Article

2006-10-24 Terror Networks

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 ed 2006-10-24 06:38|| || Front Page|| [11134 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 It seems possible that there is at least one moderate Muslim, (that'd be the author, Dr. Tawfik Hamid, who has quite a bit of courage, it seems), so the existence of moderate Muslims is no longer "Mythical".

Posted by Bobby 2006-10-24 06:52|| 2006-10-24 06:52|| Front Page Top

#2 He's a phony. His kind will attack jihadis overtly, by claiming their terror is executed without ulama (Muslim religious leadership) support, while covertly supporting operations against the non-Muslim enemy. That way they fake opposition to jihadism.

Posted by Snease Shaiting3550 2006-10-24 06:52|| 2006-10-24 06:52|| Front Page Top

#3 A friend introduced me to another form of Islamic thinking that was relatively peaceful. I say relatively peaceful, compared to the other kind.

Read the whole article. Dr. Hamid has put his life, and the lives and safety of his entire family, on the line in order to speak out. Some tricks for how to ask questions and demand answers... and no hope that the world can live with this entire generation of Muslims, barring a few exceptions. Good find, ed.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-10-24 07:42|| 2006-10-24 07:42|| Front Page Top

#4 TW: I have read the Koran and I don't remember a single verse friendly to the Jews That is why, like Snease, I tend to believe that he is an impostor.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2006-10-24 08:18|| 2006-10-24 08:18|| Front Page Top

#5 It seems possible that there is at least one moderate Muslim, (that'd be the author, Dr. Tawfik Hamid, who has quite a bit of courage, it seems), so the existence of moderate Muslims is no longer "Mythical".

The Myth of the Moderate Muslim is not that they exist -- thats certainly a fact -- but that they're the majority. IMHO, they're not even a sizable minority.

Posted by Rob Crawford">Rob Crawford 2006-10-24 09:18|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2006-10-24 09:18|| Front Page Top

#6 Especially if sizable is to equate to relevant, much less vocal or effective.

Posted by .com 2006-10-24 09:20|| 2006-10-24 09:20|| Front Page Top

#7 There is a collection of references to Jews in the Koran here. The first few lump Jews, Christian, and Moslems together as believers.....

But there are some in boldface that are supposed to be negative, often talking about non-believers. Some of these I find confusing. Hmmmm

Posted by Bobby 2006-10-24 09:22|| 2006-10-24 09:22|| Front Page Top

#8 I Must say that there are Useful Ediots in the world today..no disrespect to lotp,But She'He Needs to wake up to the reality..we're not living in a Polyana World..Islam Needs to be dealt with-FPeriod! non of this Nonsense and politically correctness..
I Say what i Kn ow to be correct..Like i said Yesterday,It More Humane to Kill a Few Dirty Killers than Allow them to Kill us All? What Wrong with that lotp? Yes,Some innocent People will also die,But better to see a Small amount die than Millions Right? or don't you see this?
Islam Is a Cancer ok? You're twice the Fool if you Don't see this? ok,Maybe some want to put their head in the Sand..

But lotp,They will Slit your Throat too! in war,Innocent get Killed..That the Nature of War..Since these Bastards have declared War on us Already,Let Fight Back with them with all our Might..
And the Way to win the war,Is to deal with the Root cause of Jihad! The root cause being the Koran..That where they get their Inspiration from..so let Give them What they understand,War,Before they Nuke us all?
Chris
UK

Posted by Angaiper Angeater1515 2006-10-24 09:51|| 2006-10-24 09:51|| Front Page Top

#9 I wanted to make a comment but I can't recall what I was going to say.

Would somebody please use photoshop to superimpose a burka on that nubile burnette featured in the Ranger Up Pro-Military t-shirt blogad? I find that woman distracting.

Posted by Mark Z 2006-10-24 09:56|| 2006-10-24 09:56|| Front Page Top

#10 I still say 'moderate muslims' are a myth. Call them moderate pseudo-muslims or some other phrase. The Koran mandates Jihad. That is an inescapable fact. Moderation simply means denying the muslim faith, as taught in the Koran. To the extent that 'muslims' moderate their faith, they have also deviated from that faith.

America has many thousands of 'muslims' who would describe themselves as 'moderate'. My contention is that they may be many things, and many of those things may be good and praiseworthy. But they are not muslims. How do you moderate a faith whose fundamental foundations are inherently radical? You can't make a Rolls Royce out of a Yugo.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-10-24 10:59|| 2006-10-24 10:59|| Front Page Top

#11 I think only two things will defuse this conflict. First - alternate fuel sources that are so useful and cheap that even Russian and China prefer them to oil. That would dry up the source of money that funds jihad and the war would be over the very next day.

Second - moderating Islam with Sulafi or something like it - allowing the average Muslim a way to keep their faith and move it into the 19th Century. Most people just want to live life, be prospersous, raise kids and die peacefully in their sleep.

Posted by anon 2006-10-24 11:19|| 2006-10-24 11:19|| Front Page Top

#12 But better to see a Small amount die than Millions

Your "small amount" is approximately 1/4 of all the humans on the planet.

Pfeh. It may come to that, but I'm not rushing to make it happen any sooner than it is clear it needs to.

Oh, and Chris -- before you start assuming I'm naive and a useful idiot, you might want to hang around Rantburg for a while and find out what my experience in the Middle East is and some hint about with whom I work today. But let's start with you. Tell me about your experience there and then I'll mention (again, to the boredom of regulars) my experience doing business (some of it defence related) in Israel, Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region. I do confess that I still have to use a grammar and dictionary when reading Arabic most of the time, tho.

Posted by lotp 2006-10-24 11:55|| 2006-10-24 11:55|| Front Page Top

#13 Although quantity is part of the argument, the bigger argument is "who". Everyone will eventually have to pick a "who".

Posted by Jules 2006-10-24 12:02|| 2006-10-24 12:02|| Front Page Top

#14 Your "small amount" is approximately 1/4 of all the humans on the planet.

Still leaving 75% of humanity to carry on, somehow I think we would manage, and the world would be a better place.

You know, you'd have more credibility if you didn't come along behind yourself and change (edit) your posts, after they've been posted. Tacky!

Posted by NoBeards 2006-10-24 12:11|| 2006-10-24 12:11|| Front Page Top

#15 Jules, please explain Although quantity is part of the argument, the bigger argument is "who". Everyone will eventually have to pick a "who".

Posted by wxjames 2006-10-24 12:34|| 2006-10-24 12:34|| Front Page Top

#16 The question isn't whether we could carry on with the surivors after any all-out war. The question is whether we are at the point where we are justified in killing people because of a belief rather than because of actions they have taken or are plotting to take.

We can fight the jihadis without destroying the core of who we are. And I don't mean John Kerry / Democrat "fight". I mean fight to the death. And fight by surveillance, reconnaisance, covert ops when / where possible, open operations as needed.

What we do NOT need to do, nor are warranted in doing at this point IMO, is to round up and deport or kill people just because a bunch of fundamentalist Islamacists want to enforce 7th century norms on a modern world.

Look -- I understand the shock of meeting that mindset up close, whether via Islamacist web sites, propaganda videos or reading the Koran in translation. Been there, seen that. But it's a mistake to assume that those views hold for all muslims. They don't.

The war with the Islamacists has several dimensions. Their hatefilled preaching is as much aimed at the whole 21st century (TV, internet, global banking and investments, womens' rights) as at 'infidels' and 'apostates'. They are deadly serious in their intent to bring our civilization down and we should take the threat seriously.

But it's a mistake IMO to lump all muslims in with them. It's a mistake for several reasons. There are many muslims for whom the Koran is .... guidance .... rather than literal law and who dislike the fundamentalist preachers deeply.

Yes - the Islamacist movement is an existential challenge to the West and we have got to fight it, with the will to prevail over a long struggle.

But at this point, I do not believe it is either justified or wise to lump all who were raised muslim in the same category as that enemy.

Posted by lotp 2006-10-24 12:42|| 2006-10-24 12:42|| Front Page Top

#17 hey, at least you get called a useful idiot. I don't get that much credit

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-10-24 12:43|| 2006-10-24 12:43|| Front Page Top

#18 Lol, Frank. Meee Twooo.

lotp - We're a long long way from anything substantive - except defense. The Taliban and Saddam were purely defensive moves. IMHO. What has followed has been the stupidity of the jihadist, I believe, in adhering to the flypaper when it is a simply dumb move: they're facing our military. Smart move would be to attack the soft civilains in the US, not the Iraqi civilians. I am happy they aren't smart. Surely no one doubts that they could infiltrate the US, and should have long before now, via our open borders. Hell, we've just barely had Islam and Fascism connected, though it's as obvious as the sunrise.

Re defensive moves: The same will go for Iran, assuming that needed move ever arrives.

Sadly, as so many have said before, we will have to be hurt, at home, in quantity, again and again before anything offensive occurs.

I once hoped we would try a travel and technology quarantine - before stronger measures. But given the triangulation of several UNSC members, who can't even take North Korea seriously, I doubt we'll have that luxury.

So, unless I misunderstand half the posters here, we've dismissed / jumped any further half-measures, peaceful measures, and reached the offensive stage in our arguments. It makes sense to try to make sense of what we're doing now, extrapolate it to the big picture, and defend our civility and sanity in the process. In other words, I appreciate your position. But the writing is on the wall, IMHO: they won't let us end it there.

It will be several painful and costly years before the hard decision comes, and yet I do not doubt that it will come. They insist.

Sad.

On the bright side, perhaps the WWF people will accept those 1.25 Bn dead as a down payment. Sorry - that was awful. I'm so ashamed. I should have willingly sacrificed myself and my family for the greater good, rather than putting "Paid" to the WWF invoice with people who either want to kill me, support those who want to kill me, or don't care if I'm killed as long as they aren't bothered while they bang their heads 5x per day.

My bad.

Peace? Lol. Feeling vewy vewy weiwd, today.

Posted by .com 2006-10-24 13:04|| 2006-10-24 13:04|| Front Page Top

#19 Running out the door to give a presentation in the city, so I'll be brief-hopefully, I'll make it back before the thread closes for the day.

It is a life and death struggle-deadly serious, you are right about that, lotp.

Do we think we are going to get a neat little ultimatum from Islam about required fealty to the umma and faith so that we can change our course in time to do something about it? I don't think so-that "culture" is clever enough to shut up and wait it out until odds tip in their favor. Then, our opinion about "1/4 of the population" disappearing won't mean squat-we'll be the ones at risk of dying. And anyone who thinks they-whether it's just the crazy leadership or the entire passive/aggressive umma-won't push for a worldwide enforced caliphate upon pain of death, once they have majority power, has a poor understanding of what makes Islam tick. It is about submission and force, baby.

What I meant, wxjames, is that in the end, it is the survival of western civ that matters more than the numbers that die, and that, without a doubt, a choice to save lots of Muslims when that could mean the death of lots of westerners is at best self-defeating and worse, self-annihliating. It may mean more to them, but to us, the life of Muslims cannot mean more than our own lives.

Posted by Jules 2006-10-24 13:10|| 2006-10-24 13:10|| Front Page Top

#20 lotp, I think we NEED to have a dialog on whether Islam is a religion or a death cult clothed as a religion. We MUST define the movement as what it is and take the necessary action to end the jihad.
However, never has the human experiment been without serious leadership than today when the UN is a useless clusterfuck, and the US Congress has become a bloody street fight. There are people attempting to speak on this subject, but the MSM will not cover it, and most universities are so left, they can't pry open their brains enough to release a fart.
Once we determine that Islam is an organized random murder cult, we can make demands that 'moderates' separate themselves so we can remove the scum from the ponds. I can't forsee that happening, so I recommend preparation for civil chaos. In Europe first, then in the US if no changes are made to guarantee our safety.

Posted by wxjames 2006-10-24 13:15|| 2006-10-24 13:15|| Front Page Top

#21 The blessed shall recline on jeweled couches face to face, and there shall wait on them
immortal youths with bowls and ewers and a cup of purest wine (that will
neither pain their heads nor take away their reason); with fruits of their
own choice and flesh of fowls that they relish. And theirs shall be the darkeyed
houris, chaste as hidden pearls: a guerdon for their deeds. (Sura 56:15-24)
.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2006-10-24 13:29|| 2006-10-24 13:29|| Front Page Top

#22 Anon, you meant Sufi, apparently.

But moderating I-slam is useless. You may be successfull for time being, but the remaining ambers would start fires again, 's just a matter of time. There is a clause, catch 22, somewhere in their manifesto... you can bet that would happen.

I-slam has to go. If we can find the way to do it without anihilation of majority of its adherents (there is no doubt what we have to do regarding a minority of I-slam adherents), I am all for it.

Posted by twobyfour 2006-10-24 13:33|| 2006-10-24 13:33|| Front Page Top

#23 I'm sure we all agree that every individual has certain inalienable rights. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
However, if a man or woman believes it his or her duty to kill anyone who does not believe as they do, are they not then guilty before the fact ?
i.e."I believe it my duty to kill you, so you better kill me first."
Must he be holding a weapon for you to kill him in self-defense ? Is it not enough to know he is capable of wearing a hidden explosive, and practicing the 'religion' of death ?
Or, do we follow the PC model that only the government can take such action, and only then without profiling. Utter madness.

Posted by wxjames 2006-10-24 13:34|| 2006-10-24 13:34|| Front Page Top

#24 However, if a man or woman believes it his or her duty to kill anyone who does not believe as they do, are they not then guilty before the fact ?

By that measure, some here are guilty of genocide.

Must he be holding a weapon for you to kill him in self-defense ? Is it not enough to know he is capable of wearing a hidden explosive, and practicing the 'religion' of death ?

I'm an NRA member and a gun owner. Is that enough for you to know to justify shooting me on sight -- or more conveniently, nuking the next NRA convention?

Posted by lotp 2006-10-24 13:39|| 2006-10-24 13:39|| Front Page Top

#25 Forgot to add:

I'm an NRA member and a gun owner who is willing to use her weapon to defend herself, i.e. I don't think bullets are just for paper targets.

Just to make the danger clear.

Posted by lotp 2006-10-24 13:42|| 2006-10-24 13:42|| Front Page Top

#26 You're ducking the meaning of my words. I'm referring to Islam, not law abiding civilians.

Posted by wxjames 2006-10-24 13:53|| 2006-10-24 13:53|| Front Page Top

#27 And you're insisting that merely being a muslim automatically makes someone guilty of a crime.

Posted by lotp 2006-10-24 13:54|| 2006-10-24 13:54|| Front Page Top

#28 lotp, are you a "splodey martyrdom" believer? No?

Wxjames, if I may do a bit of interpretation and skip academic chitchat, spake thus:

You are enering the mall for your saturday shopping with your family (a hubby and perhaps 2 kiddies). While at the middle of the mall, you notice a ME looking man whose forehead is sweating, despite of the mild temperatures afforded by the season. He is also wearing a long jacket and despite him being in mid 20s and his face being quite lean, he does look quite overweight.

A thought, a horrible suspicion would cross your mind. You have a concealed-carry license and can pull your gun in the matter of seconds.

The man may be sick and have a case of bloating caused by his sickness. Or he has a splodey belt wrapped aorund his torso and every precious second counts.

To draw or not to draw, that is the question.

WWloptD?

Posted by twobyfour 2006-10-24 13:56|| 2006-10-24 13:56|| Front Page Top

#29 White crows, Pedophile priests, moderate Muslims.

Posted by gromgoru 2006-10-24 14:01|| 2006-10-24 14:01|| Front Page Top

#30 Read the bit that Anonymoose posted to opinion yesterday:

It's Not Just Osama. And then get back to us.

There are a LOT of moslems who are sticking their neck out for us in the Middle East, in, for example, the Iraqi Army. In spite of recruiting stations being blown up by Al Qaeda and/or Iranian stooges.

And there are a lot of perfectly western, even in appearance, leftists out there working to put the National back into Socialism, that would just as willingly cut those necks off, and call it a "people's revolution" against the imperialistic United States.

And they'd be just as happy to see you rant and rave about how the problem is Islam; terrorism (and leftism generally) enjoys practicing the "Let's You and Him Fight" strategy.

Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2006-10-24 14:05|| 2006-10-24 14:05|| Front Page Top

#31 0.002%, 1.032%, ???

Posted by twobyfour 2006-10-24 14:05|| 2006-10-24 14:05|| Front Page Top

#32 The only thing every muslim is guilty of is creating and supporting an environment in which murderers can freely go about an otherwise normal life. That is a crime.

Posted by wxjames 2006-10-24 14:10|| 2006-10-24 14:10|| Front Page Top

#33 lotp, are you a "splodey martyrdom" believer? No?

LOL - no, not hardly. Like I said above, I've seen the middle east at close hand. Have zero desire to live there or like that.

What I am is the wife of a retired US military officer. Someone who is strongly pro-defense and currently working to support our military defense of this country.

I'm a citizen who is deeply concerned about the internal rot in Western culture as well as the external threat of Islamicism (which IS a threat only because of that rot).

And I'm someone who believes that we can deal with this threat within our Constitutional principles.

And by that I don't mean a neutered, shackled Consitution which many on the left would like to impose. But neither do I mean a Constitution that is set aside lightly on the grounds that doing so would provide us an easy way out of a difficult challenge.

Posted by lotp 2006-10-24 14:16|| 2006-10-24 14:16|| Front Page Top

#34 Someone who is strongly pro-defense and currently working to support our military defense of this country.

As my husband also continues to do, by the way.

We have specific threats we need to deal with NOW. They include Iran's nuclear program and the infiltration of jihadis in cahoots with MS-13 and other quasi-insurgent groups across our borders.

Let's deal with them and let those muslims who just want to raise their kids and live a pious life alone unless/until they do something that is illegal. There are enough dangerous idiots out there to legitimately take on.

Posted by lotp 2006-10-24 14:19|| 2006-10-24 14:19|| Front Page Top

#35 lotp, you did not have to answer that quuestion, I knew the answer, it was rather a rhetorical device.

But I would like to hear your an answer to my mall scenario.

WWlotpD?

Posted by twobyfour 2006-10-24 14:23|| 2006-10-24 14:23|| Front Page Top

#36 Surely no one doubts that they could infiltrate the US, and should have long before now, via our open borders.

.com, I do doubt it. Much more than I doubt that they have not tried. I do believe we have not been attacked again thanks to the visible efforts of our troops around the world and the invisible efforts of our security services and various Americans who practice Islam and others who were reared in it who have no troth with the Islamofascists who are their enemies as well as yours and mine. They don't want to paint targets on their backs and have chosen anonymity for fear of what would happen to themselves or to relatives still in the Old Country.

Much of this war is being fought in dark ugly corners far worse than those of the cold war and just as we do not yet know or really appreciate what was done by the unsung heroes of that war, so we don't now know all that was done on our behalf by those of whom we know nothing. What I do not doubt is that it is not a coincident we have not suffered another successful attack in this country to date. If they could, they would.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-10-24 14:40|| 2006-10-24 14:40|| Front Page Top

#37 Unfortunately, this resistance to peaceful teaching is not limited to fundamentalists. It is now at the level of the people.

We can thank the good Doctor for making one thing clear, it is not just the imams who espouse jihad, this mind set has reached all the way down to the street.

While I welcome whatever way that avoids eradicating one quarter of the world's population, it cannot come at any significant cost to the West. Not in continued terrorist atrocities, not in even partial installation of sharia law and not in even remotely preferential treatment of Muslims, right down to publishing cartoons of Mohammed.

It is nearly impossible to envision how Islam will ever reach a reconciliation with the above three relatively mild constraints I have placed upon it. The intolerant and ascendant nature of Islam literally prohibits it.

We are confronted with 25% of the world's population wanting their faith to be 100% of the world's religion. That equation is wholly unacceptable. Equally unacceptable, however inevitable it continues to seem, is having to tolerate even one more atrocity anywhere in the world, but most especially here on American soil. It is why I continue to advocate a proactive stance as the only sure way of preventing another such attack.

I think only two things will defuse this conflict. First - alternate fuel sources that are so useful and cheap that even Russian and China prefer them to oil. That would dry up the source of money that funds jihad and the war would be over the very next day.

anon, Russia has far too much at stake in keeping oil usage maximized to ever show the least interest in shutting down a principal revenue generating segment of its natural resources. China is so incredibly self-serving that we would have to invent, industrialize and mass produce some such alternative and then give it to them for free, before they would go through the least expense or effort involved with converting their economy away from oil.

Second - moderating Islam with Sulafi or something like it - allowing the average Muslim a way to keep their faith and move it into the 19th Century. Most people just want to live life, be prospersous, raise kids and die peacefully in their sleep.

This is a key factor and I have continuously called for Islam's reformation. When you consider that apostasy is punishable by death, what then are the chances for a major revision of the Koran's text? Add in how the most dominant strains of Islam are extremely fundamentalist in nature and the chances of reform diminish just that much more. Finally, when you examine the self-interest of the extremists and the loss of control they would experience should Islam become pacified, there is an even more dramatic decline in the likelihood for internally driven reform. Now, incorporate the immense prestige that the Saudis derive from being gatekeepers for the haj and their exceptionally unhealthy symbiosis with Wahhabism and the odds of Islams reform decrease exponentially.

Furthermore, the Islamic clergy preaches against prosperity, just as it preaches against democracy. Individual wealth interferes with jihad by enhancing worldly comfort which distracts adherents from their spiritual mission. Democracy is seen as complete and total anathema to Islam because, in their eyes, it makes the word of man have equal power to the word of God. This is central in getting Islam to abandon its theocratic aspirations. Its lust for theocracy is precisely what renders Islam a political ideology. Such mainstream opposition to democracy renders any hope of reformation stillborn.

If there is no reformation, Islam remains a virulent threat to Western civilization and one that must not just be contained but neutralized. Containment will not prevent the MME (Muslim Middle East) from developing nuclear weapons. Once they have acquired same it is only a matter of time before they deploy them against the West. Thus, containment or quarantine is not effective.

This prunes down the decision tree quite significantly. The remaining options are military conquest of al MME countries in order to quell Islamic ascendancy. Physically crippling them by destroying their infrastructure to delay the onset of any threat phase. Or, finally, simply eradicating this violent threat through nuclear holocaust. This is not genocide as no one particular ethnicity or race of people is involved. Such a measure is based upon the continuous threat represented by a violent religion that refuses to reform its own calls for global domination.

As Jules so aptly summarizes:

... in the end, it is the survival of western civ that matters more than the numbers that die, and that, without a doubt, a choice to save lots of Muslims when that could mean the death of lots of westerners is at best self-defeating and worse, self-annihliating. It may mean more to them, but to us, the life of Muslims cannot mean more than our own lives.

Islam's intransigence must make up our own minds. Its inability and abject refusal to coexist with other cultures must surely spell its doom. Its odds of self-reformation are so remote that we cannot possibly rely upon such a dim prospect. This is why I continue to suggest that we impose demands for religious freedom in MME countries and give them two or three years to do so. If they refuse to permit freedom of religion, then that must be interpreted as the adoption of politically ideological status and thereafter be dealt with accordingly.

If Iran was not so hell bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, the time line for all of this might be more relaxed. Such is not the case and it is one of the factors that compels me to advocate much stronger measures to ensure our survival, as in the proscription of Islam in America.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-10-24 14:44|| 2006-10-24 14:44|| Front Page Top

#38 Who knows? There are so many things you've left out of the scenario that would factor into a decision like that.

Two principles I hold onto WRT my weapons.

First, that I will shoot to defend myself and my family when I have reasonable grounds to believe their lives are threatened.

Second, that I am morally and ethically and legally responsible for the decision I make to do so, including if I am wrong in my judgement or if I wound or kill bystanders to do so.

Posted by lotp 2006-10-24 14:45|| 2006-10-24 14:45|| Front Page Top

#39 Coding tags, why do they hate us? Obviously, the last paragraph in my post was my own.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-10-24 14:45|| 2006-10-24 14:45|| Front Page Top

#40 Sorry, that last comment was in response to 2x4's WWlotpD?

Posted by lotp 2006-10-24 14:45|| 2006-10-24 14:45|| Front Page Top

#41 I'm a citizen who is deeply concerned about the internal rot in Western culture as well as the external threat of Islamicism (which IS a threat only because of that rot).

Attributing much of Islam's actual threat to America's domestic political dissent or appeasement is a tremendous oversight. Look at France, whose appeasement of Islam knows no bounds. They are being taken apart at the seams.

Islam will seek global domination regardless of whether other countries experience internal division or not.

I'd appreciate it if you clarified that statement, lotp.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-10-24 14:58|| 2006-10-24 14:58|| Front Page Top

#42 NS - ".com, I do doubt it."

There's something there, alright. We've had some solid successes in the prevention arena. Some of it first-rate work, and some more of that pure dumb luck we're apparently blessed with.

But I don't think we've stopped them all from infiltrating, unless they're all as dumb as I posited in another post, lol. Unfortunately, some probably aren't. I look at the stats regards Mexicans coming across the border - and the probably accurate estimates that we're only grabbing a minor percentage of those who come.

The same must be true of the jihadis - especially since they've got the funds to buy the best coyotes around - and even the services of the drug cartels, who obviously have the motivation and means to get their mules across much of the time. What other "cargo" could've crossed? Just about anything, if you take into account the sophisticated tunnels with hard-pack floors that were in operation for years before discovery.

So I think some are here. Fewer than would be the case if our enemy was smart, but more than you seem willing to accept. I'll split the difference with you. I dread to think what they brought in with them. Just my take.

Posted by .com 2006-10-24 15:08|| 2006-10-24 15:08|| Front Page Top

#43 Islam will seek global domination regardless of whether other countries experience internal division or not.

I would amend that to "Islamacists ...."

Yes, of course they will. The question is, under what conditions would they have a hope of prevailing?

And the answer is, only if the West were too decadent or divided to whomp them upside the head the first time they tried it, and again and again as necessary.

It was foreseeable that there would be an attempt at a Ba'athist insurgency in Iraq - their heros the Nazis tried it too. The mess in Iraq is due in part to the not so covert encouragement they were given by the left here and in Europe.

It was foreseeable that people from tribal cultures that in most cases are illiterate would try to bring old, barbaric customs with them when the immigrated. They are a cultural threat because they were not told, in no uncertain terms backed up by action, that such behavior is not acceptable in Paris, in Malmo, etc.

Ahmadinajad thinks Allah will help him establish the Caliphate because the Russians, French and the Germans under Schroeder -- not to mention the Chinese -- have been helping him try to do just that.

The list goes on and on.

Of course Islamacists would push for what they can grab. Children are self-centered, dogs pee on the carpet, teenaged boys are potential hooligans, UNLESS those behaviors are corrected with consistency and firmness. When they are, children mature, teenaged boys grow into responsible men and dogs adapt amazingly well into human households.

Posted by lotp 2006-10-24 15:09|| 2006-10-24 15:09|| Front Page Top

#44 What Drives Jihad? Collective insanity? Hatred of us.

Posted by JohnQC 2006-10-24 15:12|| 2006-10-24 15:12|| Front Page Top

#45
Jack Kelley of USA Today once reported at a school run by Hamas, he saw a youth of eleven years give a report to his class:

"I will make my body a bomb," said the boy, "that will blast the flesh of Zionists, the sons of pigs and monkeys. . . . I will tear their bodies into little pieces and will cause them more pain than they will ever know." His classmates shouted in response, "Allah Akhbar," [God is great] and his teacher shouted, "May the virgins give you pleasure."

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2006-10-24 15:15|| 2006-10-24 15:15|| Front Page Top

#46 Conspiracy to commit first degree murder. Sounds like a crime to me.

Posted by wxjames 2006-10-24 15:25|| 2006-10-24 15:25|| Front Page Top

#47 Who knows? There are so many things you've left out of the scenario that would factor into a decision like that.

It's just that, you saw the man a second ago right smack in the middle of the mall and you don't have any additional info. Except that an explosion may kill somewhere in the vicinity of 300 hundred people, given the layout of the mall.

Well, I know it's tough. The man is not a splodey, at least not in the sense of current understanding.

It happens 4 years from now after some lab in ME manages to weaponize certain strain of yersinia pestis. If you shoot him now, about 50% of 1000 people that came to a closer contact with the man would die in 4 days. The splater from the bullet impact will land on you and your chances of survival will shrink to 0.

If you do not shoot him, he'll have 3 days to infect about 25,000 people and based on the mortality rate, about 12,000 would die in 4 days. You'll be amongst the survivors.

Second, that I am morally and ethically and legally responsible for the decision I make to do so, including if I am wrong in my judgement or if I wound or kill bystanders to do so.

Of course you are. That's a given and there is no dispute about it.

Posted by twobyfour 2006-10-24 15:31|| 2006-10-24 15:31|| Front Page Top

#48 Well, I can work that math IF I know he's infected. Or I can work that math based on an assumed probability distribution of the likelihood he's infected.

The point is, of course, that I don't know. And your scenario doesn't say whether the militarization of the bio threat is known to me to have (most likely or certainly) happened, whether there have been previous successful or unsuccessful attempts at the walking-plague attack, whether we in fact might be able to treat or protect against infection, whether other attacks of other kinds have happened here.

Really, IMO those decisions are a function of all of those issues and more. I can certainly dream up all sorts of potential danger scenarios myself and I can war game them too.

That and $3.00 will buy coffee at Starbucks.

Sorry, I was influenced at an impressionable age by the great Herman Kahn, who insisted we look at nuclear response/attack scenarios across a range of likelihoods and options.

Are we facing real threats? Of course. Can a civilization be brought down by barbarians? You betcha it can -- and we're in danger of having just that happen to the West. No disagreement there.

The question is what to do about it. Let's start with the known, well-locatable threat of the Iranian nuclear program and of their funding of Hamas and Hezb'allah alike, in Iraq, in Lebanon, in south America and seeking to cross our borders.

Let's monitor and interdict the hatepreaching that the Saudis are funding here. Splash it all over the front pages of newspapers, on TV, on the Internet. Let the bulk of Americans see what is being promulgated in *some* mosques.

There's lots we can do, but the most important one is to rally a strong will across the populace to deal with the threats that are immediate and real. Trying to deport all muslims will have the exact opposite effect unless and until there is clear evidence that the majority of muslims living here -- many of whom are law abiding citizens -- have turned to jihad.

Posted by lotp 2006-10-24 16:00|| 2006-10-24 16:00|| Front Page Top

#49 I would amend that to "Islamacists ...."

I used to make that distinction. After viewing the "Obsession" video, I no longer think it is applicable. Too much of the Muslim world is, if not overtly cheering on jihadists, silently awaiting their success and doing little if anything to stop them.

The question is, under what conditions would they have a hope of prevailing?

I think that one critical such condition is the refusal to label unreformed Islam a political ideology. Theocracy is not a religion and it remains a central tenet of Islam. Until this abjectly political component is wholly repudiated, Islam remains a political force.

I'll agree that lack of concensus among and within Western nations regarding the current threat presented by Islam also plays into this, but our internal divisions are not the real danger. Islam alone is responsible for its hostility. Any internal divisions or lack of cohesion in the West does not alleviate Islam's responsibility to reform itself. We cannot blame ourselves for the fact that Islam is incompatible with the entire world.

And the answer is, only if the West were too decadent or divided to whomp them upside the head the first time they tried it, and again and again as necessary.

I'll offer that whatever "whomping" that is being done is insufficient disincentive for Islam to reform or retreat. What then should we do?

I have no problem with unilateral action. It will probably prove necessary, especially in light of Europe's incessant dithering. The love taps we have been doleing out so far have been of marginal use. The flypaper effect is probably one of the biggest benefits and it is effective only because of the profound stupidity of our enemy.

Much more significant measures must be taken. If we do not seek to begin girdling Islam at its trunk, then it may well prove useful to stop its fruit from seeding our own lands. Removal of Muslims from American soil and banning the practice of Islam would largely attain that objective.

If enough countries return "Westernized" Muslims to their places of origin, perhaps then they may finally understand that they must take back their home countries by force in order to displace these autocrats and religious tyrants. If they cannot, then they are welcome to enjoy their Islamic utopias and witness firsthand the joys of sharia law.

Repatriating Muslims who have witnessed the benisons of true freedom may be one of the few innoculations that will achieve actual reformation of Islam. Until then, I still feel as though we harbor an immense fifth column within our borders.

Taqqiya makes it utterly impossible to sort out who is and who is not of danger. Banning the hijab and burqa will be a first step in identifying the stupid extremists. Catching the smart ones will still pose many more problems. This is why I feel that mass deportation may be one of the few alternatives. Let them long for freedom back on their home turf. Maybe then they will import it themselves.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-10-24 16:10|| 2006-10-24 16:10|| Front Page Top

#50 Islam alone is responsible for its hostility

I'm not interested in assigning lofty statements of generic responsibility. I'm interested in the choices we make here in the US and I want those choices to be tied to behaviors, as the principles of our rule by law have demanded for centuries.

And I will repeat one last time that there is a difference between islam and islamacists. Not in some countries, perhaps, but definitely HERE. Which is the country from which many of you wish to expel (or worse) all muslims.

I'm done with this topic here at RB for a good while. But as I leave it, I will respeat one last time my other point on this issue:

Those here who persist in refusing to see Islam as a religion or who identify it only with the Islamacist fundamentalists and/or the cynical thugs of Palestine are choosing to ignore its attraction for many converts in the West. Don't be surprised if, having closed your eyes, you are blind to the direction from which danger arises.

Posted by lotp 2006-10-24 16:44|| 2006-10-24 16:44|| Front Page Top

#51 I think GolfBravoUSMC points out an important part of the puzzle. The problem seeds itself in the minds of its followers at a very early age. The youth in MME countries are being bred to continue the problem. Perhaps a new approach to attract the next generation of jihadis away from extremism may not be a bad idea.

The problem with this is that in order for the wound to heal it must be exposed to the open air, which is doubtful to happen any time soon.

Just as amish children are bred to forgive and live life at peace, extremist muslim children are bred as weapons against infidels and apostates.

Posted by bool 2006-10-24 16:48|| 2006-10-24 16:48|| Front Page Top

#52 I'm done with it, too. No more Wot. I want to concentrate and weird animal and lurid crime stories... and boobs. Heavy on the boobs.

Posted by .com 2006-10-24 16:50|| 2006-10-24 16:50|| Front Page Top

#53 You are enering the mall for your saturday shopping with your family (a hubby and perhaps 2 kiddies). While at the middle of the mall, you notice a ME looking man whose forehead is sweating, despite of the mild temperatures afforded by the season. He is also wearing a long jacket and despite him being in mid 20s and his face being quite lean, he does look quite overweight.

You make eye contact. Although he is some distance away, you can just barely read his lips as he whispers "Allah Akbar". He gives you a nervous smile. Adrenaline kicks in. You pull out your full-auto Glock and shred the guy to pieces. What remains of him falls to the ground. Silence. You think to yourself, "it's over, we're all safe."

You feel something hit you just before you go flying through the air and everything goes black. You wake up. You don't know where you are. You see people but aren't sure who they are. You ask someone "what happened?" Someone answers, "The all-American-looking guy standing next to you had a bomb in his knapsack. You killed the wrong guy. Congrats."

Posted by Papa Smurf 2006-10-24 16:59|| 2006-10-24 16:59|| Front Page Top

#54 Re #49: "Repatriating Muslims who have witnessed the benisons of true freedom..."
I ask you, oxymoron or just moron?

Posted by Darrell 2006-10-24 17:02|| 2006-10-24 17:02|| Front Page Top

#55 Or maybe the guy with a bomb is a Marxist who thinks he's a "rationalist" because he worships Lenin, Mao, and Che' instead of some traditional deity.

Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2006-10-24 17:17|| 2006-10-24 17:17|| Front Page Top

#56 bravo lopt. I will take it one step further and point out that there is a fine line between good and evil. What makes us different, better and will assure our victory in the end is our willingness to show mercy whenever we can.

Posted by anon 2006-10-24 17:22|| 2006-10-24 17:22|| Front Page Top

#57 Heavy on the boobs

Lots of boobs around, it's an election year.

badda bing

Posted by lotp 2006-10-24 17:24|| 2006-10-24 17:24|| Front Page Top

#58 So I think some are here. Fewer than would be the case if our enemy was smart, but more than you seem willing to accept. I'll split the difference with you. I dread to think what they brought in with them. Just my take.

I'll buy some of that, especially about how smart the enemy is. But the ones who are here are either sleepers, or those who got here and turned themselves in or were turned. I suspect those who are here and have tried to get local recruits have gotten turned in with surprising regularity and speed. So much so that inspite of the ease of getting them into the country, the senior command of al-Q no longer sends them over in any volume. As the article I posted yesterday noted the US is sterile ground for Islamofascists. Even the number sent into Euro countries and successful at attacks is really pretty small when you think about it.

The law enforcement part may be working pretty well with the native/immigrant community to identify the wackos. But think about it. In whose interest is it to see more terrorism in the US? Certainly not the immigrant community who came here to be classic immigrants. Not the Saudis who know we can put a trail together pretty quickly that inevitably leads back to their money. They don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs and drives the F-15s. Not Perv and the ISI, they know it would get back to them and we'd take the nukes and kill lots of them. So nobody but binny in his cave really benefits from terrs coming to the US.

That's why they all go to Iraq and Lebanon. Little training training required and lots of local support infrastructure. Move the reconquista forward a little bit now into al-Andalus, Kosovo. Save the big one for last after they've gotten more powerful and put Europe into dhimmi status.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-10-24 17:28|| 2006-10-24 17:28|| Front Page Top

#59 So long as American Muslims do not raise more of a stink about their opposition to and universal condemnation of international terrorism, I'd say that they are the real morons. They put their own selves at risk by not clearly distinguishing themselves from those who would do us harm.

To paraphrase that Spanish journalist:

After a while silence is no longer consent. Silence is a lie.

American Muslims and their Thundering Silence in the face of atrocity after atrocity begin to undermine the validity of their place in our society. Their collective lack of response begins to resemble tacit support for terrorism more than anything else.

When a given group of people have a bunch of skunks in their midst and still insist upon their right to wear black clothing with broad white stripes, don't be too surprised if others tire of ~~the stench~~ trying to sort them all out.

On a final note; lotp, I have no doubt that you are an extremely intelligent woman. Given that, it astounds me that you still rise to defend a putative religion that globally enforces Abject Gender Apartheid. I refuse to believe that you can sustain cognitive sufficient cognitive dissonance to play at moral relativism. Consequently, I'm at a loss to understand your position. If you've honestly checked out of this thread for the day, please do not feel compelled to respond to this. I've posted this question before and I'll happily post it again at another eppropriate time. I do not mean this as some sort of parting (or provoking) shot to drag you back into this discussion (I refuse to play those sort of games). What I do hope is that you will consider your position on this in order that we might exchange ideas about it later on.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-10-24 17:37|| 2006-10-24 17:37|| Front Page Top

#60 I refuse to believe that you can sustain cognitive sufficient cognitive dissonance to play at moral relativism.

She can, she does. Ask her why she edits her posts after the fact.

Posted by NoBeards 2006-10-24 17:43|| 2006-10-24 17:43|| Front Page Top

#61 "They put their own selves at risk by not clearly distinguishing themselves from those who would do us harm."
It is you, Zenster, who cannot and will not distinguish them from those who would do us harm. You would "repatriate" all for the evil intent of a few. I know three Muslim families and there is not a person among them that I fear. I'm also not clear on where you're going to "repatriate" them to, since many of them were born and raised in the U.S. and the U.K. What's next with you, Zenster? Putting them all on trains to work camps and gas chambers? A "final solution"? Get a life.

Posted by Darrell 2006-10-24 17:49|| 2006-10-24 17:49|| Front Page Top

#62 Not relativism. I'm not DEFENDING Islam. I'm working from personal experience both with the Saudis pause to edit what I say and with US citizens who are muslim, moderate and peaceful.

In other words, I'm seeing the full range of what is covered by "Islam". I'm fully aware of the percentages involved, especially overseas. I know what Hamas is engendering in their children, and how they will pay for it.

As for editing, nobeard, the answer is that botched eye surgery leaves me with poor vision and sometimes I either mistype or click before I mean to. Occasionally I change that if I see it right away. If I didn't have the privilege of doing that I'd just be posting a lot more correction comments.

Posted by lotp 2006-10-24 17:51|| 2006-10-24 17:51|| Front Page Top

#63 That's an interesting take, NS. I sure hope like heel that you're right.

# 50: Islam alone is responsible for its hostility

I'm not interested in assigning lofty statements of generic responsibility.

I am interested in getting it crystal clear to this world why and how Islam is bringing down potential holocaust on its own head. There ain't nothing "lofty" about it. Holding the West responsible for the fact that Islam adheres to a hostile and violent doctrine of global domination is nothing more than blaming the victim. I'm confident that all of us here have had enough of that bullshit.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-10-24 17:51|| 2006-10-24 17:51|| Front Page Top

#64 I wish I were equally confident that you read and paid attention to what I actually wrote.

I am not "blaming the victim". I am noting actions by the West that facilitate jihad against it.

Posted by lotp 2006-10-24 17:53|| 2006-10-24 17:53|| Front Page Top

#65 "Islam is bringing down potential holocaust on its own head"
And you're just the guy to run the camps.

Posted by Darrell 2006-10-24 17:54|| 2006-10-24 17:54|| Front Page Top

#66 Lol, #57. Definitely *rimshot* stuff, lol.

Posted by .com 2006-10-24 17:55|| 2006-10-24 17:55|| Front Page Top

#67 When you think moderate moslem do not think in comparison to moderate Christian. That is an Apple to Oranges comparison. The moderate is modifying the second word, Moslim.

A more accurate way to view the term is think about the term "moderate sociopath".

Posted by rjschwarz 2006-10-24 17:57|| 2006-10-24 17:57|| Front Page Top

#68 Heh, rjschwarz - you've nailed it!

Posted by .com 2006-10-24 18:01|| 2006-10-24 18:01|| Front Page Top

#69 pretty good shot RJ

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-10-24 18:09|| 2006-10-24 18:09|| Front Page Top

#70 It is you, Zenster, who cannot and will not distinguish them from those who would do us harm.

Where is it written that America is obliged to winnow through this nation's or this world's Muslim population in order to find the psychotics hiding and being hidden in their midst? You're saying that potential rape victims are responsible for going out and identifying potential perptrators before the fact. If someone is living with a person who goes on and on about raping women and does nothing to get them taken into custody, that's being an accomplice.

Somewhere in America, there are tens of thousands of Muslims who are hearing their imams preach hatred and genocide each and every Friday without lifting a finger to stop it. Are they totally innocent of any wrongdoing?

You would "repatriate" all for the evil intent of a few.

It's not a few. If even only some 10-20% of Muslims world-wide are jihadist, that equals the population of the entire United States. Only if those "all" continue to remain inert in the face of crimes against humanity being preached and commited in their name. Why is there not an American Muslim movement to reform Islam and rewrite the Koran? I can comprehend how that might be difficult in other Islamic hell holes, but here, with the protection of law enforcement, there is still bupkus being done by Muslims to reframe what remains a violent and hostile ideology.

I know three Muslim families and there is not a person among them that I fear. I'm also not clear on where you're going to "repatriate" them to, since many of them were born and raised in the U.S. and the U.K. What's next with you, Zenster? Putting them all on trains to work camps and gas chambers? A "final solution"?

Nice try. I wonder if you can even remember how it's Islam that has avowed to finish Hitler's job of killing all the Jews. Of course, this in no way prevents you from bypassing the sequence of events I have posited. I'd rather see the practice of Islam banished in America if, given the chance to reform and install religious freedom, the MME nations refuse to do so.

Care to address that or are you just trying to tar me by short-circuiting my arguments?

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-10-24 18:13|| 2006-10-24 18:13|| Front Page Top

#71 .com, No, he hasn't. Not for all muslims.

Like Darrell I know moderate Muslims who are US citizens. They work, they educate their kids and contribute to the society. Some are serving in uniform -- including honorably in our current combat zones. It's offensive and simply inaccurate to lump them in with the jihadis.

Pfeh. Enough from me. Go pant all you want and drool at the thought of a Final Solution.

The Internet is for porn, for sure. Pity so much of it has nothing to do with sex.

Posted by lotp 2006-10-24 18:13|| 2006-10-24 18:13|| Front Page Top

#72 When they can't have booze then its Hash and opium morphine heroin LSD and whatever..
Not the drug shooting galleries our Marines found all over Fallujha where the brave Jihadist hang out.

Consider how assassin is derived from the root word Hashishian a cult of jihadist killers who smoked hashish all day and were hired killers to pay for it.... A nice lovely Islamic tradition.

So one of the drivers of Jihad has to be encouragement of drug us and targeted amoral killing by young men.

Posted by 3dc 2006-10-24 18:32|| 2006-10-24 18:32|| Front Page Top

#73 targeted amoral killing by young men.

Common phenomenon wherever there is a large number of un/under-employed young men. Inner cities in US, Gaza, fill in the blank

and yeah, the drugs go along with it.

Posted by lotp 2006-10-24 18:56|| 2006-10-24 18:56|| Front Page Top

#74 Where is the pressure for islamic reformation going to come from? The multi-cultis in the west won't permit it. It will be branded cultural imperialism to moment it is tried. I agree that American muslims and those in Europe who are brave should lead this program, but I think it is just a pipe dream. When no reformation occurs and the attacks on the west intensify, then the call for final solution-type tactics will inevitabley increase.

Posted by remoteman 2006-10-24 19:12|| 2006-10-24 19:12|| Front Page Top

#75 "You're saying that potential rape victims are responsible for going out and identifying potential perptrators before the fact."
No, but you're saying you'd deport all males because some may rape. Don't put words in my mouth, Zenster. You already get a fairly big share of the bandwidth.

Posted by Darrell 2006-10-24 19:33|| 2006-10-24 19:33|| Front Page Top

#76 No, but you're saying you'd deport all males because some may rape.

I just knew you'd try that bit of specious garbage. Not all men are Muslims. Not all men in America subscribe to a philosophy that says women should have sex violently forced upon them.

All American Muslims do subscribe to a religion that advocates the forcible overthrown of host countries world-wide and the installation of sharia law therein. By that very act, they render themselves suspect. This is not "guilty until proven innocent". This is guilt by direct association with known seditious elements who pose a grave danger to our nation.

If you are unable to see the difference, you are blind.

As usual, you've yet to address the intermediate steps I've proposed in an effort to tar me as an extremist. When you get around to doing some actual heavy lifting, please let me know.

As always, it's funny how you wage total war on me while giving a pass to others right here in this thread that espouse even more extreme views. Go ahead, come back in and post how I "want to kill them all" and trash like that. Either you've read my posts where I declare how desirable it would be to avoid any needless loss of human life and have purposefully chosen to ignore that, or you are just being unethical.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-10-24 20:01|| 2006-10-24 20:01|| Front Page Top

#77 yawn

Posted by yada yada 2006-10-24 20:10|| 2006-10-24 20:10|| Front Page Top

#78 Where is the pressure for islamic reformation going to come from?

It has to come from Muslims who are willing to rehabilitate their faith. No one else can do it for them. What we can do is apply pressure on Muslims, world-wide to make life miserable for them should they choose to ignore our pointed suggestions. Unfortunately, this is a far more likely outcome. Few Muslims undestand how urgent the need is to begin this task. Far too many are either complacent or unwilling to go against the fundamentalist grain and risk being branded apostates.

That these dissatisfied Muslims can somehow sequester their unhappiness and justify remaining as part of an obviously flawed creed shows that there is a lack of genuine will or resolve to reclaim Islam from the jihadists. If that is the case, they have no right to complain when we come around to dismantle it.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-10-24 20:10|| 2006-10-24 20:10|| Front Page Top

#79 bigger yawn

Posted by yada yada 2006-10-24 20:16|| 2006-10-24 20:16|| Front Page Top

#80 Where is it written that America is obliged to winnow through this nation's or this world's Muslim population in order to find the psychotics hiding and being hidden in their midst? You're saying that potential rape victims are responsible for going out and identifying potential perptrators before the fact. If someone is living with a person who goes on and on about raping women and does nothing to get them taken into custody, that's being an accomplice.

Exactly!

Based on my own personal experiences and contact with Muslims, the ones that "lotp" refers to are a very tiny fraction of the Muslim population.

We can ill afford to try and winnow them out. I say punish the lot collectively. Just like they do us. Also, we cannot afford a decades long conflict, it only weakens us and increases the likelyhood of our defeat.

Also, there was a discussion a few days ago, someone said Islam was not a religion, and a number of folks seemed to rush to Islams defense.

Whether you consider Islam a religion or not, you need to de-legitimize Islam by denying it legitimacy. It is basically the same tactic used by the left, repeat something often enough and it becomes a defacto truth.

That is what I do. Whenever the topic of Islam arises, I declare it illegimate, and then I make very sound arguments for that position by comparing it to other religions. The seeds of doubt vis-a-vis Islam must be planted and nurtured if we are to win this thing. I could not care less about some miniscule number of decent Muslims that are caught up in the destruction.

Islam has to go. Whatever it takes. Some of us are ready, and some still want to wring their hands.

Posted by Flaviger Speger6724 2006-10-24 20:21|| 2006-10-24 20:21|| Front Page Top

#81 Flaviger Speger6724, ditto last 2 parags. There may be more what can be done at some point, but this is the start.

Posted by twobyfour 2006-10-24 20:56|| 2006-10-24 20:56|| Front Page Top

#82 To FS6724 and his ilk,
If that's how you think then you are in the minority! You will lose! Why? Because people like you have always lost throughout history!

Better start your own backyard nuke program soon, dude. You're gonna need it.

Posted by Papa Smurf 2006-10-24 21:42|| 2006-10-24 21:42|| Front Page Top

#83 Twoby four, have you ever been placed in that situation?

Posted by Pappy 2006-10-24 21:53|| 2006-10-24 21:53|| Front Page Top

#84 Going to take a look at what's going on here....

Taken it that the answer ain't Toyota, or maybe it is as simple as that...

Posted by Thoth 2006-10-24 22:04|| 2006-10-24 22:04|| Front Page Top

#85 Oh never mind, this is like complicated and stuff

Posted by Thoth 2006-10-24 22:10|| 2006-10-24 22:10|| Front Page Top

#86 "I wanted to make a comment but I can't recall what I was going to say. Would somebody please use photoshop to superimpose a burka on that nubile brunette featured in the Ranger Up Pro-Military t-shirt blogad? I find that woman distracting."

Nice to hear I'm not the only one who's had trouble concentrating since she showed up...

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-10-24 22:22|| 2006-10-24 22:22|| Front Page Top

#87 Please, no Photoshop burka for the lovely young lady. She is a pleasant distraction.

Posted by JohnQC 2006-10-24 22:24|| 2006-10-24 22:24|| Front Page Top

#88 If that's how you think then you are in the minority! You will lose! Why? Because people like you have always lost throughout history!

It isn't necessary to kill every Muslim on the planet to end Islam. It might take killing a whole bunch of them, but not all. By taking the steps to strip Islam of its legitimacy and all that goes with it, we can make it impossible for Muslims to practice their death cult outside of Muslim lands.

Basically, we isolate them in society, economically, etc. etc. Cut off trade, end immigration, bottle them up in their own lands and keep them there, by force if necessary. Islam will die on its own then.

One way or another though, Islam must be put down. Even ex-Muslims that have left the faith agree.

Posted by NoBeards 2006-10-24 22:25|| 2006-10-24 22:25|| Front Page Top

#89 Good thread.

The population of the US is 300,000,000. The population of the EU is what, about 450,000,000? So 750,000,000-not the 1 billion figure of Muslims worldwide-but still a pretty big chunk of the world's population.

Which Muslim leaders-not the umma, but the people with the actual power to determine yes or no-will decide that, in a battle between the East and the West, fighting for Islam's supremacy isn't worth the destruction of 1/4 of the world's population? Just askin'. I can't think of one, were that the actual choice. I have no reason to believe that Muslim-led states will come down on the side of moderate reason, because the world seems to be suffering from a lack of moderate-Muslim-led states. Even Jordan, often touted as the moderate state, turns a blind eye to the murder of female citizens because they date or have sex before marriage (honor killings), which is against the law of Islam. Who could call that state-sanctioned murder moderate?

I appreciate, lotp, that you are not a person to promote use of nuclear weapons lightly. I am not necessarily, either. I think the question should be about why a weapon can or can't be used; the nature of the weapon is a tactical concern. Is a nuclear weapon less acceptable than a large chemical or biological weapon?

Unfortunately, we can't say that MAD self-control (mutually assured destruction) has meaning in a community which so idolizes self-martyrdom for the glory of a blood-thirsty god. If they are not moved by self-restraint and we are bound by self-restraint, how do you see the struggle ending?

The existential dilemma seems to be:
We won't use whatever means necessary to be the victors because it would mean losing our values. However, our opponents are not bound by these same values and are arguably willing to use those means-those weapons. Because of the realer risk of attack by their more serious weapons, Islam in effect outpowers the US. When we are outpowered by Islamism, what makes us think our values will remain supreme? Without conviction to do what is necessary to remain victorious, the result for us could be loss of life AND loss of values. At what point do we switch from waiting it out to confronting a threat? Will conventional attacks on friends or ourselves be enough or will it take a nuclear strike from them on us to make us concede we can use the "baddy" weapons? Or could the slow, steady erosion of our values occur merely by multiple mini-appeasements?

I like Tancredo's off the cuff proposal (to be used as an ENFORCED restraint on Islam): attack any western country, be prepared for attacks on your holy sites. There are plenty to chose from; we can pick them off one by one or do it in one fell swoop. We need to cause Islamists to fear aggressive movements against the West.

Posted by Jules 2006-10-24 22:29|| 2006-10-24 22:29|| Front Page Top

#90 We need to cause Islamists to fear aggressive movements against the West.

Yep. Wetworks, JDAMs and targeted psyops against the islamic hierarchy, including our Saoooodi Allies©. When the life expectancy of the holy men becomes less than the fodder, the whole game changes

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-10-24 22:34|| 2006-10-24 22:34|| Front Page Top

#91 It isn't necessary to kill every Muslim on the planet to end Islam. It might take killing a whole bunch of them, but not all. By taking the steps to strip Islam of its legitimacy and all that goes with it, we can make it impossible for Muslims to practice their death cult outside of Muslim lands.

Basically, we isolate them in society, economically, etc. etc. Cut off trade, end immigration, bottle them up in their own lands and keep them there, by force if necessary. Islam will die on its own then.

One way or another though, Islam must be put down. Even ex-Muslims that have left the faith agree.

It'll take a lot _more_ dead Americans with people like you turning this war into WW1-but-fought-against-a-billion or so people, some of whom have nuclear weapons, than if we try the war we're fighting now.

How many Americans do you want to get killed in your lust to drive the Northern Alliance or the Iraqi Army (both of whom are under much greater threat from the extremists) into the waiting arms of Zawahiri and Pervez Musharraff?

You know, I thought Sun Tzu said that one is supposed to attack your _enemy's_ plans and alliances, to divide them, to not fight the people you don't have to.

And not to attack _your own_ alliances, betray your allies, throw out your own plans...

Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2006-10-24 22:35|| 2006-10-24 22:35|| Front Page Top

#92 Which Muslim leaders-not the umma, but the people with the actual power to determine yes or no-will decide that, in a battle between the East and the West, fighting for Islam's supremacy isn't worth the destruction of 1/4 of the world's population?

Hell, they may not care about their own populations, but they do care about their villas. Just a thought.

Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2006-10-24 22:37|| 2006-10-24 22:37|| Front Page Top

#93 Smurf, I just see you trolling around in your blue helmet. LOL!

Funny thing, neither FS6724, nor I were talking about nukes, but fancy that, you are.

There may be nukes flying during the conflict, but if that can be avoided, I am all for it. Unfortunately, our current pussyfooting makes the flying nukes rather a predictable feature.

Read three conjectures to get a bit of familiarity with some concepts in that regard.

I can't speak for FS6724, but as I am concerned, there is a whole range of means how to achieve relegating Islam to the dustbin of history. And done it has to be, make no mistake about it.

Posted by twobyfour 2006-10-24 22:39|| 2006-10-24 22:39|| Front Page Top

#94 Pappy, no, at least not in that scope, experienced a situation in which I had to make a quick decision many decades ago where some lives were at stake, but then, these were rather tame times in comparison... I know that I may be in very similar situation one day.

My point was not to pry on lotp, but rather to introduce a scenario in which many of us may be a chance participant.

Posted by twobyfour 2006-10-24 22:48|| 2006-10-24 22:48|| Front Page Top

#95 #92-I was referring to the destruction of OUR 1/4 population, not theirs. That would be your neighbors and family and mine, AS. Ok if they all die?

What if Iraq's alliance with the US and coalition is not as strong as Muslim fealty to the supremacy of Islam?

Posted by Jules 2006-10-24 22:52|| 2006-10-24 22:52|| Front Page Top

#96 The whole problem is that you don't have no PS2 or X-box going there. Not only that, the Bushitler admin is takerway all frisbee. That's the problem. You wanna know why they hate you? Look no closer than your radiator gaskets. Goddamn freepers. Chainey has shed more blood than Osama in the last 9 months.

/Can you deny it?
//Didn't think so.
///It's fun to troll. :)

Posted by Thoth 2006-10-24 22:55|| 2006-10-24 22:55|| Front Page Top

#97 Those who argue that Islam should be politically tolerated in the USA because it's a religion are dropping two essentials:

- when the Founding Fathers thought of religion they knew of the Judeo-Christian strands that teach universal love, strict honesty, and equality of souls

- Islam teaches collective hatred, murder, lies, and slavery

I'm not willing to tolerate moderation in murder, dishonesty, or slavery. Even if it wears a tag screaming "RELIGION OF PEACE" while it preaches total submission and promotes mass-murder.

If there are misguided souls who belive they are Moslem but do not adhere to the Koranic death cult, they need to find a new path. We don't need to sacrifice ourselves, our children, and the entire Western world to their mistaken understanding of what Islam stands for.

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2006-10-24 23:04|| 2006-10-24 23:04|| Front Page Top

#98 I like Tancredo's off the cuff proposal (to be used as an ENFORCED restraint on Islam): attack any western country, be prepared for attacks on your holy sites. There are plenty to chose from; we can pick them off one by one or do it in one fell swoop. We need to cause Islamists to fear aggressive movements against the West.

This is what I proposed years ago when I first arrived here. Hold the shrines hostage with a retaliation in kind program. Either that, or physically take them hostage and ruin the haj whenever there is another atrocity.

Wetworks, JDAMs and targeted psyops against the islamic hierarchy, including our Saoooodi Allies©. When the life expectancy of the holy men becomes less than the fodder, the whole game changes

Funny how it's never the imam's sons or daughters that go boom. Perish the thought that an imam might have the courage of his own convictions and wear the belt himself. Unfortunately, our enemies are too fucking stupid to even realize this and step up to the plate in endless succession.

We must begin decapping Islam's jihadist clerics. Just offing the following key players would cause a sea change in how Islamic terrorism is conducted:

Abu Bakr Bashir, Osama bin Laden, Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Moqtada Sadr, mullah Krekkar, Mawlawi Dadullah, Kahled Meshaal, Ahmad Abu Laban, Hassan Nasrallah, Anjem Choudary, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Seyed Ali Khamenei.

We have to make all of these maggots extremely cautious about showing their faces in public or railing on about "death to America". Who gives a rip if they call us the Great Satan? Just so long as they are scared shitless every time a car backfires, we'll have done our job.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-10-24 23:11|| 2006-10-24 23:11|| Front Page Top

#99 #92-I was referring to the destruction of OUR 1/4 population, not theirs. That would be your neighbors and family and mine, AS. Ok if they all die?

And if I don't do what you suggest _right now_ they're all gonna die?

What if Iraq's alliance with the US and coalition is not as strong as Muslim fealty to the supremacy of Islam?

Maybe you ought to send the Iraqi Army and the extremists fighting against them whatever memo you got that from first. They're suffering many more casualties fighting the terrorists than the US Army is.

Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2006-10-24 23:11|| 2006-10-24 23:11|| Front Page Top

#100 What drives Jihad?

From the course it has been through, it looks like a drunk driver.

Maybe Ted Kennedy?

Posted by TheStatePatrol 2006-10-24 23:13|| 2006-10-24 23:13|| Front Page Top

#101 I'm not willing to tolerate moderation in murder, dishonesty, or slavery. Even if it wears a tag screaming "RELIGION OF PEACE" while it preaches total submission and promotes mass-murder.

Well said, Kalle. Add to that list: institutionalized abuse of women plus Abject Gender Apartheid and Islam's value to this world is lower than a snake's belly full of buckshot.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-10-24 23:16|| 2006-10-24 23:16|| Front Page Top

#102 Abdominal Snowman, please permit me to ask you these questions.

1): Can you forsee an unrestrained Islam abandoning its quest for the imposition of global sharia law?

2): Can you imagine that Islam will reform itself in the absence of external compulsion?

3): Are you willing to bet that Islam will not commit any further atrocities?

4): Would you be willing to say that Islam will not use nuclear weapons against the West?

All my answers come up no. Islam will bring its destruction upon itself. The only thing in question is when. How much mayhem and slaughter are you willing to endure before resorting to some sort of disincentive or deterrent measures? I say we begin them now, starting with hunter-killer teams, crushing terrorist infrastructure, choking of terrorism's financiers and demanding that all MME countries institute genuine freedom of religion (not Afghanistan's facsimile thereof).

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-10-24 23:27|| 2006-10-24 23:27|| Front Page Top

#103 I like Zenster's proposal to give an ultimatum to majority-Moslem states:

- give up jihad, gender apartheid, and intolerance of other religions within the next 24 months.

Or else we we isolate and ban you from the global economy and civilization, to the same extent North Korea is.

Other things would have to happen in parallel, but at least we'd be putting Islamofascim on notice.

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2006-10-24 23:28|| 2006-10-24 23:28|| Front Page Top

#104 Hey Zenster, just kind of wondering....how does one get to Zen?

Posted by Thoth 2006-10-24 23:30|| 2006-10-24 23:30|| Front Page Top

#105 All I'd add to that, Kalle, is that in the absence of MME (Muslim Middle East) nations actually adopting genuine freedom of religion, we should then ban Islam throughout the West. Reciprocity must be the new law.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-10-24 23:32|| 2006-10-24 23:32|| Front Page Top

#106 The parallel activities need to include: pumping oil where WE have it, building nuclear power plants, massively subsidizing research into energy sources and modes of energy transmission, as well as making war bonds available to the public. And executing traitors.

I want to be able to finance new carrier battle groups. Beyond what small amount Congress chooses to grab from my taxes.

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2006-10-24 23:33|| 2006-10-24 23:33|| Front Page Top

#107 It'll take a lot _more_ dead Americans with people like you turning this war into WW1-but-fought-against-a-billion or so people, some of whom have nuclear weapons, than if we try the war we're fighting now.

Huh? You're way off base, not to mention reading impaired. I have no problem with killing as many Muslims as needed, in as cost effective manner as needed. I just don't think it will be necessary to kill off all of them. Attrit their population by half or more, and the fire will leave them.

Of course, if I am wrong, we can just finish the job and it would not bother me. Settle down there sparky, you have some kind of parity error in your reading and comprehension skills.

Posted by NoBeards 2006-10-24 23:34|| 2006-10-24 23:34|| Front Page Top

#108 "And if I don't do what you suggest _right now_ they're all gonna die?"

Not at all. If risking it makes you feel safer and happier, I won't try to talk you out of it. If I'm wrong, we all win. If I'm right, it's your family and friends-no skin off my teeth. Aim for what matters to you.

Posted by Jules 2006-10-24 23:39|| 2006-10-24 23:39|| Front Page Top

#109 Off Topic:

The closest concept the West has to that of Zen is the German word "gestalt". Reduce a house to its separate components of wood, wires, pipes, bricks and nails. Looking at the pile of materials, you are seeing the house, but you are not seeing the house as it was in its assembled state. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

This is part of Zen. It is a philosophy that believes in the charismatic imperfection of man, that mankind's mind is perfectable and represents more than just the sum of its component parts. Zen prescribes meditation and comtemplation of koans or conundrums ("the sound of one hand clapping"), and studying with masters to achieve this enlightenment.

I like Zen for its peaceful nature, cheerful assessment of man's worth and the sometimes exhilirating challenges it can pose to the human mind in fully appreciating our own existence.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-10-24 23:39|| 2006-10-24 23:39|| Front Page Top

#110 Of course, if I am wrong, we can just finish the job and it would not bother me.

Being a little over-confident there aren't ya?

Posted by Papa Smurf 2006-10-24 23:39|| 2006-10-24 23:39|| Front Page Top

#111 Being a little over-confident there aren't ya?

How so?

The West could end Islam existence tomorrow, if it had the will.

Posted by NoBeards 2006-10-24 23:42|| 2006-10-24 23:42|| Front Page Top

#112 I like Zen for its peaceful nature, cheerful assessment of man's worth...

ROTFLMAO!!!!

Posted by Papa Smurf 2006-10-24 23:43|| 2006-10-24 23:43|| Front Page Top

#113 Papa Smurf, why don't you please give the four questions in post # 102 a whirl. I'd enjoy hearing your answers.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-10-24 23:44|| 2006-10-24 23:44|| Front Page Top

#114 In case you hadn't noticed, Papa Smurf, I believe in peace through superior firepower.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-10-24 23:46|| 2006-10-24 23:46|| Front Page Top

#115 Hey Zen, I think your off base on this, but I do like you. Cheers, and have a good night.

Posted by Thoth 2006-10-24 23:46|| 2006-10-24 23:46|| Front Page Top

#116
He can't Zenster, he's too busy diddling Smurfette.

Posted by NoBeards 2006-10-24 23:48|| 2006-10-24 23:48|| Front Page Top

#117 You wish you could diddle Smurfette.

Posted by Papa Smurf 2006-10-24 23:50|| 2006-10-24 23:50|| Front Page Top

#118 Naw, I just think Papa Smurf's out of his depth and unable to provide any actual insight, just criticism and condemnation. Maybe some long line fishing from underneath a bridge.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-10-24 23:53|| 2006-10-24 23:53|| Front Page Top

#119 Superior firepower, and the wisdom of when to use it and when not to.

Posted by Thoth 2006-10-24 23:53|| 2006-10-24 23:53|| Front Page Top

#120 I diddled her! She was a bore!

Posted by NoBeards 2006-10-24 23:55|| 2006-10-24 23:55|| Front Page Top

21:13 Hupailing Ebbuns2352
18:27 Anonymoose
23:55 NoBeards
23:53 Thoth
23:53 Zenster
23:50 Papa Smurf
23:48 NoBeards
23:46 Thoth
23:46 Zenster
23:44 Zenster
23:43 Papa Smurf
23:42 NoBeards
23:39 Papa Smurf
23:39 Zenster
23:39 Jules
23:34 NoBeards
23:33 Kalle (kafir forever)
23:32 Anguper Hupomosing9418
23:32 Zenster
23:30 Thoth
23:28 Kalle (kafir forever)
23:27 Zenster
23:18 Captain America
23:17 Captain America