Post: #1

I've read this article on an Ayn Rand associated think tank. I have some reservations, firstly there is no mention of western intervention and how it aided and fueled jihadists. Second, I have my doubts on whether we should really attack Iran. Tampering with the stability provided by dictators was also another Western screw up in the Middle East. Overall I think this article has some sound points, some that seem impractical and others that could scream downright loony, but I'll leave it to your appreciation. What seems sure is that millions would die...

Link: https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/201...-the-west/

Quote:I and other contributors to The Objective Standard have written extensively about what Americans and the United States must do to end the jihad against America.1 But, as is increasingly clear, the target of this metastasizing jihad is broader than America. The target is the West as such. So I’d like here to consider some actions that Westerners and Western nations in general must take if we want to end this murderous assault on the civilized world.

“Western,” in this context, refers not to a geographic location but to a philosophic and cultural disposition. Western people and nations are those that substantially (if imperfectly) embrace and uphold certain Enlightenment values, including: the principle that reason (i.e., observation and logic) is man’s means of knowledge; the principle that individuals have moral rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and the principle that political freedom—including freedom of conscience and expression—is essential to civilized society. These are the basic ideas denoted by the concept of “Western,” and the West’s implementation of these ideas is the basic reason that jihadists are attacking us.

What must we do to put an end to this jihad? Although each Western nation has its own specific political context, governmental structure, and legal requirements for going to war, there are a number of general actions that all Westerners and/or Western nations can and should take if we want to end this barbarous assault. Here are ten essential steps.

1. Acknowledge that we are at war.

Westerners must acknowledge that we are at war with Islamic states and jihadist groups that have attacked our countries and killed our countrymen. We are at war regardless of whether our political leaders have declared war, regardless of whether Western intellectuals admit we are at war, regardless of whether anyone acknowledges the fact. Our alternatives do not include whether to go to war. Our alternatives are whether to win the war that is being waged against us, or not to do so. Our alternatives are: victory or submission.

2. Name the enemy.

We cannot target the enemy that is attacking us—much less defeat it—if we are unable or unwilling to specify who and what it is. We must name the enemy. We must name it accurately. And we must demand that our governments and politicians name it accurately.

Our enemy in this war is: Islamic regimes that have in any way sponsored or supported attacks against the West, and jihadist groups that have planned or executed such attacks. The enemy regimes are primarily those in Iran and Saudi Arabia; and the jihadist groups include Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, and Islamic State (aka Daesh).2

Importantly, although Islam is a philosophic and cultural enemy of the West—in that it opposes every principle of Western civilization and calls for the murder of those who refuse to submit to “Allah”—Islam is not our military enemy.

Islam is a religion—a body of ideas—and, militarily speaking, one cannot be at war with ideas. What would one bomb?

The relationship between Islam and our current military enemy is essentially of the same kind as the relationship between Nazism and Nazi Germany or Shinto and Imperialist Japan in World War II. Nazism is an ideology, a body of ideas; Nazi Germany was a state ruled by a regime that was motivated by its leaders’ and supporters’ acceptance of those ideas. Shinto is a religion; Imperialist Japan was a state ruled by a regime that was motivated by its leaders’ and supporters’ acceptance of that religion. Likewise, Islam is a religion; various states, regimes, and groups today are motivated by their leaders’ and supporters’ and members’ acceptance of that religion.

Islam motivates our military enemy. And this is an important fact. But Islam has not attacked the West; Islamic regimes and jihadist groups have. Islam cannot be eliminated; Islamic regimes and jihadist groups can. Our military enemy today is not Islam but the regimes and groups that embrace that religion, take it seriously, and thus seek to kill us in the name of their alleged God.

Grasping this distinction is vital, because naming our enemy accurately is crucial to winning the war. If we misname the enemy, calling it “Islam” or “Radical Islam”—or, worse, “terrorism” or “extremism” or the like—then we won’t know specifically where to deploy our forces, whom or what to bomb, or what winning this war means (more on this below).

Additionally, if we accept the notion that our military enemy is “Islam,” we might come to think that in order to win the war we must kill every self-described Muslim on the planet, which would be a moral atrocity (to put it mildly).

Although all jihadists are Muslim, not all self-described Muslims take Islam seriously enough to engage in, materially support, or encourage jihad. And unless a Muslim does so, he cannot properly be regarded as our military enemy.

Like the vast majority of today’s Jews and Christians, many of today’s Muslims refrain from acting in accordance with the murderous or otherwise rights-violating tenets of their religion. This does not absolve unserious, non-rights-violating Muslims of any and all responsibility for jihad, but it does limit their responsibility to a sub-legal, sub-political level.

Just as we do not and should not hold all Jews and Christians legally or politically responsible for assaults or murders committed in accordance with their religious scriptures, so we should not hold all Muslims legally or politically responsible for assaults or murders committed in accordance with theirs.

Merely believing in a religion that calls for rights violations does not, in and of itself, violate rights. To violate rights, one must initiate physical force against people, either directly—by, for instance, hitting, stabbing, or shooting them—or indirectly—by, for instance, materially supporting those who commit such acts, or encouraging or inciting others to commit such acts.

If a Muslim in any way materially supports, encourages, or incites jihad—if he provides jihadists with weapons, shelter, information, or the like; or if he calls for aggression against Westerners—he is, by that fact, an agent of the enemy and should be treated accordingly. But if he merely “believes in” the tenets of Islam and does not practice the rights-violating tenets of the religion, he cannot properly be held legally or politically responsible for practicing them. We recognize this fact in regard to other religionists and religions, and we morally must recognize it in regard to Muslims and Islam as well.3

Our military enemy in this war is Muslims who engage in jihad, or materially support jihad, or encourage or incite jihad. These are the Muslims of which the Islamic regimes and jihadist groups are comprised. And these are the Muslims, regimes, and groups we must eliminate.

3. Acknowledge and assert our absolute right to self-defense—and recognize that individuals, groups, and regimes that engage in or call for jihad against the West thereby forfeit their rights entirely.

Westerners must acknowledge that we have an absolute right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—and that this includes the right to self-defense: the right to do whatever is necessary to eliminate threats posed by regimes, groups, or individuals who seek to kill us or otherwise violate our rights.

Although Muslims have a right to believe whatever they want to believe—including the nonsense that “Allah” exists and is the source of truth and moral law—they do not have a right to act on their beliefs if doing so involves committing murder or otherwise violating rights. There is no such thing as a right to practice religious tenets that call for rights violations. The notion of a right to violate rights is a patent contradiction in terms.

We must also recognize that although rights are inalienable (meaning they cannot be taken away), they are not unrelinquishable. One can relinquish or forfeit one’s rights by violating the rights of others. If a person, group, or regime engages in murder or terrorism, or aids in such activities, or incites others to engage in such activities, he or it thereby forfeits his or its rights entirely.

Jihadists and their supporters have no rights. They are, by their own chosen actions, right-less animals. Thus, when we kill them in retaliation, we do not violate their rights. We cannot violate that which does not exist.4

4. Define victory.

We cannot win this war if we do not know exactly what winning it means. If we want to win, we must define victory—and we must do so in a way that specifies what is necessary for us to return to normal, jihad-free living.

Victory against this enemy means: (a) the elimination of all Islamic regimes that have in any way sponsored or supported attacks against the West, and (b) the elimination of all known jihadist groups (and individuals) that have attacked, aided in attacks, or encouraged attacks against Westerners or Western nations.

Only when this two-part goal is accomplished can we return to normal, jihad-free living. Only then will we have won this war.5

5. Use the full force of our militaries to eliminate all Islamic regimes and jihadist groups that have supported or executed attacks against our countries or our countrymen.

Which military strategies and weapons will best serve the purpose of eliminating the Islamic regimes and jihadist groups that have attacked the West is a matter for military experts and generals to decide. But all thinking and decision making pertaining to this matter should be guided by the principle that our respective governments and militaries have a moral obligation to eliminate the regimes and jihadists who have attacked us—and to do so as quickly as possible and with minimal risk to the lives of our civilians and soldiers.

Western nations in general—and the United States in particular—have extremely powerful militaries. America’s military alone could eliminate any Islamic regime or jihadist group on the planet in a matter of days (if not hours)—if the U.S. government unleashed its forces. And America’s military combined with those of other Western nations could eliminate the entire field of enemy regimes and groups in short order—if the West chose to do so.6

The jihad against the West persists only because the West has not chosen to end it. This is a moral atrocity. Westerners have a selfish, moral obligation to end this assault on our lives and the lives of our loved ones. Permitting this enemy to remain in existence is like permitting known serial killers to roam our neighborhoods. It is sheer insanity.

It is time to end the insanity. It is time to end the jihad.

Importantly, by eliminating these murderous groups and regimes, we would not only solve the immediate problem of their existence; we would also strike a significant blow to the root of the longer-term problem. By summarily eliminating the existing Islamic regimes and jihadist groups that have attacked the West, we would significantly discredit the religion that motivates jihad and that will continue spawning more jihadists until it is discredited.

Although, as noted above, we cannot eliminate Islam (a body of ideas), we can discredit it—and doing so is an essential aspect of winning this war. By demonstrating to jihadists and would-be jihadists that their fantasy God is powerless against the West’s very real militaries—by showing them that Westerners can easily destroy the entire Muslim world if we so choose—we would show them that jihad is a thoroughly hopeless cause (more on this below).

Of course, no matter what the West does now, some preexisting jihadist cells will erupt and murder or attempt to murder more Westerners. At this point, nothing can stop that. We live in a causal environment, and Western governments and leaders have permitted these Islamic regimes and jihadist groups to remain in existence and to plan, plot, recruit, and develop cells for so long that future attacks by existing cells are a certainty. The question is: Will we tackle the broader problem now and thus reduce the number and intensity of future attacks—or not?

If we fail to eliminate the jihad-sponsoring regimes and jihadist groups, not only will existing jihadist cells attack the West; new jihadist cells will continue to form and attack as well. If, on the other hand, we end these regimes and groups now, we will cut our losses dramatically and take a giant step toward normal, jihad-free living. The correct choice couldn’t be clearer.

6. Airdrop leaflets explaining the West’s new policy and encouraging the establishment of rights-respecting governments.

After obliterating jihad-sponsoring regimes and jihadist groups, Western nations should airdrop leaflets throughout the Muslim world explaining that henceforth this is how the West will respond to any and all jihadist threats against Westerners, and encouraging the people of the Muslim world to make the choices and take the actions necessary to join the civilized world.

These leaflets should read roughly as follows:

Dear Arabs, Persians, and Muslims,

This letter is from the coalition of Western nations that recently destroyed the Islamic regimes in Iran and Saudi Arabia as well as various jihadist groups that have attacked Westerners or Western nations.

We are writing to inform you of our new policy regarding jihad against the West and to encourage you to join the civilized world.

Our new policy regarding jihad against the West is that it is forbidden. Henceforth, any and all people or groups that engage in or advocate jihad against Westerners or Western nations will be summarily eliminated. Please do not test us on this. We will not issue additional warnings.

We do not want to be at war with you. And we no longer are. War implies that both sides in a conflict have some degree of military power and the will to use it. We have sufficient power to eliminate the entire Muslim world in a matter of days (actually seconds). And we have demonstrated our will to use it. Relatively speaking, you have no military power at all.

What you do have is the power of choice. And your alternatives are: Cease jihad against the West or die.

We want to establish friendly, mutually beneficial relations with you. We want to be able to engage in trade with you; we want to be able to hire you to work for our companies, and to be hired by you to work for yours; we want to be able to visit your countries and have you visit ours; we want to be able to benefit from each other’s rational ideas, innovations, creativity, prosperity. In short, we want to live in peace and harmony with you.

But in order for us to do so, you must meet two conditions:

You must repudiate all forms and degrees of rule by Islamic or sharia law. If you want to believe in “Allah,” that is your prerogative. But if you attempt to govern or in any way rule others by means of Islamic law, you are by that fact unfit for peaceful interaction with the civilized world.
You must establish substantially rights-respecting governments—governments that recognize and protect each individual’s right to think and speak and act as he sees fit. Such governments entail complete separation of Islam and state. (See condition number one.)
If you choose to meet these conditions, you will be able to engage with the West in all manner of mutually beneficial, life-serving ways. If you choose not to meet these conditions, you will suffer the consequences of that wrong choice.

Our militaries are watching you, and they have orders to similarly eliminate any and all individuals or groups that make any effort to engage in jihad against the West. Please do not require them to take further action.

Please, instead, choose to repudiate sharia law and to establish rights-respecting governments. Your reward for making this choice will be lives of prosperity and happiness for you and your loved ones.

Sincerely,

The people of the West

7. Acknowledge that jihadists and their sponsoring regimes bear full responsibility for all death and destruction resulting from retaliation necessitated by their aggression.

If a gang of thugs opens fire on a group of concertgoers, and if a concertgoer draws a gun and fires back at the gang members—thereby killing an innocent bystander—who is morally responsible for the bystander’s death? The gang of thugs is, and every thinking adult knows this.

This is a matter of the law of causality: He who initiates physical force against people is morally responsible for any and all death and destruction caused by the retaliatory force he thereby necessitates.

The same principle applies to jihadists’ attacks against the West. When the West’s use of retaliatory force against Islamic regimes and jihadist groups leads to the deaths of innocents, their deaths are fully the responsibility of the regimes and groups that initiated aggression and thus necessitated retaliation.

Of course, leftists and other apologists for jihad will deny this. But their words have no bearing on the laws of nature. Unlike “Allah,” the law of causality is real. People can deny it, but their denials have no bearing on the fact. Just as people can deny the law of gravity but cannot alter the fact that it exists, so too they can deny causal connections regarding human choices and actions, but they cannot alter the fact that these connections exist.

Causal connections are not matters of opinion; they are matters of fact. When a person, group, or regime necessitates retaliatory force, he or it is responsible for the consequences of that retaliatory force.

8. Answer objections to the effect that “This approach will fuel more jihad!” with observations as to why that makes no sense.

Claims to the effect that “killing jihadists will cause more jihad” are absurd; and, when such objections arise, we should point out why this is so. Here are a few facts to have at the ready:

First, jihadists cannot attack or plan or plot or recruit if they are dead. And Islamic regimes cannot spawn or sponsor jihad if they do not exist. These truths are self-evident.

Second, in the wake of a campaign of total destruction of Islamic regimes and jihadist groups that have attacked us in the name of an allegedly all-powerful “Allah,” even the dimmest mullahs and jihadists who escaped destruction would have to wonder whether Allah is as great and powerful as they had assumed. They might even begin to doubt his existence. “If Allah is not willing or able to save us or our regimes from the retaliatory wrath of the West,” they might wonder, “then maybe he’s not all he’s cracked up to be . . .” The more intelligent survivors might make substantially deeper and broader connections: “Maybe, instead of serving Allah, we should serve ourselves. Maybe we should do what those triumphant, wealthy, happy Westerners do, and go by reason rather than faith; be productive rather than destructive; pursue life and happiness rather than death and martyrdom; establish rights-respecting republics rather than rights-violating theocracies . . .”

Of course, not all surviving jihadists would pause and think. Some would doggedly persist in their efforts to murder Westerners. But such mathematically challenged jihadists would be relatively few in number, and Western forces could hunt them down and eliminate them in short order.

Third, any Muslims who attack Westerners because we killed jihadists who murdered our countrymen were already with the enemy and are now just making it known. This information is beneficial to us because it enables us to identify and kill these newly exposed jihadists as well—and to do so sooner rather than later, affording them less time to plan, plot, recruit, murder.

Additional facts can be cited in response to claims that “killing jihadists causes jihad,” but the foregoing indicates why such objections don’t make sense.

9. Call Islam what it is. Call dishonesty what it is. And call apologists for Islam what they are.

Westerners must not let leftists or other apologists for Islam get away with misrepresenting or excusing this exceedingly evil religion.

Islam is a religion of war, conquest, enslavement, rape, pedophilia, bloodlust, and death worship—it is a religion of unspeakable evil—and everyone paying attention knows this, including those who claim otherwise. As I wrote in the opening of “The Evil of Whitewashing Islam”:

One religion today regularly motivates large numbers of its followers to murder, behead, rape, and enslave people across the globe. That religion is Islam. Not Christianity. Not Judaism. Not Buddhism. Islam. Only Islam. You know this. I know this. Everyone paying attention knows this.

The Koran explicitly and repeatedly commands Muslims to engage in jihad or “holy war” whether they like it or not. “Jihad (holy fighting in Allah’s Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know” (e.g., 2:216, 9:38). The Koran explicitly and repeatedly commands Muslims to “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them” (e.g., 2:191, 9:5), “strike off their heads” (e.g., 8:12, 47:4), make sex slaves of their wives and daughters (e.g., 4:24, 33:50), and continue this jihad “until all opposition ends and all submit to ‘Allah’” (e.g., 8:39, 9:29). You know this. I know this. Everyone paying attention knows this.

According to Islam, the “Prophet” Muhammad is the ideal role model for all boys and men; he sets the perfect example for how to live and wage jihad. Muhammad regularly killed and beheaded unbelievers (e.g., the massacre of Banu Qurayza), made slaves of those he conquered but didn’t kill (he had many slaves), “married” (i.e., repeatedly raped) slave girls (e.g., Safiyah and Rayhana), raped children as young as nine years old (e.g., Aisha), and founded a religion in which all such behavior is regarded as morally great because the “Prophet” did it. You know this. I know this. Everyone paying attention knows this.7

Of course, the moment anyone mentions the murderous and evil tenets of Islam or practices of Muhammad, leftists and other apologists for Islam begin harping about the murderous and evil tenets of Judaism and Christianity. What are we to make of this?

Although Jewish and Christian scriptures call for murder and other rights violations, almost all Jews and Christians today disavow or ignore those parts of their religions. Their adherence to their scriptures has been tempered by the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, and by the obvious need to reject patently barbaric religious tenets in order to live as civilized human beings. Given the clear and rationally unarguable fact that virtually no Jews or Christians today are motivated by their religions to murder or enslave or rape or the like—and given the equally clear and equally unarguable fact that many millions of Muslims today are motivated by Islam to do so—choosing to focus on the evils of Judaism and Christianity rather than on the evils of Islam is obscenely evasive.

When educated adults deny that Islam is a religion of war and unspeakable evil—or when they imply that Judaism or Christianity somehow pose threats similar to those posed by Islam today—or when they imply that the tenets of other religions somehow mitigate the clear and present danger of Islam—they are not merely mistaken. They are lying. They are pretending that facts are other than they know them to be. And, in so doing, they are aiding the jihadists.

This kind of aid to the enemy is not illegal, but it is evil, and those who engage in it should be labeled accordingly, as “apologists for jihadists.” And they should be treated accordingly. They should be morally condemned, publicly shamed, and thoroughly ostracized.

Islamic regimes and jihadist groups have repeatedly attacked and continue attacking the West because we embrace secular, Enlightenment values and thus refuse to submit to their alleged God. They have already murdered many thousands of Westerners, and they aim to murder all of us. Some Westerners want to identify the relevant facts so that we can solve the problem. Others want to obfuscate the facts and thus enable the jihad to continue. Some Westerners are moral. Others—who don’t deserve to be called Westerners—are evil.

This is no time to mince words or to hedge the truth. It is a time to call everything exactly what it is.

10. Acknowledge the difference between being “politically correct” and being morally correct—and proudly embrace the latter.

The approach advocated here is not “politically correct.” Rather, it is morally correct. And this difference makes all the difference necessary to justify it fully.

“Political correctness” requires that we pretend that facts are other than they are. Moral correctness requires that we call things exactly what they are. “Political correctness” denies that Islam is a religion of war and opposes the elimination of Islamic regimes and jihadist groups that attack and murder Westerners. Moral correctness acknowledges that Islam is a religion of war and demands the elimination of regimes and groups that attack Westerners. “Political correctness” is morally wrong. Moral correctness is morally right.

Of course, in being morally correct, we will “trigger” the ire of leftists, who will call us names, such as “Racist!”—as if Islam were a race; “Islamophobe!”—as if fear of those who embrace a religion that requires them to murder us is somehow irrational; “Warmonger!”—as if defending ourselves and our loved ones against faith-driven animals who seek to murder us is somehow wrong. But being on the receiving end of such inanities is a small price to pay for protecting our rights and the rights of our loved ones.

***

If a sufficient number of Westerners were to embrace these ten principles of action, the jihad against the West would soon be a thing of the past. We can end this god-awful nightmare and return to normal, jihad-free living. We know what we need to do. We just need to do it.

Post: #2

It all hinges on the premise that Islamic extremists are a legitimate existential threat to Western Civilization, which is giving them far too much credit.

Post: #3

Ending the threat of jihad against the western world ( europe ) is really quite easy.

1. The immediate and total deportation of all muslims and their subversive native allies.

2. Establishing a border zone around Europe, by fortifying border nations such as Greece, Bulgaria and Italy.

3. Infiltration of Europe by muslim elements will be considered a capital offense, as will aiding these infiltrators in any way, shape or form. Border nations ( Turkey, Libya, the UK ) found to be enabling muslims to cross into Europe will be subject to punitive expeditions.

Post: #4

Ah, yes, what about a solution that can be applied on Planet Earth?

I am aware it can be done in practice, but it won't, so I would not bother mentioning it.

Bortimus, it may not be an "existential" threat but they are winning and we are allowing it. That alone can be a disadvantage.

Power is capacity x will x given environment. If we have high capacity, low will and low environment awareness we will be easy prey.

Post: #5

(12-10-2015 06:56 PM)GameNovice Wrote:  Ending the threat of jihad against the western world ( europe ) is really quite easy.

1. The immediate and total deportation of all muslims and their subversive native allies.

Hey, isn't there some guy in the US who was saying something like this ... Ronald Frump, wasn't that his name...?

Post: #6

(12-10-2015 06:56 PM)GameNovice Wrote:  Ending the threat of jihad against the western world ( europe ) is really quite easy.

1. The immediate and total deportation of all muslims and their subversive native allies.

2. Establishing a border zone around Europe, by fortifying border nations such as Greece, Bulgaria and Italy.

3. Infiltration of Europe by muslim elements will be considered a capital offense, as will aiding these infiltrators in any way, shape or form. Border nations ( Turkey, Libya, the UK ) found to be enabling muslims to cross into Europe will be subject to punitive expeditions.

This is what I consider best as well.

Quarantine.

Force them back inside their border with as much force as required, then hold them there on pain of death. Let them kill each other and live in the kind of medieval conditions their level of civilization can sustain. Trade with them for oil across the quarantine boundary, and allow them to purchase a limited range of goods and services from the civilized world, but don't let them out.

Post: #7

I can think of two ways to quickly secularize Muslims.

A. Wealth.
B. Poison the minds of women with feminism and victim politics.

You add both of those together and teach their women that Islam is patriarchy and having lots of kids is a threat to continuing wealth and the threat is basically neutralized. They'll look like our millenials inside of two generations.

Post: #8

(12-10-2015 10:23 PM)Hades Wrote:  I can think of two ways to quickly secularize Muslims.

A. Wealth.
B. Poison the minds of women with feminism and victim politics.

You add both of those together and teach their women that Islam is patriarchy and having lots of kids is a threat to continuing wealth and the threat is basically neutralized. They'll look like our millenials inside of two generations.

Bingo.

Post: #9

Actually, feminism is already seeping into Islam but with the high repression policy they're subjected to.. And let's be frank, islamic countries DO need feminism/egalitarianism. The way women are threated there is often ghastly. I'd like to send some of our feminists to experience true patriarchal, macho, rape cultures and then come back to tell the tale.

I'd pay them all the plane ride. Too bad there won't be any volunteers.

Post: #10

Take the oil. All of it.

Post: #11

Islam is inherently against everybody that has not submitted to Islam -- Christians and Jews, being "people of the book", due to Old Testament links, are exceptions if they accept the rule of Islam but pay a tax to the caliphate to stay alive.

Our wonderfully established western world, built on the blood and toil and tears of our Pagan and Christian forefathers and mothers, needs to be educated and enlightened about Islam and Muslims. All of the bloodshed in the middle ages "down south" was due to Muslim violence and two-faced aggressions against our hard won culture and way of life. The Crusades were a protective effect against Muslims killing Christians and Jews going on Holy Walks from Europe to Jerusalam in the lands between the two.

The Koran by true adherents is meant to be taken literally as a way of life. There is no symbolic "Islam is a religion of peace" arguement that makes sense. The word for "peace" that Islam uses is "submission" -- as in, "you will only have peace if you submit to Islam." ISIS are behaving like perfect Muslims according to their Holy Book -- complete with Koran dictated "sleeper cells", "soft invasions", "terrorism", and all.

See http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/...olence.htm for more. And attendant articles, new and old.

BE6

Post: #12

(12-10-2015 11:35 PM)eljeffster Wrote:  Take the oil. All of it.

I'd like to see them "bomb the shit" out of every ISIS controlled oil refinery and related infrastructure in Iraq and Syria, then see the price of oil go through the roof. I still can't believe those crazy fuckers are running oil refineries although running them into the ground is probably a better description.

Post: #13

Why doesn't the government force mandatory military reserve enrollment for all fighting aged refugee males and/or a minimum service of five years in the forces to the country they choose to claim refugee status in. If you want to come here, fight for us to earn your spot in the democracy that protects you and your family and ensure its further prosperity. Show where your allegiance lies.

Post: #14

(12-11-2015 12:31 AM)BillyTalented Wrote:  Why doesn't the government force mandatory military reserve enrollment for all fighting aged refugee males and/or a minimum service of five years in the forces to the country they choose to claim refugee status in. If you want to come here, fight for us to earn your spot in the democracy that protects you and your family and ensure its further prosperity. Show where your allegiance lies.

Because the late Roman Empire did pretty much that.

Post: #15

(12-11-2015 01:18 AM)JWLZG Wrote:  

(12-11-2015 12:31 AM)BillyTalented Wrote:  Why doesn't the government force mandatory military reserve enrollment for all fighting aged refugee males and/or a minimum service of five years in the forces to the country they choose to claim refugee status in. If you want to come here, fight for us to earn your spot in the democracy that protects you and your family and ensure its further prosperity. Show where your allegiance lies.

Because the late Roman Empire did pretty much that.

yeah, and if we are going to let them in we can expect something in return. Roman empire did pretty well if you ask me.

Post: #16

(12-10-2015 10:23 PM)Hades Wrote:  I can think of two ways to quickly secularize Muslims.

A. Wealth.
B. Poison the minds of women with feminism and victim politics.

You add both of those together and teach their women that Islam is patriarchy and having lots of kids is a threat to continuing wealth and the threat is basically neutralized. They'll look like our millenials inside of two generations.

Already done

They drive this



and women even have the right to do the jihad by doing something else than make warrior babies

Post: #17

Is it possible for the Jews to pack up and leave Palestine?

Post: #18

That article seems more like neocon warmongering than an actual solution. In reality, just severing ties with Saudi Arabia and getting out of the Middle East would eliminate at least 90% of threats. The small remaining portion can be solved by stricter control on immigrants from dangerous countries, including both immigration controls and low tolerance for undesirable behaviour (surveillance, one strike and you're out, etc).

You can "acknowledge the threat" without starting a world war and creating millions of future terrorists.

Post: #19

And stop sending US made weapons to the Middle East.

Post: #20

Reads like generic NeoCon, "let's start another war!" propaganda.

You know how to REALLY stop Jihad against the west? If the west put a trade embargo up on Saudi Arabia, and Turkey while suspending arms and aid to Israel.

Post: #21

Too many steps. Think like Trump. The only power the Gulf States have (and they are the true enemy) is money. Declare them state sponsors of terrorism. How is Iran a state sponsor and not Saudi Arabia?

Quote:Countries determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism are designated pursuant to three laws: section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act. Taken together, the four main categories of sanctions resulting from designation under these authorities include restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance; a ban on defense exports and sales; certain controls over exports of dual use items; and miscellaneous financial and other restrictions.

Designation under the above-referenced authorities also implicates other sanctions laws that penalize persons and countries engaging in certain trade with state sponsors. Currently there are three countries designated under these authorities: Iran, Sudan, and Syria.

Country Designation Date
Iran January 19, 1984
Sudan August 12, 1993
Syria December 29, 1979

Post: #22

Vote for the most right wing politicians your country has. Trump, Farage and Putin are people who will get shit done without dancing around the subject. Anyone else is just ruining your country. I personally would prefer someone more like Hitler.

(12-10-2015 11:51 PM)Black_Eagle_Six Wrote:  The Koran by true adherents is meant to be taken literally as a way of life. There is no symbolic "Islam is a religion of peace" arguement that makes sense. The word for "peace" that Islam uses is "submission" -- as in, "you will only have peace if you submit to Islam." ISIS are behaving like perfect Muslims according to their Holy Book -- complete with Koran dictated "sleeper cells", "soft invasions", "terrorism", and all.

See http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/...olence.htm for more. And attendant articles, new and old.

BE6

All true.
It is stated over and over that the quran must be taken literally. And if there is one verse that contradicts another verse, than follow the later verse.

I also like the old "oh well that is taken out of context" line. It is literally impossible to take a verse out of context. If you look at a quran you will see that it is just a list of verses upon verses in no particular order. That were just thoughts brought up by muhammed. There are no long speeches in there where you can pull out one sentence. Each verse is only 3 or 4 sentences long just telling people how to act.

Post: #23

(12-11-2015 08:58 AM)Easy_C Wrote:  Reads like generic NeoCon, "let's start another war!" propaganda.

You know how to REALLY stop Jihad against the west? If the west put a trade embargo up on Saudi Arabia, and Turkey while suspending arms and aid to Israel.

You're asking U.S. neocons to give up cold war 2.0 and to stop sacrificing lives and resources for Israel.

You might as well ask them to hand deliver gold bars to every american citizen this christmas.

Post: #24

My own thoughts echo the other sentiments expressed here.

The obvious solution is to leave them alone, and don't let them into our countries. Case closed.

Islamic societies like ISIS simply don't have the culture to organize a tangible threat against the west. What I mean is, they don't have the scientists to produce advanced weapons, they don't have the economy to manufacture them, and they don't have the discipline to train armies that can beat us on the open battlefield.

Israel has proven this by winning every war even though its enemies are far more numerous.

On the other hand, western intervention has practically ensured Islamic extremism. We trained the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. We deposed a secular state in Iraq that was beginning to look a lot like a 1st world nation (look up pictures of Baghdad from before the invasion). We did it again in Syria by arming extremists, leading to ISIS.

If we left them alone long enough, strongmen could ensure stable enough societies to dissipate the religious feelings of the masses. Just like what happened in Europe with Christianity: people get lazy and indulgent. People who have jobs to go to, porn to jerk off to, and xBoxes to play on are far less inclined towards religious extremism (not completely - but far less).

It's obvious to me that the wars we have now are an intended result. The military industrial complex and political elites want us to be constantly at war there, they are making a shit ton of money. It's also much easier to control the population back home with fear and propaganda.

Post: #25

I disagree totally with this article. The author neither knows much about islam nor does he recognizes the real threat, which is demography.
Judging Hezbollah the same way like IS is retarded. A clever strategy would be to use Hezbollah in order to defeat IS.