Counter-Terror mandated.
Reader comment on item: America's Rude Islamists

Submitted by Jim Wright (United States), Apr 23, 2006 at 11:00

We must stop pussyfooting arround. E.g., my mailings to Congress and others in Washington:

To: Those who would save America.

This is a copy of my letter to Paul Sperry, author of "Infiltration: How
Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington".

Paul Sperry:

You, and a number of others, seem to recognize Islam as our Enemy but stop
short of any truly effective strategy to defeat that Enemy. It is said that
"In war, offense is the best defense." and in fighting the Terrorists,
whether in Iraq, or Pakistan, or the USA, as we are, is purely defensive.
It costs us far, far, more to fight defensively than it costs the Enemy to
conduct his terrorism offensively. The Enemy is Islam, yes, and it is Islam
that we should be fighting directly, not just chasing its soldiers. How?

First, by realizing that every believer in the religion of Islam is a
potential Terrorist--man, woman, or child. The Koran is the law that an
Islamist accepts before the law of the land in which citizenship may be
held. This makes every Muslim nation, or community, a part of the Enemy
establishment.

Second, by developing a strategy of actual Counter-Terrorism wherein all
Islamic nations are seen as our targets which are then struck mightily and
promptly after every terrorist attack on the USA, or its friends. The
counter-strike should exact at least ten times the losses in lives and
property that the terrorists' attack accomplished. Any Islamic nation would
be a potential target, perhaps starting with the most openly aggressive,
i.e., Iran.

Such a strategy, if pursued relentlessly and on an escalating scale, should
shortly convince the Enemy that his terrorist activities are actually
counter-productive and cause him to re-group, possibly for another century.
A part of this strategy would include the withdrawal of our troops from
Iraq, and to discontinue that "no-win" war, and to pull our personnel from
all Islamic nations.

If this seems barbaric, consider the alternative: Another ten years in
Iraq, and the loss of the lives of more thousands of our soldiers, and the
mangling of far more thousands. Remember that our bombing of Nagasaki and
Hiroshima saved the lives of perhaps 100 thousand of our military by making
invasion of Japan unnecessary (and also saving as many, or more, Japanese
lives). A most vicious part of this alternative would be the continuation
of Islamic efforts to destroy our way of life from within the US.

Our approach would be to announce to the world exactly what we were going
to do, and advising the Enemy that this new strategy was effective
immediately. We should be ready to demonstrate what was meant, in the event
that they chose to test us, which is probable. First, their military, then
their government (including religious as well as secular), then their
infrastructure, etc., etc. Our targets would include not only the openly
aggressive of the Islamic nations, but even those we know to be backing the
terrorist in less open ways.

Accompanying the initiation of this new strategy would be a grand sweep of
the US and the arresting and holding of all those Muslims we suspect of
being involved in terrorist activities, or otherwise involved in the attempt
to replace our (semi) Republic with an Islamic Theocracy.

Oil? Yes, we'd suffer the lack, but remember the Enemy nations would also
suffer the lack of oil dollars. I suspect that once they gave up their goal
of "World domination" (for the time being, at least) they'd want to resume
sale of oil. But this should not deter us from the Counter-Terror strategy,
otherwise we're in for an unacceptable future.

Jim Wright

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.