By now, many people in America - and likely around the world - are familiar with my statements regarding a possible response to a nuclear attack on U.S. cities by fundamentalist Islamic terrorists.

Lileks did a critical column on the subject, and our Rantburg commenters have tended to be critical. I'm on Tom's side in the argument...

Without question, my comments have prompted strong reactions from many quarters, but they have also served to start a national dialogue about what options we have to deter al-Qaeda and other would-be Islamic terrorists. Many critics of my statements have characterized them as "offensive," and indeed they may have offended some.

... keeping in mind that there is a class of Professionally Easily Offended in this country, and worldwide for that matter. I think the offense taken by the normal people on the other side of the argument was that they passed by the first half of it, the part where he said that it would be in response to the use of nuclear weapons within the U.S.A...

But in this battle against fundamentalist Islam, I am hardly preoccupied with political correctness, or who may or may not be offended. Indeed, al-Qaeda cares little if the Western world is "offended" by televised images of hostages beheaded in Iraq, subway bombings in London, train attacks in Madrid, or Americans jumping to their death from the Twin Towers as they collapsed.

In fact, they consider it good advertising...

Few can argue that our current approach to this war has deterred fundamentalists from killing Westerners - nor has it prompted "moderate" Muslims and leaders of Muslim countries to do what is necessary to crack down on the extremists in their midst who perpetuate these grisly crimes.

Shiites in Pakland and Iraq have bumped off far more holy men than we have or our allies have...

That being the case, perhaps the civilized world must intensify its approach. Does that mean the United States should be re-targeting its entire missile arsenal on Mecca today? Does it mean we ought to be sending Stealth bombers on runs over Medina? Clearly not. But should we take any option or target off the table, regardless of the circumstances? Absolutely not, particularly if the mere discussion of an option or target may dissuade a fundamentalist Muslim extremist from strapping on a bomb-filled backpack, or if it might encourage "moderate" Muslims to do a better job cracking down on extremism in their ranks.

I consider the idea to be a latter-day adaptation of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). It was our policy with the Soviets that we wouldn't be the first to use nuclear weapons. At the same time, they knew their population centers were hostage if they used them. The result was an uneasy standoff that lasted 40 years, but kept World War III from going hot. There were similar caveats on the use of chemical and biological weapons; these, not just explosives, even big ones, are considered "weapons of mass destruction." The additional caveat was the the use of one type of WMD might, at the discretion of the president, be answered by the use of another type. In other words, gas on the battlefield might be answered by tactical nukes, plague in Dubuque might be answered by a very large boom over Novosibirsk. WMDs, and especially nuclear weapons, represent a red line that an enemy crosses only at his peril; he'd better be prepared to risk everything, because we've always been prepared to take everything. I see absolutely no reason that principle shouldn't apply to the Wonderful Wolrd of Jihad. The sooner and the more certainly they know it, the better, because if they don't believe it the chances are greater that they're going to goad each other into crossing that red line.

People have accused me of creating more terrorism by making these statements.

I just explained why it ain't so...

Indeed, we often hear that Western governments bring these attacks on themselves. Just days after the London subway attacks two weeks ago, for example, Tariq Ali, a prominent British Muslim activist, was quick to suggest that London residents "paid the price" for British support in the Iraq campaign.

If you stick a gun in my face and take my wallet because of what someone else did to you, it's still robbery. 52 dead in the name of a cause they may or may not have been interested in remains murder most foul...

A professor in Lebanon, Dr. George Hajjar, went even further, proclaiming, "I hope that every patriotic and Islamic Arab will participate in this war, and will shift the war not only to America, but to ... wherever America may be." Hajjar went on to say that "there are no innocent people," and referred to the victims of the attack as "collateral casualties."

They're not collateral by definition if they're targeted. But we're used to that sort of intellectual malnutrition from the Wonderful World of Jihad...

These are fairly "offensive" statements, to be sure, but the sentiments expressed by Ali and Hajjar are sadly commonplace in the "mainstream" Muslim world, where justification for terrorist attacks like the ones that rocked London, New York and Washington is never in short supply.

I've asked on a number of occasions, why do we have to please them? Why doesn't the obligation run both directions?

Fundamentalist Muslims have advocated the destruction of the West since long before the attacks of Sept. 11, long before the Madrid, London and Bali attacks, long before the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, long before the attack on the USS Cole and the 1993 WTC bombing.

That's another leftover from the Cold War, just like MAD. The Soviets left so many of these little presents lying around...

In many respects, the decision of "moderate" Muslims to acquiesce to these actions and even provide tacit justification for them is just as damaging to global safety and security as the attacks themselves. Until "mainstream" Islam can bring itself to stop rationalizing terrorist attacks and start repudiating and purging people like Ali and Hajjar from its ranks who do, this war will continue. As long as this war goes on, being "offended" should be the least of anyone's worries.