Article

2007-08-05 Terror Networks

Tancredo defended his suggestion that America should threaten to bomb Muslim holy sites in order

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 3dc 2007-08-05 13:42|| || Front Page|| [11137 views ] Top

#1 This idea appalls all sorts of ~~leftists~~ delicate types. I think it just need some slight refinement. I'd say do this: Paradrop REALLY BIG H BOMBS (remote controlled) into all ME capitals and religiously important sites. Then have state department pantywaists (I love this part) go to said ME capitols and tell 'em "Ahem, next time there's a muzzie related terrorist hiccup anywhere in the west, that sucker goes off. Don't try to approach it either, or it'll go off anyway..."

Posted by M. Murcek">M. Murcek 2007-08-05 13:56|| 2007-08-05 13:56|| Front Page Top

#2 Trancredo should be given the Presidential Medal of Freedom. On second thought, forget the medal, just make him the president!

Posted by Besoeker 2007-08-05 14:18|| 2007-08-05 14:18|| Front Page Top

#3 Nope, sorry, Tancredo is wrong.

We do not wipe out holy sites in order to defend our way of life. Part of our way is to protect and acknowledge each other's religious beliefs. I don't have to agree with yours, but anyone threatening yours threatens me.

The Islamicists are doing precisely that, which is why they have to be extirpated. But blowing up holy sites makes me no better than them.

And I am better, dammit.

We won't blow up Islamic holy sites. We will hunt down the Islamicists and kill them. We will remove national leaders that cradle and coddle them. We will try as hard as we can to turn the Arab world away from extremism.

The alternatives are too horrible.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2007-08-05 14:23|| 2007-08-05 14:23|| Front Page Top

#4 Tancredo's suggestion that we bomb global Islamic holy sites was just as irresponsible as Obama's suggestion that we invade Pakistan.

Now if he would have said that for ever terrorist attack which occurs against a U.S. target anywhere in the world we would close five mosques in America, that would have been different...

Posted by Grumenk Philalzabod0723 2007-08-05 14:36|| 2007-08-05 14:36|| Front Page Top

#5 Steve, ever seen pictures of Berlin and Tokyo at the end of 1945*? One thing most people can see is that centuries of ingrained cultural militarism is not a factor in their lives.

The real argument is with ourselves. We're demonstrating we as a people do not have the political system that can sustain a kinder gentler form of altering the situation if it means years of commitment. So we have a choice, submit or get their attention in manner that can not be rationalized by their leaders as anything less than "We can adapt or go the way of the Carthaginians."

* or Charleston, SC, after a visit by Bobby Sherman in 1865.

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-08-05 14:41|| 2007-08-05 14:41|| Front Page Top

#6 Part of our way is to protect and acknowledge each other's religious beliefs.

Steve, that would be all well and fine if Islam was a religion. Frankly, it's not. Islam is a political system of warfare that includes some of the most hideous abuses of human rights known to modern man. Please feel free to name one redeeming feature of modern Islam.

I'll try to avoid the whole; "It's a ~~floor wax~~ death cult, it's a ~~dessert topping~~ religion" argument right now. But essential Koranic doctrine places the entire non-Muslim world at risk. The process, as currently practiced, where you suggest that "We will hunt down the Islamicists and kill them. We will remove national leaders that cradle and coddle them. We will try as hard as we can to turn the Arab world away from extremism." is simply too glacial in its pace and incredibly expensive; Both in terms of our military casualties and the financial cost involved.

We simply do not have the luxury of prosecuting the Global War on Terrorism at such a sedentary pace. No matter how morally satisfying it is to our political traitor eleite to fight a "clean" war (as if there is even such a thing), they are merely consigning us to some sort of devastatingly brutal domestic terrorist attack that will set our nation's economy back an entire decade.

I cannot in good conscience withhold the use of full-scale military force for the sake of protecting a portion of this world's population that is sworn to destroy us.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-08-05 15:05|| 2007-08-05 15:05|| Front Page Top

#7 It all boils down to this.

Do we want our great grandchildren saying, "Why did you wait so long to take the gloves off - millions killed and swaths of the planet irradiated for the next 10,000 years before you told yourselves the truth and had the guts to do what obviously needed to be done?"

Or do we want them saying, "Gee, don't you think you were a little rough and judgmental when you took them out in '09?"

Interesting discussion.

Posted by no mo uro 2007-08-05 15:17|| 2007-08-05 15:17|| Front Page Top

#8 Now if he would have said that for ever terrorist attack which occurs against a U.S. target anywhere in the world we would close five mosques in America, that would have been different...

If by "close" you mean "bulldoze", then I'm onboard, GP0723. No grand re-openings for Wahabbist indoctrination centers, just abrupt and direct retaliation for their perfidy.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-08-05 15:36|| 2007-08-05 15:36|| Front Page Top

#9 Nukes are a good deterrent, but they make a poor resolution.
Introducing the nuke option as a dispute settling option, to me is bad humanity. It signifies that everything has been done and the last resort has been reached. That could happen, but I don't see it. Decimation and genocide are better options than the bomb, so let us exhaust all forceful forms of violence before we zap their asses. That way there is the possibility of a survivor or two who will remember what happened and why.

Posted by wxjames 2007-08-05 15:42|| 2007-08-05 15:42|| Front Page Top

#10 "We do not wipe out holy sites in order to defend our way of life. Part of our way is to protect and acknowledge each other's religious beliefs."

Of course we do wipe out holy sites. In America. We kill their women and children. All we need to know is that the prophet is a pedophile and that they are storing automatic weapons on their holy site in then we send in the ATF.

(Branch Dividians in Waco)

Posted by Clealing Bluetooth4471 2007-08-05 15:57|| 2007-08-05 15:57|| Front Page Top

#11 Introducing the nuke option as a dispute settling option, to me is bad humanity. It signifies that everything has been done and the last resort has been reached. That could happen, but I don't see it. Decimation and genocide are better options than the bomb, so let us exhaust all forceful forms of violence before we zap their asses. That way there is the possibility of a survivor or two who will remember what happened and why.

Unusually well-thought out, wxjames. I agree with you and hope others will understand that first use of nuclear weapons is morally reprehensible. My only caveat is that; Should America be subjected to even a single NBC terrorist attack, then our Response In Kind need not be equimetric. In fact, at that point, I would prefer wildly asymmetric retaliation.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-08-05 16:06|| 2007-08-05 16:06|| Front Page Top

#12 Bravo for Tancredo putting this line into the national discussion -- he has been instrumental in driving the immigration debate, now he takes on the muslim menance. The NYT, WaPo and Vanity Fair think they set trend and shape America's thinking, but it's this half-a-whack-job from CO who's establishing the lines of debate.

Posted by regular joe 2007-08-05 17:32|| 2007-08-05 17:32|| Front Page Top

#13
This suggestion is completely unacceptable...unless US Special Forces go in first to rescue the kittens and puppies.

Posted by Master of Obvious 2007-08-05 17:35|| 2007-08-05 17:35|| Front Page Top

#14 What about the fuzzy bunnies and fluffy ducklings!!!

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-08-05 18:14|| 2007-08-05 18:14|| Front Page Top

#15 I thank both Tancredo and Obama for moving the debate forward. It's time we make a firm ID of the real enemy in all his disguises. One good thing about election campaigns is that important current events cannot be ignored as the press wants to do. They want to throw Obama under the bus for his Paki comment, but this needs to be aired.

Posted by wxjames 2007-08-05 18:24|| 2007-08-05 18:24|| Front Page Top

#16 "the best way he could think of to deter a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States was to threaten to retaliate by bombing Islamic holy sites"

Actually I have zero problem with this except that we would have to be certain that the terrorist attack was indeed an Islamic terrorist attack, and that might be impossible if the evidence vaporizes. Qom first, please.

What are all you trigger-happy guys going to do if New York City vaporizes and no one claims responsibility? Just nuke everybody who dances in the streets?

Posted by Darrell 2007-08-05 18:25|| 2007-08-05 18:25|| Front Page Top

#17 What are all you trigger-happy guys going to do if New York City vaporizes and no one claims responsibility?

Fortunatelyor however you wish to describe itIslam's towering hubris literally precludes such a possibility out to six significant figures past the decimal point.

A comprehensive plan of nuclear deterrence against terrorism would make it clear to any terrorist sponsoring or sheltering nations plus other proliferating rogue regimes that all of them will perish if we experience a single terrorist atomic attack. While I welcome any alternative suggestions, Mrs. Davis', plan still stands as just about the only way of making clear to Islam that they will lose everything by not cleaning up their act.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-08-05 18:36|| 2007-08-05 18:36|| Front Page Top

#18 I forget who said it but most major cities can be reached by sea. Simply sail up the river and pull the pin, and Ka-BOOM, vaporized evidence. Could be a rented fishing boat, but the main suspect will always be muzzies, and tracing phone records and emails usually puts a frame around the perps.
What to do after that, I know not, but I know what not to do. (See Willy Clinton military campaigns)

Posted by wxjames 2007-08-05 19:04|| 2007-08-05 19:04|| Front Page Top

#19 I forget who said it but most major cities can be reached by sea.

It's a well know statistic that over 90% of the world's population lives within 10 miles of the coastline.

I'm going to repeat a simple question:

Please feel free to name one redeeming feature of modern Islam.

I post this every so often and absolutely NOBODY has ever made a significant attempt to name even a single redeeming feature about Islam.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-08-05 19:09|| 2007-08-05 19:09|| Front Page Top

#20 I suggest responding in kind (the weapns used) but 10 times in load. One cathedral goes up in smoke, 10 moskkks up in smoke in return, one our city goes, 10 their cities of equivalent size go. One nuke, 10 nukes in return. Just state it that this is what is to be expected.

Sounds like a collective punishment? Sure. But the ummah has a choice, ether they will get their house in order and let not this scenario materialize, or they won't--in which case they bear a full responsibility what happens next.

Of course, in the case of nuke attack, we have means to figure out the origin of the device. We can locate any other type of attack to its origin with some degree of accuracy, too.

Now, the only problem I see here is that despite islamic nations trying hard to get a rid of their jihadis after they would be informed about the policy, an attack would be executed by immigrant jihadis and the investigation would ascertain that the connection is local (nuke would be another story, there has to be a source that can be pinned down and the supplier is fully responsible). This, of course, can be prevented by changes in immigration policies, by heavy profiling, and closing down edifices or institutions involved and jailing participants, when there's even a slight hint of hostility. Whenever possible, dispatch the jihadis/islamists to their place of origin so their own can take care of them.

It is the current state of affairs--the spinelessness of moral equivalency, the insane multi-culti, the we-are-not-sinking mind-set policies--that is the main facilitator of the whole islamist revival and their attemp to grab the low hanging fruit with no or a little effort.

Posted by twobyfour 2007-08-05 19:10|| 2007-08-05 19:10|| Front Page Top

#21 Had one James Earl "Dhimmi" Carter used Qom as a neutron bomb test site in 1979, the present discussion would not be necessary.

Posted by doc 2007-08-05 19:52|| 2007-08-05 19:52|| Front Page Top

#22 the present discussion would not be necessary.

Or extremely foreshortened.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-08-05 20:16|| 2007-08-05 20:16|| Front Page Top

#23 I post this every so often and absolutely NOBODY has ever made a significant attempt to name even a single redeeming feature about Islam.

And I post every so often that you should get your own blog. Nothing happens...

Posted by Pappy 2007-08-05 20:31|| 2007-08-05 20:31|| Front Page Top

#24 Please feel free to name one redeeming feature of modern Islam.

Outing the tranzies.

Posted by gromgoru 2007-08-05 20:36|| 2007-08-05 20:36|| Front Page Top

#25 And I post every so often that you should get your own blog.

Why? He is asking a simple question in this case, not engaging in a long-winged opinion (even if that were the case, RB is here for that purpose).

It is almost as if that question makes you uncomfortable and you'd like to see its author shifted somewhere else so the question is not in your face.

Of course, I may be mistaken to read even a hint of what I stated in the previous sentence into your riposte... and you'll answer the question what redeeming features Islam has, in a short order.

Posted by twobyfour 2007-08-05 20:59|| 2007-08-05 20:59|| Front Page Top

#26 The Taliban had absolutely no problem blowing up two ancient Buddhist monuments in Afghanistan in March 2001. These can never be replaced. We in the West acknowledge islam to be practiced freely; Judaism and Christianity or other religions are not similarly acknowledged in islamic countries. Mecca is is just a monument--it happens to be sacred and valued by muslims. Dresden had very little military value (more of a cultural center) but it was firebombed to nearly total destruction. Possibilities such as outlined by Tancredo do have the value of suggesting that islamic countries ought to police up the trouble-makers in their countries because there is a risk associated with not doing that.

Posted by JohnQC 2007-08-05 21:18|| 2007-08-05 21:18|| Front Page Top

#27 And I post every so often that you should get your own blog. Nothing happens...

That's because I don't do blogs. I do not participate in them anywhere nor do I have one of my own. It's not my style. While, technically, Rantburg may be a blog, its format is that of a bulletin board with various forums and I respectfully attempt to participate in that spirit.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-08-05 21:27|| 2007-08-05 21:27|| Front Page Top

#28 Why the hang-up on being better than or more moral than the other guy?

First having been bad for a short while in my life - I have to say bad was a lot more fun.
If you don't accept the strictures of your group you are an outlaw ergo bad. Somebody who doesn't accept the group think - a paradigm braker and not moral.

Good essentially means that you accept the framework of your group with whatever strictures it has. (One man's taboo in another culture is a virtue.)

The problem with Steve's point of view is that he is anthropomorphizing. (applying all his blinders and strictures onto another without recognizing that you can't do it. Not even partially. It's not possible.) You accept the existing sets of paradigms.

Steve, let me put it this way. We say we have religion in this culture and that we are religious. From the point of view of true believers we are nothing further from that truth.
(perhaps we believe in the constitution or democracy or capitalism) Few in the US understand or know what true belief is. Jesus made the argument with is camel through the eye of a needle parable but for US citizens our reality has nothing in common with that reality so we can't see the implications. Its like having a "Jew for Jesus" explain the elements of the "passion". A whole set of realities exists in that explanation that a non-jew has no concept is even there.

Or as a friend, who was one of the leading Buddhist Scholars, said when asks by a reporter to define Buddhism as practiced in Japan upon his exit after decades there ..."It's a MaHat MaHat MaHat Mahat Ma San" (excuse the spelling) The reporter smiled but didn't understand. He was saying that they were too materialistic to understand Buddhism at all. They couldn't let go and even enter the lowest level of belief...

What we call belief is mainly practices at ritual and tradition. The Muslim's are if anything BELIEVERS. Large numbers still believe. We may find the results of their beliefs very dangerous to non-believers in Islam but because we only toy with belief we can't grok what it means that they believe. If we want to win this war - we have to destroy their belief. There is no other way. They and others can not exist on the same planet without them giving up their belief, the rest of us converting or the RoW destroying the meme and its adherents. Really Steve think about it...

By Muslim reality the the terrorist are true believers and a perfect example of sacrificing all for their belief. (Sacred being the root word of sacrifice and scar) To break that reality and not just postpone its victory means the end of Islam. There is no other way to look at it. There might be a new religion of the survivors that calls itself Islam but it could not be the original if it gave up Jihad. Think about it for awhile then decide what you can be moral doing within your reality but don't anthropomorphise. Its too dangerous.

Posted by 3dc 2007-08-05 21:41|| 2007-08-05 21:41|| Front Page Top

#29 I would disagree that we have no true Christian believers in the US, 3dc, tho I wouldn't disagree that many who attend church or vaguely identify themselves as Christians wouldn't be in that category. That's true of a good number of culturally Muslim people too, altho fewer proportionally.

jAnd, don't forget that the US and Europe are now minority members of the Christian community. Look to the churches in Africa, for instance, for deep belief willing to face martyrdom if need be.

But even granting your points, I don't get the assumption that destroying the Ka'aba or Shiite shrines will somehow destroy belief in Islam. I really really doubt it would do that.

Posted by lotp 2007-08-05 21:48|| 2007-08-05 21:48|| Front Page Top

#30 Exceptionally interesting post, 3dc. I was preparing a similar rehash of high context versus low context societies for Steve's perusal. For high context societies, belief is everything. One has to maintain faith in the validity of one's social structure, familial status, cultural values with almost blind adherence. To challenge the paradigm or operate outside of the accepted norms is worse than death. It instigates shunning, coventry, call it what you will but historically, your gene line usually terminates at that point.

Islam is trying to terminate our gene line. Period. Those few of us who might survive the successful imposition of a global caliphate would be of insufficient numbers to any longer make a difference. Be it through violent jihad, slow jihad or demographic deluge, Islam is hell-bent upon eradicating every last trace of competing cultures from the face of this earth.

"We"as in those not Islamicdo not have a choice. To pretend that we do is delusional. "We" will cease to exist if "we" do not adequately oppose Islam with sufficient force to neutralize its offensive capability. That is our only option. There are no others. Assimilation into Islamwhat they call "submission"means that "we" will no longer exist. There is no acceptable aspect to such an alternative, therefore it is not an alternative. Ergo, dismantling Islam, be it through coercion or violent force is the only option.

PS: twobyfour, please email me at your convenience.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-08-05 21:58|| 2007-08-05 21:58|| Front Page Top

#31 lotp - unless you can viral the meme of Islam it will not be just sites. The sites may not matter but should not be ruled out. By avoiding the believing aspect and trying to put the "islamic facists" as a fringe - you are ignoring that the only way to "win" is to change or destroy a religion. This is what you shrink from.

Its a scary thought. How do you change or destory a faith? We need to have thousands working on that instead of putting our heads in the sand and saying such thoughts are off limits.

Posted by 3dc 2007-08-05 21:58|| 2007-08-05 21:58|| Front Page Top

#32 lotp, no it won't, but it will knock off one pillar and make a sizable portion of the believers into unbelievers.

We may not have to nuke Mecca an Qom at all, though. They will do it themselves at some point.

Posted by twobyfour 2007-08-05 22:03|| 2007-08-05 22:03|| Front Page Top

#33 That, also, goes to the core of why Islam attacked us now.

I suggest that it is because modern society it too attractive. Its was leading the faithful astray.

Remember me saying "bad is more fun"? When bad is movies, and cars and dates and womens rights and democracy and toleration and and and - the simplest of all faiths shudders under the attack and lashes back.

Posted by 3dc 2007-08-05 22:04|| 2007-08-05 22:04|| Front Page Top

#34 I don't get the assumption that destroying the Ka'aba or Shiite shrines will somehow destroy belief in Islam.

Permit me to suggest that destruction of the shrines at Mecca, Medina and Qomwhile not destroying Islammight terminate a sense of infallibility that continues to give Muslims an unreflective impetus that enables commission of the very worst atrocities. Were Islam's shrines to be demolished, it would at least give pause to many Muslims whereby they might give more consideration to the repercussions of their acts. I cannot say that this was 3dc's meaning but it certainly stands to reason that iffor onceIslam was finally made to pay the piper for its incessant predations, it might begin to think twice about the worth of jihad.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-08-05 22:06|| 2007-08-05 22:06|| Front Page Top

#35 It is almost as if that question makes you uncomfortable and you'd like to see its author shifted somewhere else so the question is not in your face.

The problem is that this, along with everything else he posts is repeated ad infinitum.

Who is he trying to convince? You and the rest of the KinderKrieger Korps. RB regulars? Newbies? The stray Kos Kid? Those of us who dealt with terrorism, war and islamists and in the past and continue to do so in some form?

This all reminds me of the crowd in the old Westerns who convince themselves (or get convinced) to to lynch the guy in the jail.

Maybe it'll have to happen. Likely it will. Problem is, Zenster, you, and the rest of the claque won't anything except pat yourselves on the back when the shit hits the fan. You won't be pushing the button, you won't be doing the fighting, you won't be the ones ordering your troops in, and you won't be the ones dealing with the after-effects.

Posted by Pappy 2007-08-05 22:07|| 2007-08-05 22:07|| Front Page Top

#36 3ds, I concur. We have to find a way. The best possible scenario would be that we'll manage to do it without even harming hair on the head of a single adherent of Islam. But that is unlikely. If you studied how difficult it is to pull someone from a cult...

We have to find a way.

Posted by twobyfour 2007-08-05 22:08|| 2007-08-05 22:08|| Front Page Top

#37 Don't forget, by the lights of Islam, we attacked first just by being a different option visible in a society that doesn't offer change as an option.

Posted by 3dc 2007-08-05 22:13|| 2007-08-05 22:13|| Front Page Top

#38 You won't be pushing the button, you won't be doing the fighting, you won't be the ones ordering your troops in, and you won't be the ones dealing with the after-effects.

So, I don't wear an uniform, so I have no right to have an opinion and thus I am a chickenhawk when I do express it, right?

What the fuck do you know about me, Zen, or others? Nothing.

Even our particpation here in RB and other blogs is a part of the whole stratagem. But many of us are involved in more ways, and they do not need to be nesessarily strictly military.

And, as for dealing with after-effects, yes, we all will be dealing with them. Don't forget that may of us have children and granchildren.

And that is the main reason we see the need to deal with the whole thing sooner rather than later. So we are shouldering it, not shifting the responsibility to our descendants.

Posted by twobyfour 2007-08-05 22:17|| 2007-08-05 22:17|| Front Page Top

#39 Problem is, Zenster, you, and the rest of the claque won't [do] anything

I respectfully disagree, Pappy. At every opportunityusually about once a dayI attempt to engage another person and oblige them to fully consider the level of threat we in the West face. Some violently resist the concept. Others are inescapably drawn to conclusions they might not otherwise have reached.

I do my best to change one mind at a time. This "ad infinitum" bullshit is just that. If anyone cared to trace my postings at this site, they would see that there has been a gradual but dramatic change in my overall worldview.

So, Pappy, are there any redeeming features to Islam?

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-08-05 22:17|| 2007-08-05 22:17|| Front Page Top

#40 It goes to the problem of the EU and everything.. If a alien came and looked at earth trying to identify core beliefs - he would assume that, by in large, the people of the US believe in eternal change.

To all other societies on earth a belief in eternal change is the scariest of all propositions. We are despised by the elites in the EU for it, we art the Great Satan to Islam for it and.... How do you know and hold your place in the world when change is the religion? Upstarts!

Posted by 3dc 2007-08-05 22:18|| 2007-08-05 22:18|| Front Page Top

#41 I've got to head out for a walk, so I just wanted to echo what others here have already mentioned.

Right or wrong, Tancredo deserves praise in how he has brought to the fore Islam's impending butcher's bill. There is no way in hell that this crap can go on for too much longer without some serious repercussions being brought to bear. Even ifand I hope it's not the casethat nuclear strikes are required, Islam has been so purblind to the downstream consequences of its incessant atrocities that it's about time that someone finally floated this balloon.

Quite clearly, no one in Washington DC has the testicular or ovarian fortitude to broach the topic, so my hat's off to Tancredo for doing the heavy lifting in the midst of so many jellyfish.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-08-05 22:39|| 2007-08-05 22:39|| Front Page Top

#42 How to wipe out a belief system?

Islam did that. In the Middle East and Asia, there were many societies that worshiped idols, a practice that was thousands of years old. But Muslims wiped that religion off the face of the earth.

And when the Mohammedan caliph came with his sword in hand, they destroyed the idol temples, the churches of all Africa, of all Palestine, of all Asia Minor and Turkey and of Istanbul, and thrust themselves clear to the Philippine Islands on the east. It was Idolatry against which the Mohammedan religion rose as a fierce and terrible antagonist.

Islam will continue, even in this day and age to grow. When they reach their zenith in all of history, they will march against Israel 200 million strong. That will be the "Crucial Hour".

THAT will be the end of Islam.

Zechariah 14:14
"their flesh shall melt while they stand on their feet, and their eyes melt in their sockets, and their tongues melt in their mouths."

Posted by Clealing Bluetooth4471 2007-08-05 22:43|| 2007-08-05 22:43|| Front Page Top

#43 Therefore Tancredo is right about one thing. Pushed to the brink of destruction by Islamists, a nation (Israel, not America) will unleash their nuclear arsenal on an army so large that they will have no other recourse in order to survive.

Posted by Clealing Bluetooth4471 2007-08-05 22:56|| 2007-08-05 22:56|| Front Page Top

#44 So, I don't wear an uniform, so I have no right to have an opinion and thus I am a chickenhawk when I do express it, right?

Opinion is one thing. Advocating something for which you will have no hand in, or no responsibility for, is another.

What the fuck do you know about me, Zen, or others? Nothing.

On a personal basis? No. On this blog? A lot. And it doesn't make a positive impression.

Even our particpation here in RB and other blogs is a part of the whole stratagem. But many of us are involved in more ways, and they do not need to be nesessarily strictly military.

That type of 'participation' at Rantburg is like decrying poverty while at a $5000 a plate charity dinner. I'd rather hear what is being done rather than how things should be done.

And, as for dealing with after-effects, yes, we all will be dealing with them. Don't forget that may of us have children and granchildren.

No doubt you do. And I still doubt that you have fully thought it through.

And that is the main reason we see the need to deal with the whole thing sooner rather than later. So we are shouldering it, not shifting the responsibility to our descendants.

Uh, huh.

Posted by Pappy 2007-08-05 23:32|| 2007-08-05 23:32|| Front Page Top

#45 Pappy: Maybe it'll have to happen. Likely it will.

You need more calcium. Hopefully that will turn your cartilage into a spine, but I doubt it.

Posted by twobyfour 2007-08-05 23:40|| 2007-08-05 23:40|| Front Page Top

#46 2x4: We have to find a way [to destroy Islam]. The best possible scenario would be that we'll manage to do it without even harming hair on the head of a single adherent of Islam. But that is unlikely. If you studied how difficult it is to pull someone from a cult...

We have to find a way.

What an evil monster I am, right, Pappy?

Posted by twobyfour 2007-08-05 23:43|| 2007-08-05 23:43|| Front Page Top

#47 I'd rather hear what is being done rather than how things should be done.

I gave you an answer as to what is "being done" by myself, at least. I refuse to be an armchair ~~quarterback~~ general. I've taken a major hit with my so-called liberal "friends" over how I refuse to keep quite at their parties as they bash Bush and trash the GWoT. What about you, Pappy?

Are there any redeeming aspects to Islam?

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-08-05 23:43|| 2007-08-05 23:43|| Front Page Top

#48 You too, Steve:

Are there any redeeming aspects to Islam?

Seems like no one wants to admit there's an elephant in the room.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-08-05 23:48|| 2007-08-05 23:48|| Front Page Top

#49 And, dammit, contrary to all appearances, I'm not trying to purposely antagonize all of Rantburg's moderators. I've expressed my appreciation often enough. I just want someone to take a solid stand on what the hell it is that makes Islam so effing valuable to our beleaugered world.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-08-05 23:50|| 2007-08-05 23:50|| Front Page Top

#50 I wish this thread could be flipped over until tomorrow just to keep the comments going.

lotp is right: destroying muslim holy places will not destroy Islam. WE might not think it's a religion, but THEY do. Look at the plight of the early Christians: they had no churches to speak of, only the presence of one another. A revealed religion driven underground is even more dangerous than if it's acknowledged and co-opted.

As to nukes, I'm with Steve. I'm better than that. I'm not going to commit genocide, or unleash nukes, or crush other people's holy places, just because I fear what they could do. We have other tools. I don't want us to be remembered in the same thought with Genghis Khan and the Nazis.

Posted by Jonathan">Jonathan 2007-08-05 23:56|| 2007-08-05 23:56|| Front Page Top

#51 I'll close with how this same essential question was posed by .com in his "Code Comanche Moral Authority" post about what sort of redeeming features Islam indeed has.

Far as I can tell, Islam doesn't. I'd love to be proven wrong. Certain sorts of individuals have no redeeming features. Serial killers, serial pedophiles, serial rapists ... need I go on? How is Islam any different from the preceding examples? Much of their doctrine promulgates the EXACT same behavior. Why should they be exempt from modern society's approbation?

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-08-05 23:56|| 2007-08-05 23:56|| Front Page Top

#52 I wish this thread could be flipped over until tomorrow just to keep the comments going.

Right on, Jonathan! We really need to clear the air here.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-08-05 23:57|| 2007-08-05 23:57|| Front Page Top

23:57 Zenster
23:56 Zenster
23:56 Jonathan
23:51 Verlaine
23:50 Zenster
23:48 Zenster
23:43 Zenster
23:43 twobyfour
23:41 tipper
23:40 twobyfour
23:40 Adriane
23:38 Richard Aubrey
23:32 Pappy
23:21 Pappy
22:56 Clealing Bluetooth4471
22:55 gromgoru
22:43 Old Patriot
22:43 Clealing Bluetooth4471
22:39 Zenster
22:36 Mullah Richard
22:30 Super Hose
22:27 Zenster
22:26 Super Hose
22:18 3dc