| Submit your comments on this article |
| Olde Tyme Religion |
| When, Why, and How Will It End? |
| 2011-09-24 |
| A three part assay written by Zenster (remember Zenster?) to commemorate 10th anniversary of 9/11 When Will It End? How often have you heard the following? “Do not touch or move unattended parcels, bags or packages and report them to security.” ...If it was possible to set aside terrorism-related loss of life ― and it most certainly is not ― the financial cost alone of combating it is absurd. Let us examine just one single factor; increased waiting times at airports. An extra hour or three doesnÂ’t seem like much until you start doing the math. Why Will it End? Short answer ― Islam has “unhappy ending” written all over it. Tragically, for Islam there is no possibility of a happy ending. It has often been said that the only peace which Islam ― famously known as “The Religion of Peace” ― offers anyone is the peace of the grave. Pakistan ― which means “land of the pure” ―provides the best evidence of this in that it is a prototypical Islamic nation intended to mirror the everyday rule of shariÂ’a law. That countryÂ’s horrific level of almost daily slaughter and mayhem clearly demonstrates how ― even if Islam were to attain global ascendancy ― the violence and terrorism would never stop. ...Islam remains a predatory entity that has not been able to establish any self-sustaining degree of industry or technology for almost a millennium. It has relied upon piracy and looting for nearly the entire span of its existence. Even now the MME (Muslim Middle East) is heavily reliant upon foreign engineering and industrial facilities management in order to further develop and maintain its petroleum extraction operations. If the MME did not have access to this Western technology and was obliged to invent it from scratch, all of their oil would still be in the ground, even today. How Will it End? ...There is a proverb whose thread is found both in Aesop and the Bible. It reads: “The clay pot should keep its distance from the iron kettle.” Instead of keeping its distance, Islam has cozened its way into Western civilization and, parading under false colors as an alleged religion, it flies a counterfeit Liberal standard of interfaith Multiculturalism. Besotted with its own temporary successes and newfound “purity” ― through a recent reformation leaving it even more violent, intolerant, misogynistic and puritanical ― Islam is in the process of infiltrating Western civilization to an unprecedented degree. However, in this respect, it is the non-industrial Islamic clay pot that is getting too close to the militarily advanced Western iron kettle. ...This same Politically Correct doctrine has seen ineffectual campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq that have cost the multinational coalition on the order of two trillion dollars, with America shouldering a lopsided $1.36 trillion share of the burden. That is the cost of keeping in check just two of some fifty Muslim majority countries. Subduing the other four dozen Islamic nations represents at least another staggering $96 trillion dollars of expenditure and countless more military casualties. No single nation or combination of international economies can possibly afford this sort of expenditure. This inordinate cost of conventional war needed to obtain even a modicum of peace is, perhaps, the grimmest thing about IslamÂ’s future. As the mask slips and “radical” or “fundamentalist” Islam are revealed to be mainstream and fully compatible with regularly accepted Islamic doctrine, Total War ― something Muslims continue to boast of declaring against the West ― looms evermore probable. However, the economic factors alone point directly away from conventional war. Truth be told, in the absence of that $96 trillion dollars, there is only unconventional warfare left as a survival option. Nuclear weapons represent the sole existing and cost-effective way of managing hostilities with some 1.6 billion people. Like a proverbial trout in the milk pail, this one simple fact is difficult to ignore. Basic economics dooms perpetually hostile Islam to utter annihilation. |
| Posted by:g(r)omgoru |
| #9 Still, Pappy, for a "religion" that places so much stock in certain physical locations on this planets, glassing a few of them and irradiating them to uninhabitability for centuries does require some thought, minimizing human casualties, of course. If we lost rome, we would not lose Catholicism. But if they lose Mecca... A small nuke is enough to melt the central feature into nothing, and "seeding" with long lived radioisotopes to sterilize the surrounding miles s enough to prevent the Haji for generations. Its the one response we positively should take if Pakistan or Iran does deliver and detonatate a nuke - and let them know in advance that Mecca is only the beginning of the eradication of Islam from the planet. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2011-09-24 23:45 |
| #8 Nuclear weapons represent the sole existing and cost-effective way of managing hostilities with some 1.6 billion people. Nukes are the go-to for the strategically incompetent. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2011-09-24 21:56 |
| #7 I am pleased that Zenster found a blogging home, because his financial approach adds a necessary dimension to how we think about the war against the jihadis. His need to pick fights with Pappy and lotp, among others, was a clear signal that subconsciously he came to realize he needed to spend his time elsewhere than Rantburg. In terms of this essay (I haven't yet read parts 2 & 3, which are apparently available) I would argue that we need not resort to nukes to accomplish our goal. Daisy Cutters, bunker busters and the like will accomplish rubble bouncing well enough, without long term damage to the landscape... we need only decide to manufacture enough to achieve the purpose. For that matter, if we want to destroy ISI HQ, various terrorist camps, and known safe houses -- not to mention whatever other targets might suit our fancy -- guided cement bombs would be adequate for most purposes, and they are nearly as cheap as dirt, and nearly as easy to manufacture, I should think. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2011-09-24 21:46 |
| #6 The US-LED GWOT = RADICAL ISLAM'S REGIONAL, GLOBAL JIHAD will end when ISLAM RULES, OR ISLAM IS DESTROYED. IMO prolly safe to say > SAFE COROLLARY/SUBTENET = IT WILL END WHEN RADICAL ISLAM/JIHADISTS DECIDE VIOLENT OR MILITARY-LED JIHAD IS OBSOLETE. The only camp that thinks the Jihad is over or defeated because the US Navy SEALS killed Osama is the US + its Allies. E.G. MEMRI.ORG [old] > TALIBAN STATEMENT ON TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF 9-11 ATTACKS: "AFGHANS HAVE ENDLESS STAMINA FOR LONG WAR AND .... WE WILL SEND THE AMERICANS INTO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY". The various, differentiated ingredients for creating [anti/post-US?] OWG NUCLEAR CALIPHATE is in the bowl + getting prepped for mix. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2011-09-24 21:42 |
| #5 Nukes are a last resort. I don't think anybody is ready for them...yet. Countries like Iran and Pakistan are doing their best to prep us for it. But the problem with nukes is that they will make large areas of the planet uninhabitable. It's like curing the patient by killing him. Better to disengage, separate and isolate. As for g(r)omguru's comment, yes, that would mean not letting them migrate to Europe or America. In the days before Nixon went to China they called it containment. Those guys who flew the airplanes into the Twin Towers should have never even been allowed into this country. Slap them back hard when they get out of line but otherwise leave them alone. Keep the damn mofo's out of here and, in fact, start deporting them. Leave them alone and see if they can ever figure it out for themselves. Check back in a thousand years or so. Anonymoose makes an interesting point about short circuiting natural selection by feeding, watering and medicating people who would otherwise die. But I wouldn't call it Christianity. It isn't charity or Christianity or anything else except plain old theft if the government takes your money at the point of a gun so they can give it to Pakistanis and Palestinians. That needs to stop. Who knows? If they get hungry enough they might become a little more reasonable. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2011-09-24 13:39 |
| #4 Spengler ignores how they breed in Europe. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2011-09-24 12:00 |
| #3 David Goldman, aka 'Spengler,' has just published a new book, "How Civilizations Die: (And Why Islam Is Dying Too)" with an utterly different perspective on what Islam's future might be. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-09-24 10:44 |
| #2 We can't buy their love? Someone should tell the Prez! |
| Posted by: Bobby 2011-09-24 09:52 |
| #1 I would never suggest that nuclear weapons are the "only alternative". Instead, a much more reasonable alternative is "let mother nature handle it." One of the most bizarre elements of Christianity based culture is the absolute rejection of the idea of natural selection. This has resulted on a world-wide scale in creating catastrophes that would never have happened without strong human intervention. By western efforts, perhaps 3 or even 4 billion more people live on Earth than would have lived otherwise, many of the Muslim, most of them perpetually poor and distraught. The western world feeds them, provides them with water, gives them medicines that prevent death and extend life of people who *should* have died, if just left to their own resources. And in the process of doing so, we have overwhelmed local ecosystems, throwing them completely out of balance with what they can support on their own, and created vast numbers of people in perpetual dependency. We should, collectively, stop doing this. Just stop feeding and giving medicine to overpopulated nations that hate and attack us. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2011-09-24 09:45 |