Saturday, June 21, 2008

Thinking the Unthinkable About Deterrence

Here at Gates of Vienna we’re in the habit of thinking about various forms of the unthinkable. Sometimes it gets us into trouble, because there are certain topics that may not be broached without releasing an atavistic rage in sensitive people. Forget the possibility that some of the awful scenarios under discussion here might become a reality in the not-so-distant future: we must not discuss them; it’s bad juju.

But we discuss them anyway. El Inglés’ recent essays have been the most controversial, with Paul Weston’s gloomy prognostications running a close second. Virtually any Fjordman essay invites the same kind of reaction — look down our sidebar for links to his most recent posts.

Yesterday our regular commenter Zenster drew my attention to a recent essay at the Belmont Club. Wretchard, too, is thinking the unthinkable, in this case about the possibility of deterring a terrorist WMD attack by methods that are similar to those used during the Cold War:

One of the more embarrassing aspects of the Cold War, which we can acknowledge without undue shame in retrospect, was that the safety of both superpowers depended on collective punishment. The vast arsenals of nuclear warheads on both sides, especially in the early days of missile guidance, were aimed not at military bases or government centers. They were not aimed at the White House, the Capitol or the Kremlin. They were aimed at the cities in which millions of civilians lived. Another word for the sonorous term of “deterrence” was holding the enemy nation’s population accountable for the actions of the leaders.

Elbridge A. Colby at the Hoover Institution Public Policy review revisits collective responsibility in the age of possible nuclear terror in his article, “Expanded Deterrence: Broadening the threat of retaliation”. His thesis, as you might have guessed, is that to prevent deniable nuclear attacks it is necessary not to listen to denials.

The problem is arises from the fact that we cannot deter terrorists directly. Colby writes, “as many have pointed out, terrorists are hard — and sometimes impossible — to deter directly. Clearly, people willing to kill themselves in order to conduct terrorist attacks are unlikely to be deterred by direct threats.”

Consequently he argues that there is no alternative but to hold terrorism’s parent societies or cultures responsible for any acts they may fail to prevent. “This posture would strongly incentivize those with the capability to act to do so, since gross negligence or complicity would incur retaliation (not necessarily, it should be emphasized, violent in nature). And our demands would be reasonable, because all we would be asking for is active assistance in preventing catastrophic attacks from those who, despite their own involvement — active or passive — in such attacks, benefit from the restraint of our current, excessively narrow posture.”
- - - - - - - - -
Wretchard quotes at length from Mr. Colby’s article, and discusses it in its current political context, namely an American election campaign in which one of the two major contenders shows extraordinary tendencies towards pacifism and appeasement.

And the larger question, regardless of whether or not Barack Obama becomes president, is this: does any Western nation possessing the capability of deterring Islamic terrorists actually have the political will to use that capability?

The suicidal zealots who long for death in the cause of Allah cannot possibly be deterred. For deterrence to be effective, the comfortable elites in the countries that harbor terrorists are the ones who must believe that they will suffer greatly in the event of a terrorist attack on the United States or its allies.

Given the current craven behavior of our civil and military authorities, why would any reasonably intelligent Pakistani or Saudi official believe that his comfort and perks are put at risk by the terrorists on his soil? What likelihood is there that we would do more than ask him to cooperate with the FBI, request the extradition of suspects, send delegations to engage in talks, or propose resolutions at the United Nations?

Wretchard goes on:

Colby argues, on classical grounds, that for such a deterrent to be effective it has to be credible. There has to be no doubt among allies (who may shelter under the American nuclear umbrella) and the enemy that America will carry out the threatened response. But leaving Obama aside, can anybody, in this politically correct world, really believe it will be carried out? Colby himself has doubts. “The credibility of a deterrent threat is vital to its success. Yet the threat to expand our retaliation beyond those directly responsible might strike our opponents and others as incredible.”

The Hoover paper categorically rejects this policy as the threat of collective punishment, describing it instead as “a policy that carefully and reasonably expands the definition of guilt — it is not a policy that targets the innocent.”

Readers of the Belmont Club will be familiar with posts which have dealt with the concepts discussed in the Hoover paper, such as The Ghost of AQ Khan, the Return of Danger and of course, the granddaddy of them all, the Three Conjectures. There are two problems in particular which are not closely examined by the Hoover paper. The first, which was raised by the Three Conjectures, is whether there is any stable stopping point if a WMD exchange is initiated. Implicit in the Hoover paper is the idea that terror — and let’s be frank here, Islamic terror — can be restrained by its larger social milieu. That somehow threatening “supporters” and “marks of prestige” can put the damper on Osama Bin Laden and his ilk; or at least “incentivize” the grand muftis of whatever mosque to cool their hotheads. I hope that control exists, but I will argue that it is far from clear that it does.

The second problem is what course small, non-nuclear states should follow in a world of deniable nuclear weapons. Singapore for example, and Germany according to some, would be examples of countries which could be subjected to nuclear blackmail. If “expanded deterrence” is good for America, why should it not be good for Singapore, which the regional enemy of Islamic terrorism? And if America will have difficulty credibly threatening “expanded deterrence” in the event a US city is destroyed, how can any country credibly threaten that America would retaliate on its behalf against “supporters” and “marks of prestige” (in other words Muslim populations and Mecca) in the event Singapore or Berlin is reduced to ash? If the Vatican were destroyed, for example, who could be counted on to carry out the threat of “expanded deterrence”?

I agree with Wretchard: America will not take severe punitive action against any terror-supporting state until after some new horrific attack has occurred. But such a response will be too late for the act to have any deterrent value, since by then weapons of mass destruction will have been democratized, and there will be plenty of suitcase nukes, dirty bombs, and chemical weapons in the hands of small disconnected groups of fanatics who cannot be deterred.

As Wretchard points out, at the same time that proliferation carries WMDs into the hands of the terrorists, so will the means of retaliation be democratized. When governments no longer protect their own people, and suitcase nukes can be bought on the black market, what is to stop the Aryan Nations or the Nordic Front or [fill in your most loathed right-wing racist hate group here] from privatizing cultural defense?

Once the social contract has been broken, the task of protecting home, family, community, and culture will devolve to smaller and more local groups, some of which will not feel themselves bound by the oh-so-fastidious orthodoxies of our own time. Survival tends to trump everything else.

It’s easy to envision a descent into a truly Hobbesian situation. It doesn’t have to come to that, but our leaders will need to make some hard choices very soon to prevent it, and I don’t hold out much hope of that happening.

There will come a time when the unthinkable will make itself known, and none of us will be able to avoid thinking about it.

22 comments:

Diamed said...

Terrorism and counterterrorism, with states being bypassed altogether.

This brave new world is easily possible considering the armies of the world are now essentially useless, bound by various human rights advocates and muzzled into obsolescence. The army has not protected our borders. The army has not deterred terrorism. The army has not stopped the drug influxes from mexico. The army has not reclaimed our urban ghettoes and 'no-go zones' back to US law and order.

However the army has been instrumental in giving democracy, hope, and prosperity to Iraq.

With such a defense force, it would be no wonder if paramilitary groups started trying their own hand at it.

But of course, that's the one situation where the army is extremely capable: the army will ruthlessly quash any force other than its own or any challenge to the government. Thus I predict an incompetent army, which still crushes anyone else from trying their best, and a non-violent surrender to the third world without a shot fired. Let's face it, this gradual defeat has been going for 50 years, in another 50 years it's all but settled. There are zero indicators that anything is changing for the better. (obama vs. mccain) How will we get from here to victory day in 50 years??

kepiblanc said...

Isn't there one variable - or even constant - left out of this equation of deterrence? - Let's take Berlin: if somehow a nuke goes off there, be it delivered from Iran, Pakistan or by a local "youth" with a suitcase, I would certainly consider myself lucky to be an infidel.

It is often forgotten that the other side of the Muslim-deluge-into-Europe coin is their status as hostages. Not that the terrorist would care about their Umma-brethren, but I guess the Umma knows that as well...

Natalie said...

Even if the United States had the political will to carry out an attack on the terrorists if they attack us again (and I'm not sure we do), I personally am not convinced that this would stop the terrorists. They have stated repeatedly that they have no qualms whatsoever about killing their fellow Muslims along with us "infidels" to achieve their final goal of world domination. These people are dangerous and very unique: they are willing to kill their own on their way toward their eventual goal. We should not underestimate anything they say. They have been on this path of world domination for over one thousand years now, and they're not going to give up easily.

I'm not saying we shouldn't carry out attacks against them - quite the contrary. I think we should be much more aggressive than we have been. We are in a war, and history shows that the only way to win a war is to fight it like you want to win it. There is no such thing as a "clean war" like so many politicians promote nowadays. We need to fight this war again Islam properly because it is not one we can afford to lose.

Zenster said...

The suicidal zealots who long for death in the cause of Allah cannot possibly be deterred. For deterrence to be effective, the comfortable elites in the countries that harbor terrorists are the ones who must believe that they will suffer greatly in the event of a terrorist attack on the United States or its allies.

Which is why I continue to agitate for our military to begin a campaign of targeted assassinations directed at Islam’s clerical, financial and scholastic elite. As any homicide detective will tell you, “follow the money”. It is Islam’s aristocracy that profits most from terrorism and the expansion of Dar al Islam. Only when they suffer distinct attrition will there be any change in their attitudes.

Wretchard: Implicit in the Hoover paper is the idea that terror — and let’s be frank here, Islamic terror — can be restrained by its larger social milieu. That somehow threatening “supporters” and “marks of prestige” can put the damper on Osama Bin Laden and his ilk; or at least “incentivize” the grand muftis of whatever mosque to cool their hotheads. I hope that control exists, but I will argue that it is far from clear that it does.

That "control" most certainly does exist but—in order to be implemented—requires imposing suffering on a vast scale heretofore unknown in the fight against global terrorism. I will detail more about this in a following list of what I consider to be Functional Deterrents to Terrorism.

I have been working on this idea for a long time. While an extremely difficult concept in practice, I feel it is something that needs to be addressed. Far too much of current counter-terrorist policy is dedicated to stalling, appeasement, police action or stopgap military strategies that are ineffective at best. Nor do these measures address the overarching issue of how nuclear proliferation has foreshortened our schedule of response. Recent instability in nuclear-armed Pakistan has only highlighted this reduced timeframe.

NOTE: All of the following tactics are mentioned with the explicit intent of reducing the overall loss of human life. Irresponsible recommendations to "nuke 'em all" or variations thereof are unwelcome. That said, this admonition should not be construed as dismissing limited engagements like those used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Most military historians have finally conceded that the World War II nuclear attacks saved Japanese lives. The exceptionally violent nature of Islam makes it irresponsible to exclude from consideration similar "limited use" scenarios.

To continue: Here is a list of the major goals that functional deterrence should achieve. Any given approach need not succeed at enacting all of these features in order to qualify. Append this roster as you see fit and repost it if I have omitted any significant elements.

Stopping major terrorist atrocities: This should always be the primary focus of deterrence. It may not be possible to halt or adequately deter low-level jihad in places such as Thailand but attacks such as the 9-11 atrocity, Beslan, Madrid, Bali and London should come to an end or be met with distinct penalties.

Attaching a heavy price tag to further attacks: Be it through disproportionate retaliation, appropriation of assets or denial of access to worship, Islam must begin to experience reciprocal predation, discomfort or deprivation for its continued assaults upon the West.

Encouraging or coercing Muslims to self-police: Deterrence should possess sufficient dissuasive power whereby Muslim populations take it upon themselves to dismantle jihadi terror networks within their own sphere. Whether through outright fear or more subtle methods of penalty and reward, Islam must be made to clean its own house. Due to language or cultural barriers, the West is ill suited to such a job. What’s more, we have absolutely no obligation to perform such a rigorous and time-consuming task. Muslims know best who is and who is not participating in jihad. Let them taste the fruits of having embraced taqiyya as they attempt to winnow out the terrorists from their own midst.

Actively eroding support for jihadism: Although similar to the foregoing item we also need to address methods that reduce the glamour and attraction of participating in terrorist activity. Propaganda methods involving ridicule, humiliation, shame or condemnation and fear are one path. Collective punishment, especially within terrorist family networks, is another. Comprehensive biometric tracking of known and suspected jihadis could be yet another.

Support for or mandate to reform Islam: I include this option for the dreamers and optimists. There is little evidence to date that Islam can be rehabilitated into a peaceful entity. All indications are that it already has reformed into a more violent and intolerant version of itself when compared to its state some 50-100 years ago.

Some potential measures to consider on an individual basis or in combination:

Targeted Assassinations:

One exceptionally economical way of deterring people from engaging in terrorism is to make sure that they die for doing so. The problem of recidivism no longer remains an issue. Obviously, we cannot pursue every last jihadi on earth. That has already been addressed with respect to Islam cleaning its own house. Still, it would set a powerful example if the top tiers of jihad’s commanders, financiers, indoctrinators and scholars all began to experience severe physical attrition. The high context nature of Muslim culture both encourages and rewards people for being indispensable. To eliminate such irreplaceable elements of terrorism’s network structure will weaken it significantly. Doing so might possibly allow for other methods—less likely to work on their own—to realize some measure of success.

More than anything, it would represent major progress if jihadi leadership no longer felt comfortable making personal appearances before large assemblies or maintaining a conspicuous public presence of any sort. Again, in high context cultures this diminishes personal power in the very strongest sense. Without going into why Western governments are so loath to implement such a program, suffice to say that is would be very inexpensive when compared to our current rate of monetary expenditure in fighting Global Terrorism.

Propaganda — A Cautionary Tale:

Islamic terrorists continue to agitate for the use of nuclear weapons against the far better armed West. Muslim populations need to be informed of how exceptionally dangerous such a notion is. Making them aware of this would involve creating a really well produced Middle East version of "The Day After Tomorrow". Not the more recent global warming movie but that 1980s American video about the aftermath of a nuclear war. The program should show retaliation for a nuclear terrorist attack on a major American city. Explicit recreations should portray Cairo, Islamabad, Tehran, Riyadh and Damascus all vaporizing in nuclear explosions. Extremely vivid and graphic detail should be used to demonstrate just how devastating and gruesome such a response would be. Accurate recreations of firestorms, burning cement, boiling lakes and disintegrating buildings should all be included. The footage would also show easily recognized landmarks within each metropolis being destroyed along with its more affluent neighborhoods.

Subsequent footage should document the immense human suffering from radiation poisoning, exposure, starvation and epidemics that would sweep the affected areas. All of this should be burned onto millions of DVDs with sub-tracks in Arabic, Farsi, Pashto, Hindi and so forth. These would then be airdropped over the entire Arab Middle East and made to coincide with peak viewing cycles during Ramadan. To enhance public notice of this, airings of the video would also be electronically piggybacked onto al Jazeera, al Manar and other Arab state television broadcast channels. This would guarantee a splash of publicity and assure follow up viewing of the airdropped DVDs.

I can think of few other ways for America to clearly communicate the incredibly perilous position Muslims are being placed in by their jihadi co-religionists. Whether they agree with them or not is entirely of zero consequence. Islam is currently headed directly towards such an outcome and if there is some way of inspiring Muslims to begin reforming Islam or killing off their jihadist clergy and followers then this catastrophe might be averted.

Taking The Shrines as Hostages:

Through unilateral or coalition military action the shrines at Mecca and Medina are taken and held hostage against future terrorist attacks. Somehow, we need to reach out and touch over ONE BILLION Muslims. The haj (pilgrimage), is annually attended by over one million Muslims. For many, it is a once-in-a-lifetime event that may well involve the most costly financial outlay they ever make. Missing such an opportunity due to terrorist atrocities might well cause individuals who are denied the haj to rethink their support of jihad. Once the shrines are captured, a span of thirteen months must pass without a single major terrorist atrocity before the haj can resume.

The shrines would be surrounded by a no-man’s land of minefields covered by computer controlled automatic weapons fire directed by night vision systems. If anything, the captured shines would also serve as the ultimate “flypaper” in how they would attract the most fanatical jihadis thereby distracting them from attacking other Western targets. Additionally, all attendees of the haj would have to undergo comprehensive biometric analysis in order to participate. The database assembled would provide a powerful tool in profiling terrorist families and groups.

Holding these shrines as physical hostages would also serve another purpose. Should there be a chemical or biological attack on a Western city, Medina would be contaminated with a similar agent. A second one would result in Mecca being contaminated as well. This is a significant deterrent as cleaning up either site would cost untold BILLIONS of dollars. In the case of a nuclear terrorist attack, first Medina and then Mecca would be obliterated.

Food Embargo:

Water Poverty is endemic throughout the MME (Muslim Middle East). As populations grow, increasing amounts of water previously used for agricultural purposes are diverted into municipal drinking supplies. Deep aquifers are being pumped out at unsustainable rates and corrupt Arab governments are not willing to expend the massive amounts of money required to build expensive desalination plants or the nuclear reactors needed to power them.

One ton of grain requires ONE THOUSAND tons of water to grow. The average human diet consumes one third of a ton of grain per year, requiring over 300 tons of water. A Western diet rich in livestock can see that number rise to 800 tons of water needed to sustain such intake. Iran recently overtook Japan as the world’s largest grain importer. The MENA (Middle East North Africa) region ranks as the fastest growing market for imported grain. The water needed to irrigate this region’s combined consumption requires a volume roughly equivalent to the entire annual flow of the NILE RIVER. Bringing in foreign grain is just another way of importing water.

An immediate halt to exports of grain by America, Canada and Australia to the MME would bring about mass starvation in a matter of months, if not weeks. It borders on the ludicrous to consider how Islam continues antagonizing the West even as it is helplessly dependent upon it for their daily bread. An embargo of food shipments is one strategy that Russia and China—both major food importers—could not possibly triangulate against. One or two terrorist nuclear atrocities against the West could easily help it overcome any moral compunction about halting food shipments. No amount of money or any other lever could make the needed food magically appear. Even an oil embargo would not impact the West soon enough to counter the almost immediate onset of starvation.

Appropriation of Assets:

The 9-11 atrocity easily cost America on the order of ONE TRILLION dollars. A vast majority of the hijackers involved came from Saudi Arabia and were indoctrinated by Saudi Wahhabists. The USA would be well within its rights to appropriate the Ghawar Oilfield as compensation for this attack. Similarly, confiscation of other MME petroleum sources could serve as a form of retaliation against future attacks. Deprived of massive petrodollar wealth, the building of mosques and furnishing of weapons or money to terrorist organizations would come to a screeching halt.

Massively Disproportionate Retaliation:

For each new terrorist atrocity a major MME city ceases to exist. To date, Islam has not even begun to feel the West’s pain. World War II saw the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden as direct retaliation for military aggression. At present, reluctance to identify Islam itself as an actual military foe is one of the only things inhibiting recognition of disproportionate retaliation as a useful tool. Again, a few more atrocities may change all that.

One way or the other, Muslims must be made to quake in fear with the announcement of each new terrorist attack. Uncertainty—a favorite tool of the jihadists—must be turned against Islam until freshly bombed out and homeless outraged Muslims scurry down to the local mosque and slit the jihadi imam’s throat. This is the self-policing that is currently absent and so badly needed.

Another form of massively disproportionate retaliation involves issuing a proclamation that even one single terrorist nuclear attack upon the West will result in rogue regimes like Iran, Pakistan, North Korea and Syria all undergoing nuclear bombardment. This might inspire such terrorist havens to begin reversing the damage they have done.

Reverse Immigration and Containment:

The deportation of all Muslim immigrants back to their countries of origin may well prove necessary. Taqiyya makes it impossible to trust the followers of Islam. Much like World War II, Muslim citizens may need to be placed in internment camps if they refuse repatriation to their countries of origin. Like Mexico, Islam continues to export excess population that might otherwise agitate for change. The West needs to reassemble Islam’s diaspora and make Islamic nations confront their own shortcomings. With populations returned to their true levels, water poverty would loom even larger as a threat against further terrorist atrocities.

Outright Demolition of the Shrines:

This is an idea posed by another member of the 910 Group. I invite him to provide his own explanation and reasons for advocating this. It certainly carries the promise of total demoralization and should be examined for that reason alone. As an unnamed wag suggested, “After a while Muslims might begin to feel rather silly about praying five times a day towards a plain of hot, smoking glass.”

In closing I will ask that you please post your own reactions to the various measures I have listed. I do not pretend that my list is comprehensive nor do I advocate their immediate use, save only for the targeted assassinations. However gruesome or morally objectionable any of them might be, we are confronted by an enemy who would not flinch to simultaneously inflict all of them upon the West if it was within their power to do so.

This is the one motivating factor that drives me to examine such ideas. All options must be kept open if we are to have any hope of deterring Islam much less defeating it. Far more likely is that one or more of these measures will need to be used before this conflict concludes. I believe it is vital that the West begins to understand the potential dimensions of what may be required to survive. None of this is pretty but—then again—neither is the prospect of life under shari’a law.

I would also urge anyone who is reading this to please pore through the linked article and its comments over at The Belmont Club. whiskey_199 was generous enough to respond in that thread with a point-by-point assessment of my above list and I invite him now to repost it here. There are also other instructive posts by Wretchard himself along with a ghastly display of ignorance by one of the Club’s resident liberals.

Finally, my heartfelt thanks go to Baron Bodissey for posting this vital article. It’s long past tea for the Western world to begin confronting the possible application of “Expanded Deterrence”, which is really just another name for collective punishment.

Zenster said...

kepiblanc: It is often forgotten that the other side of the Muslim-deluge-into-Europe coin is their status as hostages. Not that the terrorist would care about their Umma-brethren, but I guess the Umma knows that as well...

I have little doubt that Islamic terrorists give a rat's patootie about the fate awaiting those Muslim millions who currently residing in Europe. If anything, the terrorists' attitude is one of having those millions be slaughtered to provoke the world's remaining Muslim population into full-scale jihad.

This is why I specifically recommend Massively Disproportionate Retaliation for any further terrorist atrocities. Only when the MME (Muslim Middle East) itself begins to feel the West's pain will there be even the most remote chance of any change. It needs to happen right away because of the long time scale involved with the MME's glacial political process.

We did not win World War II with a bullet-by-bullet strategy and nor will we win the global war on terrorism that way either. Sooner or later, huge swaths of the Muslim world must be subjected to sufficient retaliation whereby their immense suffering drives them to purge jihadism from Islam for once and all time.

If Muslims resist all coercion towards that end, then they make it clearly apparent that jihad is their unrepentant desire and thereby forfeit their right to exist in the civilized world.

The sooner we make Muslim choices into a binary (i.e., black & white), set of options, the fewer numbers of innocents that must die. Innocent people are already perishing every single day in Israel, Thailand, Malaysia, India and wherever Islamic jihad's tentacles can reach. It is time for Islam to share in this gory burden until it comes to understand the bitter wages for indulging in collective punishment. I'll ask that anybody provide more supreme examples of collective punishment than terrorism or dhimmitude. Islam knows damn well what it is doing and laughs up its sleeve at how the West blanches at repaying Muslims in their own bloody coin.

whiskey_199 said...

I think Zenster is quite right in advocating what are, let us be honest, death squads against terrorists, and their supporters, and their families. It is ugly, brutal, and disgusting. But ... it is better than losing NYC.

Those are the stakes.

Critics claim the Israelis have not found it very useful. My counter-argument is that the Israelis don't have enough resources, and local partners, the way the US did in Columbia against Pablo Escobar, i.e. "Los Pepes."

It attacked the entire infrastructure, with local allies who hated Escobar. Who had sound financial and personal reasons for wanting him dead. Stripped of his manpower and wealth, Escobar was easy prey. If AQ/Taliban are spending all their time running from local proxy death squads, they can't plot nuclear attacks on America.

Yes this is ugly, dirty, immoral, and disgusting on all levels. It beats however 2-3 million US dead in NYC alone.

Zenster said...

whiskey_199: I think Zenster is quite right in advocating what are, let us be honest, death squads against terrorists, and their supporters, and their families. It is ugly, brutal, and disgusting.

Thank you for checking in, whiskey_199. I'll ask right now whether terrorist cells are anything more or less than "death squads" in their own right, only with much higher fatality quotas.

As I have already mentioned. To break Islam's will, it shall require repaying them in their own bloody coin. Most likely with double or treble interest.

The longer we forestall in paying this butcher's bill, the higher the eventual death toll will be. Period.

wheatington said...

Zenster, I am sorry to say that you have correctly understood the problem and the solutions.

How do we stir the average Joe to vote out politically correct representatives? We don't have much time to convince Muslims they are not going to take over the West. We fight them now or we will find ourselves voted out of our own countries.

What we resolve now will cause our grandchildren to revere us, or to spit on our graves.

kenprice said...

There are some steps that can be taken, short of attack on individuals or cities, that should be considered.

For example, prohibit airlines serving terrorist countries from flying to the USA. Prohibit flights from airports where flights to/from terrorist countries originate from having flights to the USA.

Most Internet traffic flows through servers in the USA, so cut them off selectively.

Cut off banks in terrorist countries from access to U.S banks, and any bank operating in the U.S.

Finally, follow the Israeli lead and target the leaders of terrorist groups. Those leaders are willing to have followers sacrifice themselves, but not so ready to become martyrs themselves. Give them the opportunity!

mutteater said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
whiskey_199 said...

Zenster I agree that terrorism, excused by the Press, Dems, etc. is just another death squad. I am be open in agreeing with the language that Dems and the Press and Liberals will use in response to targeted assassination.

"Death Squad."

Politically, IMHO the response that wins is to agree, but that it's better than losing NYC. We have a lot of resources, but politically we are constrained. In order to stave off disaster we must understand and operate within those political constraints.

Zenster said...

wheatington: Zenster, I am sorry to say that you have correctly understood the problem and the solutions.

The situation is now so dire that I no longer feel sad at just how gruesome the above measures are.

As I noted previously, Islam would not even blink if it had the opportunity to inflict all of them upon us at once. Given that, we had damn well better start rethinking our drink.

How do we stir the average Joe to vote out politically correct representatives?

By doing what all of us are doing right here. Using this incredibly powerful tool, the Internet, to tranmit these crucial topics and the debate surrounding them to everyone within reach.

I take it one step further and routinely broach the topic with strangers I meet in the outside world. Many are aghast that the Supreme Court has granted rights of habeus corpus to our terrorist prisoners.

I use that shock as a wedge to inject how insane the democratic party is to think that it can negotiate with an entity whose objectives are wholly non-negotiable.

The slam dunk comes with an explanation of kitman and taqiyya with the followup question of how anyone can negotiate with people who are religiously sanctioned to lie, cheat and deceive at every turn.

I will fight this battle by changing one mind at a time.

We don't have much time to convince Muslims they are not going to take over the West. We fight them now or we will find ourselves voted out of our own countries.

Far more critical than the "slow" jihad of demographic upheaval is the ongoing proliferation of nuclear weapons and technology in Islamic countries. This one single fact mitigates against all diplomatic resolution and demands immediate military action.

What we resolve now will cause our grandchildren to revere us, or to spit on our graves.

I could not agree with you more and would sooner endure all the brickbats and accusations I have experienced about being some sort of genocidal bastard for making these observations in lieu of having my grave designated as a urinal.

kenprice, all of your suggestions are excellent and form the "Cold War" side of the Hot War measures I propose.

mutteater said...

Re. oil leverage: Clinton gave that to the enemy, when he allowed expanded Options contracting in Petroleum. Any excuse to bubble up a non-market cost, is jumped on when NYMEX gurus speak.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/01/200-oil-options-
increase-ten-fold.html

And much of the current price insanity is the result of market manipulation by a single individual.
http://www.blogrunner.com/
snapshot/D/0/0/an_oracle_of_oil/

The Bush Crime Family is loving all of this. However, Clinton's Dems executed the only draw from the SPR energy supplies (located in caves near the Gulf of Mexico). Hence, Obama could make capital by threatening to do that. McCain will likely speak to abolishing the Options market. What happened in the late 'nineties was NYC greed. Chicago was almost monopolizing the commodities trade, and the City decided to make a move. Now NYMEX effectively controls gas prices.

There is no conspiracy here. But some dumb legislation is made in the open. Give that market back to the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. And restrict the definition of "commodity" to 'pork bellies' and other food products. Those producers need an Options market and they don't cause bubbles that put truck drivers out of business.

Defiant Lion said...

The measures suggested here are absolutely insane. There are so many flaws with this "retaliate with grossly disproportionate response" I honestly don't know where to start.

For brevity, here's just 2:

1. The cause of the west's problem with Islam is NOT Islam but the marxist promotion of it - and willful dhimmitude - in their own countries. Pursuing a "tit for tat" war whilst the west continues to allow mass-immigration from Islamic lands, promotes Islam in our lands and continues to kow-tow to OPEC is so stupid it beggars belief. Before we start retaliatory strikes against Islamic lands, we need to get our own house in order. That means zero tolerance of Islam. No immigration, no mosques, no sharia, no MCB/CAIR, in fact, ban Islam and intern every muslim ready for deportation to Islamic lands.

2. Due to decades of incompetence/subversion, the USA and my own country GB are dependant on hostile nations for their energy supplies. This quite frankly, is treason. Those responsible for putting our nations in this grave situation should be tried and publically executed for their crimes. We are in a situation that if we get tough with Islam, they can collapse the entire economy, triggering energy wars that will involve nations not affected by terrorism. What then? How will we feed our people, meet their living needs and wage war against - well, how many nations would an energy war involve? And as the EU are cozying up nicely with Islamic countries - Turkey for the EU real soon - whose side do you think the EU will take? We need to become self-sufficient for our energy needs. We have to be able to feed and power our own nations. Being dependant on hostile nations such as and especially Saudi Arabia has to end. We have to stop playing ball with the Saudis and that includes elling them arms.

There are other issues that I will not go into detail such as Israel, The Balkans, Iran, asymmetric warfare, the global US economy and agitating of opposing muslim sects and a propganda war so muslims wake up to how they are being exploited by their oil-rich masters so that we don't spill any more of our blood along with billions of dollars of our taxes to solve THEIR probelm. The aim here is for the Islamic cancer to implode, but the bottom line is this:

We have to put our own house in order before we do anything and that means smashing the marxist-liberal traitors who have caused- and are still causing (EU, NAU, UN, AGW)- more damage to our nations than Islam ever could.

Baron Bodissey said...

mutteater --

Please don't paste long URLs into the comments; they make the post page too wide and mess up the appearance of the permalink page.

Use link tags; the instructions are at the top of the full post's comment section.

--------------------------

mutteater said...

The ICT's Bosnian prosecutions - which fell mostly on Serbs, in perverse evasion of the facts - operated on "command responsibility." Anyone who was in a position to "prevent" and "punish" atrocities was deemed guilty of same. Of course, prosecutory authority was based on national statutes, which the ICT treated as congealed in its authority ("Statute of the Tribunal"). ICT power is of no consequence to any non-signatory state.

So who bore command responsibility for the 9-11 atrocities? The Saudi government both pays for and controls, through its Wahabi co-regency (WAMY, WML, et al), the education of the clerics who both assisted and acceded to said atrocities. Be aware: the Saud terrorist entity has refused 100% of US deportation requests (Yemen had a somewhat better record), and still pays for 100% of the legal fees of Saudi nationals who are charged under national counter terror statutes. That filthy entity has held telethons to reward the families of Arab Palestinian terrorists.

As for the Bush Crime Family, during the 9-11 lawsuit process, they pleaded an Amicus' brief on behalf of the Saudis. From the outset, baby Bush exhonerated Islam's jihad obligations, by finding, "Islam is peace." (Sept. 16, 2001) Further, after the conquest of Iraq, he banned one of the few Secular movements in Arabia, while allowing Wahabist and Khomenist animals to interfere in that country.

The Policy Review writer is skating around discussion of the only practise that has ever quashed Muslim terror: disproportionate retaliation. Even there, Bush pressured Israel to quash that practise, manifest in deliberate demolition of terrorist households. As if to aggravate same, with Paleoarabs attacking Ashkelon civilians with murderous missiles, Bush is pushing the Saudi Plan for 2-states (one-genocidal; one-surrenderist). And Bush won't touch Iran, on any pretext because he wants a religious based stability in the Middle East demographic cess pool. As long as he thinks he can rake in post administration millions from Saudi oil interests, Bush will continue to indulge the mass slaughter (4000) of US frontline troops, who should be moon walking through Iraq in hazmat suits, rather than taking sniper and IED hits in useless patrols.

Hopefully, Americans will at long last do the math on the insane limited war strategy against a total enemy. Either Mecca is glazed, or it will be DC. As long as the perverse indulgence of jihadi animals goes on, they will take license. Screw nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan. Either those savages jump hoops or they get stomped.

link

link

Zenster said...

Defiant Lion: The measures suggested here are absolutely insane.

Curious, isn't it, that you're one of the few people to respond in such a fashion. Please consider why that is. Did you read the linked Belmont Club thread? Again, responses of your type are very few.

There are so many flaws with this "retaliate with grossly disproportionate response" I honestly don't know where to start.

I suggest that you do start and, perhaps, even consider exactly why I have outlined the above scenarios.

1. The cause of the west's problem with Islam is NOT Islam but the marxist promotion of it - and willful dhimmitude - in their own countries.

Ummm ... no. Islam was around for more than an entire millennia before Marxism ever reared its ugly little head. In all of that time Islam has been the source of limitless suffering and human misery. Please do not put the cart before the horse.

I'll not argue that Islam's current onslaught is being midwifed by communists and socialists of all stripes, be they Russian, Chinese, European or even American liberals. However, do you suggest that the West now immolate itself in a civil war in order that these subversive elements be neutralized? Might it not be better to cripple the aggressive foe that isn't on our direct turf?

Pursuing a "tit for tat" war whilst the west continues to allow mass-immigration from Islamic lands, promotes Islam in our lands and continues to kow-tow to OPEC is so stupid it beggars belief.

Either you're utterly immune to irony or you do realize that you’ve just described to a “T” the current Global War on Terrorism.

Before we start retaliatory strikes against Islamic lands, we need to get our own house in order.

While that is a sound strategy, I think we can safely concur that nowhere are our politicians adhering to sound strategy. Don’t you agree?

That means zero tolerance of Islam. No immigration, no mosques, no sharia, no MCB/CAIR, in fact, ban Islam and intern every muslim ready for deportation to Islamic lands.

Which is outlined with sufficient clarity in article seven of my proposed deterrents. Or did you choke on your biscuit before getting that far?

2. Due to decades of incompetence/subversion, the USA and my own country GB are dependant on hostile nations for their energy supplies. This quite frankly, is treason. Those responsible for putting our nations in this grave situation should be tried and publically executed for their crimes.

Again, I could not agree with you more.

We are in a situation that if we get tough with Islam, they can collapse the entire economy, triggering energy wars that will involve nations not affected by terrorism.

Have you ever considered how we are nearly at that tipping point already? Islamic predations upon the West—be it through terrorism or petroleum-based economic rape—have already brought our world to war. Islam has spent the last several decades waging silent and stealthy war upon the West. While we may have been late to notice it, that in no way exculpates Islam for inciting this assault upon Western civilization.

What then? How will we feed our people, meet their living needs and wage war against - well, how many nations would an energy war involve?

It could involve many, a few or just one, depending upon exactly how soon American and other Western nations tire of Islam’s vile game. As noted in article five of my list, appropriation of assets is one way of ringing down the curtain upon this farce. Please rest assured that America alone could send special forces into Saudi Arabia in such an overnight blitz that we would have possession of its major oilfields before the remaining world could even blink.

And as the EU are cozying up nicely with Islamic countries - Turkey for the EU real soon - whose side do you think the EU will take?

I am beginning to give a royal crap about what the EU thinks. As an American, I have grown weary of watching the EU circumvent, triangulate and just plain thwart so much of America’s efforts to contain and defeat terrorism. I’ll not argue that the schizophrenic aspect of our politicians being in Saudi pockets even as we fight terrorism isn’t disgusting to the extreme, but the fact remains that America is the only country taking a truly active role in quashing Islam.

We need to become self-sufficient for our energy needs. We have to be able to feed and power our own nations. Being dependant on hostile nations such as and especially Saudi Arabia has to end. We have to stop playing ball with the Saudis and that includes selling them arms.

I couldn’t agree with you more, save that the timeline for such a protracted strategy extends so far beyond the threshold of Islam’s mass proliferation of nuclear weapons that it becomes almost irrelevant. Yes, we should still pursue those goals but much more dramatic measures will be needed long before those aims are realized.

There are other issues that I will not go into detail such as Israel, The Balkans, Iran, asymmetric warfare, the global US economy and agitating of opposing muslim sects and a propganda war so muslims wake up to how they are being exploited by their oil-rich masters so that we don't spill any more of our blood along with billions of dollars of our taxes to solve THEIR problem. The aim here is for the Islamic cancer to implode

I like your way of thinking. My opening comment specifically mentions how we must make Islam clean its own house. Why not feel free to more clearly outline some of your methods as I have invited all readers to do in my original comment.

… but the bottom line is this:

We have to put our own house in order before we do anything and that means smashing the marxist-liberal traitors who have caused- and are still causing (EU, NAU, UN, AGW)- more damage to our nations than Islam ever could.


I do not argue the necessity of this but—as I mentioned above—starting a divisive civil war in the West in no way serves our ability to survive Islam’s current assault. Sadly, that purge will come—most likely—after one or several large Western cities have been immolated.

It is my direct intention to make sure that DOES NOT HAPPEN, be it through preemption, intervention, occupation or starvation. The clock is ticking down to midnight damnably fast and only the sternest measures will yield anything remotely approximating worthwhile results.

What’s more, the current crop of spineless Western leaders almost assure things will spiral out of control to the point where my suggestions are significantly more probable outcomes than the ones which you propose. This is the gross nature of the beast we are confronted with and it stinks.

For instance, should this scumbag Obama actually reach the Oval Office and America subsequently experiences a nuclear terrorist attack, I have severe doubts that he would even retaliate at all. Should he display such irresolute mien, I would hope that a junta of America’s military commanders would thrust this treasonous excrement from office and set about retaliating against our terrorist foes.

Even the foregoing worst-case scenario is more likely to happen than those liberal and communist purges that you recommend. In fact, it is precisely because our societies are so permeated by these traitorous socialist scum that my drastic measures attain higher probability. The debilitating effect these treacherous swine have upon our national resolve automatically militates towards retaliation being made only after a truly heinous atrocity occurs.

I would like to think the measures I suggest more often represent the sort of coherent action that would be taken by truly patriotic military officers trying to rectify the current morass of conflicting political interests and outright treason that our countries suffer from. Yes, some of my suggestions are far-fetched. That in no way precludes the need to examine them and begin modifying or altering whichever ones have application so that they actually serve us in time of need.

The original article by Colby examines “Expanded Deterrence”. ALL of my suggested measures represent forms of deterrence. Whereas, your own contributions to this discussion have not really addressed that topic in earnest. Let’s face it, “Expanded Deterrence” is nothing more than a rebranding of collective punishment. If nothing else, Islam is collective punishment writ large. I say that it’s long past tea to begin giving Islam a dose of its own medicine.

Paul said...

Zene:

I don't think you're alone contemplating the notion of pouring on muslim countries exactly what they've promoted be poured on non-muslim nations.

However, our jello-soft politicians are more concerned about their bellys than about serving the public they represent. Consequently nothing of substance will be done to shutdown muslim misbehaviour. That is, until the muslims cross the hard to discern line.

Rumor has it Franklin Roosevelt 'knew', or at least expected Pearl Harbor was coming in some form. And he let it come. Pearl Harbor served to change everything. It may take a similar disaster scaled up to modern stakes to exact a similar response. Then public outcry would overwhelm the political charlatans, and action would be unstoppable.

Not a pretty scenario.

Zenster said...

Paul: It may take a similar disaster scaled up to modern stakes to exact a similar response. Then public outcry would overwhelm the political charlatans, and action would be unstoppable.

Which is precisely why each of the deterrents on my list are—for the most part—so drastic. Barring the supremely expedient measure of targeted assassinations, all the other tactics are only likely to manifest after some truly calamitous atrocity is inflicted upon the West.

So, which city shall it be? New York, birthplace of the skyscraper? Paris, home of the Louvre and its artistic repository? Washington D.C., with America's treasure trove of democracy's swaddling clothes? London, the once-great mercantile center of the world? The Vatican, itself a catalog of da Vinci and Michelangelo's masterpieces? California's Silicon Valley, the technological engine of this entire world?

I hope my point is clear. Save, perhaps, for the Vatican, the immolation of any other city on my list would be adequate to send our entire world into an economic tailspin that would make the post 9-11 recession look like the Roaring Twenties. Global monetary losses would be on the order of 10-100 TRILLION dollars if not a QUADRILLION.

How many million people would perish out of homelessness, joblessness, ecomonic privation and the increased crime that would most certainly accompany such a calamity?

Are we to countenance the inevitability of what is totally avoidable solely because our current crop of politicians are delusional?

Brutal as it may sound, I'd sooner see this world's entire Muslim population perish before watching such a grievous loss inflicted upon the West by Islam. Subsequent to one or more of the above cities being destroyed, a huge number of Muslims are going to die anyway.

I'll not say: "So let's do it now and get over with." What I will say is that Islam needs a major shot across its bow at the earliest opportunity. Any one of the deterrents on my list would be sufficient towards that end. The reluctance of our leaders to even consider doing so makes them complicit in the coming catastrophe.

The craven cowardice of such political treachery defies all comprehension.

Defiant Lion said...

@Zenster

"Curious, isn't it, that you're one of the few people to respond in such a fashion."

A logical fallacy because the numbers of people who agree or disgaree mean nothing regarding the validity of an argument.

"I suggest that you do start and, perhaps, even consider exactly why I have outlined the above scenarios."

Thanks for your suggestion but time is the issue not will.

"Ummm ... no. Islam was around for more than an entire millennia before Marxism ever reared its ugly little head."

Ummm...you miss the key issue. Islam may have been around for more than a millenia but the west wasn't actively importing it and encouraging it in its own lands - at the expense of its own culture and security - as it is now. The issue
isn't "Has Islam Always Been Destructive" but how does the west solve the problem presented by Islam now, a problem largely of its own making.

"However, do you suggest that the West now immolate itself in a civil war in order that these subversive elements be neutralized? "

The west is already in a civil war, and again,I'll say especially with the EU who are at this moment condcuting what amounts to a Coup' d Etat. It isn't just Islam who are attacking the west it is marxists and they are succeeding. And with mass
immigration unchecked, civil war is the inevitable outcome, an outcome strongly desired by marxists.

"Either you're utterly immune to irony or you do realize that you’ve just described to a “T” the current Global War on Terrorism."

Nonsense there is no such thing as a "war on terrorism". We are at war with Islam, always have been and always will be until dar al harb ceases to exist. We are also at war with marxists who are by far the greater threat. We didn't go to war against blitzkrieg, to give an example.

"While that is a sound strategy, I think we can safely concur that nowhere are our politicians adhering to sound strategy. Don’t you agree?"

Of course that is the core of my argument. That the politicians are actively involved in destroying western civilisation and they are
using Islam as a weapon against us - deliberately.

"Which is outlined with sufficient clarity in article seven of my proposed deterrents. Or did you choke on your biscuit before getting that far?"

And your point is? And try not to get upset and take things personally.I have attacked solely the "disproportionate response" strategy not you or your eating habits or biscuit fetishes :-) I don't need to get personal so chill dude.

"While we may have been late to notice it, that in no way exculpates Islam for inciting this assault upon Western civilization."

They have only been able to carry out this assault because of the deliberate actions of our leaders. This is the third jihad against the west. In the past we had leaders who would defend their country. Not now.

"Please rest assured that America alone could send special forces into Saudi Arabia in such an overnight blitz that we would have possession of its major oilfields before the remaining world could even blink."

Patriotic nonsense. It wouldn't happen. And if the US was dumb enough to try the result would be energy wars and the US will face more than it can handle. And if you really do believe this nonsense Zenster, why is it that US didn't do this after the Saudis committed an act of war against it on 9/11? The USA had the perfect reason to attack the Saudis and grab Ghawar but instead, cowered before their oil masters. Be in no doubt: The Saudis master-mined and financed 9/11. It committed an act of war by proxy, the finest act of asymmetric warfare in history.

"I am beginning to give a royal crap about what the EU thinks. "

Typical parochial narrow minded outlook. The EU hates the USA. Many other countries hate the USA. If the USA thinks it can still do what it wants and suffer no consequences you are in for a huge shock. Other nations are catching up, China, India. Russia won't just sit there and admire you either. Times are changing Zenster. How many wars on how many fronts are you going to fight? They all want the same precious resource, one nation will not be allowed to steal it that's for sure.

"but the fact remains that America is the only country taking a truly active role in quashing Islam."

This had me laughing! You conveniently don't mention Jimmy the Dhimmi's actions that led to a resurgence of Islam in Iran and you don't mention that the USA has been working with Al Qaeda and the Saudis to create Kosova, an Islamic state right in the heart of Europe that is a hot bed of Islamic terrorism, namely drug-trafficking and sex-trafficking, both weapons of jihad. The role the USA played in becoming the KLA's Air Force and bombing innocent serbs and albanians doesn't suggest to me a country that is "taking a truly active role in quashing Islam." If you add the constant interference of US politicians to press for the 2 state solution in Israel and demanding Israel show restraint after Islamic jihadists have conducted rocket attacks deliberately targeting civilians then your statement becomes very hard to accept. I would say the US is playing the same game as the EU - betraying their own by promoting and encouraging the spread of Islam. Wouldn't you?

"Yes, we should still pursue those goals but much more dramatic measures will be needed long before those aims are realized."

Agreed but the dramatic measures needn't be so dramatic. At least in Europe, nationlist parties like Lega Nord, Vlaams Belang and the party I support,the BNP are waking people up to the corruption and the treason of the politicians. I don't know if you have this kind of nationalism in the states but we are making big progress and my hope is that we beat them at the ballot box and then serve them the justice they deserve. Believe me, you would not believe the corruption that these traitorous scum are involved in.

"Why not feel free to more clearly outline some of your methods as I have invited all readers to do in my original comment."

It's time and don't have enough to go into detail. But kicking out the muslims and banning Islam is essential. Follow it up by propganda, agitation of rival Islamic groups and get muslims at each other's throats and we'll see results. I believe the truth about Islam is its achilles heel and I wish we'd exploit it.

"The clock is ticking down to midnight damnably fast and only the sternest measures will yield anything remotely approximating worthwhile results."

I agree the clock is ticking but I believe there is a better way and what you suggest certainly won't happen with the liberals/marxists ruling the roost. We have to get the traitors out of power first, then we tackle Islam. And we tackle it using as many tactically sound strategies that don't involve nukes or mass bombings but that will have an equally devastating effect on dar al Islam. There is more than one way to skin a cat Zenster and some ways are far more effective even though they are less dramatic.

"What’s more, the current crop of spineless Western leaders almost assure things will spiral out of control to the point where my suggestions are significantly more probable outcomes than the ones which you propose. This is the gross nature of the beast we are confronted with and it stinks."

They are not probable. What is probable is the destruction of the west. That is what both the marxists and the islamists share. The west will be sarificed. The canary in the coal mine is Serbia/Kosovo. Both want global power. Islam wants the ummah and the marxists want the NWO, the nationless one world government. That is precisely what the EU is part of along with the UN (what a corrupt sh*thouse that is) and the coming NAU.

"Even the foregoing worst-case scenario is more likely to happen than those liberal and communist purges that you recommend. In fact, it is precisely because our societies are so permeated by these traitorous socialist scum that my drastic measures attain higher probability."

I disagree, see my previous answer.

"I would like to think the measures I suggest more often represent the sort of coherent action that would be taken by truly patriotic military officers trying to rectify the current morass of conflicting political interests and outright treason that our countries suffer from"

If they were so patriotic they wouldn't have done what they have done to the Serbs. The real patriot would be one speaking out against those who are betraying their own nation and people, not baying for yet another display of "shock and awe" against the enemy without.

"Whereas, your own contributions to this discussion have not really addressed that topic in earnest. Let’s face it, “Expanded Deterrence” is nothing more than a rebranding of collective punishment. If nothing else, Islam is collective punishment writ large. I say that it’s long past tea to begin giving Islam a dose of its own medicine."

So banning Islam and kicking out muslims isn't a deterrent? Pitting muslims against muslims isn't a deterrent? Conducting a propaganda campaign isn't a deterrent? I do agree that Islam needs a dose of its own medicine we just disagree on the most effective ways to do it. Let me introduce two further issues for now:

1. If we deploy your strategy, we - i.e. the west - will receive an awful lot of collateral damage including a possibility of igniting what could well be an apocalyptic energy war. Caualty rate will be high, costs will be high. Haven't we already paid a high enough price? Why not let Islam take the full hit and suffer the full consequences of Islam? And would this war actually empower those who already want carnage to enable their one world government?

2. The issue of Iran should not be ignored. Iran is ruled by a shia mullahtocracy who believe that an apolcalypse will precede the return of the 12th (hidden) imam. Again, the disproportinate response strategy could be exactly what they want.

Baron Bodissey said...

Saharians --

You were "censured" for seeming to advocate vigilante justice. The same thing happened with Zenster months ago.

That can be construed as incitement, and puts our blog at risk.

The trick is to advocate targeted assassination as a government policy. There's nothing illegal about exhorting the government to do such things, as far as I know.

Zenster said...

Defiant Lion, while we certainly do not agree entirely, I think we both know that there are many convergences of thought between us. Your ideas about propaganda campaigns and my DVD production idea, for instance.

While your "Cold War" measures can be interpreted as deterrents, Islam is of such a militant nature that I feel it will require response-in-kind to get its proper attention.

Our significant difference is in just how quickly we think that the conflict with Islam is going to finally spill over into Total War. Due to the spinelessness of Western political leadership, I feel Islam will be sufficiently emboldened to commit some new atrocity of such heinous dimensions that massive retaliation will be, not just justified, but demanded by appropriate military strategy and an outraged public alike.

It is for that reason I deal with wartime scenarios such as the deterrents listed in my opening comment. Too soon, we will be faced with picking and choosing among them and whatever other options exist. My hope is that, by that time, Western people have been brought up to speed on what the alternatives are so that they can support viable ones and identify when our political leaders are falling well short of implementing functional measures.

Zenster said...

Saharians: Of course, if we're to implement such a tactic, it makes sense to target white Marxist leaders in the EU and North America, FIRST, before targeting Muslim leaders in the West.

You are advocating the outright MURDER of European and American citizens, be they Muslim OR white. That is patently illegal and your mention of it puts this blog at risk. What about this is unclear? Do you see why so many consider you to be some sort of troll?