can we actually kill and maim innocent people with a good conscience?
When the alternative is, that we ourselves get killed and maimed by the enemy.
And when will that be?
When the islamofascist have their own nukes.
Based on this logic, I think we will see the first nukes flying, just before Iran or some other hostile muslim country get their first bombs - and the bombs will probably fly from Israel - because they are the first in the firing line.
or, just kill them all
Mautalla of Qamar,
Those too, but I wished to emphasize 2,000 years of survival without the Temple. Regarding the First Temple, it's noteworthy that the Jews of Jerusalem just before the Babylonian conquest thought it could not be destroyed, for it was the dwelling of G-d; our prophets (foremostly Jeremiah and Ezekiel) told them that the Temple was not the dwelling of G-d, but only of His name, and profanation of His name (by transgressions) would lead to His exiling His spirit from there and subsequent destruction of it like any other house.
Jesus Christ Supercop,
It is halakha (religious decree in Judaism) to use the name, uncensored, only in prayer or in the reading aloud of whole scripture verses, no matter in what language. In speech surely, but also in writing, so that no one should, after printing it, throw it away. The uncensored versions are all reserved, in all languages (and the uncensored uncensored version, also known as the tetragrammaton, is never uttered).
(Oh, and thank you, OnTheLeftCoast. I'm writing this while passing on the comments one by one.)
Baron (on your question of the earlier steps),
We've been all over this for the past weeks, beginning from Fjordman. Mine is:
1. Unflatten, de-equalize the value system: there are better things and worse things, there is good and evil, discernment and discrimination and judgment are rational and necessary things.
2. Sharpen our narrative: Western (or non-Islamic in general, for our allies in India and Thailand, for example) culture is superior to Islamic culture. Just as Silvio Berlusconi said a few days after 9/11 (and promptly backtracked upon protests from the PC crowd--that was the beginning of the downward slide). Desinistration (cutting the power of the PC, dhimmi Left) is part of this stage.
3. Place limits, borders, "STOP" signs on the Muslim immigrants: no political shariah law even within their own communities, no special privileges, the building of any mosque preconditioned upon the building of a church (or other non-Muslim house of worship) in Islamic countries, forcing the immigrants to learn the local language and their imams to preach in it. Or, as Fjordman says, making the practice of Islam as difficult as possible for them.
4. When (or if, though that's not likely) stage 3 gets the reaction of jihad, deport them all.
5. Having deported them of our own countries: invade their countries, kill their leaders and take control of their education systems to instill the values of the free world just as the Allies did from 1945 to about 1960.
We're currently struggling at stages 1 and 2, with rare glimpses of stage 3 (mostly in Australia). No one said this would be easy. None of those stages involve the use of any nuclear weapons. However, failure to carry out those stages in time, especially 3 and 4, might well lead to a dire escalation.
THIS IS VERY DOABLE.
1 - Keep fighting/counter-attacking the armed wing of the enemy everywhere.
2 - Demand that all nations which systematically deny women basic human rights as codified in the UN's Declaration of Universal Human Rights be shunned with UNSC sanctions, and be prohibited from participation in any multi-lateral trade or loan group such as the WTO and IMF and World bank.
We should no more accept systematic misogyny than we did slavery. This includes forced marriage, honor-killings, polygamy, and alas endogamy and consanguineous marriages.
3 - we should demand that all nations who want to remain in the UN and participate in any multilateral trade and bank and loan organizations have to allow freedom of religion. Jews and Christians must be allowed to worship freely in every Muslim nation - or they get shunned and stuck with sanctions.
4 - To do this with the least pain we must get more energy diversity and independence. this will take time. As prices go up - as a result of some Muslim nations efforts to retaliate economically - this will take care of itself, somewhat.
Ending misogyny and polygamy and religious intolerance will destroy the foundation of sociopathic islamicism.
The home which teaches that its females are chattel, and which teaches that all non-believers are expendable is a home which breeds jihadis and genocidal maniacs.
we must change that home. and my suggestions would.
these suggestions require no new ground on a political/philosophical level: all the basic tenets are already embedded in the UN Charter and the UNDUR.
It's time we enforced them.
They will never love us or respect us. Neither will germs. It might be enough if they feared us but this won't work with a death cult full of those that don't fear death.
Nuke Mecca now and then we can dance in the streets. (just kidding about the dancing part, but why shouldn't we rejoice at the deaths of our sworn enemies?) Delay and we and our children will watch many more of their street dances.
One American life lost and one American minute lost worrying about their feelings or future is one too many. My time is too valuable to worrying about ways that I might coexist peacefully with germs. Same goes for diaper heads.
I think the 'Nuke Mecca' idea can be simply and easily shot down by a (strictly limited) historical analogy.
When Titus burned the temple after the Great Revolt, the temple at Jerusalem was the center of the Jewish faith. There was a worldwide tax on Jews for its upkeep, each Jew was commanded to visit it 3 times a year, etc.
The ancient equivalent of the nuke mecca idea might have expected Judaism to crumble after the temple was burned. But the Jews are still here. Not only that, but they staged the Bar-Kochva revolt some 60 years later.
So those who advocate nuking mecca under, hoping the Islamists will wither and die, should take warning - the outcome might be very different. A burning desire for vengeance + not having anything to lose + nuclear weapons - well, you do the math.
So Titus burned the temple? Thank-you. You make my point. Let’s go back 20 years before that. How did that posture of not using overwhelming force on one’s enemies work out for the Jews? I don't choose to be a wandering Methodist for the next 5,000 years.
"A burning desire for vengeance + not having anything to lose + nuclear weapons - well, you do the math." Yes, the diaper heads have been in this mode for 30 years or more. Could it be any worse? You are also right that destroying Mecca won't do much. But it will let them know who their rightful masters are, who has the big medicine. This established, we can then begin destroying the rest of their cities and not stop until they once again know their station. If they never see it in their interests to adopt our world-view who cares?
The solution has to begin within the US. The first step has to be reduce our dependence on oil and gas (the only real leverage the Middle East has). I am in the oil and gas industry so that is a tough realization, but since this is a global commodity, the only way to lower a commidity price is to reduce demand. The only realistic way for the US to lower demand is to find the political will to convert power grids to nuclear power. All domestic oil and gas production would be used for fuel.
The construction of nuclear power plants and converting major grids would take 5 years to 10 years adjusting for political red tape 15 years. During this time educate in any way, word of mouth, book/blog recommendations,etc.
If the world's largest consumer of oil and gas could become energy self-sufficient, the global prices of oil and gas would drop dramatically, the wealth and influence of the Middle East would be reduced, the Achilles heel of US foreign policy removed. The results of this would economically cripple the Middle East, humiliate leaders in these countries, allow for the US to act with out reserve.
I realize this post is probably 7 days past it's prime, but I think this is an essential question that needs to be evaluated as events unfold.
As recently reported it appears that the Ethiopian army in alliance with the formerly exiled government of Somalia have regained control of Mogadishu and put the jihadists on the run.
The US and willing allies need to define the militant threat of Islam as an equivalent threat of that imposed in the past by communism, and support any government threatened by Islamic jihadists with any means necessary for defense. The threat of militant Islam has to be identified not as a religion but as a violent idealogy with aspirations of conquest and domination.
The US and willing allies have to reach out to Ethiopia, Somalia, Thailand, the Phillipines, Nigeria, their neighbors etc. and support the people with training, weapons, supplies and fight the jihad on all fronts.
What a stupid idea. First off it's pretty much premediated genocide. Furthermore, the Muslms have already been completely humiliated militarily by the infidels and it hasn't made them think twice about the falsity of their religion. There are several more reasons why this is a very stupid idea. Stupid, stupid.
First, I am not suggesting a defensive war against innocent Muslim people. Islam is a political ideology with its own fighting force, guidelines for hostages or the lack there of, battle plans, equipment, chains of command.
It is most definitely not premeditated genocide to fight a defensive war against a violent jihad in countries that have seen their populations slaughtered, the governments overthrown, their people forced to live in exile and fear without the means to support communities, let alone come together and fight a counter defense.
Second it does not help, or contribute anything to the arena of ideas to label desires to defend as 'stupid.' Please offer counter examples or constructive criticism not blanket name calling...that's just rude and lazy. I do not know much about military strategy so maybe my suggestion is a broad point and not a good approach. Maybe a lot of this is already taking place without attention being drawn. My larger point is that people need to connect the dots of global conflict. Begin by defining what is actually taking place in the world. Whether you like it or not, Islamic jihad has been waged on the global community. We must begin by realizing this and then address how to defend people everywhere that are threatened by Islamic jihad.
Also, where have the Muslims been humiliated by 'infidels'? Second, how can you categorize all non-Muslims as infidels and not see that Islamic jihad has declared war on a global scale, many times even defining other Muslims as apostates and declaring jihad on them also? The falsity of the religion is secondary, the first fact to be addressed is the global threat of Islamic jihad.
Baron and Dymphna
I'm a huge fan of the website, and I apologize for returning to this post weeks after the fact. I feel strongly about this topic and feel that it is a conversation that must be addressed many times over.
I'll go over a few points one at a time:
Though nuking mecca and medina is an option, there are a few impacts:
a) It will ash both cities and annihilate millions.
b) It will certainly provoke a militant response worldwide. Any plan of attack should take this into account.
c) A lot of people like you and me are going to be against this, resulting in an outpouring of aid-relief (financial, food, etc) for those who incurred loss. This creates an opportunity for a major rebellion/ militant organization to gather. This should also be taken into account.
d) Though we are all homo sapien sapien, the word human refers to a being that can show humanity. If we support something like this, we will become the very thing that we hold contempt for. We will not be able to call ourselves human. Perhaps some of you can justify it by saying that to fight monsters sometimes we have to become monsters, but wouldn't that defeat the very purpose nuking mecca & medina? It assert that it certainly does.
I argue this because, although nuking these two cities is an option, any action we take should have very clear purpose and should only accomplish what we want with minimal side-effects.
Make no mistake, committing an atrocity like this will never bring an ounce of peace for any of us.
So the question is "what is the alternative?"
One answer: Wage 'Information Warfare'
This involves:
1) Propagating, communicating and popularizing values such as: "Women must be educated and honoured. Why? Because we value life and only women can create life." This statement is but one example. These values must conflict directly with Islam. The contrast in values must also be clearly propagated and communicated.
2) Give Muslims an alternative - another religion to switch to. This means we MUST have a program to guarantee protection to those who convert to other religions in order to find peace in their own lives or to escape Islam. We don't have something like this in existence currently.
Note that this is only going to work best in western societies where running such propaganda is possible. In the middle east and far east where muslim populations are much higher, this will be difficult to implement.
I hate the taleban... what they're doing in Swat valley horrifies me... forcibly marrying off underage girls to militants, refusing their education. I'm Hindu and had my childhood in India. So to me this completely conflicts with my values. So I strongly feel that military action is necessary to protect the innocent, but it must be combined with propaganda and info warfare, otherwise our objectives will never succeed.
I'd like to request you all to not talk about violence, committing atrocities and causing destruction so easily. You do it right now because you shield yourself from relating to those who will suffer the consequences of the violence and atrocity. Don't be cowards! Look at the consequences of what you propose in more detail.
It takes millions to build buildings and cities. It takes effort to create a life or raise a child to maturity. Yet it takes so little to destroy it all. So I request that we focus on generating positive and creative solutions (creating growth and development is the spirit behind this).
Also, I request that when you suggest a solution, also list out the intentions and the tangible consequences that your proposed ideas should create and try to briefly include all the possibilities of what could happen. That way your message is much clearer.
Have a good day.
-Game Changer
Anyway, what I just suggested above was just one idea. I'm sure there are many other ways and methods. I'd like to hear more from others.
I'd like to add that there are a few things I don't want to see:
1) The talebanization of the world.
2) I don't want to see us all descend into barbarism, or go all Lord of the Flies on one another.
3) I don't want to see myself or anyone else loose their freedoms and the opportunity to pursue happiness in whatever form they feel is awesome (of course this must be in a benign manner).
These were the intentions behind what I wrote.
How did I I miss this little gem?
I don’t have an answer, but I would challenge the readers of this blog to consider whether there are any other ways to break the knot — ones that don’t actually involve the deaths of tens of thousands and a nuclear holocaust in the Middle East.
There is a way but Western leaders are so enamored with their own political power that they are evidently unable to place the survival of their nations before their own welfare.
Papa Ray: Islam has to be taught to the children by someone.
Make that job, or taking that job very unattractive or even the last job they will ever have.
Le bingo! Give the man a Kewpie doll. Islam's top tier of jihadist leadership must be scraped away like so much excrement. The summary execution of just a few thousand influential leaders, scholars, clerics and financiers would bring jihad to a screeching halt. Perhaps, even for long enough to defeat radical Islam.
bordergal: ... to what level are we willing to risk our lives and culture to convince Islam it is best to change? How many of our civilians and soldiers would need to die before we would say "enough"?
This is one of the only salient questions. It addresses the final tipping point of when it will become more trouble to live with Islam than to live without it. All that remains to be seen is how many of our lives will be thrown away by cowardly Western leaders until we elect people who will properly defend us against our enemies by killing them from the top down. The current bottom up one-bullet-at-a-time strategy literally assures a Muslim holocaust.
robert: The problem with all this is that we are doing the moral high ground thing with a bunch of psychopathic cave-men who would kill us all or have us under the most abject slavery in a heartbeat. If someone would care to explain how we argue with someone who sees our culture as automatically decadent and corrupt- because it is not islamic, then I'm all ears.
As Shakespeare would say, "Therein lies the rub." Islam insists upon being paid in its own coin. Must we be so churlish as to refuse them their paradise and virgins? Before all of this ends, many thousands of Muslims will need to die. Why not begin with those most deserving? The top echelons of Islamic leadership will need to be eliminated before this over. Let's get on with it and be done all the sooner.
Jesus Christ Supercop: Anyhow, it occurred to me that nuking Mecca would cause the US to lose any moral highground it has, in the eyes of many if not most people. After nuking Mecca, further terrorist strikes would attain legitimacy, and "Islamophobia" would become even more reviled.
This remains my own premise as well. Namely, that any first use of nuclear weapons by the West will serve as justification for WMD attacks against us. If anything, obliteration of Mecca must be a hole card held in reserve as retaliation against some truly gruesome Islamic atrocity.
Scott: I would also point out that nuclear weapons have limited utility. Just as, if not more effective against a parasite system such as Islam is the blockade or quarantine.
In light of how endemic Water Poverty is in the MME (Muslim Middle East), a simple embargo of all grain shipments would cause mass starvation in less than one month. Even as it stabs at us from Hell's heart, Islam is poised on a razor thin edge of survival. It only remains to be seen what sort of atrocity will finally cause us to overcome our moral compunction with respect to paying Islam in its own coin.
Baron Bodissey: Nuking anyplace has to be one of the last steps. What are the earlier ones?
The earlier steps have been mentioned. Deportation of all Western Muslims to their countries of ancestry. Containment of the entire MME. Embargo of Western technology or food. Plus my own personal favorite of decapitating strikes against jihadist leadership.
drmiltown: The problem with defending the sheep is that what it takes to defend them offends their sensibilities.
Which is why I predict that it will probably require some truly hideous Islamic atrocity to overcome our current state of moral hesitation. Have no fear, Islam will cheerfully cross that threshold at the very first opportunity that presents itself. That is just one of many reasons why Islam will perish from this earth.
The style of Christine's post reveals her to be an intelligent, well educated woman. She is sweet, caring and invlolved with life around her. How bizarre that she, and many like her, should be one of Islaam's greatest assets.
Le bingo!
jillosophy: This is exactly the way they want it and it will never change: it's either all Islam or nothing... and they will NEVER STOP TRYING TO KILL OR CONVERT US. Ever. It is all they do, all they live for, all they want, all they've ever done. And you can't trust them: it is a Muslim's duty to kiss the hand of their enemy until they can cut it off. Their word for this is: HUDAIBIYA
However nasty it sounds, this is the bottom line. Taqiyya prohibits and trust or negotiation with Islam. Just as Islam prohibits any conciliation with other faiths. Why put up with such crap?
Baron Bodissey: I am looking for practical suggestions about what ordinary citizens, banded together with a common purpose, might realistically hope to achieve.
To your own eternal credit, Baron, you are doing it right now. Educating the masses so that they may one day make an informed choice about whom they elect. Obama’s ascension to power is a sore indication of just how badly needed your efforts are.
KG: Talk enough about nuking Mecca, and the assassination of imams and Arab leaders begins to look moderate.
Works for me.
Thunder Pig: I also believe that history will judge our leaders as Chamberlain Squared, or Cubed.
I’m more curious as to whether lamp posts will greet them before such judgment can even be passed. Such is their treason.
Voltaire: So while I see why to many the dream of a Nuke'em option may seem like the awakening from a nightmare, it is nothing more than that--another dream. No different from the dream of banding together as armed citizens, marching on our respective State capitals, smashing the presses of our fifth column media (like our forefathers did) and demanding that our country retain its Western identity. This, as I have said before, may happen--but not before a major, catastrophic event that shatters most rules of what's "normal" in our lives--and by definition, we can't hope for that to happen, even if it is to justify some tough medicine.
The foregoing encapsulates the sordid depth of how utterly betrayed we are by our political leadership.
reliapundit: Ending misogyny and polygamy and religious intolerance will destroy the foundation of sociopathic islamicism.
One word, reciprocity. That and total exclusion from the world’s economic stage of all nations that practice Abject Gender Apartheid (i.e., shari’a law).
How practical is that though? Total exclusion isn't going to be acceptable with a lot of people. Middle East has lots of oil, and has significant influence... a lot of people are going to be interested in trade, etc. Though appropriate, that's not a feasible option.
I do completely believe that the way it is now is that it is an us or them situation. Islam is designed such that everyone else must either convert or die. I agree with jillosophy about this point.
bordergal raises valid questions: to what level are we willing to risk our lives?
My answer:
1) I'm willing to risk it enough to get a fatwa on my head, but if I'm alone... that's pretty useless. I know I cannot make changes alone. But if a million other people simultaneously work with me... my objective of altering our world may be met.
2) If we don't take action and sit back because we dont want to risk our lives, then the alternative is that you and I will know ourselves as cowards who didn't live true to our feelings. We ran from the risks. It's fine to run when you have a lot to loose, but I see something that I love and that I don't want others to loose. I love that I can choose how to live, and it'll be great if my friends, and in the future my wife and kids and grandchildren could do the same. I really love the world we live in, despite all the wrongs and bad things in it. I love life and I enjoy it. I don't think that everyone will be able to enjoy it as much as me if the world becomes dominated by Islam. Isn't that why all of us are on this board discussing this topic? Perhaps this is a bit idealist, but I think if I hide and try to just save my own rear, I'd think poorly of myself. We all die. Everything dies eventually. But the real question is... how will we die? With a smile? With a sense of "I did alright. It's a pity time's up - I'd have liked to do more. But this ain't too bad. I'm satisfied with what I've done." I think when I die, I'd like to know that.
robert also raises a good question: are we going to do this moral high-ground thing with these cavemen?
My answer: the purpose of the moral highground isn't for their sake... it's for ours. That's because regardless of what action we take, we need to live with ourselves afterwards. We need to live our lives in a way that we actually respect ourselves, and I think if we become the same as the people who are trying to destroy us, then how can we walk with pride? How can we be happy with ourselves and our lives, if we're the same thing we condemn and hold contempt for?
Game: How practical is that though? Total exclusion isn't going to be acceptable with a lot of people. Middle East has lots of oil, and has significant influence... a lot of people are going to be interested in trade, etc. Though appropriate, that's not a feasible option.
As the Baron and others have pointed out, very few of the alternatives in discussion are politically feasible. Still, as KG so astutely noted, "Talk enough about nuking Mecca, and the assassination of imams and Arab leaders begins to look moderate."
Keeping these ideas alive in the public mind is the first step towards educating people about the dire choices confronting us with respect to Islam.
The most disturbing fact is that we are still going through an educational phase despite being in a global war with Islam. We are so far behind on the learning curve that Islam's possible acquisition of WMDs poses exceptionally harsh consequences for this educational lag.
As I continue to note, the heavy imbalance between Islam and the West in terms of relative nuclear capability almost guarantees a disastrous outcome for Muslims. The fact that Islamic leaders willfully ignore or dismiss this point is monstrous beyond measure.
In the realm of dreamland, along with immediate containment or reverse immigration of Muslims should also come appropriation of their major oilfields. Islam needs to be neutered both strategically and financially.
How can we be happy with ourselves and our lives, if we're the same thing we condemn and hold contempt for?
Your appropriate concern about maintaining the moral high ground when dealing with this Neanderthal cult can be answered thus. We fought and defeated the Nazis without becoming Nazis ourselves. We fought and defeated the Imperial Japanese without becoming them either.
I continue to predict that, barring the use of targeted assassinations, defeating Islam will require paying it in its own coin of extreme violence. Massively Disproportionate Retaliation, Collective Punishment and Intentional Collateral Fatalities may all be required to defeat this vicious foe. All of these are the tools of Islam. If there is no other way, then Islamic fire must be fought with fire.
While we will need to be careful about surrendering our humanity in the process, such a surrender is inevitable if we accept Islam's withering embrace. This is most definitely an Us or Them situation. Just as with Communism, this one is for all the marbles. Abstaining from Total War when Total War is the only effective countermeasure amounts to voluntary suicide. However ill prepared Muslims are for it, Islam has declared Total War upon the civilized world. If we wish to survive, it is now required of us to use whatever means necessary to defeat this cruel and vicious enemy.
Zenster, you said: "We fought and defeated the Nazis without becoming Nazis ourselves. We fought and defeated the Imperial Japanese without becoming them either."
Though we didn't take on Nazi or Imperial Japanese beliefs, there were no angels in that war. The Allied and axis powers were just the opposite sides of the same coin. Why do I say that? Because the US nuked Japan... 2 civilian city populations were murdered in a couple of flashes of energy. More than 150K people died (men, women & children). I can understand the decision: The US would have lost a lot of soldiers and military power because of the philosophy the Japanese followed in battle - fight to your last breath. This was the only weapon to change the tide of war. But that move made the US no better than the Nazis! Both sides were just as willing to kill noncombatant bystanders. That's what I mean when I said that I don't want to become like that in the process of trying to change the world. That's not what I call a better world.
I like Zenster's point that "we are still going through an educational phase despite being in a global war with Islam". Solid point. However, I'd like to add that because this 'war' hasn't escalated to an all-out street to street gun battle people remain blatantly ignorant about the hazard Islam poses.
Right now, I feel that what we need to focus on educating ourselves, and the masses about the nature of Islam. I feel that this will cause things to shift.
BTW: Though I know quite a bit about Islam, and history relating to Islam, i feel like I have a whole bunch of pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, but I can't see the whole picture. Does any of you know of resources (preferably online, though books are acceptable) that give a well thought out, complete, overview of Islam, including a non-sensationalist argument presenting the hazard presented by Islam? I'd prefer something that's less sensationalist, that gives facts and is informative without presenting opinions as facts.
Thanks,
Game Changer
GameChanger,
Because the US nuked Japan... 2 civilian city populations were murdered in a couple of flashes of energy.
I don't consider it murder. The atomic bombs ended the war and saved lives on the American and Japanese side. It also prevented Japan from being carved up into a (Soviet) North Japan and a (NATO) South Japan thus saving millions of Japanese from living under Communism.
I don't consider criticism of the bombing of civilian targets beyond the pale but seizing on this one issue in order to pretend that "the Allied and Axis powers were just the opposite sides of the same coin" is despicable.
The reality of the evil mass murderer Axis' fanatical racial barbarism - which in practical terms meant rubber truncheons, secret police, extermination camps, medical experiments on (living) prisoners, kamikaze (suicide) attacks - seems to have not sunk in for you.
Germany and Japan were trying to create slave empires. The Nazis planned to intern the entire male population of Britain and have them dispatched to the Continent to work as slave labourers.
The worst thing Britain and the US did was to use (arguably) excessive force to end the war as quickly as possible.
Does any of you know of resources (preferably online, though books are acceptable) that give a well thought out, complete, overview of Islam, including a non-sensationalist argument presenting the hazard presented by Islam?
I'd recommend Life of Mahomet by William Muir. Its not online unfortunately.
Game: Though we didn't take on Nazi or Imperial Japanese beliefs, there were no angels in that war.
What horseradish! America was quite the angel. All through history, conquered lands have been retained by the conquerer. Had the USA applied this axiom, Japan, the Philippines, parts of Europe and much of Oceania would still be American possessions.
Instead, the USA liberated these countries and handed them back over to their own people. America also expended massive amounts of wealth to help rebuild these countries after the war with very little in the way of reparations. If that isn't being an angel, I don't know what is.
The Allied and axis powers were just the opposite sides of the same coin. Why do I say that? Because the US nuked Japan... 2 civilian city populations were murdered in a couple of flashes of energy. More than 150K people died (men, women & children).
This is a tired and totally failed meme. The nuclear attacks upon Japan actually saved Japanese lives. Hirohito had ordered total resistance by the civilian population. This included instructions that, were Japan overcome, this entire civilian population should also then commit suicide.
The attacks at Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved untold millions of Japanese lives along with an estimated 100,000 to 250,000 Allied soldiers' lives as well.
To say that, "Allied and axis powers were just the opposite sides of the same coin" displays a ghastly degree of moral relativism. The aims of these two groups were in diametric opposition and shared no common goal. There can e no rational equating of them.
I can understand the decision: The US would have lost a lot of soldiers and military power because of the philosophy the Japanese followed in battle - fight to your last breath. This was the only weapon to change the tide of war. But that move made the US no better than the Nazis!
Again, you are so incredibly wrong that words cannot describe it. You seem to exhibit some moral aversion to the use of nuclear weapons. They are merely tools that can achieve a specific objective. In this case, ending a bloody war against a relentless enemy. This is why nuclear weapons must remain on the table, civilian casualties and all, with Islam because they too are a totally relentless enemy.
Both sides were just as willing to kill noncombatant bystanders.
More garbage! America interned its Japanese civilian population instead of slaughtering them like the Germans did with ther Jews. Nowhere did America commit anything remotely resembling the Rape of Nanking. You are totally off base in making such a statement.
That's what I mean when I said that I don't want to become like that in the process of trying to change the world. That's not what I call a better world.
Your aversion to using overwhelming force is the exact sort of faulty logic that could just as well see this world taken over by the Muslims. This is an all or nothing battle and the total annihilation of our enemy must, at all times, be a potential outcome. One to be avoided, if possible, but not to be dismissed at any time.
I hope others will join in to demonstrate to you just how wrong your equation of Allied and Axis forces, along with their objectives, actually is. You demonstrate an inadequate understanding of world history.
The foregoing is not a personal attack upon you or your character. You seem to be participating in a sincere and genuine manner. What I have written is a deeply concerned effort to correct what are some exceptionally mistaken memes that have been used to flog the Allies, and America in particular, for way too long. Recent re-examinations of this entire mindset have shown it to be flawed in the extreme. Please reconsider your position in this matter.
I also urge you to appreciate islam o' phobe's comments as well. They are spot on.
Dear Zenster,
You talk about my moral relativism when you have no idea of what all principles or factors I've based my perspectives on (I'm under the impression that you made your assertion based on the little bit of writing I've made on this blog). You talk about my knowledge of world history, when most of what I said about the world war was given as an analogy to explain my point of view... and you assert a lot of your opinions as facts. Don't criticize my logic when you don't have enough information to justify your assertions about me. I'm an engineer, and a researcher and a soon-to-be-scientist, and I'm telling you explicitly that you don't have enough information to make such statements about me.
As far as my aversion to nuclear weapons goes... perhaps you should study the technical details of Chernobyl, Hiroshima and Nagasaki before trying to tell me why nuclear weapons should be used.
Please re-examine your own position and opinions before telling me that my mindset is flawed.
My tone in this response may be one of irritation, but I'm glad I managed to write it without making an actual insult.
That said let's all keep criticisms out of the scope of this blog, shall we? That way we can all discuss and debate the topic "Nuke Mecca" rather than turning this blog into a text filled with condescension, derision, and insults (which spoils the joy and freedom in expressing our views).
Regards,
Game Changer
Even so, after a great deal of consideration, the only conclusion left to be reached is that Mecca must be destroyed, one way or another. It is the root of the whole beast. Destroy the kaaba and Islam falls.
Game, what part of:
The foregoing is not a personal attack upon you or your character. You seem to be participating in a sincere and genuine manner. What I have written is a deeply concerned effort to correct what are some exceptionally mistaken memes that have been used to flog the Allies, and America in particular, for way too long.
... do you not understand?
You seem to take immense umbrage and yet do not adequately refute any of the counter-assertions provided by islam o' phobe or myself.
Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not "murders". Murder is a criminal act and the real criminals were the Imperial Japanese, whom the vast majority of Japan supported be it vocally or tacitly. Incidentally, much like the case of Muslims and their relationship to the Islamists of today.
Your off-handed mention of Chernobyl leads the entire discussion radically astray.
Archonix: Even so, after a great deal of consideration, the only conclusion left to be reached is that Mecca must be destroyed, one way or another. It is the root of the whole beast. Destroy the kaaba and Islam falls.
As Islam continues its terrorist rampage the destruction of Mecca only assumes greater priority. The fallibility of Allah must be made clear to Muslims. Islam must be discredited in such an unignorable manner as to forever brand its followers as deceived and mistaken.
Little else other than the obliteration of Mecca can provide that degree of delegitimization. Whether the job must be done with conventional or nuclear weapons will be determined by the depths of Islam's own depravity.
As one wag put it, "Muslims would eventually begin to feel rather silly bowing down five times a day to a plain of hot smoking glass."
Post a Comment