Mike Lee wrote: > > > The truth is that sufficient violence ends violence. > > > > That is true enough. But that only works when you can seal the > > outlines of the geographical area and flood the same with your > > troops. > > It also works if you are violent enough to convince the rest of them they need to knock if > off or they're next. Remember, we don't want to occupy and control these countries. And the > violence we've already visited on them has made a few of them blink > (like Qaddafi Duck).
This strategy has worked so very well in Iraq, hasn't it? I mean you just had to invade them once and people were calm. After a year, when the camraderie gave a few idiots the wrong idea, all you had to do was strafe Fallujah and everything quieted down... > > > I prefer to give them a memory of a mushroom cloud over Medina > > > that > > > will make them remember that they shouldn't fuck with the adults. > > > > If you think that is the how they would react to it, then you need > > to > > take another look at the cultures of the places where Muslims live in > > significant numbers. > > I am looking at their culture. They are and always have presented for > the right alpha dog. I am curious about how you got that impression. First I thought that the problem may lie in my 'pseudo-secularist' outlook and I tried the idea out on a few dedicated Hindutvavadis. They laughed harder than me.... There is another point you might wish to take under consideration here - nuke Medina and you are not the 'right alpha dog'. From the perspective of the muslims, you are the frothing-at-the-mouth-rabid dog. You know how people deal with rabid dogs.... > > > So, let's get serious here: If Islam does another 9/11, the > > likelihood > > > is genocide. > > > > Why do you equate OBL and his fanatics with a billion muslims? And > > just how are you going to kill a billion muslims? > > First, I do equate UBL and a billion Muslims. I know you do. That is the precise reason I asked *why* you do so. > The majority of Muslims around the world think UBL is a jolly good > fellow. We are at war > against mainstream Islam, which is a fanatical, racist, violent, neanderthal sad excuse for a > religion. You are not at war with Islam, not yet anyway. When that happens, you'd know. I am hoping it never happens. > The worst of our backwoods Baptist bigots is far more moderate and > enlightened with respect > to human rights, attitude toward democracy and tolerance of unbelievers than are the majority > of mainstream Muslims in your neighborhood. None of the muslims in my neighbourhood preach war on a religion or nuking of the religious shrines of other people. Compare that with your enlightened views and try to convince me again. :) > They just don't tell you how much they despise you to your face. They > are privately dedicated > to the overthrow of democracy, the enslavement of your daughters, and to generally making > everybody stop having fun. And you know that how? Because you live amongst them? Because you are their confidante? Because that is the standard theme in 'muslim' literature and poetry? Because you have psychic abilities? > Nonetheless, I misspoke--I shouldn't have said genocide. The > likelihood is vaporization of > several of their capital cities. I'd think 5 million dead Muslims is a low estimate of what > happens if they throw another punch like that. Let me get this straight. If a renegade organisation launches another attack against US civilians, you would nuke the capital cities of muslim countries and you think that would *help* matters? > > Let's imagine that some US president is actually > > silly enough to nuke Medina. What do you think would happen? Do you > > *really* imagine the rest of the muslims would cower in their homes, > > emerging only to lick America's boots? > > Yeah, pretty much. Especially if make it clear that we'll up the ante > even more next time any > one of 'em so much as shoots us a dirty look. *l* Are you cross posting from another dimension because the one I live in doesn't work that way. Nuke Medina and you have a billion muslims out for jihad. > Look, let's get real here: > The difference between us and them is, if they had our capabilities, > they'd *right now* nuke > us back into the Muslim Age. What do you mean by the 'Muslim Age'? Which decades or centuries fall in there? And why do you assume that they want to nuke the non-muslims into the Muslim age? I know OBL wants to re-establish the Caliphate but I am unaware of any reason to believe that all muslims want that. Going by Indian history, the muslim age [from 1100 AD to 1757 AD] was no better or worse than the Hindu Age which preceeded it. If we had Nadir Shah and Aurangzeb, we also had Akbar and Jehangir. And the Muslim Age certainly didn't have the racism inherent in the Company's rule [or later, the Raj] Raj, which was one of the reasons hindu and muslim kings and soldiers fought in 1857 to re-establish Bahadur Shah Zafar as the Emperor of India. > We, on the other hand, have the capability to kill all billion of > them, but we really don't > want to. Yet. I disagree here too. I think that some of you do want to kill all billion of them. Luckily, that is still a fringe minority and the numbers are unlikely to increase unless things are really mishandled. > So why should we be afraid of them? I think the pertinent question here is not why you should be afraid of them but why you are afraid of them. Although the reasons are many, the most relevant one, imo, is that you are used to conflicts with state actors and entering a conflict with shadowy organisations with no clear geographical location is new territory. > Even if they do get a few nukes, it will be the end of them, not us, > if they use them. I disagree again. :) The US is an easier target than 'terrorists' or 'terrorism'. You guys are not going to move anywhere, your infrastructure wouldn't move either. And if you confuse 'terrorists' with Muslims, you'd run into a separate set of problems. > We're waiting for the other shoe to drop. > It's like being stalked. It makes you really jumpy. And it doesn't > take much for sudden > violence to happen after you've been jumpy for a while. Precisely. Not only do the chances of violence rise with increasing jumpiness, so do the chances of striking out against the wrong target. > If Islam (and, yes, I'm saying Islam, not Islamofascists or Islamists > or any of the other > cute ways that we tolerant Westerners try to make nicey-nice distinctions within their > intolerant faith) makes another 9-11 level attack on the United States, my prediction, not my > wish, is that the response will be so savage that it will surprise even us. And that will > pretty much settle it, unless they're really stupid, in which case, yes, it will be genocide. Nothing cute or nicey-nice about these distinctions, Mike. Not unless you happen to classify all facts as 'cute and nicey-nice'. I know that you wish to treat the one billion people born within the faith as terrorists but the fact is that they aren't. So unless you *wish* to create a clash of civilizations, you'll need to take these distinctions into consideration. If the savage response hits the wrong party, they will react in the manner you describe as 'stupid'. Except it wouldn't be stupid by their reckoning and you'd react the same way if you were treated that way. > > They have nukes, y'know, and the national identity of the country is > > based on Islam. Would you nuke Pakistan? What about India? More > > muslims than Pakistan, after all....Then China, I guess... > > Whatever it takes. We didn't ask for this fight, but we can damn well > finish it. As for > Pakistan's nukes, so what? They only have enough to annoy us (kill millions) and then we'll > annihilate them. Given how incompetently Muslim cultures do everything else, I would expect a > high percentage of Pakistani duds anyway. Same goes for toys they buy from the Nkoreans. > Russian stuff, I'm a little more worried about, but at least it's had a lot of time to rust. > And I think we can count on the Chinese and Indian governments to patrol their own backyards. You can also count on the Chinese and Indian governments to not want the US troops in their backyard, or nukes exploding in their backyard for that matter. If the US were to attack Pakistan in a crazy vendetta against Muslims, I place the chances of India and China joining in with Pakistan at about 95% and 57% respectively. Now I don't know enough about China's capabilities but I know that we would make your victory so expensive that you'd be an easier target for those still left alive. Feel safer against terrorism with the ME and the subcontinent as nuclear wastelands? Well you still have the Muslims and all the Indians scattered over the globe as your bitter enemies. China might be less than happy with the radiation blowing into the Chinese heartland...So what's next? Africa or maybe the UK - both places have muslims and NRIs. You would have no friends left in the world, you'd have a preponderance of enemies and unless you nuke the entire planet, the US of A would be obliterated. > (That brings up another issue--what will we do if they try to detonate > a suitcase bomb, and > all it does is blow up their mini van? If they try to do something nuclear in an American > city I think that's more likely to be the outcome than the bomb actually working. If Kerry's > president, I bet nothing. If Bush is president, I bet he treats it just like it had actually > worked. So hold your noses and vote Republican this November!) I am curious: why do you think Senator Kerry would be that stupid? As for Prez. Bush, well, I dunno. Look how 9/11 helped him get rid of Saddam, even though Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Who do you think he'd want to depose next? > > Do you think that the rest of the world would sit and silently watch > >you bomb one country after another, hoping that the next mass-murder > >would finally make you feel safe? > > Yeah, actually, I do. Like they watched Bosnia. And Iraq. And Africa. > And.... Ah, but you are misreading the situation. The world doesn't get nervous when people in a country mistreat each other. If someone were to set out picking up fights all over the place... Well, they do show a tendency to get together and take a stand. Sooner or later. Remember a certain madman in the 1930s, with grandiose delusions of being able to take over the world? People finally realised that there was no satisfying him and they need to tackle him together before he succeeds. > If the French or the Germans open their yaps, we can blow up a train > station and watch them > elect Republicans the next day. Although I am touched that you think that they are more peaceful than you, I don't think that is the case. I am more likely to think that they'd declare war against the US. > > Or do you see the possibility of a world-wide conflagration > > increasing? I see the latter - go around bombing enough countries > > and you'd push the rest of the world into declaring war on you too. > > So much the worse for them. We're not a superpower. We're a > hyperpower. The 'hyper' bit does fit very well sometimes. ;) > The only people with the balls and technology to really challenge us > are in our corner. Or > pocket. However you want to look at it. Oh, that is utterly false, Mike. Forget the rest of the world, after one year and billions of dollars, even tiny little Iraq, with its disbanded and hopelessly-out-of-date army, is not in your pocket. And if you keep on bombing countries willy-nilly, they wouldn't be in your corner either. And while no other country can match the US in military technology, we aren't exactly shooting poison-tipped arrows either. We'll manage. > > Y'see, a lot of countries in the world suffer > > from Islamic terrorism but in each of these countries, only a small, > > lunatic fringe calls for genocide. > > I'm not calling for genocide. I'm predicting it. If they push hard > enough. And I'm saying > they're underestimating how much of a push it would take for us to go over the edge. That's > the biggest danger. That they still think they can poke the bear and climb a tree fast > enough. I think you are mistaken here. A lot of the muslims already fear that it would take very little to push the US over the edge - which is why they feel so threatened by the US. I can't hazard a guess as to whether the terrorists know or care. Any over-reaction on the part of the US only helps their cause, after all. > > Actually, what you propose, nuking Medina, is the only way a billion > > muslims would march behind Osama. And I'd like to say that I find > > your characterisation of an entire people as 'assholes' offensively > > ignorant. > > Then let me say it again: Every Muslim who's a fan of UBL is an > asshole. That's about 80% of > them worldwide. Unsurprisingly, I disagree here too. I don't think muslims are quite that idiotic. While propaganda helps and a lot of people polled have said that they think OBL is a nice guy/someone they trust more than the other options, experience dictates that even terrorists manage to see how he is only interested in destruction and permanent warfare than in local issues and problems. It happened in Kashmir - for the last 18 months or so, we have had a deluge of terrorists talking about how the 'international jehadis' are interested only in war, shouldn't be trusted and should be kicked out. We have also have had assassinations of these people, which then swung the pendulum back in India's favour. > > It's not just the Americans who are terrible when they are pissed off, > > Mike. That holds true for everyone. You might be able to bully cowards > > into shouting truce but these cowards do not form a majority in > > Muslims. > > Yes, Islam is a brittle, coward-culture. Lots of bluster and lots of bootlicking after you > show 'em who's boss. You are obviosuly refering to all the boot-licking going on in Iraq, aren't you? ;) Or was that a reference to the way the Arab street is falling over itself to pacify the US after the Iraq war and occupation? > > You would merely be pushing the rest of the Muslims towards a rage so > > deep and visceral that tackling AQ would seem like a child's play in > > retrospect. > > So much the worse for them. Japan doesn't hate our guts 40 years after Hiroshima. Germany > doesn't either. Conquered people usually get over it pretty quickly, especially when you > introduce freedom to them. Being on the losing side of a war tends to make you think about > not picking any more fights. Now that I think about it, Haiti should declare war on the US > and lose. That's by far the fastest route available to modernization and economic prosperity. Japan and Germany started the war they lost. Reactions differ when you are invaded for no rhyme or reason. Think of 9/11 and the belligerence you feel even today. Most people feel that way when they are attacked without any due cause or process. > > > Fear, not understanding, is what is needed right now. The > > > Muslims and > > > their fellow travelers are acting like they're still in charge, and > > > it's going to get all of them killed. > > > > Who are the fellow travelers of muslims? And how are they acting as if > > they are in charge? > > Well, you're one of those fellow travelers, True. So are you. :) > and you are acting like they are in charge. You've just spent all this time painting a > doomsday scenario about how they will come back and kick all our asses if we really spank > them. Nonsense. I never said they'll come back and kick your asses. Merely that they will die trying. And given how hard it is to hide a country, as opposed to an individual, the chances of serious damage being inflicted are quite high. And for the sake of the record, neither America, nor the muslims are in charge of the world. Idiots, though, are a different matter altogether. > Western civilization is going to win this one. The only question is how many people will have > to die to make it happen. If the cost gets up to more than a million Americans, I predict > that it could easily cost half a billion Muslim lives. I'm basing that guess on the kill > ratio recently in Iraq, but there are other factors in play. I don't really think it will > take killing more than 50 million Muslims to make the rest get the message, but I could be > wrong. I hope it doesn't take killing that many. After all, those poor people have been > raised in an abusive, stupid culture and it's a tragedy that they believe the crap they do. > Because of nice liberal people and nice Spanish people and nice UN people, the Muslim world > thinks they have a lot more rope to play with than they actually do. Every peace marcher > gives encouragement and hope to those poor dumb bastards, and makes it more likely we're > going to have to make more of them die for their religion. I just have one thing to say here: if this is how things work out, Western Civilisation would already have lost. The Western states might still win this one, based on a lot of factors, not the least of which is untiy, but the Western Civilisation would have been one of the first casualties of the war. Ritu, who is not sure if Mike really believes what he says or if he is just good at parody GCU Id Mubaarak
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
