Article

2007-04-02

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2007-04-02 00:00|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I would like to see the structure that is called Islam suddenly figure the whole thing out and change in a way that makes it all go away without one more shot fired. But it seems that the very fabric of Islam lends itself to eventually taking over everything and stripping all its subjects, willing and forced, of many of the good things that could come along with being human that don't require their version of god to validate.

There are the 3-sigma types out there. Always have been and always will be. These guys will see this system and take advantage of it - knowingly or unknowingly - to further their own aims or to press forward with what they have been told and have come to think of as God's will, which to them is a good thing and they will do it with the abandon of a lunatic. And many of the followers of this structure are guaranteed to either assist or enable them, and the rest will do nothing to stop it because they have nothing to gain - except the 3-sigma folks on the opposite end of the curve who don't really stand a chance against the majority in the long run.

The way I see it, there is a train wreck coming. Heading one direction is Islam, which is by definition not going to get any better. Heading the other direction is western culture, which has been suffering from a wave of liberalism that causes it to fight itself, reducing its overall effectiveness to close to zero, when it has the potential to wipe out Islam in a heartbeat if it could get over this liberalism or whatever it is called that ails it.

If for some reason the very foundation of Islam is changed, it will have to be massive even on a biblical scale or it will regenerate. The extremists who set the tone will have to be beaten down almost to nothing which will certainly mean many human shields will have to die which will create more extremists.

I don't see any other way. I don't want it to be such, I wish everyone could sit down and talk and do what is best for all, even if it means partitioning up the world with guarantees not to cross borders, but I don't see that happening.

Posted by gorb 2007-04-02 01:19|| 2007-04-02 01:19|| Front Page Top

#2 Thanks Fred for the great information.

gorb - it's been going on for thousands of years. This is just a continuation of the same fight. There never was an end to their battle, and sadly, I doubt that there ever will be. They just became temporarily irrelevant enough that we didn't realize they were still fighting. I have finally gotten used to the fact that we won't see a resolution in our lifetime. It seems strange because all other wars had winners and losers. But these fanatics are stateless and really have no winning goals at hand other than smiting their enemies. Even if they converted every infidel by the sword, then they'd start on each other.

We may see Europe fall ... who knows, but this war will continue long after we are gone.

Posted by Angaiger Tojo1904 2007-04-02 01:59|| 2007-04-02 01:59|| Front Page Top

#3 Victors write the history books.

Posted by gromgoru 2007-04-02 02:03|| 2007-04-02 02:03|| Front Page Top

#4 Not anymoe they don't. I don't know if you've read the **^&&^ that you can find in History texts recently, but I assure it was written by losers.

Posted by Angaiger Tojo1904 2007-04-02 02:25|| 2007-04-02 02:25|| Front Page Top

#5 Angaiger Tojo1904. I'm sure the citezens of the late Roman Empire (at least the upper classes) would've agreed with you---but I can't.

Posted by gromgoru 2007-04-02 02:38|| 2007-04-02 02:38|| Front Page Top

#6 "The only thing that will cause us to nuke someone will be to be nuked ourselves first. [...] There probably aren't any Dresdens in Islam's future."

There's an assumption here that may or may not be correct.

I hope it is, but there's no use assuming it.

Posted by JSU 2007-04-02 02:44|| 2007-04-02 02:44|| Front Page Top

#7 I'm not sure I get your joke, Gromgoru - though I assume it has to do with the dark ages. Sorry, I'm not that smart.

However, since we are on the roman theme - here is what concerns me most about our situation today.

with no vote to sell, their motto is "couldn't care less," Time was when their plebiscite elected generals, heads of state, commanders of legions: but now they've pulled in their horns, there's only two things than concern them: BREAD and CIRCUSES

Posted by Angaiger Tojo1904 2007-04-02 02:59|| 2007-04-02 02:59|| Front Page Top

#8 Idol worship can be dangerous. Islam is what happens when you lose your identity in moral matters and your identity as nations. Islam is a neat concept, but just like communism, holds no future at all for mankind. So, you essentially are saying that 1.2 billion people on this earth have decided that their "God" overrules all the rules and they can get away with anything they want and forget the old new school. Thats a sad state of affairs handing the planet over to thugs.

The smart money banks on truth, and moslems learning just that, and that is this. You will treat this world as if it is the kingdom of heaven and in doing so can sew your way in. Otherwise, it will be gang land the whole world over with that corrupt as HELL system of Islamic rule. 1000 years of darkness, I promise you.

Posted by newc">newc 2007-04-02 03:23|| 2007-04-02 03:23|| Front Page Top

#9 That's almost the same principle we use in law enforcement; when Mr. Policeman is confronted by Muggsy holding a gun to the head of a hostage, we don't go ahead and kill the hostage to get to Muggsy.

Agreed, and that is because more often than not in the situation you cite both individuals are American citizens (although poorly enforced immigration laws have begun to change that). Nonetheless, what has been described above is a law enforcement scenario. I do believe that most of us here at Rantburg, to some degree or another, recognize that prosecuting the GWoT (Global War on Terrorism) with law enforcement or criminal justice techniques is inadequate at best and counterproductive at worst.

Under military conditions we might very well, but we try not to.

Here, you yourself note that, given current wartime circumstances, there may well be circumstances where GwoT hostage situations cannot be accorded the same protocols as law enforcement actions. I believe that these exceptions represent a crucial pivot point in how and for how long the GWoT will need to be fought.

In the GwoT we are faced with a vastly asymmetric challenge. We are in the process of engaging much less than one hundred thousand enemy combatants on any given front. However, while fielding far less than a million troops, we are confronted with an enemy that numbers in the millions, if not in the tens or even dozens of millions. Albeit, not in one single place with respect to our current military theaters, but in terms of the cumulative financial and material support (i.e., zakat), that those other untold millions pose in a significant, if not massively disproportionate threat, with regard to what our troops encounter.

I have mentioned before how, in order to effect any significant shift in the GWoT, we must somehow reach out and touch a significant percentage of this worlds billion or more Muslim population. Due to issues of illiteracy, government censorship, off-grid isolation and comprehensive indoctrination, even the most potent tools of Western civilization, such as the Internet, telephonic communication, radio or television broadcasting and printed literature all fall far short of the minimum goals we require towards that end.

The simple fact that tiny Portugal translates more foreign literature into their own relatively obscure language than the entire MME (Muslim Middle East) translates into its various Arabic tongues is glaring proof of how deep the intellectual and cultural chasm is that must be bridged in order to contact this necessary portion of Islams adherents.

Fred, to address your most recent point with respect to hostage situations. I maintain that Muslims must be made to feel the same, if not greater, pain than what we in the West are forced to endure. Towards that end I have, in the past, openly advocated shooting through those hostages that terrorists use as human shields. We avoided doing so in Mogadishu and our troops burned bodies were dragged through the streets, even as the same Islamic terrorists do so today with other casualties of the same war. Had we displayed the needed determination to eliminate those terrorists who practiced such vile tactics then, perhaps they would not still be doing so now.

Please correct me if I am wrong but I believe that you yourself have stated to the effect that Muslims had better begin stacking up dead jihadis like so much cordwood if they hope to preserve their religion. I seek to encourage such behavior as well, albeit with what are probably going to be perceived as much more harsh methods.

In order to reach out and touch all those untold millions of jihadist Muslims, we must begin a campaign of behavioral modification. I know that it sounds like some sort of animal training, but this is what the task at hand amounts to. Doing so requires that we impose substantial negative consequences (or undesirable behavioral modification) upon those who collaborate with, or do not actively resist, the Islamic terrorists that employ them, willingly or not.

Ensuring that those who, voluntarily or not, submit to being used as human shields by terrorists are exposed to harm or, even, death will eventually generate antipathy towards the terrorists. It certainly can be argued that such acts also might contribute to equal antipathy towards coalition troops but such hatred already exists in abundance and should not stay our hand in forcing Islam to share our pain.

It is in this same way that I have also advocated that even children who dance over or kick around the body parts of our slain troops be gunned down. Furthermore, I have gone so far as to support shooting children who are sent out to gather up abandoned weapons or ammunition. Only when Muslim parents understand that Islamists who, forcibly or otherwise, recruit their precious children to assist in their heinous tasks simultaneously expose them to potential death will we finally reach out and touch them in a meaningful way.

Weve already seen Palestinian women submit their own bodies as human shields for known terrorist kinfolk. Weve already seen Palestinian gunmen intentionally use women and children as human shields in gunfights with Israeli forces. How else can such conduct be discouraged if the civilians involved willingly participate? Similarly, how can we possibly know when women or children are not willing participants in such situations?

So long as Muslims do not rise up and vociferously declare themselves as being, both verbally and physically, opposed to Islamist terrorisms violence, I believe that we are obliged to consider them as willing participants and treat them accordingly. Only then will we reach out and touch enough of them, be it in a harmful way or not, such that they finally begin to rethink their support for violent jihad.

The only thing that will cause us to nuke someone will be to be nuked ourselves first.
[emphasis added]

Here it is where I can only hope that you will openly recognize how I have steadfastly maintained the exact same position both recently and on numerous other occasions in the past A few too many people here at Rantburg unthinkingly advocate what amounts to indiscriminate use of nuclear weapons against Islam. While I understand their anger and even the seemingly fitting aspect of such an abrupt comeuppance happening to Islams core, it is still totally unacceptable.

America must not and cannot surrender its moral authority or ethical high ground to the allure of an easy and sweeping victory against jihadist Islam.

Nothing will cause us to slaughter innocent non-combatants with the gusto and wild abandon that Islamists consider a virtue.

Agreed: This must not be possible, otherwise the terrorists will truly have won. All said and done, we may yet be confronted with the need to slaughter on a scale that will, for once and all, reach out and touch a sufficient number of Muslims whereby they are convinced of our intent to resolutely defy even their most concerted efforts to make us submit to Islamic theocracy.

What limit is there to a demonstration of such resolution? This is the core question. How many Muslims should we allow ourselves to kill before a threshold of unacceptable Islamic loss of life is crossed? More importantly, should the West abandon its fight for survival when confronted with such an upward limit of numbers? Is there some maximum number of Muslim lives worth more than preserving the hard won institutions of Western constitutional law and individual liberties that our forefathers died for in so many equally if not more brutal wars?

There probably aren't any Dresdens in Islam's future.

Without substantial, authentic or genuine reformation of Islams current doctrine and modus operandi, I argue against this notion. On September 11^th, 2001 America experienced a drastic demonstration of Islams resolve to cause the first of many Western Dresdens. The Koran specifically exhorts its followers to cause such atrocities and no significant effort has been made to expunge its passages of such hostile doctrine.

To date, Islam has shown absolutely no reversal in this trend towards increasingly aggressive conduct. If anything they have, on a repeated basis, confirmed their intent to cause numerous other atrocities of the exact same sort, if not even worse. Few alternatives present themselves other than the option of causing Islam a sufficient degree of harm whereby they lose the will to continue causing the same for Western civilization. While nuclear weapons need not be the prime ingredient of such a strategy, massive and, even, disproportionate retaliation present themselves as the best, if not sole candidates for such dissuasive measures.

Again, I have always done my best to stress how undesirable any sort of overwhelming extirpation of this worlds Muslim population is. At this venue I have fought routinely against the less flattering portrayals of Muslims as ragheads, diaperheads and tentheads. My reasons for this are to keep Rantburgs examination of such important matters free from any polarizing language that might cause newcomers or others to perceive this site as merely being one consumed by hate speech.

While my words have been twisted by some so that they seem to advocate genocide, I believe firmly that close examination of a majority of my posts will reveal the resolute rejection of that notion and, instead will show a prediction of it, and how unavoidable such an outcome will be, rather than it being something to be desired.

I still maintain that an unreformed Islam can no more make rivers run backwards than avoid the day when some radical Muslim faction will commit an atrocity so horrific that the West will have no other recourse than to exterminate such an omnipresent threat. Islams inherently decentralized structure coupled with its wholly intolerant doctrine, absolutely predict such a catastrophic outcome.

The holocaust I predict most likely will be on a par with that of the Jews. Six million Muslims represent a total of some 0.005% of their global population. Even sixty million still equates to a twentieth of their overall population. Yet, it is somewhere around these numbers that will probably be required to perish in order that the remaining portion of the ummah understand what awaits an unreformed Islam.

Do I relish this ghastly notion? No. Do I greet such a proposition with unabated joy? No. Do I nonetheless predict it? You can bet the farm on it. Islam, to date, shows absolutely no outward sign of avoiding such an end result. In fact, every indication, so far, points towards the inevitability of such a disastrous outcome.

All of you who are reading these words, I will ask that those among you who have demanded even more harsh measures than I, or ones of equal severity, to please step forward and explain your own viewpoints. I have done so to the best of my ability and can only hope that others will do so as well.

Finally, I would like to thank you very much, Fred. This forum has provided me with an unprecedented opportunity for enlightenment unlike few others I have ever encountered during some ten or fifteen years spent on the Internet. Please rest assured that, due to Rantburg's influence, my own political views will never be the same. Not for my entire life. If my above words are wholly unacceptable, please delete them and, if you deem it just, ban my presence as well. I respect your judgment and admire how stolidly you have supported the American ideal of free speech here at Rantburg. For that, I cannot thank you enough.

Sincerely,

Chris

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-04-02 04:38|| 2007-04-02 04:38|| Front Page Top

#10 Islam is a neat concept

Looking from right, looking from left, up, down, shaking vigorously... Nope, nothing neat about it. Even in comparison with concepts that were contemporary, give or take half a millenium), it contains no redeeming value--the fact some people produced something from within Islam was not because of it, but despite of it.
Skipping a millenium forward... ah, found some resemblance: Thugees.

Posted by twobyfour 2007-04-02 04:59|| 2007-04-02 04:59|| Front Page Top

#11 Zen, bare some deux ex machina or natural kind, the trend that you pointed out is roughly the same I see.

It is not really difficult to extrapolate trends and to see where things are going, with some insights from history. I would love to be an optimist, but so far, looking back several years, I see the same train on these same rails slowly (but with a tremendous momentum) approaching the point of wrecking. Some people on the train are doing somewhat different things, in comparison what I anticipated, but the train is the same and on the same track. Suck to see confirmations of this kind almost on daily basis. I still remember my lecture about the future that I've given to my daughter some 5 years ago, and I have to say that I wouldn't change a word if I were to give her the lecture today. It did not do me any pleasure to paint that bleak picture in front of her.

I am convinced that one day, in the future that may be removed by a couple of generations, we'll win, inevitably. But the price that will be due will dwarf anything in history.

That is what I see... unless someone or a group of people don't come up with some way to replace Islam with something more benign--and that won't remove the problem entirely, just scale it down a bit.

Chances are rather not good.

Wretchard's 3 conjectures loom on the horizon.

Posted by twobyfour 2007-04-02 05:50|| 2007-04-02 05:50|| Front Page Top

#12 Islam is a backward and poisonous ideology of Arabic imperialism.

Although a cult/religion can never truly be discredited in the eyes of true believers, the set of negative behaviors which it endorses must be reexamined by its adherents in light of the resistance and negative consequences which the civilized world must provide.

Posted by Ebbins Bonaparte7346 2007-04-02 06:05|| 2007-04-02 06:05|| Front Page Top

#13 Ebbins, the set of negative behaviors which it endorses must be reexamined by its adherents in light of the resistance and negative consequences which the civilized world must provide.

How do you propose that the term "must" would enter your equation?

Posted by twobyfour 2007-04-02 06:42|| 2007-04-02 06:42|| Front Page Top

#14 it's been going on for thousands of years

No. The pagan moon goddess cult was founded in the late 600's BC.

Right now in our history islam (and its leftist defenders)is the most evil thing on the planet and the solution is simple. What we need is a Genocide of the so called religion. Every single mosque and quran should be burned. Unfortunately it's going to take a nuke on our soil to make it happen.

Posted by Icerigger">Icerigger 2007-04-02 07:58|| 2007-04-02 07:58|| Front Page Top

#15 Another reason we're not going to kill all the Muslims in the world is because we're not at war with all of them, despite claims to the contrary by the bad guys, who want nothing more than to use them as shields. I've made the point here before that many of our allies are Muslims, starting with the gallant men of the Pandjir Valley in Afghanistan, the Kurds in Iraqi Kurdistan, and including the segment of the Iraqi Arab populace that is working with us to try and clear the bad guys from their country.

I'm with Fred here. This war is not as simple as "Moslems bad, everybody else good." There are a couple dozen flavors of Islam, and while some of those are implacably hostile to civilization (Wahabbism) others are not. I would further point out that there are also multiple schools of thought within the western world, some of which are implacably hostile to civilization (e.g., Marxism, Rosie-O-Donnelism). Within Christianity, there are multiple schools of thought, some of which are implacably hostile to what is generally thought of as orthodox Judeo-Christian tradition.

It isn't an act of dhimmitude to acknowledge the existence of Moslem friendlies. I would submit, however, that it is an act of ingratitude, and a grave tactical error, to react to every bit of news from the Middle East with a cry of "Kill all the Muzzies!" Some of those "Muzzies" are on your side, and they're risking a lot more by doing so than you and I are trading commentary in Fred's combox.

Posted by Mike 2007-04-02 08:49|| 2007-04-02 08:49|| Front Page Top

#16 #7 Not a joke except in the sense that Late Romans believed that the Barbs at their gates are a joke. And there was a lot of books writen during that period---not many survived.

Posted by gromgoru 2007-04-02 08:51|| 2007-04-02 08:51|| Front Page Top

#17 Hey Zenster, popular beliefs change. Personally, I hope that the current western belief in unconditional altruism --- in particular, not doing into others as they'd do into you etc... --- will fade before the West does.

Posted by gromgoru 2007-04-02 09:13|| 2007-04-02 09:13|| Front Page Top

#18 The war is real, it's serious, and it's going worse than I'd have expected it to go five years ago.

And the same sentence will be true when repeated again 5 and 10 years from now. That's why there will be Dresdens. Probably nuclear and probably in response to nuclear attacks on the west.

And our response will not be without precedence; as Kevin Phillips has demonstrated in The Cousins' Wars: Religion, Politics, and the Triumph of Anglo-America. We will fight a major war with Islam with significant religious undertones, though it may not be labeled as such, after Islam's violent agents sufficiently threaten our continued existence. We will not kill all Muslims as it is a practical impossibility. But we will dehumanize our enemy in our sight as pure evil and we will then do whatever is necessary to utterly destroy those advancing Islam by violence, after which we will do our best to return the survivors into the human family.

Or we will be bowing to the east 5 times a day.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-04-02 09:34|| 2007-04-02 09:34|| Front Page Top

#19 As a dick-head once said folks like a strong horse and sometimes it's not clearly to see which horse is strong when one is bold and scary and the other is far away and providing conflicting messages through the media and opposition party. Sooner or later though, you see what is going on.

In my humble opinion there will be a point when the Islamic world finally realizes the West is the strong horse and we have the ability go genocide them but the only way they can "destroy" us is by turning us genocidal and making us feel bad for what we did to them.

The mad ones will continue to fight and the silent majority will tip to our side en-masse. The Jihad war will end suddenly when the tipping point is finally reached. The tipping point would come far sooner if we didn't have useful idiots trying to chop us off at the knees for partisan game in the mean time. If the Islamic world comes anywhere near genocide it will be on the shoulders of the useful idiots and Bush haters that made it seem Islam had a chance.

Posted by rjschwarz 2007-04-02 10:12|| 2007-04-02 10:12|| Front Page Top

#20 Hopefully, leaders in the West will realize someday that you cannot play footsie with Islamic leaders and expect to eliminate the threat by killing Jihadi suicide bots and cannon fodder.

It will be when smart people lead, people who can put 2 and 2 together and get 4, and have the ability to communicate that simple fact to the public.

Radical Islam is big today because of oil. Oil brings money. Money brings power. Oil money brings corruption. It buys off leaders and key people in key positions. Follow the freakin money. The bulk of the Islamist misery and money goes back to Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other wealthy Sheiks in oil producing counties. They in turn support the Imams and Mullahs, who preach hate and turn kids into bots.

So the solution is to follow the money and stop the flow to these leaders. On one level, it means dealing with energy needs in a way to start cutting off the money flow to the Islamist leaders. This is a long shot. It will take time, resources, and the political leadership and will to do the task.

The other avenue that needs to be pursued is to removed the money by removing the money men. That means taking them out, or looting their bank accounts. Anything to deny them resources. That in turn denies resources to Imams and Mullahs.

A good head shot will stop the rest of the body. There is no reason for genocide when a little thinking and analysis will identify the source of the problem.

But if civilization is weak, narcicistic, and not vigilant, Islamist thugs will drag us all down to a worldwide genocidal war, just like WW1, just like WW2. Civilization and human progress is ours to lose.

Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul 2007-04-02 10:36|| 2007-04-02 10:36|| Front Page Top

#21 I have very little confidence anymore that we're going to be able to settle this thing without committing far more violence than we've envisioned so far. 'Twould be nice if we could, but I don't think it's going to happen.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2007-04-02 10:46|| 2007-04-02 10:46|| Front Page Top

#22 AP, that's what my dad said, take out their bankers, starting w/the Swiss.....

Go after the mullahs who preach....

Lots of accidents, falling down stairs.....

However, we do have coordinates for big shows, Wazooland, Aceh, southern Thailand, Philippines...

If 40% want sharia in Britain, it'll be very, very messy.

Posted by anonymous2u 2007-04-02 10:58|| 2007-04-02 10:58|| Front Page Top

#23 I think we're going to see far more violence, but only after we're pushed into it.

When we finally win this war it'll be because we took direct, ruthless, plausibly deniable action against the men running the war against us. That'll be a lot more effective than a string of Dresdens. And it'll entail a lot less violence -- just more ruthless.

Posted by Fred 2007-04-02 11:43|| 2007-04-02 11:43|| Front Page Top

#24 I keep remembering Churchill:

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.

Winston Churchill
The River War (1899)

PBUH

Posted by Throque Gonque2829 2007-04-02 12:24|| 2007-04-02 12:24|| Front Page Top

#25 First, Islam is a man-made religion stitched together from pagan, Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, and God alone knows what else. It is an attempt by Arabs to "steal" the God of the Jews, because they treated Mohammed's claim to be a prophet as the joke it was. There was a link here the other day to a page that substantiated this.

Secondly, we are at war with those who would use Islam as a front for world domination, just as Hitler used National Socialism as a front, and Stalin used Marxist/Leninist Communism as a front. Just as we had to destroy National Socialism and Communism, we are going to have to destroy Islam itself to purge the world of these idiots. As long as Islam exists, there will be "religious justification" for what they do.

Third, I refuse to speculate on what future actions will be necessary, or what future leaders will do to ensure the destruction of Islam. If I knew that nuking Mecca, Medina, Qom, and Riyadh would end Islamic murder and mayhem once and for all, I doubt I'd hold back. However, NOT knowing that such action would actually solve the problem, it's not YET an option.

I do know that we need to start fighting this war as a war, and we need to get VERY serious about it, or we're going to lose. It'll be over my dead body, but that will be scant comfort to my grandchildren.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2007-04-02 12:28|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2007-04-02 12:28|| Front Page Top

#26 No. The pagan moon goddess cult was founded in the late 600's BC.

No. It was founded in the late 600's AD! Big difference there.

Posted by Natural Law 2007-04-02 13:44|| 2007-04-02 13:44|| Front Page Top

#27 Islam is a neat concept

Looking from right, looking from left, up, down, shaking vigorously... Nope, nothing neat about it.

At the risk of putting words into another's mouth. I believe he meant "neat" as in simple: Few moral quandaries, no wrestling with internal doubts and deep theological questions, answers handed to you ready-made to be swallowed whole, physical adherence trumps all regardless of motivation. I mean, this is a religion that tells you how to wipe your butt.

Posted by xbalanke 2007-04-02 14:04|| 2007-04-02 14:04|| Front Page Top

#28 Whatever may happen, Portugal made the first tactical mistake in this war, when after decades of laying the ground work to take Mecca from sea by advancing around Africa they got seduced by the wealth of the Spice Trade and capture it instead.

Posted by 3dc 2007-04-02 14:05|| 2007-04-02 14:05|| Front Page Top

#29 When we finally win this war it'll be because we took direct, ruthless, plausibly deniable action against the men running the war against us. That'll be a lot more effective than a string of Dresdens. And it'll entail a lot less violence -- just more ruthless.

I could not agree more, Fred. Much as Alaska Paul observed about choking off the money trail, the West also needs to focus on interdicting the "indoctrination trail". There has been routine discussion here at Rantburg of utilizing wetwork or hunter-killer teams. .com and myself were early proponents of this notion. Here is a proposed target list:

1. Ayman al-Zawahiri
2. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
3. Ayatolla Kahmeini
4. Mullah Muhammad Omar
5. Abu Bakar Ba'asyir (Bashir)
6. Moqtada Sadr
7. Abu Hamza al-Masri
8. Mullah Krekar (AKA: Abu Sayyid Qutb)
9. Khaled Meshal
10. Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah
11. Ismail Haniya
12. Mohammed Abbas
13. Yusuf al-Qaradawi
14. imam Ahmed Abu Laban
15. Sheikh Taj Al-Din Al-Hilali
16. imam Omar Bakri Mohammed
17. imam Abdel-Samie Mahmoud Ibrahim Moussa
18. imam Sheikh SyeSyed Mubarik Ali Gilani
19. Abdullah al-Faisal
20. Sheik Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi
21. Dr. Mahmoud al-Zahar
22. Prince Sultan Ibn Abd al-Aziz
23. Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz
24. Prince Nayef bin Abdulaziz

I submit that the West could swiftly and substantially reduce the momentum of violent jihad by eliminating these two-dozen central Islamic players.

It is tragically ironic that the Western powers will most likely avoid implementing such surgical measures as being too ruthless. Moreover, I believe there is a squeamishness of official leaders in general when it comes to deposing other political figureheads, no matter how corrupt or tyrannical. The continued existence of Assad, Mugabe and Kim Jong-il all stand as testimony to how high office is treated like some sort of craft guild or closed shop.

History has demonstrated routinely that tipping points are the most common levers by which wars are initiated, fought and won. In light of that, it is far more likely America will undergo a terrorist nuclear attack and then retaliate by immolating some portion of the MME (Muslim Middle East).

Why there is this unwillingness to address Islam for the threat it is goes beyond the comprehension of ordinary thinking people. The reluctance being shown by American and European leadership alike points towards the probable emergence of another World War II-style charnel house.

Most repellant of all is the notion that this war against Islam will go on for generations. When one considers the loss of life and tremendous financial expense which has ensued in a mere half-decade, the idea of extending that same level of expenditure over several decades is simultaneously horrific and ridiculous. In monetary terms alone, the final figure would amount to trillions of dollars. Without back-billing terrorism sponsoring nations for the costs of combating their nefarious plots, the expense is simply prohibitive. This is another lever that may eventually pressure Western leadership into seeking more expedient methods to end this conflict.

The result was that the heated argumenet broke down into two separate heated arguments and petered out when comments for that day shut down at midnight. The setiments stuck in my mind, where I found them nasty and irritating.

Fred, for that irritation I will again personally apologize to you now as I did then to fellow Rantburgers during that particular set to. My adversary finally exposed himself as one devoid of actual solutions or constructive argument and I am now able to confidently ignore any further disputes with that individual.

Even in comparison with concepts that were contemporary, give or take half a millenium), it contains no redeeming value

This remains a central issue. To paraphrase .coms concise appraisal; Name one single redeeming feature of Islam.

What are the redeeming features of the cult-like religion? Certainly not its policy of Abject Gender Apartheid. Most definitely not its Koranic doctrine of anti-Semitic genocide. Absolutely not its exhortation to violent conversion and terrorism as a tool of persuasion. Simply put, Islam is the world's most intolerant creed and represents one massive ongoing violation of human rights. Its continued existence is a canker that blemishes our world.

In order to become even remotely compatible with Western culture, so much of Islam will need to undergo wholesale change that its chances for such reformation are dim at best. This is why I remain both skeptical and pessimistic about what the future holds if current methods of fighting Islam remain in place. The prospects are grim at best.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-04-02 14:53|| 2007-04-02 14:53|| Front Page Top

#30 I have very little confidence anymore that we're going to be able to settle this thing without committing far more violence than we've envisioned so far. 'Twould be nice if we could, but I don't think it's going to happen.

AP, I'm afraid that after all this is done the America we have then will not be the America we have now, or one that we will want.

It is the duty of every American citizen to insure that the America we have after this war, which looks like it will, unfortunately, take a very, very long time to fight no matter which way it goes, is the America we have now no matter which way it goes.

It's up to us, ladies and gentlemen, to make sure it turns out the way we want it to and that we don't become absolute savages in the process.

We must become wolves, but even wolves do not unnecessarily savage their own pack.

Posted by FOTSGreg">FOTSGreg 2007-04-02 16:28|| www.fire-on-the-suns.com]">[www.fire-on-the-suns.com] 2007-04-02 16:28|| Front Page Top

#31 This is a good, informed discussion of the issue.

But I think it misses the point: The point is not what we should do. The point is what we will do in circumstances of unprecedented horror. The connection between "should" and "should not", on one hand, and "will" and "did" on the other is tenuous.

Posted by Richard Aubrey">Richard Aubrey 2007-04-02 16:29|| 2007-04-02 16:29|| Front Page Top

#32 If 9/11 (and Bali, and Madrid, and London, and London Redux) wasn't enough to rouse us from our slumber, whats to say that we ever take united action without FIRST duking it out internally (civil war)?

Posted by Crusader 2007-04-02 19:01|| 2007-04-02 19:01|| Front Page Top

#33 The first thing to do is identify the war and the enemy. It's been five and a half years, and that has not been done. The enemy is unreformed Islam.
Now, there are several ways to kill a beast. If we were strong enough, the beast would die of old age without shots fired. We are not, so the second thing should be to become stronger. To do so, we should 'kill' the media. We should begin a campaign to single the traitors among the media and identify every attempt to lessen our resolve or to strengthen the resolve of Islam. Each media person is an individual, and as such cannot stand against the tide of our ridicule. The same for Hollyweird. The new media would be expected to support our efforts gung ho. That would reduce the leftists to the hundred or so Michael Moore types who would be murdered in their sleep without notice. Third, we would have to pull from the sinkhole the continent of Europe. This may only be done with shooting, killing, and controlled chaos. The population would have to be balanced back to Europeans, not muzzies.
The fact that muzzies are still allowed into the US boggles the mind, and points out just how our shithead politicians miss the whole point. And when Bush fails to jail Pelosi for going to Syria, he proves once again how he misses the point. A full separation of Islam from the west would be necessary for the beginning of the end of Islam. Without oil, they are sand monkeys. With Islam, they are goat phuckers. We can roll them up at will once we can stop the blackmail from Islam, and back stabbing from Liberals.
If we are forced to fight any other way, then we must learn to kill them like bacteria. Day and night, Winter and Summer, alone or in groups, direct fire, indirect fire, unconditional surrender for Islam, final victory for western civilization in an undignified way will end this bad dream. We will be lesser men as a result, but we will know why we fight and who we kill. People will be judged, choices made, standards set and the end of Islam will bind us together. We may not be the majority going in, but we had better be the majority when it's all over.

Posted by wxjames 2007-04-02 20:33|| 2007-04-02 20:33|| Front Page Top

#34 Islam's abject refusal to abandon its obsession with genocide against the Jews must have only one result, a Muslim holocaust. They deserve nothing less for their vile and murderous troubles.

As a final note, I still take responsibility for having posted the above words. A central tenet of Islam's Koranic doctrine is Semitic genocide. There must be no reward for exalting the aspirations of such a twisted doctrine. The Jews have once before gone silently into the night. NEVER AGAIN.

Never again can the Jews be expected to place their neck beneath the sword, be it of Nazism or Islam. If Muslims cannot bring themselves to reject this heinous tenet of their doctrine, they are not worthy of participation in the global community.

As a thriving Middle East democracy, Israel already has proven its worth to the world. Islam has yet to do so and still remains ever so far from it. Should making a choice become necessary, and Muslims certainly seem hell bent on it, Israel's worth to this planet outweighs the value of all Muslim majority nations put together. The MME (Muslim Middle East), is a dog's breakfast of intensely corrupt tyranny, despotism, theocratic autocracy and a perpetually savage intolerance for all things non-Islamic.

From all indications, Islam is driving towards a point in time when that equation will be put to the test. This is no small part of why Israel maintains an arsenal of nuclear weapons sufficient to negate any disparity in comparative military ranks. If Israel's destruction remains so vitally important to the Islamic world, then one side or the other will have to be destroyed. Again, it is highly doubtful that this time the Jews will once again go silently into the night.

This is what I meant by the words in this post's opening quote and I stand by them.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-04-02 20:48|| 2007-04-02 20:48|| Front Page Top

01:07 Mohammed was a pedophile
01:01 Mohammed was a pedophile
00:49 Mohammed was a phag.
00:46 Mohammed was a phag.
00:44 Mohammed was a phag.
00:15 Muhammad_is_a_Phag
00:09 Muhammad_is_a_Phag
23:55 Jesing Ebbease3087
23:46 Mac
23:43 JosephMendiola
23:37 3dc
23:35 Mike N
23:13 Zenster
23:08 JosephMendiola
23:00 CrazyFool
22:15 trailing wife
22:08 Dave D.
21:58 ed
21:57 Sneaze
21:55 Zenster
21:52 sinse
21:48 sinse
21:45 sinse
21:43 sinse