Archived material Access restricted Article

Today's Front Page   View All of Tue 05/17/2005 View Mon 05/16/2005 View Sun 05/15/2005 View Sat 05/14/2005 View Fri 05/13/2005 View Thu 05/12/2005 View Wed 05/11/2005
2005-05-17 Home Front: Politix
US had long memo on how to handle the Qur'an
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Dan Darling 2005-05-17 00:07|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [6493 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 "...a specific policy on handling the Koran, one of the most sensitive issues to Muslims. The Pentagon does not have a similar policy regarding any other major religious book and takes "extra precautions" on the Muslim holy book, officials said."

Bush will no doubt stick by his "Middle East Democracy" project through thick and thin, for the remainder of his term in office.

But by the time he leaves in January '09, I suspect most Americans will be damn sick and tired of Muslims and their "sensitive issues". I know I am, already-- and I've been a staunch supporter of this project so far.

But never again. If there's another mass-casualty terrorist attack on American soil, let's not waste any more of our soldiers' lives trying to address the root causes of Muslim pathology, OK? Because it's beginning to appear that the problem is intrinsic to Islam.
Posted by Dave D. 2005-05-17 01:32||   2005-05-17 01:32|| Front Page Top

#2 Dave D.: I feel your pain. This whole episode is threatening to drag me back to the "screw it, just nuke 'em all" camp.
Posted by someone 2005-05-17 02:10||   2005-05-17 02:10|| Front Page Top

#3 Well, I don't know about nuking 'em all, but that is one of the options.

Problem is, when you look at the entire range of possible responses to future terrorist attacks and enumerate our options, the resulting list is pretty short:

1. SURRENDER- One quick way to solve the Islamic terrorism problem would be to simply surrender to them: become Muslim, or dhimmis.

2. APPEASEMENT- Maybe they can be bought off, perhaps with lavish foreign aid; or maybe we could withdraw our support from Israel and give the Muslims free rein to indulge their passion for slaughtering Jews.

3. CRIMINAL PROSECUTION- We could round up terrorists one by one or in small groups and "bring them to justice"-- but only after they've done their damage, and only if we can find them, capture them, and gather enough evidence against them to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. And then come the appeals, and the ACLU...

4. LIBERATION & DEMOCRATIZATION- What we're doing now in Iraq and Afghanistan: seeing if Arab/Islamic society can be detoxified by introducing democratic self-governance. Maybe it can; maybe it can't. The jury's still out, at least for the duration of Bush's presidency. But it won't be out much longer than that.

5. CONQUEST & SUBJUGATION- The "Ann Coulter Option": invade their countries, execute their political and religious leaders, dynamite their mosques and madrassas, and rule them with an iron fist.

6. EXPULSION & QUARANTINE- Expel all Muslims from the U.S., make the practice of Islam within our borders a criminal offense, and refuse visas-- even for the briefest of visits-- to all Muslims and all citizens from Islamic countries.

7. COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT- We could respond to terrorist attacks on our cities by attacking Arab/Muslim cities in kind, a la Dresden. Or Hiroshima, for that matter. Tit for tat.

8. EXTERMINATION- No more Muslims = no more Islamic terrorism. One and a quarter billion people would have to be incinerated in a nuclear holocaust, but what the heck- can't make an omelet without breaking eggs, right?

And that's it.

Most of these options are bad-- VERY bad-- for either us, or them, or both. There's only one-- #4, what we're doing right now-- that creates any kind of "win-win situation"; and it doesn't appear to be going spectacularly well.

It's also the most laborious of all the options, and if future American presidents will take just one lesson from George Bush's travails, it is this: the American people do not have the stomach for any more "long, hard slogs". The anti-war camp is powerful and relentless; the Democratic Party will remain loyal only up until the next campaign season; the press will do everything possible to undermine and discredit everything our troops do; and the U.N. as well as most of our "allies" will work steadfastly against us, not for us.

Given all that, I suppose I wouldn't blame some future President for responding to another mass-casualty terrorist attack by choosing Door #7 or Door #8. What else could he do, really?

(Sorry for the bandwidth-busting comment, Fred; but this has been gnawing at me for quite a while)
Posted by Dave D. 2005-05-17 02:57||   2005-05-17 02:57|| Front Page Top

#4 Word. In Spades. Awesome, President Dave.

Clean, tight, dead-center, dead-right. Q.E.D.

*standing ovation*

Now I know who I want calling the shots after Bush.
Posted by .com 2005-05-17 03:55||   2005-05-17 03:55|| Front Page Top

#5 Thanks. At least you could be sure I wouldn't choose Door #1, eh?
Posted by Dave D. 2005-05-17 04:03||   2005-05-17 04:03|| Front Page Top

#6 Or #2 or #3, both tried and failed, lol!

Sweet summation, D. Bookmarked as The 8 Options. I thank you for it and will horrify you regularly by referring to it, lol!
Posted by .com 2005-05-17 04:09||   2005-05-17 04:09|| Front Page Top

#7 Yeah, #2 and #3 were tried and failed; but practically the entire leadership of the Democratic Party thinks those things are EXACTLY what we should be doing.

The ironic thing is, the President most likely to reach immediately for The Big Red Button would be a Democrat: no stomach for a struggle, and anxious as hell to get the WoT behind him and turn the country's attention back to the time-honored business of pandering to parasites.
Posted by Dave D. 2005-05-17 04:23||   2005-05-17 04:23|| Front Page Top

#8 the American people do not have the stomach for any more "long, hard slogs".

I worry -- what does this mean for America if that is so?

I wonder if even a Republican president elected in 2008 will have the stomach. Rudy and Condi yes, but McCain doesn't ...
Posted by Edward Yee">Edward Yee  2005-05-17 08:34||]">[]  2005-05-17 08:34|| Front Page Top

#9 Of course, the same rules must also apply for the handling of the most Holy Bible...don't they?
If not, they must be. Islam is NOT to be afforded more respect and deferance than any other religion.
Posted by milford 2005-05-17 08:42||   2005-05-17 08:42|| Front Page Top

#10 dave d.

there is also the containment until self distruction option

this is similar to the Cold War win

Islam is, in many ways, a brittle faith. If and when the mullarky falls and there are mass defections from Islam, the consequences in other parts of the Umma could be big. Similarly, Ibn Warraq's next book - provisionally called "What is Real Islam" will presumably show it as a complete fraud. That could start the ball rolling toward an end of the threat.
Posted by mhw 2005-05-17 08:51||   2005-05-17 08:51|| Front Page Top

#11 "I worry -- what does this mean for America if that is so?"

What I think it means is that the next time, whoever's in charge might be very reluctant to attempt anything but a quick fix-- which means either craven appeasement or extreme violence.

Somehow, I kinda doubt the Dems and their cohorts in the MSM have thought this through-- they can't see beyond their desire to make U.S. troops, and a Republican president, look bad.
Posted by Dave D. 2005-05-17 08:56||   2005-05-17 08:56|| Front Page Top

#12 "there is also the containment until self distruction option"

Yep, that's one of the consequences I had in mind under "Quarantine", that if we could totally separate them from us they'd eventually collapse.
Posted by Dave D. 2005-05-17 09:00||   2005-05-17 09:00|| Front Page Top

#13 I offer for your consideration a simpler Option 5: destroy their military installations, their government buildings, their airports, their ports, their mosques, and their madrassas and then fly back home. Do it again in five years. No troops, no occupation, no humanitarian aid, no rebuilding. If they want to go back 14 centuries, they get their wish.

I've had enough of wasting troops and money. Dresden was obliterated to teach the Germans that they had best not ever rise up again. Afghanistan was conquered without the Dresden message and so we still have hostilities flaring, fanatical Islam tolerated, and poppies growing. Never again.

As for attacking in kind or "tit for tat", forget it. Muslims can play tit for tat for centuries. Up the ante: we lose a building to Muslim fanatics; Muslim fanatics pay with a major holy site. We lose a city; Muslim fanatics pay with a country (see simpler Option 5 above). [And don't think oil will save YOU, Saudi Arabia. YOU haven't paid for your role in 9/11 yet. If the next "9/11" is another Saudi-inspired attack, YOU can expect retribution that will be legendary.]

Severely damage a U.S. city and the George Bush you know to date will look like a whimp at a dude ranch compared to what will follow.
Posted by Tom 2005-05-17 09:24||   2005-05-17 09:24|| Front Page Top

#14 6 & 7 should have been our responses on the afternoon of 9-11, with 8 as the loudly broadcasted "Next Step" if there were any further attacks against the US.

Sounds horrible, I admit, but how many reports of these "sermons", and State-sponsered "sermons" do we have to read about where muslims call for genocide against Jews and Americans, and,when they're feeling a 'lil fiesty, the West in general?

Again and again we are supposed to take their barbaric behavior in stride, and impose rules on ourselves on how our soldiers are supposed to handle their "holy" book in front of POWs.

That is absolute insanity. How many of us are going to have to die before we wake up and fight this war for real.

Okay, now I need some toast calm down all that coffee I drank this morning...
Posted by Laurence of the Rats  2005-05-17 9:27:48 AM|| []  2005-05-17 9:27:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 Wow! Is that the same Dave D that sleeps under the pool table? Still waters run deep. *applause*
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2005-05-17 10:21||   2005-05-17 10:21|| Front Page Top

#16 3. CRIMINAL PROSECUTION- We could round up terrorists one by one or in small groups and "bring them to justice"-- but only after they've done their damage, and only if we can find them, capture them, and gather enough evidence against them to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. And then come the appeals, and the ACLU...

Rethink this angle for a moment. If we actually criminally prosecuted hate-speech and attempts at treason in the Mosques of the US this policy might be effective. Certainly the Brits should be doing so. Instead throughout the West Islam gets a pass on hate speach while the rest of us bend over.

Add to that a rigorious search for anyone not in the country legally as well as policies to keep new illegals out, and perhaps a growing belief that the burdon of proof that Islam is a religion of Peace should be put upon the worshipers of Islam. Until then it should be refered to as a religion of Submission.
Posted by rjschwarz">rjschwarz  2005-05-17 10:28||]">[]  2005-05-17 10:28|| Front Page Top

#17 I'm a Door #8 kinda guy. I just don't see the other options as anything other than delaying the inevitable. Their little book of wisdumb maps out what they want. They will always try again.
Posted by BH 2005-05-17 11:00||   2005-05-17 11:00|| Front Page Top

#18 Options 5 and 6 work for me. Pass laws declaring open season on Muslims in the U.S. and I suspect there won't be many left after very long. Those who can will run. Those who can't will die or convert. The Muzzies would understand this--it's just their own game turned around with the sharp end pointed toward them. Ferdinand and Isabella had the right idea, though.
Posted by mac 2005-05-17 11:37||   2005-05-17 11:37|| Front Page Top

#19 Wow. Lotsa ideas, all of them good...

Posted by Dave D. 2005-05-17 12:09||   2005-05-17 12:09|| Front Page Top

#20 I started at #7 on 9/12/2001 and hoped a strong object lesson would be enough. Admired W for trying #4. See #8 coming. The AH's are crazy and will never give up. 10% of one billion is a lot of terrorists.
Posted by SR-71 2005-05-17 13:00||   2005-05-17 13:00|| Front Page Top


Islam, by its nature, is in permanent competition with other civilizations. Harvard professor of government Samuel Huntington coined the phrase "Islam's bloody borders" - a reference to the fact that wherever Islam rubs up against other civilizations, wars seem to break out.
Posted by dj 2005-05-17 13:23||   2005-05-17 13:23|| Front Page Top

#22 I'm in the #5 category. It worked in Japan and Germany. I'd like to skip over #6 for the moment, or at least reduce it to 5.5 (no admittance, but no blanket expulsions). Perhaps combine #7 with #5: first attack -> we set up the REA, second attack -> Lebanon is a Christian nation, third attack -> the Road to Damascus leads to a Christian state.
Posted by Jackal">Jackal  2005-05-17 16:54||]">[]  2005-05-17 16:54|| Front Page Top

05:32 RedMeanie
01:28 RedMeanie
01:21 RedMeanie
23:15 JosephMendiola
23:14 .com
22:53 JosephMendiola
22:52 trailing wife
22:52 Dave
22:38 Allen Greenspan
22:38 Alaska Paul
22:36 Anonymous6256
22:32 Whomoting Omeaper1433
22:30 Whomoting Omeaper1433
22:30 mom
22:20 Alaska Paul
22:16 Alaska Paul
22:16 SR-71
21:58 Remoteman
21:55 smn
21:47 smn
21:39 Super Hose
21:33 2b
21:20 Super Hose
21:13 Pappy

Search WWW Search