Ritu 'rote: > 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...
Time will tell. I don't think the backlash would have been that bad had we really strafed Fallujah. But it looks like we've done a decent and perhaps too restrained job of pacifying the place so far. > > 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.... http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FD27Ak01.html > 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.... I know how people do it, but Muslims just seem to blow themselves up a lot and dance on top of burning cars. > > First, I do equate UBL and a billion Muslims. > > I know you do. That is the precise reason I asked *why* you do so. Because they dream the same dream. Are you seriously saying that you don't think mainstream Muslims wish to subject the rest of us to sharia and dhimmitude? > You are not at war with Islam, not yet anyway. When that > happens, you'd know. I am hoping it never happens. They've declared war against us over and over, for decades, week after week, mosque after mosque, benighted backwards oil-dripping hellhole after hellhole. It's time we took them at their word. > > 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. :) It's my view we should nuke Medina the next time a major event happens in one of our major cities. The backwoods Baptists I'm referring to mostly think I'm going too far with that, which is my point in the first place. In any case, none of our Billy Bobs, even now, are marching around in the streets waving AK-47's and screaming, "Death to Arafat!" or "Nuke Najaf!" I kind of wish they were. It would give the sand Nazis pause. Also, you're hopelessly na�ve if you believe none of the Muslims in your neighborhood preach war on a religion or nuking other people. You haven't talked to them about Jews lately, have you? Or if you do, and they don't admit their genocidal lust, then they must still consider you a useful idiot. Muslims are more bigoted against Jews, including mainstream Muslims, than backwoods Baptists are bigoted against blacks. True or false? > 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? Because I can read. Mainstream Islam intends to infiltrate, dominate and eventually replace western democratic systems with sharia. They intend to forcibly convert or subjugate every human being in the world to their barbaric ideology. I'm against that, silly me. > 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? Yes. For us. Don't much care about them if they pull another stunt like 9/11. Till then, I'm willing to give Bush a chance to save them all. Despite the inane maunderings of American mainstream liberals, all these guys do conspire together and work together, including Saddam and bin Laden, and I really don't give a damn if the CIA can tape record them or not. It's like cracking down on one Mafia family--the rest get the messages. > > > 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? Pretty much, yeah. After a little while. At first, they'd riot in the streets like they always do. After a daisy cutter or two was dropped on those demonstrations to let them know exactly how much the First Admendment doesn't apply to them, yes, the rest would cower & lick. > 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. Who cares? What are they gonna do about it? > > 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'? It was kind of a play on "Stone Age." Get it? I'll explain more if you'd like. > I know OBL wants > to re-establish the Caliphate but I am unaware of any reason > to believe that all muslims want that. Ok, go find me some Muslim writers (who aren't in hiding) who argue that Muslims should be subject to secular civil authority and should quit trying to advance the cause of sharia wherever they live, and whose ideas are at least known to and agreed to in public by a significant minority (say, 25%) of Muslims living in Western countries. That shouldn't be that hard, should it? > 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. Well, I'm glad you're more knowledgeable about Indian history than I am. It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with this argument, which is about whether modern Islam is a barbaric, totalitarian movement, which it is, by the way. > > 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. I'm not quite sure what it is you are disagreeing with. You think we (meaning Americans, not you) won't ever want to kill all billion of them if they keep killing us? I have to admit, right after 9/11, I was a little worried about that too. But I'm not anymore. Historically, there are sharp discontinuities in American responses to provocations. The phrase, "just keep pushing it..." comes to mind. It's a big mistake for them to predict how we will respond in the future from how we responded in the past. We tried to send that message by what we did in Afghanistan and Iraq, but most of them still aren't getting it. Or, maybe they got it too well: they could see we were just trying to send them a message, and we're still trying to find a minimally bloody way out of this. Look at Fallujah, for an example. Those idiots are taking heart from our restraint, thinking it shows we lack moral willpwoer. What they need to be worried about is the day when they really piss us off and we don't care what message we send as long as there's nobody left alive to read it. > I think the pertinent question here is not why you should be > afraid of them but why you are afraid of them. With all due respect, are you serious? > 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. I suppose you're saying the US is overreacting. Accepting your analysis, though, my conclusion is we should declare war on every Islamic state at once. Kind of like going to the judge and getting all the warrants you're going to need up front. And then we knock them off one by one according to strategic and tactical convenience. Every Muslim in the world needs to live in a Westernized democratic state. That's what will make us safe--it's the only thing that will make us safe. The only question is, will we do it Bush's way, which is to inflict minimal casualties and hope to create a chain reaction that makes it happen as quickly as we need it to, or will we do it the hard way, after another large scale attack on the West? Any American who hopes to minimize Muslim casualties better vote for Bush & Blair, because they're the guys serious about draining the swamp. Kerry will go to the UN and let them dick him around for years filing environmental impact statements while the thing continues to putrify. > > 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. Disagree all you want. We can much more easily disrupt them and destroy their societies than they can ours. As we've proven recently. To suggest that Islam is not at the mercy of the forbearance of America is ludicrous. We could end this right now, if we wanted to, and the only reason we haven't is we don't want to kill half the Muslims in the world. > Precisely. Not only do the chances of violence rise with > increasing jumpiness, so do the chances of striking out > against the wrong target. If its ass is up in the air pointing away from Mecca 5x a day, it's the right target. What I'm saying to you is that we're not going to go through the ridiculous charade of looking for absolute stand-up-in-court proof like we tried last time with the UN. If the sand Nazis hit America again at 9/11 magnitude, the rules will change. I think they know that, and that's why Europe is probably at much greater risk than the US, even just prior to our election. > 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. <sigh> No, I don't wish to treat everyone who had the misfortune of being born into that vile faith as terrorists. But the majority do aid and abet and egg on the terrorists, even if only with the same kind of enthusiasm an American sports fan has for his favorite team. If Osama or any of the rest of them scores another touchdown, we're likely to clear the stands. That will be a tragedy, but I'm damned if I'm willing to trade my daughter's life for theirs. > > > They have nukes, y'know, and the national identity of the > country is Nukes are hard to use. I'm really not that worried about their nukes, in any ballistic sense. My prediction: the first time a nuke goes off in an American city, no Muslim country will have nukes anymore. They'll have a few new craters, but not any nukes. Or nuclear capability. > > > based on Islam. Would you nuke Pakistan? What about India? More > > > muslims than Pakistan, after all....Then China, I guess... Whatever it takes. You're not getting my point. There's a point where America will become Cujo, only we'll be Cujo with the biggest guns. We'll stop consulting allies, except to tell them that we'll try to wait till the wind is blowing the right way. We will tell China to be very careful and butt out because we're feeling very twitchy. Think objectively: in this clash between Islam and America, it's absurd to bet on Islam, unless the war is going to be fought demographically, and even then I wouldn't bet on Islam because it's as inimical to technology as it is to women. I don't think Islam is up for slugging it out in a long war of ideas. So they're cheating, using terror and escalating the violence. They went too far with 9/11--America is pretty determined now to drain the swamp, and we've got a good start on doing it. It's a race against time: how soon can we bring them into the 21st century versus how soon can will they accomplish another large scale nihilistic attack on American soil? > 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. Whatever. Who cares what China and India want? They're not going to nuke America for going to all out war against Muslim states after a nuclear-level attack on Americans. > 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. You can come up with all kinds of board game scenarios. But this isn't Risk and we didn't pick this fight. Of course, we could lose. But if we blink, we will definitely lose. > 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. Not really. You'll get over it quicker than you think. The idea that we better not defend ourselves because it will make the bystanders bitter is ridiculous propaganda. I hope we're not falling for that old tactic in Fallujah right now. > China might be less than happy with the radiation > blowing into the Chinese heartland... There won't be much radiation. Our bombs have gotten a lot smaller and better than they used to be. We wouldn't need to use nukes for most things. Certainly not for cities, unless we do it for photo opp purposes. Small nukes would likely be used to obliterate facilities that we weren't sure we could get to with conventional bombs. And for other "high yield" targets (pardon the pun). Give us 5 years and we won't even need to use nukes. > So what's next? Africa > or maybe the UK - both places have muslims and NRIs. That's up to them. > 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. Well, you keep thinking happy thoughts there. That's a possible scenario. I'll take it over my grandchildren living under sharia or my friends being randomly killed for living in a large American city. > I am curious: why do you think Senator Kerry would be that > stupid? I don't think he's that stupid. I think he's vacuous. Kerry would get caught up in all the doomsday and what-if scenarios that you paint and would either over- or under-react because he has no clear moral principles to fall back on. And that's what you need moral principles for: when you can't predict outcomes, but the stakes are high, and doing the right thing seems risky or even foolhardy, your moral principles get you through. Bush did a great job around 9/11 because he was able to immediately rule out lots of unworkable alternatives that were morally weak. Agree or disagree with him, he's certainly acted with great moral clarity and taken big risks because he gets it at a very deep level: the problem with the Middle East and Islam is hatred of freedom. Bush is on a mission to free the Middle East and get them all thinking about what's on Must-See-TV tonight. Is that cultural imperialism? You bet! And I'm all in favor of it. > 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? I don't know. I just hope it's somebody. So many asshats, so few JDAMs.... > > > Do you think that the rest of the world would sit and > silently watch No, you'd whine and demonstrate, but it won't come to much. Really, once America is really pissed off, you'll stay out of our way. Rather than us being worried about appeasing you, you ought to be worried about appeasing us. If you want to do something good for the Muslims of the world, then go try your diplomatic solutions and bridge-building and make it work before we come in an really clean house. > 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. Sooner or later, ya just gotta play the Hitler card, dontcha? Bush isn't Hitler; America isn't 1930's Germany (but most Arab countries are), and really, America's not afraid of you or China or even North Korea. American exercise of power is conditioned by moral restraint, not realpolitik fear of China or India or anyone else. If it comes to down to US against the World, I'm putting my money on US. And, I'm telling you, you really wouldn't want to see US mad.... > The 'hyper' bit does fit very well sometimes. ;) Oh, please. I'm so tired of this faux-sophisticated condescension. America is smart, sophisticated and so rich that even our biggest hicks can afford to visit the rest of the world and provide fodder for this kind of snottiness. > > 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. The burden of proof is on them. We've seen nothing but Islamic idiocy in this part of the world for a long time. > 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? Yeah, there's a ton of bootlicking going on in Iraq these days. Including in Fallujah. As for the Arab street, still waiting to see them explode as predicted over events of the last couple of years. Hell, I'd pay $50 on pay-per-view to see that. But you do have a point--they're still way too noisy, and I chalk that up to our admirable restraint. We're expecting them to settle down once they have a chance to get a Nintendo if they'll just do an extra shift at McDonald's instead of running around in the streets. Hope we're right. > 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. Islam started this war, and they're going to lose. It would be ludicrous to think that Iraqis don't know why we invaded, or the average Taliban imam can't figure out what he did to piss us off. The majority in every one of these pukey little countries has been going around hating and blaming America and promising to kick our ass for years. It will be a shock that comes as no surprise when we come for them. As you've pointed out already, this isn't about nation-states, but about a worldwide totalitarian ideology that takes over nation-states. War has been declared; they declared it; nobody's in the dark about the battleground. Except people who keep saying stuff like, "Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11!" I mean, good god almighty. Liberals aren't stupid, when they're trying to understand something. When the Aryan Nations pulls some kind of stunt, you don't say, well, this is no reason for the police to crack down on the KKK. Nobody's ever shown a connection between the Reverend Butler and Robert Byrd, so why don't y'all just leave the KKK the hell alone? You don't really think that white supremacist groups in the US don't all have links and connections and mutual aid pacts, do you? Christ. > > > > 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? The North Koreans. Every dreary little dictatorship in Africa. The French, the Belch, the Germans and several other EU countries, and the EU bureaucracy itself. American liberals. You. All the people who think that cultural diversity trumps human rights. All the people who think that appeasement and listening is the way to get terrorists to play nice. Every person who thinks there's any moral equivalency between Israel and the Palestinian death cult. This decadent worldview has been firmly in charge for decades now because most intelligent people were too busy doing real work and living real lives to really listen to what the chattering classes have been saying. And, on the surface, what you've been saying has sounded a little ditzy, but not too bad--be tolerant of people who are different than you, help poor people, etc. But the truth is that an entrenched elite has, under cover of all this treacly ditziness, ensconced their fat corrupt butts in university chairs and government positions and Oil for Food programs and turned into a clique of self-congratulatory postmodernist luftmenschen. Their reaction to 9-11 has made real people realize how full of crap they are. > And for the sake of the record, neither America, nor the > muslims are in charge of the world. Uh, yeah, actually, when you get down to it, America is in charge of the world. When push comes to shove, what America really wants, America gets. And we really want Islam to knock it off. > 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. No, Western Civilization will not be the first casualty. We wasted Tokyo and nuked Japan and slaughtered most everyone in Dresden, and Western civilization is ticking along just fine. It is not one of the tenets of Western civilization that you don't defend yourself--we sometimes do it without regard to enemy casualties, civilian or not. And that's something the sand Nazis better clue into damn quick. We won't sit down and cry and not be able to get out of bed the rest of our lives if we end up having to kill a whole lot of Muslims. 99% of Iraq is still standing for one reason--we could afford to win the war that way. If we are forced to engage in more theaters than we feel comfortable in, our lethality will increase immediately by orders of magnitude. Again, keep pushing it, you idiots. To take the fact that Fallujah still exists as a sign of American weakness is a terrible miscalculation. Mike Lee Islamic Moderate _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
