Clarifying my stance
Reader comment on item: How the West Could Lose
Submitted by Noah Wilk (United States), Jan 16, 2007 at 18:52
Michel, I have to clarify my stance, because I think you misunderstood a few points. We'll get to that further down.
"I actually applauded Avenger for at least trying to give it a shot with more than just the cliché one –liners.
I can't respect him at all. Spewing propaganda isn't courageous. Standing up for the truth is.
"Albeit, He put some work into it, and at least in the beginning of his post, tried to come across as pragmatic and unemotional."
Muslims always try that approach in the beginning, but inevitably their true colors show.
"I wish I could listen to our local Imams during their "sermons" in their mosques. Are they still applying the Koran to the letter? Has anyone here actually had a chance to do that? I really hoped to hear from an average US practicing Muslim. If I saw for myself, then maybe I'd go and use the vocabulary you mention."
I've heard it through my own ears, via translation. I've heard it spoken to me in plain English during debates ...many, many times.
"You can't mean that seriously. The current realistic percentage of Muslims in the US is about 1%. Even by outnumbering us by 4 children/family, with 300M people, how long does it take for a majority able to decide domestic legislature? I'd would take many generations. Most expert opinions agree upon NL to be the very first western country to see it happen and that within 15 to 20 years, immigration and population development combined."
Here's one of the clarifications I mentioned. I don't mean they'll "take over" in population numbers or insitute Sharia law. What I mean is that in 15-20 years, the damage will be irreversible. Our youth will be totally accepting of Islam, we will have Islamic influence far beyond what we have today (which is saying a lot!), and there will be many millions more of them. We have between 2 and 6 million here now. What happens when there are 20 or 30 million?
"I accept your entire rationale as plausible and for the sake of the argument as fact. Having said that, you belay your own strategy of banning and deportation. Your paragraph quite actually mounts a ton of evidence for my position, declaring the above strategy as not feasible or pragmatic."
Not sure how you think that, since you didn't explain.
"Just one aspect: Our own legal system could and will in such a situation be successfully used to prevent such. Decades of lawsuits would ensue, instigated no just by Muslims, but by ACLU and the likes."
Which is why we would have to do it via exective order or through martial law. The courts are too corrupt, too stupid, and too weak to stand firm and do what needs doing.
"And that is just our own legal system. Noah – I could write a book as to why banning and deportation is surreal."
And here is the next clarification. :-) I never said that it would happen, only that it should happen. Indeed, must happen if we hope to survive. No society can survive when its mortal enemy is allowed to infiltrate all levels of its society, indoctrinate its children, and change its legal system. It's simply not possible.
"Yipeehh, there is an inch of concession. Let me work with it."
I'd say a millimeter, not an inch! ;-D
"The gap between our views is not that huge - I simply see Jordan or Turkey as entry point for my strategy of applying some sort of positive domino theory. I do not argue your polls or facts, as even these countries have a long way to go still."
The positive domino effect is an illusion, and Bush and his cronies have proven that to us. We "reformed" and "democratized" Afghanistan, Iraq, and to a large degree the so-called Palestinians. What happened? Afghanistan insituted Sharia law, Iraq declared that no law can subvert or oppose Sharia law (hence, Sharia by default), and the so-called Palestinians voted in the terrorist group Hamas, which is instituting Sharia law. They've all voted on what they want, and what they always want is Islamic law. To hell with the polls, look at the reality! Turkey is a powderkeg, as is Jordan and Egypt. Our so-called "allies" in the Islamic world all hate us (in the streets) and their semi-cooperative governments barely keep the lid on all that hatred.
"And – by the way - I personally consider Saudi Arabia as one of the most dangerous and hideous of the middle eastern governments, deserving a very decisive and strong, if not intrusive approach almost to the level of what I promote vs. IRAN. I won't go into detail, why I feel so strongly about them, but offer a distilled one liner instead: I'd rather see an open, straightforward, predictable enemy and know what I am dealing with, than a so called ally who says one thing and does another."
Agreed. I'd sooner take out Saudi Arabia than Iran at this point.
"You make a good argument here. Will you however also accept as historical fact, that the prevalent feeling of the Japanese before and during WWI bordered hate towards the US to the extent of fanatism?"
It was a far different hatred than Islam has.
"How could that general feeling (lets not forget Hiroshima) be converted towards a fundamentally positive acceptance of democracy and western world core values?"
Because we broke their willpower, their spirit, their souls. We nuked entire cities off the map and threatened to nuke more. I forgot which general it was, but he wanted to drop a nuke down the mouth of Mount Fuji, which would have buried Tokyo. That's how you defeat an enemy. You break their spirit, you make them believe that the only option they have is to surrender and stop fighting because no other action will work. You overwhelm them and crush their spirit.
With Muslims, this tactic is paramount to winning. Without crushing their spirit and emasculating them, we cannot win. They don't fear death, but they do fear non-existence and powerlessness.
"I am not just talking about "honoring their word", but more so about a 180 degree turnaround in their general population. All that only via a couple of decades of "counter-conditioning". I used that as evidence for our potential to implement the very same for instance in Jordan.'
I'd go with that, right after we nuke Amman! ;-) Seriously. If you know anything about conditioning, then you know that you cannot layer one conditioning over another. The first one must be cracked. we are talking about uncivilized, almost prehistoric savages who worship death and violence. You can't just teach them to sing Kumbayah. It'll never work. Incentives like money will not (do not) work. They have to be broken, like a horse is broken before being ride-able.
"I advocate: eliminate all tax incentives for any such entities. Monitor any Church for the contents of its preachings. You'd be amazed how easy that could be done with our technology."
The problem is not the monitoring. Look at how many Catholic and Christian churches have been sued, have been charged with hate crimes, for preaching that homosexuality is a sin. Now name one instance of a Muslim cleric being charged with inciting violence. Name one mosque that was closed or sued or threatened due to preachng hate against the West and America. And the sick thing is that Christianity is not saying "Kill all the homos" or some sort of anti-gay hate speech. They're simply saying that their religion does not endorse homosexuality, that it is a sin, and that it should be discouraged. You don't see them preaching abot hanging gays or cutting their heads off. And yet still they get charged with hate speech. But I've never heard of a Muslim being charged with hate speech here in America for preaching actual hate and violence in their mosques and madrassahs, and we know for a fact that is happening every day.
So it's not a matter of monitoring. It's a matter of having the balls to kill those who come here to subvert our children and plot to kill us. Forget deporting them! Why, so they can plot revenger overseas? Forget jailing them! What, so we can support them, pay for their Koran, and cater to them? No. Drag them out and kill them. If the government is too spineless to do so, then perhaps the time has come when the general public will have to decide whether their futures are worth taking the law into their own hands.
"So does Scientology, Pat Buchanan or all these famous preachers with their own TV stations. I resent it with a vengeance."
See, that doesn't bother me. Pat Buchanan is not preaching hate against Americans and calling for Jihad. The Scientologists are only concerned with recruiting the idiots in Hollywood with more cash than brains. If they want to spend their cash to own a tv station and broadcast their message, that's fine with me. I don't tune in, and they're not preaching hate against me and my country, so let them preach.
" I deem the Jewish lobby in Washington as still much more dominant and powerful than any Muslim support you can reference."
I'd say the Saudi oil ministers have a lot more influence. Consider that Bush keeps calling Islam the religion of peace and is basically subservient to the Saudis, whereas he will not speak the truth about the so-called Palestinians and is trying to divide and destroy Israel by giving the so-called Palestinians their own state (they already have one, it's called "Jordan").
"America hence vetoed even reasonable resolutions, when my own cousins in Israel (whom I strongly empathize with, as I have a Jewish background) went overboard at times."
Went overboard? When have they even come close to trying hard enough? All I see from them is half-assed efforts and appeasement. Maybe they deserve to be run into the sea. Anyone who refuses to defend himself deserves to die.
"Come on, Noah – it goes across the board, as far as religion and its (growing) influence on politics is concerned. Can you really deny this?"
I don't see this. True Christianity isn't really into politics. It's the pesudo-practitioners who are into politics. Then again, I would not mind a little moral clean up in this country, Christian style. We could use it!
I've come to the conclusion that America is in a permanent downward spiral, and that armed revolution with the total overthrow of those in government and a return to true Constitutional law is the only hope we have. That's why I work so hard promoting the Constitution Party. Otherwise, it's bloody violent revolution or watching the country flush itself permanently down the toilet. Bad times, we live in!
"Allright – a) I think we have the resources and technology, b), I'd like to see a doable way to "force them out". This time I challenge you to outline a feasible campaign to that effect. How would you deport, ban?"
Well, to clarify once again it's not going to happen. At least, not while we have Republicans and Democrats in charge and not while the average American spends 4-5 hours a day being mentally emasculated by television while their kids are spending 8 hours a day being indoctrinated and intellectually retarded by our "schools".
However, it can be done, if we had the will to do so.
First, it would take public outrage. If Muslims feared for their lives while walking down the street, if their stores caught fire, if their homes and mosques and madrassahs caught fire, if their kids were beaten up in school, many of them would be literally terrorized into leaving. I see nothing wrong with this, although I can imagine many will scream "But that's not American!". I don't care. Few people realize the enormity of this threat, or the far reaching consequences of what is happening to America. Consequences that affect the entire world. If I had a cancer tumor, I would not hesitate to cut it out, saying "Oh, but that's part of my body!". No, it is not. It is a mass of rebellious cells intent on destroying my body. Same for a gangrenous leg. Sacrifices are inevitable at times to save the host.
Once they are made unwelcome by the general public, I would simply declare Islam a depraved death cult, a subversive element, and ban it. It is not a religion. I would argue that it is a socio-political cult, and thuse does not enjoy Constitutional protections from establishing laws against religion. I would seize mosques, madrassahs, and Islamic schools and businesses. Freeze all bank accounts and assets of Muslims. Then send in the troops to round them up like we did with the Japanese in WWII. If they resist, they die. It's that simple. And then we deport them back to whichever Islamic country they came from. End of story. No Islam in America. To hell with the ACLU. I'd deport them as well, since they're as much a threat as Islam itself, if not moreso!
Once they were deported, I would tell them that if they engage in any act of mass terror against America or her allies (including using oil as a weapon by jacking up the price or interrupting the flow), the immediate, automatic, and unquestionable response is a massive nuclear strike on Riyadh, Tehran, Mecca, Medina, Amman, and Cairo, followed by a ground invasion to mop up what's left and seize the oil. Muslims would be killed on sight, man woman or child. They'd know I meant business, and I would also immediately cut off all aid to all Muslim countries and triple our aid to Israel.
That would contain them. They'd have no choice but to turn on themselves, because while they worship death, they fear the death of their religion. That's what drives them to forced conversions, because they know that without it the cult would die.
"Really? How do you suggest to protect a border of rugged terrain, thousands of miles long? Not even the Eastern Germans, massively walling of the land, were able to prevent people from leaving or entering, and they shot to kill. Ideas can not be stopped at the borders."
Easy. The Germans used to simple a system. For the Mexicans, I would give them a 30 day amnesty period in which they could voluntarily leave America. If they do so, they will be allowed the possibility of coming back to America legally in the future. Likewise, I would give businesses a 30 day window in which to get rid of the illegals working for them. We can afford industry without illegals. It's corporate greed that needs them, not a true economy. After that 30 days, several things would happen. First, we'd freeze all accounts of companies who hire illegals and begin seizing their company and personal assets. Those responsible for hiring them and those who own the companies would be arrested and forced to serve 5 years hard labor on the Great Wall of America. Illegal aliens would also have all assets seized, they would be microchipped for identification (just like cattle), and they would be force to work at hard labor on the Great Wall of America for 10 years. They'd live on subsistence level rations and work 14hours a day. Free labor! With possibly 20 million illegals, we'd have the wall built in no time! :-)
The Great Wall would be a mile-wide dead zone consisting of reinforced walls and fences in a concentric pattern, underground sensors, automated robots patrolling the area (with cameras and guns mounted, to kill anyone trying to get through). We would have pilotless drones flying overhead, which could kill anyone coming over illegally. Some areas would be mined. Other areas would be filled with water, a moat of sorts, with electrified plates so that if the camera detected someone trying to swim over, the plates would discharge and electrocute them.
We'd also have armed guards patrolling the border with shoot to kill orders.
It can be done.
Harsh? Yes. Necessary? Absolutely! Let Mexico fix itself, then we can consider letting some in legally, if they want to become true Americans.
"Okay – How do you suggest to "round up a (HUUUGE) group of people to entertain such drastic measures, if we can't even round up a representative group for any standard ballot or proposition? Average voter participation in the political process throughout the Western World around 10 - 25%? It does not reflect reality, I am afraid. Not gonna happen. It would take visionary leaders with immense charisma to turn that ship around."
Precisely, which is why it will not happen and why we are doomed. However, with the right people in charge, it would work.
"The experience, up close and personal of the death of one individual or a group of people smashed to pieces, killing a human being, is traumatic, to say the least."
Well, it certainly isn't fun.
"PTSD is caused mainly by that. The smell, sound and visions of that haunt witnesses of such for the rest of their days. "
Not always. I've seen my fair share of combat, and it doesn't haunt me. I don't forget, but it does not affect me.
"If one can do anything, even denouncing to let Shiites and Sunni massacre each other, to avoid ever again to have to see it, such people will take a stand…….they are in a way unable to do anything else, other wise they lose any remaining belief in themselves or their principles. A matter of self-preservation and maintenance of some level of sanity."
That's being hypersensitive. Killing is a fact of human existence. Always has been, always will be. There are times it is imperative to kill.
"It is why they try to ask to use caution and consideration, when calling for war or misery. There is nothing pure, heroic or great about killing. Its ugly, it stinks, is a monster which must be avoided at all cost."
I argee that we need to use caution when advocating war and not get into one without a really good reason. I agree that there is nothing great about killing. However, I totally and utterly disagree that it cannot be heroic and that it must be avoided at all costs. That's weakness speech. Avoding killing "at all costs" would by definition include the concept surrendering before fighting. Humbug!
There comes a point where avoiding killing causes greater evil than the killing itself. There is a difference between killing in self defense and murder inspired by greedy self interests.
"Where the ultimate weapon in our arsenal of our civilized world must be used to protect the lesser evil or the greater good, , it must be done serenely, humbly and with the appreciation of the fact that there will be no victors, but only losers.'
Wrong. There would be clear winners. Look at WWII. Nuclear attacks resulted in a free world, where Europe was rebuilt, Japan was turned into a civilized ally, and millions of lives were actually saved. The same situation exists here. Destroying Islam, which is nothing more than a cancer on humanity, would save countless lives, would free countless people from oppression, and would quite likely save a valuable, good, and civilized ally from annihilation and genocide. The losers would be those who preach hate and who believe that the entire world must be forced into conversion. Islam.
"They are not willing to sacrifice one single innocent child throughout the middle east as collateral damage, unless all other means have been exhausted first."
Who are you talking about? Surely not the Muslims! They encourage their children to strap bombs to themselves and commit mass mayhem and murder. Israel and America are too worried about "collateral damage", when we should not be. You can't win a war if you go into it frightened to death that someone might be offended by your tactics or that some collateral damage occurs.
"The day we (or Israel) may be forced to nuke IRAN is going to be a day of historic tragedy. A day of global sorrow and most definitely no reason for any jokes."
On the contrary, I say it would be a day to celebrate! It would show the world that the forces of freedom are not going to allow an evil, brutal, depraved and demented ideology to dominate or threaten the world. It would show the world that evils such as Nazism, Communism, Islam, etc cannot exist in our world and that such evils will not be tolerated and will not succeed. It would show the world that freedom and justice will prevail. It will spare the world untold amounts of agony, future war, erosion of freedom and happiness, etc. All that is reason to celebrate.
"For above argumentation, I'd put a bullet through my head, if that was true. The vicious circle of action and reaction, violence and revenge we experience for instance in the middle east can simply not be broken by adding insult to injury. Noah – just my personal feeling."
I hope you don't own a gun, because I believe that it has come to that. There is no reasoning with the enemy...they are uncivilized, fanatical savages with one-track minds. They do not respect treaties, promises, or agreements. They are mandated to lie to us, to subvert us, to convert us, and/or to destroy us. This threat makes the Nazis look like Mother Theresa by comparison. And all they understand is force.... Force is all that will work. And now we have their poisonous and evil ideolgy infecting our prisoners, our children, and our society. Force...massive, unrelenting, unapologetic and brutal force...is the only effective tactic.
Reader comments (2100) on this item
Comment on this item
Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum. Daniel J. Pipes