June 7, 2010

Toying with Genocide: The "Unthinkable" Can and Is Being Thought

4coas.jpg
The 4 COAs of the Apocalypse [COA,military: Course Of Action. Image by Butch**]

[Note: Given current world conditions it seemed a good idea to repost this meditation from nearly five years ago. Some details have changed. For the worse, of course.]

1. The Most Dangerous Game

LURKING BENEATH OUR INTERNAL ARGUMENT concerning the relentless demographic expansion of Islam into the West without assimilation, is the persistent background question, "Oh, my, whatever shall WE do with THEM?"

WE are, you see, like muddlers and fiddlers since Nero, worried about THEM. Our doltish conservative muddlers and fiddlers worry about what "THEY will do to US" if we aren't very, very careful and selective about which of THEM we capture or kill while WE seek to give THEM the "gifts" of freedom and democracy. Our brave new fiddlers on the Left fiddle about worrying if THEY have enough to eat, enough to wear, enough respect, enough, in short, of the love THEY deserve for not killing US today.

Both bumbling groups may differ in the focus of their fretting, but fret they do. For the problem, as they have defined it, has to do with what is commonly stated as 'a statistically small group of Muslims around the world' who need to be dealt with in some manner so that greater Islam can get on with the historic task of being "a religion of peace and understanding." The majority of both camps of muddlers and fiddlers agree on this one thing: It isn't Islam that's the problem, just a few heretics that have gotten out of hand in their zeal to obey the will of God, and, hey, who hasn't done that from time to time?

One solution, commonly referenced as "the Left/Liberal" position is essentially "leave them alone and they'll come home. They know its for their own good." The other solution, "the Right/Conservative" position, is to force assimilation, modernization, reformation and democratic mechanisms upon Islam "for its own good."

The two positions agree that "something must be done." They differ only in their specifications for "a New!, Improved! Islam" that can play well with other religions and nations in the post-modern world where "business as usual" is worshipped more than any other state of affairs. Both positions, whether they focus on "giving" the benefits of the modern world to the West's Islamic populations spread out in its cities and nations, or "bringing" the same benefits to the center of Islamic mass in the Middle East, share the belief that Islam can be "fixed."

Once you understand that the question posed by both enclaves of political "thinkers" boils down to "How can WE best fix THEM?" the subtext of the whole Big Argument starts to echo Richard II:
Let's talk of graves, of worms, and epitaphs;
Make dust our paper and with rainy eyes
Write sorrow on the bosom of the earth,
Let's choose executors and talk of wills....

In short, both sides think that in some way "Islam is broken." Is it?

Finding myself in neither political camp, it strikes me that Islam -- especially if you look at the fertility rates of Muslims, mosque construction and attendance, and the retention and conversion of the faithful around the globe -- is doing just fine. It strikes me that a religion that doesn't view itself as broken is unlikely to take kindly to the notion that it needs fixing. Still, that's the proposition advanced by both camps in our broken and shattered society. But it is a proposition that is advanced only sotto voce, in whispers, because to ask, right out loud, if Islam wants to be "fixed" or indeed can be "fixed," is to know the answer in the act of asking.

The answer is a resounding "No." And that brings the persistent background question, "Oh, my, whatever shall WE do with THEM?" into sharp relief in the foreground of Western minds. If history is any guide that is the single most dangerous question one group of humans can ask about another. It is a question no sane member of the West nor sane member of Islam would ever want thrust into the foreground, for it begins the process of transforming a group with whom a society lives in peace into the "Others" with whom a society cannot live in peace.

2. The Answer to the Other

ONCE A SOCIETY BECOMES CONVINCED that it is harboring something within it that is intractably "Other," and that the "Other" clearly and without quarter means to destroy it, that society looks for an answer that preserves it at the expense of the "Other."

The classic answer is, in historic terms and sooner rather than later, genocide.

History is littered with mounds of corpses piled up in the name of preserving or advancing the status quo of the dominant powers in a nation or civilization by the eradication of a group within the main body that, rightly or wrongly, threatens the majority in word, deed or demographic. The targeted group is almost always a group that cannot or will not assimilate into the larger society. To do would make it other than it is; would make it become that which it is incapable of becoming without ceasing to be.

One of the most difficult groups to assimilate into a society is one that draws its core identity from an inflexible religion. This is not to say that Islam in incapable of reformation, only that it has a solid track record of killing its Luthers as soon as it sees them. Still, past performance is no guarantee of future results so there is still, for now, a glimmer of hope. Especially in America where one of our core myths is that, like the Borg, we can assimilate anybody. Right? Right.

Much is made of the ability of the United States to assimilate all manner of national, racial, religious cultures and characteristics into itself and grow stronger. The eagle on the obverse of the Great Seal of the United States holds the banner "E Pluribus Unum" (Out of Many, One) unfurled in its beak. But the process of this assimilation in the past has never been an easy one as the Irish, the Italians, and the African Americans, among many others, have learned. Still, over time measured in generations, the process has always succeeded. It has succeeded to such an extent that the American left now makes a fetish of dis-assimilation, code-named "diversity." Indeed, the reveling in diversity is not so much a fetish as it is a hobby. Americans indulge it, albeit with continued carping, because we can afford it. We have that much money and that much spare time. For now.

And perhaps only for a little bit longer as the present debate and rising anger over unrestricted the illegal immigration without assimilation of Mexican people illustrates. Whether or not immigration is illegal the American model depends on assimilation to function. When an ethnic or cultural minority swells in numbers and shows no interest in assimilation, trouble begins and grows. We not only want our immigrants to work in America, we want them to become Americans first and immigrants second.

3. The Classic European Response: "YOU will never be US."

NOT SO IN EUROPE where xenophobia is a tradition and recurrent racism a hobby; where the expectation of immigrants was, from the start, that they would come in, do a bunch of scut work, and leave the rest of Europe to the Europeans. After all, the deeper thought goes, you can't really expect a Muslim from Morocco to every be a "a real Frenchman," "a real Italian," "a real German," or a "real Englishman."

The inner fixations on race and origin are much more firmly held in Europe than in the US. Regardless of the talk about assimilation heard widely in Brussells and the traditional capitols of Europe, the fact remains that for many decades everyone that was staunchly European was quite content to let "their" Muslims live apart. Now, with the advent of the rising birthrate and violence emerging from the various Muslim ghettos in all the major and most of the minor cities, Europe is starting to re-examine their "Muslim problem" in search of a solution.

And Europe, right up to the war now on simmer in the Balkans, has a distressing habit of coming up with solutions that are all too final. Groups within Europe that do not fit into Europe, that dwell in ghettos and keep to their own language separate from the larger society, are often expelled or excised. In a way, although Germany took the point, the Holocaust was Europe's way of getting it's Jews to leave. Where to? At the time it didn't matter, just so long as they were -- in one way or another -- gone. Gone to Israel. Gone down under the ground. Gone up in smoke. It didn't matter as long as the Jews got gone, did it? France and Poland were happy to play. Russia? It was right there all along and continued the work after the fall of Berlin right up until... well, it really isn't over, is it?

4. "Past Policy is No Guarantee of Future Policies"

TO DATE, the policies of the various European governments is to avoid Holocaust 2.0. After all genocide is not only unhealthy for children and other living things, but bad for business and a quasi-socialist economy that already has enough problems, thank you very much.

Socialist-powered policies which have penned up Europe's exploding Muslim population are being redoubled in funding, intensity and "sincerity", especially in light of the London bombing and French riots. Sensitivity towards the needs and issues of the Muslim youth of Europe becomes even more sensitive. Efforts to educate the non-Muslim populations of Europe towards an even more benign view of Islamic needs ( 'A religion of peace stained by the actions of a fanatic few.') are expanded. European leaders speak incessantly of tolerance and the time it takes for Islam to find its way and become, at last, truly European. And the various Imams and leaders of the INE (Islamic Nations of Europe) stage photo-ops shaking the hands of these understanding leaders the besieged EU. The Imams know the premise of Europe's policies to be false, but they would be poor leaders if they did not use it to buy all the time that it can.

The policies of the United States parallel these European attitudes. They counsel tolerance, patience and understanding at home while taking the same sheaf of ideals and adding the forced imposition of democracy abroad as the recipe for assuring Islam's ultimate assimilation into the West. Indeed, the schism here, as noted at the beginning of this essay, is over how much force can be used to impose our way on a religion and a culture in a part of the world that is not known for its love of democracy and individual freedom. Where Islam has always found its version of freedom in submission to its theocracy and the melding of the individual into the mass, the big bet the Bush administration is making is that man is everywhere the same and everywhere yearns for "Freedom, American Style."

5. What If?

ALL WELL AND GOOD if the current leaders and policy makers in Europe and America are right; if Islam can be, with enough time and money, assimilated into the Western way.

But what if they are wrong ?

What if, as has been repeatedly stated by Islamic spokesmen in their media and their capitols and their mosques, Islam has neither the interest in nor the capacity for assimilation?

What if Islam continues, as it has for many centuries, to be implacably hostile to the West?

What if, in a series of increasingly violent incidents coming quickly over a relatively short number of years, what we so tenderly term "Islamic radicals" continue to attack the cities and nations in which large numbers of Muslims live in relative isolation from the body politic, and it is known that those attacking come from and fade back into these unassimilated populations?

A year or so back, much was made of the concept of "the tipping point," a state in which the accrual of relatively small changes over time suddenly reaches a kind of critical mass and induces a rapid phase change in a previously stable system. This concept holds that while large events can and do change things, a lot of small events change things as well.

After the London transport bombings of 2005, several commentators were quick to point out that they did not, in terms of human life, rise to the level of the Madrid bombings to say nothing of 9/11. The implicit notion underneath this sort of commentary is that, "Well, it's not so bad." In the same vein, some commentators, regarding the French riots, assured listeners as the car burnings faded away, "Well, it could have been worse." Both palliatives ignore the nature of terror accrual and compassion fatigue within the human memory.

At this point, most aware humans -- Muslim and non-Muslim alike -- assume that whenever and wherever on the globe a terrorist incident takes place it is almost certainly going to have a Muslim signature on it. Even when it does not, the Muslims have been so effective in aligning terrorism with Islam that people assume terror's perpetrators are Muslim even if it is shown later that they were innocent of this or that particular incident.

6. How Fragile is the West Really?

PUNDITS LIKE TO SAY that Western civilization is fragile and that it is perched, like some gigantic teetering pyramid, on a single weak pivot formed of supply chains, consumer economies, global telecommunications, computer networks, and an international system of finance. To an extent, that's true. The continuing prosperity we enjoy depends on these things if our present, pleasant happy world is to go forward day after day, world without end, always.

As long as all these modern innovations and a myriad others are up and running undisturbed, the West can continue to support Happy Meals, $500,000 chicken shacks in California, an organic chicken in every Williams-Sonoma pot, and a new hybrid Prius in every garage. Seen from this perspective, our prosperity is indeed delicate.

We've got a DOW over 12,000 and rising. We've got a second dot.com bubble that, of course, isn't a "real bubble." And it is all utterly ephemeral.

The economic hit that would follow a second 9/11 on American soil would quickly put paid to all that. The Happy World would be put on hold for a number of years and we'd have the "Hard Times" our parents and grandparents have told us about. But we would survive and, in only a little bit, thrive again in "the Day After Tomorrow."

For, as much as we should do everything possible to avoid a second 9/11, the blunt fact is that the United States, Europe and the entire edifice of Western Civilization, can ride out a second 9/11. It can ride out 100 9/11s and still, in an inch of time, return and thrive.

This society can even ride out the killing by weapons of mass destruction of any kind of a number of cities. America, Europe, and Western Civilization can survive anything the radical Islamists can throw at us.

The society that will have much more difficulty surviving with its cherished "values" intact will be what happens to the global society of Islam should it continue to attack the West with increasing ferocity.

7. The Real Reason to Fear a Second 9/11

IT IS CLEAR that what will happen to Islam across the world should terrorist attacks continue and increase will be the arrival at the tipping point where the West decides, in a way that no internal political opposition can curtail, to expel Islam and Muslims from the infected nations and the world itself by any means necessary.

A common catch phrase of Marxism is that "The capitalist will sell you the rope to hang him." I dread the coming catch phrase, "The Muslim will supply the West with the excuse to eradicate Islam," but that is clearly lurking in one of our possible futures; a future that although unthinkable is not inconceivable.

The first 9/11 brought out the Marines, the Army, the heavy armor, the B-52s and the Stealth fighters with their "smart bombs." With these tools and systems we are trying to wage a new, highly precise war in which the greatest care has been taken to minimize the killing of innocent civilians. Not always successful, but compared to the Blitz, the firebombing of Hamburg, and the obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, this caring and careful post-modern way of warfare that is about as kind as we can make it.

The most terrible aspect of the trend of war in the 20th century was to kill as much of the civilian population of the enemy as possible. The methods were skillfully refined over decades until World War II accounted for around 50 million dead. The current approach to war in Afghanistan and Iraq is one which can reasonably be called a "patty-cake war;" one that has been successful, if in nothing else, in minimizing civilian suffering.

I would submit that this approach to war against Islam is clearly one driven by the current policies of the West that aims to, essentially, talk Islam out of its current obsessions and madness. It is the very small stick wielded alongside our softly spoken words of "democracy," "freedom," and "prosperity." In a way, the West's manner of war with Islam at present is essentially a kind of tough love: "Please learn to control your acting out. Please learn play well with others, or we're going to have to give you a time out."

Put somewhat baldly, the argument within the West on what to do with Islam is now between those who believe it should not be spanked at all but have its self-esteem boosted, and those who think that a small spanking now followed by the hot fudge sundae of freedom will result in acceptable behavior.

Either could be right, but if both are wrong the next level of discipline is typically expulsion. And by "expulsion" I do not mean that Islam will simply be sent to its room.

A second series of attacks on America at the level of 9/11 or greater will not bring out more B-52s. They are already out. A second series will bring out the one arm of America's war machine that has rarely been asked about, written about, or even mentioned in passing since September, 2001; the ballistic missile submarines.

8. The Re-Activation of MAD

WE DON'T LIKE to ask or think about the current possible missions and targets of our ballistic missile submarines. Where are they? Few know. What can they do? Almost nobody remembers.

There has not been a publicly acknowledged live demonstration of a nuclear explosion in the atmosphere where it can be seen and reported since the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963. Our common memory of them usually revolves around some grainy black and white film from the Nevada test sight, disturbing vintage photographs from Ground Zero and its aftermath at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or some fading Technicolor footage from Bikini Atoll. Every year fewer and fewer people are alive who have actually seen the horrendous scale of destruction these weapons create. A common description is "The sun brought, for a few moments, to the surface of the Earth," but that doesn't quite cover it.

What does cover it is that the use of these weapons by the United States or its allies is the current Western way of remote genocide. To use them, even under the most extreme provocation, is the greatest sin against humanity that can be conceived. But the cold fact is that should America or the West feel its way of life and the lives of its citizens are sufficiently threatened by Islam these weapons will, in the end, be used against the Muslim centers of mass; cities in the middle-east or elsewhere where Muslims are the majority of the population. This is not some "Strangelovian" fantasy, but a very real option on the table of realpolitik. If you think our ballistic missile submarines don't carry the targeting information for these cities, think again.

It is well to remember that nuclear weapons were first built up under the Cold War policy of MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction). Now that the Soviet Union is gone and China has not yet risen to the status of a bellicose enemy (it may well not go this way), the element of "mutuality" has faded from this acronym, but the capacity for assured destruction persists. And this does not even begin to factor in the 125+ nuclear weapons thought to be held by Israel.

9. The "Unthinkable" Can and Is Being Thought

ANYTHING YOU THINK CAN'T HAPPEN can happen. Especially those things you think cannot possibly happen. If we learn anything from history, we learn that there is no level of killing that is unthinkable.

Under the right circumstances, human beings are capable of anything. We hold within ourselves an eternal capacity for evil that has no bottom. Should Europe feel the threat of Islam within its borders too keenly it is not difficult to envision it returning to the up close and personal techniques of genocide it perfected in the last century. Europe is very, very good at police states, purges, death camps, massacres and Gulags. Although it may look to be weak and appeasing, Europe's "Final Solution Tool Kit" is never stored very far away; usually in the basement.

Should the United States come to feel threatened in a similar way, its preferred technique (also perfected in the last century) is remote genocide. To employ it would plunge this nation into a decades-long tunnel of political and spiritual agony, and change our destiny and character forever. But I have no doubt that, if we feel for any reason threatened enough, we will indeed come to the day when the unthinkable becomes a series of orders yielding a set of trajectories that end millions of lives in less than an instant, with North Korea a brief footnote.

This is why I still deeply believe that the current effort in Iraq and the Middle East to counter and expunge Islamic terrorism and turn Islam from the road it is on towards one of reformation and assimilation is the best path that can be taken at this time. Indeed, for all the ineptitude of the current administration, for all the expense in treasure and lives, this shoot-the-moon, Hail Mary of a foreign policy in Iraq is not just a policy to make America safer at home. It is the only thing that stands between Islam and its own destruction.

Sometime shortly after 9/11 in an online forum I frequented then, an exasperated idealist proclaimed that "After all, you can't kill a billion Muslims." Like so many others he spoke from somewhere outside History. History, especially the world's most recent history, shows us all how wrong that statement is. The hard truth is rather that, "Yes, if you really want to, you can."

And that is the most terrible and terrorizing thought of the 21st century.


**On the COA image:
"We tried COA 1 for decades, backing strongmen to keep their populations in line, and send in the FBI to go through the rubble to build a case. That didn't work out so well. I see the current administration reverting to this.
"I, and most of your readers, value Western Civ too much to accept COA 2. However, I am not confident of my fellow Westerners' fortitude.
"GWB attempted COA 3 following 9-11: change the geostrategic landscape. However, given the incompatibility of true Islam and Western Civ, I am not optimistic. Whenever someone dismisses the efforts to reform the Middle East, I ask them for an alternative. They never have a good answer.
"COA 4 is unpalatable, and I doubt most Americans - citizens & ruling elite - have the stomach for it. We no longer have ruthless bastards, such as Charles Martel, Jan Sobiesky, FDR, or Churchill who will do whatever is necessary to save Western Civilization...." -- Butch B.
Posted by Vanderleun at June 7, 2010 1:05 AM | TrackBack
Bookmark and Share

Comments:

HOME

"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.

Your concern makes sense. Ralph Peters has made the same point about Muslims in Europe.

But as you point out, we worry about THEM. We need to worry about US. Recent changes of our therapeutic, hedonistic, sterile culture make us much more vulnerable and less deserving. He whom the gods would destroy they first make mad, and all that.

If we recovered our core and our backbone, our ability to prevent and deal with danger would grow.

Posted by: Grumpy Old Man at December 16, 2006 1:11 PM

Terrifying yet irrefutable.

You are correct that our problems stem from an incomplete mobilization of our wills, in deference to sensibilities not shared by those who would destroy us. But there is yet time for another massive attack on the United States. It wouldn't necessarily have to level an entire city. One more on the scale of Black Tuesday would probably do the trick.

The temporal cost would be borne by the world's billion-plus Muslims. The spiritual cost would be borne by us. But we would have time to repent.

Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at December 16, 2006 1:36 PM

We are in the Long War, Gerard.

It will indeed get as bad as any of us imagined... and then, just when we think we are as horrified as we can possibly be, it will get much, much worse.

Posted by: TmjUtah at December 16, 2006 3:11 PM

"To use [nuclear weapons], even under the most extreme provocation, is the greatest sin against humanity that can be conceived."
With respect, I disagree. It would be a greater sin to allow Islam to become the "boot stamping on a human face -- forever". Would that we continue to have more than the two choices above.

Posted by: Morenuancedthanyou at December 16, 2006 4:42 PM

Your assumption is that you are aware of where the Islamic world is and what drives it.

The world's largest Islamic State is Indonesia, true 86% of the population is Islamic; but 70% of the area belongs to Non-Muslims now under the control of the TNI military Generals and their business partners. The TNI, Indonesian military, supports and funds al Qaeda, Laskar Jihad, JI, and a host of similar militia; partially because the TNI has a jihad rhetoric but mostly because the TNI began as Sukarno's volunteer Axis militia during the Pacific war against the United States and what Sukarno called the "imperial western powers of the Pacific". That is also why the TNI 'escorted' the 'spontaneous' public rallies in support of Osama bin Laden during Sept/Oct 2001 in Jakarta.

You should ASK your fellow Americans WHY news reports of these events were not aired in the US; why did the US government silently allow both the al Qaeda and Laskar Jihad traning camps in Indonesia to continue operations during 2002 when your soldiers were dying in Afghanistan & Iraq at the hands of these same militia men?

Why has George Bush campaigned since Jan/2001 for the bans against selling arms to the TNI to be lifted & replaced by a US funding of the TNI?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this expansion of Jakarta's form of Islam.

Posted by: Andrew Johnson at December 16, 2006 6:47 PM

Islam essentially declared war against the entire world right from the very beginning. Muslims divide humanity into two categories: the Dar-al-Islam (House of Islam) and the Dar-al-Harb (House of War).

Thus, Islam teaches that there will be peace on Earth only when the entire world submits to Islam. Since there are (still) many of us in the West who will never accept that, a violent confrontation is inevitable.

If I walk up to a stranger and kill him without provocation, I am guilty of murder and will face prosecution for a criminal act. But if I kill someone who is trying to kill me, that is self-defense and, in any sane and civilized society, I will not face prosecution. (True, there are some places in the United States, and in England, where the mere posession of the means of self-defense is itself a criminal act. But I digress.)

If I recall correctly, the term "genocide" was coined after the Holocaust to describe the wanton, deliberate murder of an entire race or ethnic group. But if the worst-case scenario comes to pass, and we in the West are forced to exterminate Muslims in self-defense, then what do we call that?

I'm not just playing at semantics here. Killing in self-defense is not the same as murder. So if worse comes to worst, then "genocide" will not be the correct term. We'll have to come up with a new word.

I hope it never comes to that, but I am not at all optimistic.

Posted by: rickl at December 17, 2006 9:35 AM

There is a middle ground although very few seem to entertain it. It's as though the idea of deporting from the west as many Muslims, peaceful or not, to Islamic countries and then using our military might to contain them there is more egregious than killing them.

Don't misunderstand me, if bombing is our last and only resort in order to maintain western society, I say bomb away. But why is separation not being discussed?

Posted by: Cindi at December 17, 2006 11:32 AM

I have known two Muslims and they were decent, tolerant, honest men. There are moderate Muslim voices calling for reform in Islam. Ali Eteraz at, http://eteraz.org/ is one. There are others, but their voices are muted and the MSM seem to give them no play at all. Lip service is paid to Islam as the "Religion of Peace" by our political leaders, most notably, President G. W. Bush.

What I don't understand is why our leaders - political, military, diplomatic, and religious are not saying to the Muslim world as a whole, "Why are you attacking us? Why are you forcing us to defend ourselves? We don't want war with you. We want peace and commerce and tolerance. But you keep attacking us and threatening us, and denouncing us........to what end? Let us sit down and resolve our differences peacefully through negotiation. But.......let it be understood that we will not:
1. Abandon Israel as an ally.
2. Convert to Islam.
3. Turn a blind eye to despotism, theocracy, and discrimination against women.
4. Ask you to give up Islam. We ask only that you reform it to become a true religion of peace and tolerance and not a fascistic political system.
If those terms are unacceptable and you keep attacking us we will have no choice but to declare TOTAL WAR on the Muslim world. We don't want to do this, but you are forcing our hand. Please, don't make us do this!"

IMO we need to get this out in the open. We need to find out if there are enough true moderates in Islam who will reject both the Islamists and violence against the West. We also need to make it clear that we will defend ourselves in such a manner as to put and end to their attacks once and for all by whatever level of force necessary.

Posted by: Jimmy J. at December 17, 2006 11:44 AM

Your thinking is spot on. A number of European countries very clearly already commenting on / looking at removing / limiting / controlling their 'unassimilated Muslim population'.


Except for Tony Blair, most of these comments come from what the liberal left describes as the far right.


As far as using our 'adult' weaponds, just ask yourself what the US response might have been if United 93 had taken out either the White House on the US Congress building. Except for the bravery of a few US civilians on that flight you might have already seen sand turned into glass.


I do not believe most of the Islamic world supports terrorism, but so far most condemnation of the terrorist is very very faint.


I do not believe the non-terrorist Muslim world understands the very real consequences of another 9/11 event or series of events in the US or elsewhere would bring into their sphere. If they did, they would be seriously hunting down the terrorist and killing them as fast as they could.


Your essay should be published in every Islamic newspaper in the world. While it would be condemmed and dismissed publicly, the private conversations it would generate might save a few hundred million Muslims from a certain and early death.


Cheers (sorta)!


RileyD, nwJ

RileyDriver5x5.com


Posted by: RileyD, nwJ at December 17, 2006 1:55 PM

"It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead."

And so, it will be necessary to turn vast areas of the Earth to a smoking carpet of skulls, just to ensure the survival of those not infected by the madness of Islam. Quite a testament to the power of An Idea over the minds and souls of humans.

Posted by: Stoney at December 17, 2006 1:57 PM

I have had conversations similar to this topic with co-workers and the sentence always comes from one of them without fail..."You can't kill everyone". I have to remind them..."Sure you can, if necessary". Being democrats, they just don't get it.

Posted by: gabrielpicasso at December 17, 2006 3:11 PM

Hell, I said essentially this a year ago, and many others have said it before and since.

But if you think nukes are bad, consider this; a programmable replicating nanoswarm programmed to dismantle the host organism whenever it says the words of the Islamic affirmation in Arabic. Now consider the other side of that...

We have twenty years at best before this is possible. The birds need to fly. Now.

Posted by: Fletcher Christian at December 17, 2006 3:17 PM

Castle Bravo...

Posted by: M. Murcek at December 17, 2006 4:55 PM

I have had similar thoughts for quite a while--months, if not years--but it would take a once-in-a-lifetime flash of inspiration for me to express those thoughts as well as you have, Gerald.

I wrote the following on my own blog on 7 December:

"It is possible that in the future al-Qaeda or another terrorist group will obtain one or more nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and successfully deploy them against one or more American cities. If that should occur, I believe the American public will demand that their government bomb somebody back into the Stone Age, and I don't think they'll be too fastidious about determining exactly who the perpetrators are--the attitude is likely to be more like, "Kill them all and let God sort them out.""

That is why I, like you, believe that we must do all we can to bring Islam around. The issue isn't "nation building," it's "culture building," one nation at a time. As you said, our policy in Iraq and the Middle East "...is the only thing that stands between Islam and its own destruction."

Posted by: ExRat at December 17, 2006 5:31 PM

Excellent, if chilling, essay.

I've linked to you, and excerpted extensively from you, here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2006/12/re-army-size-and-toying-with-genocide.html

Posted by: Consul-At-Arms at December 17, 2006 6:51 PM

Peter Heather's "Fall of the Roman Empire" (2006) points out that the Roman Empire was NOT the weakling portrayed by Gibbon, etc. Long interaction between Tribal Europe/Steppe people and the Empire made the former richer, and therefore able to form larger, stronger organizations (war bands became armies). The huge moment of truth, however, occurred when the Huns successfully beseiged and conquered a couple of important Roman fortified cities (eg Naissus). Before this, it was 'known' that the barbarians did not have the ability to do this. The Huns had learned this art over some 2 generations of being the junior allies of the Roman army.

Now, we don't have fortresses protecting our civilization. But we do have a legal system, and it is here that the modern Hun has found a way to successfully overcome us. Already, in England, inheritance laws take into account polygamy. The flying imams of Minneapolis were almost surely setting up US Airways for a big settlement, and more important, giving good reason for the incoming Democrat House to back a law against profiling. The chador is not a little thing, either, and a woman's 'right' to 'function' in our society is being litigated throughout the western world.

I recommend Mr. Heather's book. It is a good read.

Posted by: heather at December 17, 2006 7:26 PM

I agree that the technology, knowledge, and economic bases of Europe, America, Russia, China, India, Japan,& Asian tigers are such that Islam doesn't have a chance if all determine that Islam is incompatible with the modern world and a lethal threat to it. It is far easier to neutralize the ACLU, the Left, the PC people than they realize if Islamic terror continues to push us to the tipping point.

That leaves 3 options if assimilation and reform of Islam's violent tenents fails to happen:

1. Forced separation and return of Muslims back to a geographically defined Ummah where they are still free to trade and travel with the modern world but not interact with immigration, spread of Islam religion, or ability to project military force.
2. Kill enough Muslims that the rest "get the new religion".
3. Invade and conquer all Muslim lands. Then inflict a total shock and defeat on Muslims showing them that their religion has failed. Destroy every Mosque except those preserved for historical value...except everything in Mecca and Medina must be leveled. Muslims believe nothing happens without Allah's will. Showing them that nothing protects them from total defeat and humiliation by infidels might be enough to reform them.

That said, the worrying truth is that in the last quarter century, Muslims have become more radicalized, more hateful and rejectionist of the modern world - not less. And more supportive of the idea of warriors (that the bulk of Muslims openly idealize) killing infidels.

***************************

On Jimmy J's Israel comment.

Precisely what do we "owe" Israel as opposed to any other nation, and why?
Why must Israel be central to all our thinking and relations with Muslims?
Why is Israel commonly described as "our ally"? When it has spied on us, sells our secrets, never faught with us in any war, and is a diplomatic, economic drain on America?

We can say as a semi-Western outpost (that bars Christian immigration), it is of value to preserve as a democracy and from Jews tenuous claims to be there, along with the Palestinian natives that settled and lived on the land in the 1700 years since most Jews left.
We can say "we" (meaning the Great Powers) will guarantee Borders once a settlement is reached or imposed on the Jews and Palestinians. But any minor extensions past 1967 boundaries will have to require Jews cough up the money to repay the reparations owed Christian and Muslims for land and property the Jews stole - less Jewish losses in other Muslim countries that threw out the Jews after the Zionist thefts. The Jews can afford to pay. Israel is wealthy, and the Jewish Diaspora that supports Israel contains the world's wealthiest individuals.

Posted by: Cedarford at December 17, 2006 9:30 PM

Finally, saying what must be said but no one will say except Gerard - man as he ought to be.

Tip of the ole hat Gerard. You thrill me.

Posted by: Pamela at December 17, 2006 11:23 PM

The problem with your argument is the same as the problem with the VDH or Steyn or Bat Ye'or argument. Your population growth models are deeply flawed and you percieve Islam as fixed and static.
Islam is continually evolving, in reaction to the environmental change of tribological interaction with western culture. All religions evolve.

And I am deeply skeptical of eurabia. Where is the hard data? Simple reproduction rates do not describe sub-population growth curves. Show first the hard data involved in your population demographics that postulate eurabia. I challenge you--you cannot do it. You pundits persist in crudely modelling a non-linear world with linear models.

Posted by: matoko-chan at December 18, 2006 1:31 AM

"We" don't need to kill them all and let God sort them out. "They" will (and are) doing that quite nicely without our help. What "we" need to do at this point is step back and ensure that their coming internecine war is as long and bloody and exhausting as possible.

Two cops I knew approached a bar where a knock-down-drag-out bar fight was roaring. The young cop loaded up his baton and started to charge in, but the older policeman stopped him. Asked why they weren't leaping into the fray, the older cop replied, "We're going to let them fight it out. Then we'll go in and arrest the winners."

Good idea.

SS

Posted by: sanssoucy at December 18, 2006 5:45 AM

Terrific piece as usual! Course what if the enemy is not as dumb as we hope? What if the enemy knows full well that we will rise up and destroy him should he kill millions? When you are at war one question should constantly be asked at each point in the war. What will it take to win, now.

Perhaps our enemy has decided that now is the time for patience...now is the time to simply multiply. Overwhelm us through their higher birthrates...swallow us quietly instead of with a great fuss.

I have linked to your article
What it takes to win a war…and why is this a mystery?

Posted by: Pierre Legrand at December 18, 2006 8:48 AM

Gerard:

Well said. But, one point, having already been stated in response, is that self-protection is not the same as genocide, even if it amounts to large numbers of folks being killed. Hitler's Germany practiced genocide. The U.S. has no such intentions. Thoroughly vanquishing an enemy who has actively sought your own distruction, is wisdom and is not necessarily pre-meditaded murder (genocide). As you rightly observed, Islam's whole purpose is to convert. But, if no conversion, then to destroy. Thus, it can never assimilate. It can not be reformed since that would polute its own purpose (of existance) and rewards to the faithful.

However, one or two very important (and incorrect) assumptions were made: that every Muslim, etc., WANTS to be Muslim. I know many who wish to be free of it. In practical reality, Islam is accepted by threat of violence, & largely not accepted lovenly or willingly by an individual. If born into it (or, otherwise), death is always the penalty, if one converts from it. It has always been that way and always will be. It is nothing less than a religion of the sword (& of a dull butter knife for the less than fortunate infidel).

My middle eastern aquaintenances and friends would never return to that oppression unless Islam was dead in their own countries. I am not talking of some type of radical Islam here either. But, Islam's basic tenate is the conversion of all infidels. One way or the other. I have only seen this part of Islamic theology (convert or die) ignored within the communities of Islam within America. That, in an attempt to practice Islam with American ideals, something that is foreign to all other Islamic communities around the world. For, Islam is neither an honorable religion nor a peaceful one.

Bush's mistake is not trying to bring freedom to the Islamic world, (thus, saving us of the West) but by trying to "keep" Islamists as Islamists within a "tolerant" "democracy". The average Muslim wants freedom, but, trying to reform Islam by democracy is stupid and will never work. No, Islamists must be converted, in heart. Only then will the world be free of the Sword of Islam or the possible, subsequent, mass destruction of its own, captive observers.

Posted by: Celtic Sword at December 18, 2006 10:11 AM

Traditional Islamic faith is dying, as literacy rises, faith (and birthrates) decline. Therefore there is no way that the modern world and Traditional Islam can coexist. Radical Islam is the response, a desperate attempt to establish a world in which Islam can survive. The have one generation, no more, in which to succeed.

But the enemy is not a people as such, but merely a religion, and one that is particularly brittle. Jews and Christians both can easily accept a defeat without losing their faith, but defeat contradicts Muslim theology. Defeat them militarily, really defeat them (which will be bloody enough), and their faith will collapse.

Posted by: LarryD at December 18, 2006 10:50 AM

Well, now. This is germane. Just found this rap/metal video over at LGF: "Open Season" by Stuck Mojo.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23711_Stuck_Mojo-_Open_Season&only

And here are the lyrics:

http://www.stuckmojomedia.com/sbk-lyrics.html#allah

I'm not a rap or metal fan, but hell. Hell yeah!

Posted by: rickl at December 18, 2006 6:44 PM

Cedarford,
I accept that there are many like you who do not like Israel and would probably prefer to see them swallowed up by their enemies. Would you trade Israel for peace with the Muslim world?

If you don't know why the U.S supports Israel then nothing I can say will change your mind.

You have put forth a rough framework for a settlement of the Israel - Palestinian problem. It might work and I would applaud if it did. However, much smarter people than you or I have worked on this for the last 40 years and little progress has been made.

Posted by: Jimmy J. at December 18, 2006 9:34 PM

I argued that instead of our current policy of appeasement we need to establish a deterrent. A successful deterrent means we don’t have to strike in retaliation because our ability to do the ultimate is believed by the enemy. The problem is that at present it isn’t so believed. The principle of distinguishing between foes that might be friends some day and foes that will forever remain a threat is as old as Western civilization.

Posted by: Jason Pappas at December 19, 2006 3:52 AM

Rebuilding the West after 100 9/11s strikes me as a waste of resources that could be used to build new stuff instead of replacing old stuff, if we could avoid those events.

Posted by: Rick C at December 19, 2006 4:59 AM

The West's answer to Muslim expansionism (as distinct from payback for 9/11 and the debacle in Iraq) has been to try to defeat Muslim "extemists" by winning over the "moderate" Muslim world, through reassurance, expressions of respect, financial aid, schemes for better integration, etc. That continues to be the stock response of the Liberal Eastablishment. By any reasonable criterion, there is no evidence that is has worked or is going to work.

The other main school of thought is that we're at war with Islam and have to act accordingly — even, as you've indicated, being prepared to take out a few Muslim cities to show who's in charge.

I'm at a loss to understand why there is still so little discussion about separating Islam from the west (quarantining it, so to speak). Lawrence Auster and others have made a good case for it. Among other things, excluding Muslims would make it far less likely that a "tripwire" event (9/11, part 2) will force us to let slip the dogs of nuclear war; and it recognizes that if there is any reform or democratizing in the Muslim world, it will have to come from within, and that's more probable if Islam can't just export its overpopulation and insanity to Europe and America. If necessary, we can stand by and watch Muslim factions rip each other apart until they have no strength left to take over the non-Muslim world.

Separationism wouldn't be easy to bring off, but it's not impossible like the liberal feel-good answer and not as ghastly as all-out war.

Posted by: Rick Darby at December 19, 2006 9:57 AM

The NEUTRON BOMB!

That's what we need, a whole bunch of Neutron bombs.

See, it works like this: we irradiate THEM into oblivion, and then WE take over their territories, and turn them into new Californias.

Question is, who's "WE?"

Posted by: Roderick Reilly at December 19, 2006 1:29 PM

Just as those that would corrupt Christianity to their political ends, Islamic extremists are corrupting Islam. The difference, is that when Christianity is corrupted, there are those who will pick up a sword and fight to stop it. It seems to me that the moderate muslim is under attack, but expects the United States to pick up their sword and fight for them. I believe those who say that Islam is a peaceful religion are correct, but unfortunately, the majority group of peaceful Islamic people refuse to fight the minority who are corrupting their faith, and will ultimately bring down the entire faith. The whole problem of US and THEM would be eased greatly if the muslim majority would stand with US instead of peacably standing by and gaining their own martyrdom at the hands of the nearest IED.

Posted by: Neo Alred at December 19, 2006 2:32 PM

Rick Darby:

I agree with you. Separation is the best solution. Trouble is, it would take a Constitutional amendment declaring that Islam is no longer protected by the First Amendment, and probably another one allowing American citizens who are Muslim to be rounded up and deported. I don't see any possibility of that happening as things currently stand.

It would require another 9/11 or worse. And then it would probably be too late for that remedy.

Posted by: rickl at December 19, 2006 6:06 PM

Reform, in the context of Christianity, means going back to the teaching of Jesus. The Great Commission in the New Testament is "Go forth and preach to all nations." Mohammed's commission is go forth and conquer.

Radical Islam is a reform movement within Islam, it views the secular Arabian governments as hopelessly corrupt and seeks to replace them with a strictly Islamic government, the "new Caliphate" of bin Laden. And, of course, expand the unmah to encompass the rest of the world.

Islam has always accepted conversion by force as valid. And apostasy is punished by death. Islam should be viewed as a totalitarian system, the radicals are in charge because they're willing and able to use violence to keep everyone else in line. Only after they are killed, or otherwise defanged, will their hold be broken. There will be no moderate "uprising" to change Islam's direction, anymore than there was one to change the Soviet Union's direction.

However, while we need to be concerned about Wahhabists preaching sedition here, an important difference between our Muslim immigrants and Europe's needs to be understood. Europe imported low-wage labor, isn't allowing their children any opportunity to advance, and never really tried to assimilate them in the first place. Assimilation is not Europe's way, identity is too tied up in ethnicity to allow it. Muslim immigrants to the USA, on the other hand, are typically highly educated, have household incomes above average, and are integrated into our economy and society. So they're harder to radicalize, not impossible, but harder. What we need are anti-sedition laws with teeth, but the "Progressives" would never stand for that, too many of them would prosecutable (and justly so).

Posted by: Larry at December 20, 2006 12:29 PM

Neo Alred siad: "I believe those who say that Islam is a peaceful religion are correct..." You - and they - are terribly, fundamentally wrong.

There are a few peaceful verses in the Koran, which were written by Mohammed when he was a social outcast desperately trying to gain acceptance in the upper social stratas of Mecca. He and his unemployed, ruffian followers were ejected from Mecca by the city elders (majority population of Mecca was then Jewish) when they would not refrain from radical proselytizing and raiding the surrounding countryside to support their lifestyle. Mohammed was nothing more than a mobster or gangleader in Mecca, and the Meccans would not tolerate the violence he wreaked on their people. Mohammed and his band of thieves and thugs slunk off to Medina, where he rapidly consolidated a base of power and added to his converts at the point of a sword.

Once Mohammed controlled Medina, he vengefully threatened Mecca to appease his earlier humiliation at their hands. The elders, fearful of the violence and destruction for which he was now well-known, signed a hudna - or 10 year peace with Mohammed. During that time, he reinforced and rearmed his troops, fortified Medina, and then betrayed the hudna by viciously attacking Mecca when they were least expecting it. He razed Mecca and slaughtered the citizens unless they converted. Most didn't, so it was a massacre.

It was then, drunk on the success of his bloodiest campaigns, that he wrote the rest of the Koran. These later bloodthirsy, convert-or-die verses are the true root of Islam. In fact, as the Koran and Sira and Hadith make very clear, interpretation of the Koran is guided by the Doctrine of Abrogation. That means that the chronologically earlier verses of the Koran are abrogated - voided - by the verses written later. The verses written by Mohammed in Medina are commonly accepted by clerics and scholars as Islam in its full strength and glory. The True Islam.

You labor under such a deception, Neo Alred, because the West has been carefully fed a handful of "peaceful, let's-all-get-along" verses as being representative of the tenets of Islam. Nothing could be further from the truth. That tactic - lying to gullible and tolerant Westerners - is taquiyya. You have been duped.

Read the Koran, Sira, and Hadith for yourself - it's the only way to understand. Your eyes won't deceive you.

*A cautionary note: The Koran is not ordered chronologically, it is compiled by size. The chapters and verses are ordered by the length of their prose - which is why it appears to be disordered and illogical. That is why understanding the Doctrine of Abrogation is so important.

I think this essay by Vanderluen is nothing short of brilliant, but unfortunately I disagree with his conclusion - that Islam must be reformed and assimilated. That cannot and will not ever happen. By definition, Islam cannot allow such. It would no longer be Islam, but something else entirely. And there are no half-measures within Islam.

There is nothing moderate about Islam. Those "westernized" Muslims today are actually living a very watered-down, nominal version of thier faith - which is why moderate Muslims are considered apostate by True Muslims. (Which also explains why, when Muslims become more devout, they become more radical.) In fact, many modern Muslims today do not understand or ever know about the Doctrine of Abrogation - it is not disucussed. Surely you are aware that criticism and reform of Islam is not allowed within the religion itself, and is punishable by death.

Posted by: Redhead Infidel at December 21, 2006 5:32 AM

I do not believe most of the Islamic world supports terrorism, but so far most condemnation of the terrorist is very very faint.

No, not in the kill, chop heads way perhaps, but they do support active opposition to anyone that is not a believer of Islam. Such as beatings, imprisionment, unfair taxing and other less drastic measures.

3. Invade and conquer all Muslim lands. Then inflict a total shock and defeat on Muslims showing them that their religion has failed. Destroy every Mosque except those preserved for historical value...except everything in Mecca and Medina must be leveled. Muslims believe nothing happens without Allah's will. Showing them that nothing protects them from total defeat and humiliation by infidels might be enough to reform them.

If we decide not to nuke the various countries, because of whatever reasons, it may come to this. But, we would have to have a Military at least five times as large as the one we have now. I don't see Congress supporting a Military budget of 25% of GMP, ever.

We" don't need to kill them all and let God sort them out. "They" will (and are) doing that quite nicely without our help. What "we" need to do at this point is step back and ensure that their coming internecine war is as long and bloody and exhausting as possible.

This has long been one of the major plans advanced by our SOF. We support and supply the weakest, let them kill the strongest, then we go in and mop up whoever is left. But you know, that's not only not PC, it is unfair, which the American population would not support.

Perhaps our enemy has decided that now is the time for patience...now is the time to simply multiply. Overwhelm us through their higher birthrates...swallow us quietly instead of with a great fuss.

The War hand of Islam will continue with the sword, bomb and such, while the other hand multiplies, infests and underminds. This in fact is why Islam is so dangerous. With the use of our own laws and medias they are activily winning.

Bush's mistake is not trying to bring freedom to the Islamic world, (thus, saving us of the West) but by trying to "keep" Islamists as Islamists within a "tolerant" "democracy".

True, and with any democracy that has its government based on Islam, can not be a democracy but can decieve their people into thinking it is for awhile.

Muslim immigrants to the USA, on the other hand, are typically highly educated, have household incomes above average, and are integrated into our economy and society.

This is so untrue that I can't even believe this was typed. The Muslim communities all over America are not intergrated, in any way, except in some of the workplaces. Other than that, they form their own little worlds within the USA.
If you are talking about the few "Free Muslims" or "Moderate Muslims", they are not really Muslims and are treated as such by the rest of the Muslims in the USA.

Islam is the Muslims worse enemy. It will force us to kill the Muslims. They know this, yet they will not abandon Islam nor try to change it.

I will not see this war end. My grandchildren may not either. Unless some drastic measures are started in the next couple of years.

Yes, I would like to see the Muslims and non-Muslims in the ME destroy one another. The Persians hate Arabs, and the various sects within Islam will never come to peace with each other, but they may stop warring with each other long enought to fight the unbelievers. We need to make sure that the opposite happens. We need to assist them in killing each other.

So we don't have to, or at least we don't have to in the millions.

The Sand in the ME has already soaked up enought American blood, but it is thirsty for more.

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA

Posted by: Papa Ray at December 21, 2006 10:52 AM

In my U.S. administration fantasy-land, the White House would (in the very near future) announce a surprise press conference. What I would like to hear goes something like this:

"Good evening.

No American would ever wish to be in the position that those of us in our country's leadership are now. Nevertheless, we have a duty to stand tall and strong to meet the challenges and responsibilies that come with the duties of our stations. Events of the past two decades have brought us as a country, once again, to a crossroads of difficult and unpleasant decisions. We must now choose our way forward.

Those groups of individuals that have repeatedly struck at fellow Americans both abroad and here at home -- and those puppetmasters that have enabled and supported these groups -- have heard our reasonable terms of coexistence over the past quarter-century ...and have ignored them. So now I speak directly to the peoples living under the thumb of these tyrants, dictators and despots: the United States of America will no longer entertain rumors about the "Religion of Peace". If Islam at its heart is truly a religion of peace, then you have a moral duty to yourself, your children, and most of all to God, to act against those who would pervert Islam's proclaimed message -- and drag you and your brethren into the abyss of total war with them.

Please do not misunderstand: Americans do not desire war with Islam. I can not stress this point enough. Americans do not desire war with any religion. Americans do not desire any war, period. We desire the free exchange of ideas, free trade, and mutual respect and deference for each person's ideals and beliefs. But do not mistake this core nature of benevolence for weakness: America is a land soaked in the blood of patriots who fought for an idea that many never lived to see: an idea of a country in which each man is his own direction, free from the despotic boot of tyrants who would have him be their slave.

Therefore, in six days the United States will conduct a test of a nuclear device in an as yet to be disclosed location in the Pacific Ocean. Many governments will condemn my decision to authorize this event, and will no doubt characterize it as threatening. I would not argue with that characterization, as that is precisely my intent. The primary purpose of this test event is to demonstrate the extreme resolve with which America is beginning a new chapter in the civilized world's struggle against Islamism. It is to serve as a bold and unapologetic statement of a shift in our strategic policy: any act of terrorism against American civilians anywhere in the world will result in an immediate and overwhelming retaliatory strike against those groups or nation-states with known and documented support ties to any terrorist groups anywhere -- regardless as to whether or not those groups or nation-states were directly involved with the catalyzing act of terrorism. This is a critical shift in U.S. foreign policy, and not one that we as a country take lightly. It is important to note that any such strike would not necessarily be nuclear in nature; rather, conducting a test event of this nature is intended to make clear that America is ready and willing to use such weapons should a particular situation warrant their deployment.

America acts on the moral authority of our core, defining belief that freedom is every human being's Creator-endowed right. We will henceforth never apologize for protecting that right for our citizens or any peoples that seek to climb out of the dark cave of tyranny towards the enduring light of liberty and self-determination. In a sense, we are through "playing nice". Americans are reasonable and fair, but our tolerance of terrorism and the nation-states and groups that sponsor it is at an end. This past quarter-century's trajectory of events demands a new, sterner approach.

I, like most Americans, wish in part that I didn't have to make such decisions, decisions that could potentially impact hundreds of thousands of lives. But I ran for office to serve my country and my countrymen; I traded my right to privacy and a peaceful life for a chance to serve my country. And now serve I must, as must we all. The old yet wise saying should act as a guide to our moral compass: "we do not inherit the world from our parents; rather, we borrow it from our children." And should we have to act strongly, we will accept the spiritual burden that comes with the responsibility to do so -- as did our parents. It will become part of a new national identity, annealing our country into an America we can hand over to our children with peace and dignity. Let us serve our future well by doing the hard work that must be done now to secure it.

Thank you, and may God continue to bless America."

Posted by: Argus at December 21, 2006 10:33 PM

Dissmissing the role that China and Russia play in support of the escalation of Islamic violence against the "west" is irresponsible. Both nations are capable and sufficiently ruthless to carry out the author's program should Islam ever pose the same level of threat to them...so, for now, it is in their interest to foment the unparalled drain on the west's military resources by threating to come to the aid of terrorist regimes around the world should we threaten an fullscale attack to correct their negative attitudes. Nothing is to prevent China and Russia from suppling any manner of weaponry to achieve that continued goal including a turnkey nuclear missle submarine with pretargeted warheads as a counter-threat to such fullscale attacks.


Posted by: veiledthreat at December 22, 2006 7:20 AM

I recently reviewed Fred Ikle's new book, Annihilation From Within, which raises many of the points you discuss. Ikle notes that one of the forces behind the creation of the U.N. was a visceral fear of nuclear weapons that came from seeing what they could do. Since then our fear has become much more abstract.

Ikle sees another 9/11 as inevitable and offers some valuable advice about what the government should be doing now to prepare. His recommendations include (1) developing and manufacturing better nuclear bomb detectors; (2) new laws to ensure the continuity of government and permit wide-scale industrial mobilization; and (4) improving control of our territorial sovereignty.

Posted by: Philomathean at December 22, 2006 11:04 AM

In my opinion Bush has understood this from the beginning. The war in Iraq has been his attempt to give Muslims an alternative to where they were, and possibly are, heading. It's a noble stance on his part, which makes it one that 'chattering class' Democrats are determined not to recognize.

Posted by: ZF at December 23, 2006 7:17 AM

Excellent essay; thank you. But I must disagree with you on this point:

"To use them, even under the most extreme provocation, is the greatest sin against humanity that can be conceived."

No, the greatest sin against humanity would be to allow the enemies of freedom and civilization to triumph.

Western civilization has come to far, and paid too high a price, to decend back to the 7th Century. The sooner we acknowledge that, the less painful for us will be the eventual correction, whatever form it may take.

RE: Argus suggestion of an above ground test as a demonstration. Interesting thought, but probably counterproductive. The Islamists would likely see it as a sign of weakness for our unwillingness to harm anyone when demonstrating our 'power', while simultaneously being reminded of the potential there. All we would do would be to enhance their desire for it even further. Rest assured they would have no compunction about performing such a demo on NY or Washington.

Posted by: TAF at December 24, 2006 1:30 AM

You know, people used to talk this way about Jews -- "One of the most difficult groups to assimilate into a society is one that draws its core identity from an inflexible religion" etc etc -- and we all know how well that all turned out.

Posted by: SC at December 30, 2006 8:08 PM

I see no peace with Islam. Islam is taught to its brainwashed followers to dominate the infidel world. It's all they know. Their minds are too closed to accept the fact that the western world will NEVER bow down to them!
Assimilation is against this Male Cult. SO if they do NOT assimilate into OUR culture, they need to pack their bags and stop coming west! If they do not get the message, then we will have no other choice but to put a stop to their 7th century, barbaric, Heathernistic mindset! Assimilate or get out! Too many have fought and died for the freedoms of the western world for us all to just lie down and hand it over to brainwashed Heatherns!
Time for Muslims to get a life, become civilized and step into the 21st century with the rest of the world! We don't bow down to brainwashed, IN-tolerant Heatherns! I am from France, and it will not surprise me at all if the USA has to come in once again, rescue France! The clock is ticking.

Posted by: Dapruex at January 16, 2007 12:57 PM

There seem to be people here who are desperately hoping that this will happen.
Killing millions of innocent peole for the crime of a very small minority is a terrible thing to contemplate.
Maybe it is better to approach the middle east on a more fair basis, and not as a one sided event, no matter what the media portrays.

Posted by: kane at May 1, 2007 12:03 PM

1) There already is an "Us" and "Them" and although you may not acknowledge it "They" certainly do.
2) You state, "To use them, even under the most extreme provocation, is the greatest sin against humanity that can be conceived." That statement is absurd on the face of it. It is a rehash of the liberal view that defending yourself is immoral.
3) You start out by formulating the questions you feel people in the U.S. are asking, i.e., "Oh, my, whatever shall WE do with THEM?" It seems to me the goal should be to have THEM asking the question, "What is the West going to do to US now?" Unfortunately, I don't think they will even begin to entertain this question until millions are dead.

Posted by: Barnabus at December 27, 2007 3:40 PM

There will be no peace. The subjugation of the infidels by all means necessary is written into the koran. Failure to abide by its dictates is punishable by death. No, there will be a third world war, fought with all the weapons at our disposal and it will be a war of genocidal proportions. To think that the muslims will assimilate is a delusion by the 'progressives' in this country so as not to distract them from their favorite latte at starbucks. Some within this nation would prefer to live on their knees rather than die on their feet. Be prepared, because every step of accommodation to the muslims have been met with more aggression their part. You cannot win or survive a war by limiting damage to your enemy. War is all hell, and the faster we bring that hell to our enemy, the quicker the war will be over.

Posted by: wildman at June 7, 2010 7:07 AM

Five years ago, when this piece was written, I would have agreed with you 100%.

Now we have Obama in the White House and I'm no longer confident that he would defend America at all if we had another attack on U.S. soil at the level of 9/11 or greater. (And it IS possible for an attack to happen that would make 9/11 look minuscule.)

So, for now, things look quite rosy for the Muslims.

Posted by: Deana at June 7, 2010 11:43 AM

The Helen Thomas Affair shows just how close to the surface the hatred of The Other lives in the hearts of men & women. Send the Jews back to Germany & Poland where their kin were exterminated!! Go to any lefty blog right now and see how many are in agreement with old Helen.

I agree with Deana above, with the current occupant of the White House it's not at all clear that the US would defend itself or western civilization from another islamist attack.

But the blowback could be cataclysmic. There are 300 million of us, given a gruesome enough killing field here at home, caused by muslims, well, anything could happen.

I remember reading something on a blog years ago, to the effect that it's dangerous to goad europeans & their descendents around the globe because eventually they will fight back. And all of the truly deadly means of mass destruction have been devised by those of european ancestry. Something to think about, for what it's worth.

Posted by: Boots at June 7, 2010 12:20 PM

Obama may be our Chamberlin. "Peace in our time!" "The oceans will stop rising!" "Hope and change will reign!" All the words of wishful thinking.

I pray that it won't happen, but I see war between Turkey and Israel if Turkey doesn't back off. That could be the spark that sets the Middle East ablaze. Could a world war be far behind?

Posted by: Jimmy J. at June 7, 2010 9:35 PM

The old adage for life around bullies stand in good stead.

"Don't start a fight. Don't lose a fight."

Posted by: Vermont Woodchuck at June 8, 2010 5:47 AM
Post a comment:

"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated to combat spam and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.










Remember personal info?