Article

2004-05-04 Europe

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Zenster 2004-05-04 1:31:10 PM|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 This strategy has its merits. To be effective it must be publicly announced in advance. The muslim world must know that islamist terrorists hold the key to causing or preventing the contamination and/or destruction of the holy cities. If that contamination/destruction occurs, it is a direct and known consequence of the actions of the terrorits.
The problem with the strategy is that, in a way, it empowers the Qaeda types immensely. If what they are really interested in is creating a clash of civilizations, nothing could be better calculated to achieve that aim than to have the US or "the west" desecrate or destroy one of the holy cities. At that point there is no more room for moderate muslims to exist or persuade the rest of the muslim world to moderate itself. All muslims will become radicalized, and the armageddon that OBL is seeking becomes almost inevitable.

Posted by sludj 2004-05-04 1:55:32 PM|| 2004-05-04 1:55:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Zipster, you are nuts.

Posted by Jen 2004-05-04 2:00:57 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-05-04 2:00:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Zenster I like it. Too bad it'll never happen though - Wouldn't want to offend the peace-loving, tolerant, Islamic world.

Posted by Yosemite Sam 2004-05-04 2:26:46 PM|| 2004-05-04 2:26:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 too many comments - you must have mucho time - you could of condesned into one sceanrio. all the scenarios have mecca and medina...

these should be changed to tehran and all iranian military installations. just taking out mecca is all based on religion ..take out the enablers of terrorism...with implicit threats to the sods....

Posted by Dan 2004-05-04 2:57:44 PM|| 2004-05-04 2:57:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 You've always wanted to write your own article, and now you have. I don't think you've improved upon the body of thought regards this topic - den Beste, Wretchard, Kagen, Peters, Steyn, VDH, et al have covered it very very well.

I find the various retribution schedules to be, well, bizarre. I do not fault the fact that a hard-hitting response would be required in the scenarios you present, but really - take a deep breath and re-read what you wrote and ask if this needed such lengthy codification.

I applaud "righteous indignation" for it usually has roots in heartfelt facts - most often personal experiences that convert the abstract into the concrete at personal expense - and I know it when I read it. This isn't it.

This diatribe is delivered with an authoritative air that you neither own nor command. It merely attempts to prove you're bloodier-minded or tougher or such a deep thinker or more this or more that, pfeh, buffoonery. Your opinions are based upon miracles witnessed and slights experienced second- or third-hand.

Posted by .com 2004-05-04 2:57:50 PM|| 2004-05-04 2:57:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 i still think any country that is harbouring terrorist types and not doing fuck all about it or pretending they are but are not should be hawked over and the slightest terror act by one of its in house terrorists, be it against the host country or another country an Ohio class submarine should launch few nukes on the capital citys of the foolish terrorist hosting country. Give it a few years and a few stupid leaders later(Perv maybe one of them?) and the foolish hosts may begin to think its about time to stamp out these fuckers before they to get zapped at 100000 degrees, of course i doubt the host would clean themselves up, Iran,Syria and Pakistan would be no more :)

Posted by Shep UK 2004-05-04 3:16:30 PM|| 2004-05-04 3:16:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Zipperhead fails to address at least 2 big things:
1.) In the WOT, the Enemy is a new kind of enemy as Wretchard pointed out a week or so ago.
It's a group of guys who move across the globe. Blending in here, then fading out after an attack, always on the move.
They'll have state sponsors, but determining which one is the trick.
Zipperhead's "Plan" presupposes that it's always and forever Saudi Arabia.
2.) I find the parts about "fifth bio attack" and "third nuke attack" almost funny.
If we did what we needed to do, there should be no "second" attacks, much less more, of any kind.
Plus, if we "dusted" Mecca and Medina with disease or radiation once, who would be so stupid as to go back for a second, third or fourth dose?
WTG, asshole, to alienate, if not outright murder, millions of Muslims who aren't jihadis, not to mention totally grossing out in a global, permanent and irreversible way the rest of the planet who will feel intimidated by this "kill them all" "plan."
As I said, before, you're nuts, Zipperhead.
You're not a patriot--you're a psychopath who "gets off" to mass murder of people who are "different" than you, which is the other 6 billion of us.

Posted by Jen 2004-05-04 3:34:35 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-05-04 3:34:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Zenster - I have to commend you for laying out a scenario in a detailed way, that in some way or other we all have had in the back of our minds.

I do find the flaw that Dan has as well; "All the scenarios have Mecca and Medina. These should be changed to Tehran and all Iranian military installations. Just taking out Mecca is all based on religion. . ."

Whether it is Tehran, or Damascus, or whatever the source, we must attack the enabling country FIRST. If the Arab street sycophantically complains about what we did, and attacks on us continue, then we would have no choice but to continue with your scenario.

If the Eurowussies (Probablly one country in particular) start making noises about Bush, war criminal after a bio-chem-nuke attack response, and making threats to come here and arrest him, well, all I can say is, the Eiffel Tower will live forever in photos.

Posted by BigEd 2004-05-04 3:43:30 PM|| 2004-05-04 3:43:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Whether it is Tehran, or Damascus, or whatever the source, we must attack the enabling country FIRST. If the Arab street sycophantically complains about what we did, and attacks on us continue, then we would have no choice but to continue with your scenario.

Zero argument against this. I have already made clear my thoughts on Iran. Nonetheless, the Western world must have a credible response to any further terrorist atrocities. Reciprocity is one of the few justifiable vehicles.

However legion my detractors might be, I've yet to see anyone else provide a viable alternative. Islam shows no inclination to rid itself of the vermin that infest their ranks. Until they do, we must assert a penalty for this laxity. I'm open to suggestions.

Posted by Zenster 2004-05-04 3:58:53 PM|| 2004-05-04 3:58:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 The problem with the strategy is that, in a way, it empowers the Qaeda types immensely. If what they are really interested in is creating a clash of civilizations, nothing could be better calculated to achieve that aim than to have the US or "the west" desecrate or destroy one of the holy cities.

This is the specific reason I have evolved the military occupation scenario as an alternative to any reciprocity. I see no other effective routes besides these two.

Whichever plan is selected, it must be announced in advance and laid out explicitly.

For those unclear on the subject, repeated dusting is necessary with anthrax spores as they have a limited lifetime in ambient conditions.

All I can say is that I am not prepared to wait around in a reactive mode. Once the first nuclear terror attack occurs, this world will be changed forever. It is quite possibly that decades of economic recession will follow. I refuse to sit idly by without any attempt to bring forth some sort of potential solution. Mine might be wrong, but no one else is offering up anything remotely effective.

I intend to prod all conscious people until someone else provides a better solution.

Posted by Zenster 2004-05-04 4:17:21 PM|| 2004-05-04 4:17:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Zenster posted this exact same thing a few weeks ago , but I don't have time to find it right now to link. In that discussion, which was rather lengthy, alternatives were discussed, including the effective alternatives being implemented by the Bush Admin.

Zenster: The terrorists don't really give a flip about Mecca and Medina--not really. But the rest of the Moslem world does. I understand that you would like to turn the Moslem world against their Moslem terrorists, but if Mecca and Medina are gone or tampered with in the way you have outlined, you've just provided all the motivation necessary for the enlistment in jihad, at a scale unimaginable. (And you think we got problems now?) Do you really think they would just stop fighting if what you advocate for ever happened? Of course they wouldn't. You obviously don't understand the Islamiofascist mind. You should be more careful what you wish for. And take into consideration the innocent lives that would be snuffed out in the process of what you espouse. Did you also forget how many Moslems are embedded in civilized countries around the world, including this one? Take out their "holy" places and you haven't even begun to see what they are capable of--right here in our own back yard.

The difference between you and Shep, is that Shep is engaging in "pub" speak. You--you're serious, and that's not a real bright thing to be serious about. The annihilation you suggest is nothing more than a "feel good" idea.

Other than that, I agree with Jen and .com regarding your post.

As sludj said: "At that point there is no more room for moderate muslims to exist or persuade the rest of the muslim world to moderate itself. All muslims will become radicalized, and the armageddon that OBL is seeking becomes almost inevitable."

Maybe it's the Armageddon that Zenster is seeking . . .

Posted by ex-lib 2004-05-04 4:42:54 PM|| 2004-05-04 4:42:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 As others have posted here before, the response that the US will HAVE to take to a nuclear explosion on our soil is almost too terrible to contemplate. Millions will be killed.

Hopefully making the cost of such an act clear to those who support/inspire the terrorists would create a level of deterrence. If it would inspire them to change and actually root out the evil that is within their community, all the better. Unfortunately, I don't think that Islam will be able to affect that change, regardless of the incentive.

Posted by remote man 2004-05-04 4:51:43 PM|| 2004-05-04 4:51:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 "...however legion my detractors..."

LOL! Wow! Talk about your trophy-sized ego! You are the most self-aggrandizing pretentious chickenhawk REMF of all time! You 'n Micah - same same! Geeeeeez.

BigEd and others weren't around when you showed up and declared yourself an all-time idiotarian - and so they may fall for your drivel now. Fine, fine. You are what you are, lol, and nobody is considering your "plans" for anything - you can count on that! Lol!

Posted by .com 2004-05-04 5:07:09 PM|| 2004-05-04 5:07:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 .com - If you haven't during the worst moments had thoughts of wondering if there were such a thing as a "moderate Moslem". Always equivocating vis a vis the Palesatinian issue. Couldn't unequivocally condemn 9/11. Always blaming the support for Israel, etc etc etc

I fall for NO ONE'S drivel. My point was that Zenster says stuff we all think about at one time or another. But as you see in #8, I think that if we were attacked, we should first eliminate the source of the attack as an entity. It would most likely be Iran, North Korea (crazy of course, not Islamic) or the replacement axis member, Syria. We owe no less to the thousands of our citizens who would be killed or maimed by a WMD attack on our soil.

We only go to Zenster's scenario if it turns out to be either them or us as a group, which it sadly may come to. Whatever you think of Zensters presentation, his point are valid for debate. If we don't examine our logic now, vette all possible scenarios, then we will be doing it in the afterglow (no pun intended) of a serious attack, emotions clouding everything.

Posted by BigEd 2004-05-04 5:23:05 PM|| 2004-05-04 5:23:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 after reading everyones comments I reread it again and now I'm embarrased that I said I liked it. DotCom does a good job keeping me on track.

Posted by Yosemite Sam 2004-05-04 5:58:04 PM|| 2004-05-04 5:58:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 I think Zenster's scenario is nuts too, but what would we do if Al Q lit off a nuke in NYC? Lets say 2 million people were killed with another 3 million injured or poisened. The call to respond against someone, anyone would be deafening.

I suppose we could undertake a massive conventional response, ie do Iraq all over again but much bigger and more ruthless. This would piss off the world's Muslims too.

That's why I think it is critical that we succeed in Iraq. We have to persevere and deal with the daily crap that we are now encountering. Failure really is not an option, or at least not one that I will accept for my two daughters sake.

Posted by remote man 2004-05-04 6:41:58 PM|| 2004-05-04 6:41:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 BigEd - Your first paragraph makes no sense.

Regards the fact that "Zenster" voices what everyone thinks - I agree wholeheartedly that he repeats, endlessly and voluminously, what many think and post quite well for themselves.

If you think his retarded little tit-for-tat list is something of note, well hey, he's all yours.

Unfuckingbelievable.

Posted by .com 2004-05-04 6:56:00 PM|| 2004-05-04 6:56:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 .com : My first paragraph questions the inability of "moderate Moslems" to speak up without bringing up the US support for Israel.

I do not accept his "retarded tit-for-tat list" as you call it. I just think his "list" is something that MANY PEOPLE have thought about, and ought to, whether you agree whohartedly or not.

Perhaps remote man's thought say it better than me

Failure really is not an option, or at least not one that I will accept for my two daughters sake.

Nor my son's

Posted by BigEd 2004-05-04 7:07:20 PM|| 2004-05-04 7:07:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 BigEd, you gotta think this through, my friend:
even given your scenario of a "likely" hit by "Iran, North Korea or Syria," what do you do if you're President Bush (that's "Shrub" to Zipperhead)? Nuke all 3 countries cause you're not sure?
And then, what if you're wrong in at least one case, probably 2?
And these countries, as evil as they might be, have friends and they have nukes...countries like Pakistan (funded by the Saudis), Russia and China.
And if they've signed some sort of mutual defense pact, they might nuke us back for nuking them.
And so on and so on.
Zipster is truly psychotic to even try to "war game" this scenario.
Don't do this at home! Leave it to the professionals.
Why do you think President Bush's hair is almost white?
To his credit, Bush didn't do this after 9/11, even though there were some--and you couldn't blame them much--who wanted to nuke Afghanistan that night.
Dotcom correctly cites Zipperhead's hubris and massive ego in trying to debate this scenario and act as if he could do something about carrying out his "proactive plan."
I'd like to change his name to Dr. Strangelove.
Let's face this if it happens.
Against that day, let's all work like hell on all fronts to make sure it never comes.

Posted by Jen 2004-05-04 7:14:12 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-05-04 7:14:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 And the rest of Zenster's game - are you aware of it and supportive of that as well?

That President Bush is "shrub"?

That Gore was elected in 2000 and Bush stole the Presidency?

Here you go:

"Jen, only when and if he is ever properly elected will I then be grudgingly obliged to address him as you wish I would. His intentional blurring of the separation between church and state while simultaneously attempting to constitutionalize discrimination gets nothing but scorn from me.

Thank goodness we live in a country where we can disagree on this matter. Please know that you indeed have the privilege to dislike me for what I say, that is entirely your right. Understand one thing though, I don't do this to intentionally anger or offend you or anybody else.

As a proud American I cannot abide the White House's ham-fisted tampering with both the duties of executive office or our beloved constitution. Whatever proper intransigence might be shown for terrorism (as is demanded of all worthy commander in chiefs) still in no way confers any right to enshrine religious commandment as constitutional law, especially not in a nation wholly founded upon secular ideals. This is what he's attempting and my own ethicality demands that I consider it to be nothing less than malfeasance of office. Hence my scorn."

Agree with that? Can you square what you've seen him post with that? Think it makes sense and that he's being forthcoming and honest with everyone? Consider the ramifications... still think he's this rational guy? If so, hey, he's all yours. Stolen elections, shrubbery, ham-fisted unconstitutional claims and all.

Posted by .com 2004-05-04 7:19:14 PM|| 2004-05-04 7:19:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Oh, and Pray (if you're religious).
I do. Alot.

Posted by Jen 2004-05-04 7:19:51 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-05-04 7:19:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 No jen - I don't say hit all 3. Never did.
But what if, like remote man suggests :if Al Q lit off a nuke in NYC? Lets say 2 million people were killed with another 3 million injured or poisened.

What would you do? al-Qaeda got the nukes somewhere? Who or what do you suggest we retaliate against.

Russia and China want no part of this. They only want to be around to pick up the pieces if we fail.

Fortunately, these are all hypotheticals at this point, and like you, I trust the Pres' judgment, and would not be in his shoes.

Posted by BigEd 2004-05-04 7:24:42 PM|| 2004-05-04 7:24:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Also, if Zenster is one of those who said Bush stole the election, then is he suggesting Al Gore would do anything stronger? He does have a strange defense idea for a Gore Democrat.
I am seeing his personality problems that .com was talking about.

In the anger after 9/11 and incidents like the animals hanging the dismembered bodies from the bridge in Fallujah, one wonders if there are any open moderates in the Islamic world. Only crazies and the terrified.

Posted by BigEd 2004-05-04 7:30:41 PM|| 2004-05-04 7:30:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Ed, I don't think you can safely say that China and Russia want no part of this...
Check out my story that just got posted at today's top:
China is building a 2nd nuke plant for the Pakistanis.
And the Paki nuclear program is funded by the Saudis.
If we hit SA (Mecca and Medina), there's no telling what would happen next.
All bets from the pre-9/11 world, where MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) rules prevailed, are off the table now.

One of the biggest problems with 9/11 was WHO did it?
We know it was AQ at OBL's behest with help, aid and support from a large possible list of state suspects like Iraq, Iran, and SA.
This really is a new kind of war, however.
If there is a nuke in one of our cities, we'll know it was Islamists, but which group(s)? where do they live? And were they acting on behalf of a state, too or not? Etc. Etc.
It will be a lot more than a matter of the President easily pressing a button on the football.
And the really moronic part of Zipperhead/Dr. Strangelove's whole "plan" is that these rogue states tacitly understand already --particularly by now--that they're going to get it if they're caught hitting the U.S., viz. what happened to Saddam and why Mumar Daffy Duck gave up his WMDs.
Assad of Syria hasn't thrown in the towel but he's sweating a lot
(enough to stage a fake terror attack in his own country).
And Kim of the NorKs may have been knocked off by the Chinese for saber-rattling at the US too much.

Posted by Jen 2004-05-04 7:36:49 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-05-04 7:36:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 BigEd - I posted the Pacepa Interview today - now there's some solid intel on today's Russia - Pacepa knows his shit.

Zenster's take on what we will do if the asshats hit us again is nothing unique - it's merely pedantic and amazingly pointless - I sincerely doubt that the WH will drop by and borrow his punishment schedule. I have posted extensively about what I would do - and have been raked over the coals for my suggestions.

Here and here and here and especially here are well-considered and far superior musings along that line. Zenster has nothing to add to discussions of the WoT - and he's a loony to boot.

Posted by .com 2004-05-04 7:50:26 PM|| 2004-05-04 7:50:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 BigEd - I forgot 2 things: 1) Zenster used to champion moderate Muslims and claimed they were numerous and active and wonderful and our buddies - to which I almost die laughing --and-- 2) I apologize that Jen and I swamped you with posts and links! The Zenster charade is a long-standing issue for some here and you just got caught in the middle today. Sorry for being so jumpy - he's a duplicitous and disingenuous troll, IMHO, with an intellectually dishonest position - and I shouldn't have applied any of my distrust of him to you. Apologies!

Posted by .com 2004-05-04 7:55:48 PM|| 2004-05-04 7:55:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 No problem, .com, and Jen.

Posted by BigEd 2004-05-04 8:16:48 PM|| 2004-05-04 8:16:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 I'm new to this - bear with me.

I've got to get more warm and fuzzy with where fertilizer may or may not be spread.

But - as remote man said, if Al Q lit off a nuke in NYC? or in my case, LA. . . I have to consider scenatios to get the wife and son the hell outta Dodge in a hurry. Maybe my random thoughts are colored by that.

Posted by BigEd 2004-05-04 8:21:03 PM|| 2004-05-04 8:21:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Well, all these multi-faceted details for dusting Medina and Mecca are entertaining, but are too complicated and unrealistic.

Psychopaths have no ability to empathize, so the only way you can deal with them is to let them know that they will be personally hurt when they persue certain actions which are unacceptable to you. G'daffy is a good example. We went after him with the F-111's during Reagan and killed his daugher. He got the message and got himself under some control. If he kept going, he would have got hammered much harder.

I have big problems with this cheap talk of dusting places with nukes. I have a number of friends who have worked in nuclear weapons, including designers. I have worked out at the Nevada Test Site and have spent quite a bit of time in areas where tests occurred. Nukes are not toys. You do not use them unless you have to.

Binny and Co need to realize that they will be personally hurt when they play their terrorism and attack games. They must be hunted relentlessly so that they must be always on the defensive, just like Go and Chess. They must be denied sanctuary. Right now they have Pakistan, esp the NWFP, Iran, Syria, Saudi somewhat, and sh-thole parts of Africa, plus honorable mentions in SE asia, Chechnya, and other 'stans. Denying these places to terrorists is the tough nut to crack. We have only so many military assets to go around. We have to leverage our limited assets.

We are going to have to use our brains for this one, because mainstream EU is not behind us. We must analyze the Jihadi mentality and learn to think like them, so we can be at least one step ahead of them. We must get into their heads. Much of the effort is and will be covert. This is a long-term struggle of civilizations, and our gov't should be honest about what the bottom line is.

Flashing nuclear options around is sophmoric and is basically a chicken sh-t copout.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2004-05-04 9:31:27 PM|| 2004-05-04 9:31:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Binny and Co need to realize that they will be personally hurt when they play their terrorism and attack games.

Binny and Co need to be killed. They are way past the point of realizing anything. Rather, it is their sympathizers that need to be convinced that they are not infallible.

Posted by Rafael 2004-05-04 9:50:42 PM|| 2004-05-04 9:50:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Rafael---Agreed. I guess I was a bit understated. I do not believe that words will accomplish as much as actions. So called religious leaders that pubically preach and advocate harm and death for the US and her citizens are fair game for an attack. Israel is doing pretty well with taking out the leaders. All you have left are ant-farm-type car swarms as an aftermath.

I also like .com's idea on the famous 40 km strip. We need to cut off Saudi's money to terrorists, which is financing the great majority of actions against us. The rest will start withering on the vine. We are going to have to be tough and we will have to carefully think it through. Going nuts just does not make it.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2004-05-04 10:00:09 PM|| 2004-05-04 10:00:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 They key points at this juncture seem to be a) that islamic fanatics are incorrigible and death is the apparently the only rehabilitation available to them that gets civil society the needed results, and b) civil muslims are totally impotent to provide us an alternative to a) ... they just are NOT coming through .. not to protect us ... but to preserve their culture! I don't think they get it. Their entire culture is now on War plans somewhere I am sure, and they need to start taking it as seriuosly as we do or if a nuclear event happens, they don't deserve to keep it. We do not OWE any religious creed the right to a parisitic, violent, black hearted culture. The only way one can reasonably exist on our radar, is if they keep their pranks in their own sandbox and stay clear of us. These people are not doing so, and wholesale decimation, as described a while back on BELMONT should an attack be NBC attack be launched against us, makes perfect Darwinian senese - this is a failed culture, with no scientific reason to exist, politically correct reasons be damned.

Posted by Beau 2004-05-04 10:20:30 PM|| 2004-05-04 10:20:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 . . . wholesale decimation, as described a while back on BELMONT should an attack be NBC attack be launched against us, makes perfect Darwinian senese - this is a failed culture, with no scientific reason to exist, politically correct reasons be damned.

Beau, why do you sound so much like Zenster?

Posted by cingold 2004-05-04 10:27:16 PM|| 2004-05-04 10:27:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 If I sound like Zenster, who can type much better than I do, it is because I am losing my interest in "working it out" with these people. I am exasperated. I give up. Do you think we can work it out with them?

Posted by Beau 2004-05-04 10:29:46 PM|| 2004-05-04 10:29:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 Good catch, cingold.

There's gotta be a way to save most of the people and get them to chuck the failed culture!

Posted by Jen 2004-05-04 10:30:08 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-05-04 10:30:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 OK Jen, then if they light a bomb in NYC and take out 2 million +/-, killing how many of "most of the people" is an appropriate response? "Most of the people", in a passive/aggressive sort of way, support the jihadi culture. How many of those should we keep around, so they can support the next round of attacks? Most of them?

Posted by Beau 2004-05-04 10:39:36 PM|| 2004-05-04 10:39:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 Yep, it's Dr. Strangelove alright.
You're still crazier than a shithouse rat, Zipperhead.

We're not gonna nuke a country where most people "support the jihadi culture" just because we've been hit.
And how do we decide which country is "responsible?"
The Enemy are from lots of different countries some of which support terror, some don't.
Haven't you done any reading on this?
The Treaty of Potsdam of the 17th Century, setting out the rules of military engagement, doesn't apply anymore.
You're still operating on Potsdam rules.

You're not President! You're not even in the Cabinet.
And if you don't cease and desist with the nutty talk, I'm going to scream!
You sound like some wild-eyed militia member who wants to get his gang of "patriots" together to capture an ICBM missile silo so that you can nuke Mecca personally!

Posted by Jen 2004-05-04 10:49:15 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-05-04 10:49:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 Beau, IMO, the history of past posting shows that Zenster probably has ulterior motives, and I wonder if you do too. Zenster he voices strong support (to the point of overkill) for positions obviously near and dear to many who visit this blog -- and then (here and there, thrown in as if afterthoughts) mocks Bush and the validity of his presidency, without any proof to back up the slander. Just because someone sounds pro-military doesnât mean theyâre not just a DU operative (or equivalent) out to slam Bush or try to score points by agruing the absurd. The lack of realism attached to gung ho, âpro-militaryâ solutions, certainly makes such solutions appear superficial and insincere. Please persuade me otherwise, if you think Iâm wrong. There's an old adage, "two wrongs don't make a right."

Posted by cingold 2004-05-04 10:52:04 PM|| 2004-05-04 10:52:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 I have no ulterior motives and basically am just reaching a point where I am hearing no reasonable voices, from influential people, from within the Islamic world that appear interested in working towards civil ends. I think that the fanatics have placed their culture upon a cliff's edge, and if no one within the culture is interested in reeling them back in, then why should we be? Let them fall.

BBQ'ing Americans is not acceptable. Executing
hostages is not acceptable. Flying planes into buildings is not acceptable. Killing kids eating pizza with suicide bombs is not acceptable. At present, the fanatics are creating a ever increasing list of attrocities that is just not acceptable, and the only people that seem particularly active in stopping them, is the West,
and Isreal. They are not taking convincing steps is solving their own problems. At some point, you have to begin thinking that maybe the a) they can't, as in Palestine, or b) don't want to, as perhaps, in Pakistan and Soddy.

What hopeful signals are you receiving that the Islamic culture is making progress on civilizing its masses, and particularly, its deviants? Honest question.

Posted by Beau 2004-05-04 11:04:46 PM|| 2004-05-04 11:04:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 My âhopeful signals,â as you put it, are the dead bodies and blood spilt of those Muslims the islamofascists target as âcollaboratorsâ -- whether in Palestine, Iraq, or elsewhere in the world. Hope springs eternal, perhaps, but I donât think any race is subhuman, and even monkey studies show that cultures can âresetâ and return to proactive modes. The decision has to be made to pursue positive and prosocial change, or annihilation, of islamofascist source populations. I, for one, support the policies of President Bush to seek change.

Posted by cingold 2004-05-04 11:20:26 PM|| 2004-05-04 11:20:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 Amen, cingold.

If you take "Beau's" attitude, then you basically become identical to Osama Bin Laden and the Izzoids.

Posted by Jen 2004-05-04 11:22:57 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-05-04 11:22:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 Zenster is either a troll or seriously unbalanced. Thats a non-exclusive OR!

Posted by Phil B 2004-05-04 11:31:03 PM|| 2004-05-04 11:31:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 Curious remark Jen. Self defense is too basic of a concept for you, I guess.

Anyway ... cingold,

I also think change would be best, but suspect there are incorrigible elements that will take decades to get past. Nothing new here - sort of like Rice describing the problem as being a generational one. I have hope for the next generation. I fear the current generation of islamists may press one too many buttons, however, and severely undermine the hopes of the next, mainly by getting a lot of them killed. We all know Muslims used to be good neighbors with the West with which we could have meaningful relationships. Hopefully, however it works out, that is where things will land. In the meanwhile, we need to keep killing the incorrigibles ... what choice do we have?

Posted by Beau 2004-05-04 11:33:18 PM|| 2004-05-04 11:33:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 You weren't talking self defense, you cretin.
You were talking retaliation and punitive retaliation at that.

It's clear that you haven't read the thread, not to mention the fact that you've done no outside reading of your own.
You asked us to produce info that Islamic society was capable of reform, as if this blog were here for your personal info and the rest of us are just here to fill you in.
Go suck a nukeyaler egg!
I've had it with you, Beau, Zipperhead and your personality Man Sucks Dog!
As tempting as it might be, we're not gonna haul off and nuke the whole Arab world, because that's not what the United States of America is about, so suck it up.

Posted by Jen 2004-05-04 11:42:54 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-05-04 11:42:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 Curious remark Jen. Self defense is too basic of a concept for you, I guess.

Beau, your slam on Jen is uncalled for. Surely, you realize your and Zensterâs (if that makes two of you) proposals are (in common parlance) insane?

I have hope for the next generation.

Have hope for the current generation. They, too, bleed and die and hope daily for a better life. Palestine simply proves that the gentrification of entitlement, without personal responsibility and true democratic voice, always leads to thuggery. If we follow the policies of President Bush, there is much reason to hope millions more can be set free to pursue life, liberty and happiness.

We have the sword for the warring, and our right hand of friendship for the peaceful.

Posted by cingold 2004-05-04 11:57:19 PM|| 2004-05-04 11:57:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 Thanks, cingold, for putting it so well and getting my back and making President Bush's case so well.
I'm tired--this has been some day and some week.

Posted by Jen 2004-05-05 12:00:03 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-05-05 12:00:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#47 Jen: You weren't talking self defense, you cretin.
You were talking retaliation and punitive retaliation at that.

Hate to break it to you - but if Muslim terrorists find they can get away with killing 2 million Americans without retaliation, they're going to do it again. (The Chinese are looking at asymmetrical warfare through plausibly-deniable terror attacks as a way of sticking it to Uncle Sam - the question is whether this strategy extends to helping terrorists). You're thinking about this from an American standpoint, where restraint is viewed as a virtue. America's enemies view restraint as a sign of weakness - an indication that other issues (unrelated to restraint) prevented the US from acting.

It's silly to look at this kind of thing through a partisan prism. Yes, Zenster hates Bush with a passion. But the fact is that many Americans on both sides of the aisle share the same convictions about what has to be done about the problem of Muslim extremism. The Democratic Underground is just the fringe loony left portion of the Democratic party - many Democrats would have no problem with massive retaliatory attacks after the nuclear threshold is breached in an American city.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-05-05 12:26:19 AM|| 2004-05-05 12:26:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#48 I am at a total loss as to why anything I have said is an attack on Bush. I like Bush. I hope things work out in Iraq. I think he needs to keep some serious options open as regards the remaining insurgents there, the thugs in Palestine, Iran, Syria, and for that matter, North Korea. All I am suggesting is that we too, would perhaps benefit from valuing our culture, to the point of fighting to the death for it, like they do. Why embrace a culture deadset upon our demise? Why?

Posted by Beau 2004-05-05 1:01:36 AM|| 2004-05-05 1:01:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#49 Hate to break it to you - but if Muslim terrorists find they can get away with killing 2 million Americans without retaliation, they're going to do it again. (The Chinese are looking at asymmetrical warfare through plausibly-deniable terror attacks as a way of sticking it to Uncle Sam - the question is whether this strategy extends to helping terrorists). You're thinking about this from an American standpoint, where restraint is viewed as a virtue. America's enemies view restraint as a sign of weakness - an indication that other issues (unrelated to restraint) prevented the US from acting.

It's silly to look at this kind of thing through a partisan prism. Yes, Zenster hates Bush with a passion. But the fact is that many Americans on both sides of the aisle share the same convictions about what has to be done about the problem of Muslim extremism.

Zhang Fei, thank you for seeing through any rhetoric (on both sides). Most everyone here is completely willing to ignore that I am (more than anything) trying to get people to examine what sort of deterrents there are to Islamist terror atrocities.

Let's examine .com's first link.

Because they are a shame/pride culture, that latter may seem paradoxical. But the reality is that we cannot win this by making them proud, for they are not a stupid people and they actually have nothing to be proud of. We can't make them proud because we can't give them anything to be proud of; they need accomplishments of their own for pride, and their culture prevents that. The only hope here is to make them so ashamed that they finally face and accept the thing they are trying to hide from in choosing to fight back: their culture is a failure, and the only way they can succeed is to discard it and change.

It may sound strange to say, but what we have to do is to take the 14th century culture of our enemies and bring it into the 17th century. Once we've done that, then we can work on bringing them into the 21st century, but that will be much easier.

But they've got to accept their own failure, personally and nationally and culturally. That is the essential first step. They've got to accept that the cause of their failure is their own culture, and that we're not. And they've got to accept that the only way to succeed is to change. That will be a difficult fight, and it's going to take decades. Along the way it's going to be necessary to remove many governments which come to power and yet again try to embrace the past and become militant, nationalistic, fundamentalist, or again attempt to try to develop nuclear weapons.

... They won't stop hating us until they become successful and begin to achieve on their own. We can't make them successful with material gifts, including aid to their poor. We can only make them successful with cultural changes, and they will resist that. Now that we've been attacked, we are ourselves compelled to force them to accept those cultural changes, because that is the only way short of actual genocide to remove the danger to ourselves. This war will end when they change, but not before.
EMPHASIS ADDED

We do not have decades. If we did, I would not even be making these suggestions.

To continue with .com's second link.

Torture, rape, mutilation and mass murder are all cruel. But everything in war is cruel. Unless you are in the situation where negotiations are pointless and you're trying to destroy the other side outright as a political entity, then as long as diplomacy continues it is the goal of war to be cruel, because what you're trying to do is to give your enemy an incentive to stop the war by giving in diplomatically.

... It's also important to note that it depends on whether they're being considered as offensive actions or as deterrents. Sometimes you have to accept that you may need to prepare to do some things as deterrents that you'd never consider doing preemptively. You may need to even consider genocide as a deterrent, which is what we did during the Cold War as part of the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) in order to deter a nuclear attack against us. That amounted to "mass murder" (leaving aside the question of whether killing in war is "murder").

... in general there are a lot of kinds of acts of war that I would not consider acceptable preemptively which might be necessary to threaten, or even to actually do, reactively as a deterrent. I would not have countenanced American or British first-use of chemical weapons in Europe in WWII, but it was absolutely vital for us to have such weapons ready and for the Germans to believe that they'd be used in response to German first-use.

And that's the point of deterrence. If you simply foreswear any given tactic outright, no matter what it is, you're weakened. But if your enemy knows that you can be just as much of a vile son-of-a-bitch as he can, then he's not inclined to test you out. As with all deterrence, your willingness to engage in dirty deeds helps to protect you against those kinds of deeds.

Deterrence is not perfect; sometimes it fails. But not having it is worse yet, and to have a reasonable deterrent, your enemy must believe that you are indeed willing and able to engage in horrific savagery. He must believe that you have both the capability and the intention of doing so, otherwise you have no deterrent.

But that doesn't mean that you behave that way unilaterally, or that such things become common. What you're trying to do is paradoxical: by being willing to engage in such things, you are trying to prevent anyone from using them on either side.

But it is the nature of deterrence that you are sometimes called upon by your enemy or by circumstance to prove your determination. If you fail in such a case, all future attempts at deterrence will be weakened.

... How far back up the chain would be willing to go? Quite far, which is part of why we're going to conquer Iraq right now. One of many reasons for that is that even if there was no identifiable direct involvement between the government of Iraq and the specific group which made that attack, we need everyone who is even tangentially involved in aiding such things to be extremely nervous about it. So it is a good thing that the response be really very broad, for that makes the deterrent far stronger. In particular, we can't permit enemies to get away with "plausible deniability". We can't allow them to make the argument that "You can't prove that we were involved so you have to leave us alone." Sorry, wrong.

"... No, the problem comes from not having a proper list of gradients that are attempted with the last item being war. Even with war, there would be some gradients - military blockade all the war to the highest gradient of Nuclear response."
EMPHASIS ADDED

And it is precisely a set of gradated replies that I am trying to establish. None of you nor any of .com articles do this.

On to .com's third link.

... According to the doctrine, terrorist attacks are primarily designed to provoke reprisals, but guerrilla actions are directly intended to harm the enemy militarily.

However, in both cases it's common for the combatants to hide amongst civilian non-combatants when they are not directly engaged in operations against the enemy, and that is the primary way by which they nullify the enemy's superiority. They form up just prior to making an attack, and disperse afterwards and vanish into the crowd. Thus they prevent the enemy from gaining initiative; he has a stronger force but no target to attack. If he attacks civilians, that helps recruitment; if he attacks nothing, he looks weak and his morale suffers, and perhaps the enemy nation's determination and objectives may weaken.

Which is specifically I suggest examining holding Islam's shrines hostage. I do not relish advocating genocide. However, there must be a demonstrable price for noncompliance.

Few people here seem to appreciate what Zhang Fei is saying about viewpoints. No amount of American style strategy or tactics is going to provide the short term results that are so direly needed. While this does not lessen the need for victory in Iraq or the desire to neutralize Iran, neither of these address the true menace.

The first article cited by .com makes it patently clear as to exactly why there is no persuading or negotiating with Islamic terrorists. Read it again if you have any doubts. We simply DO NOT have decades to reform Islamic culture. By that time the world will be altered permanently (in the veterinarian sense).

On to .com's fourth link.

The enemy's industrial workers are combatants in the war, and are ultimately no different than soldiers and sailors. An enemy industrial worker who helps produce artillery shells is as much of a threat to you militarily as the artillerist who fires them at your troops.

And all of the enemy's civilians are military assets. They're the ones who pay the taxes which finance the enemy's field army.

... Total War is a strategy and consequence of industrial age war, but not necessarily for information age war. Industrial wars are won through attrition, but information age warfare is the strategic equivalent of sniper fire: one bullet, one kill, and you take the most important guy down first. Information age bombing is precise and carefully planned and targeted to gain maximum effect using minimum force.

... But there are other political reasons why total war might become necessary. In theory, the enemy civilian population might become a target not because it is a military asset for the enemy, but because it is a direct strategic target. In certain extreme cases, the only way to win a war is through genocide.

Part of what we face is an implacable ideology, one rooted deeply in the past, one incompatible with the modern era, and one which finds our existence intolerable and wants us all dead. There are only two ways to defeat such an ideology: by convincing most of those who subscribe to it to change their minds, or by killing them.

If a man means to kill you, either you persuade him that he should not, or you kill him first, or you die. Sometimes you can get him locked up, but that only postpones the problem. By the same token, if an enemy political power is engaged in war with you with the goal of your destruction, you either persuade its supporters that they should not, or you kill those supporters, or you die. The international equivalent of imprisonment (diplomatic and economic sanctions) only postpones the problem.

We are engaged in a massive effort to destroy the ideology which threatens us by persuasion and coercion. We mean to eliminate the ideological threat by convincing the bulk of its supporters to abandon it. This is unprecedented and it is risky; we're on uncharted ground. To a great extent we're making this up as we go along, and that means we're making mistakes and learning-while-doing. We might not succeed.

... If our attempts to eliminate the threat through reform fail, then we face the decision to either kill them or let them kill us. It's worse than that: we would inevitably have to kill them. Once our cities begin to get nuked, we would respond massively, causing unprecedented devastation, resulting in a tragedy that it might take centuries for the world to recover from. Such attacks against us are inevitable based on the ideology that opposes us unless we surrender to it. If we refuse to surrender (and we aren't going to surrender), then the only decision we'd have would be whether we should kill huge numbers of them before or after they'd started killing huge numbers of us.

... No one wants it to come to that. That's why we must remain dedicated to fostering reform. It may be risky, and difficult, but it's still preferable to surrender, or committing genocide, or being the victims of genocide. The reason we're following the strategy we are is that it's the only way we can avoid defeat without resorting to total war.
EMPHASIS ADDED

We no longer have the luxury of "making this up as we go along," or "making mistakes and learning-while-doing." We are faced with an obscene variant of total war. The Israelis have been confronting it for decades and their progress has been painstaking at best.

We must find some way to supress for once and all the threat of Islamist terror. I make no such assertion that mine are the only solutions. Far too many of you are attempting to shackle me to my suggestions.

My main intent is to find a credible deterrent, whatever it may be. We have a few very short years (if that many) to find it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded.

Posted by Zenster 2004-05-05 3:04:50 AM|| 2004-05-05 3:04:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#50 Zenster, overkill is not the answer. Your gung ho, âpro-militaryâ solutions lack the temper of realism. Donât give up on Muslims, in general. They, too, bleed and die and hope daily for a better life. Palestine simply proves that the gentrification of entitlement, without personal responsibility and true democratic voice, always leads to thuggery. If we follow the policies of President Bush, there is much reason to hope millions more can be set free to pursue life, liberty and happiness. We have the sword for the warring, and our right hand of friendship for the peaceful.

Posted by cingold 2004-05-05 11:47:41 AM|| 2004-05-05 11:47:41 AM|| Front Page Top

17:35 Anonymous4775
15:02 Anonymous4752
03:22 someone else
11:47 cingold
07:33 Howard UK
06:52 Bulldog
06:50 Super Hose
06:49 Bulldog
06:10 Howard UK
06:04 Bulldog
05:18 Howard UK
05:10 Bulldog
04:11 Anonymous4617
03:04 Zenster
02:33 someone
01:59 Jen
01:43 Anonymous4617
01:30 Eric Jablow
01:21 Bomb-a-rama
01:17 Anonymous4617
01:08 Anonymous4617
01:01 Beau
00:26 Zhang Fei
00:03 Mr. Davis