Resending: To Noah.I am obsessing about WMD for MAD. My futuristic plan to solve the Muslim problem!
Submitted by Plato (India), Feb 5, 2007 at 02:55
The last time I posted this it was chewed up almost unreadable. Hope this corrects.
"Here is a site called Memri. You will see some interesting articles there from the Arab media. That is the trickle that Michel is talking about."
Again, a trickle is not enough to amount to anything. You're pointing out individuals, not actual movements. I've noticed that you and Michel avoid the issue I bring up about the 50,000 Muslims in Arizona and the rally where pretty much none of them showed up. Why is that?
"Wrong. Look what happened to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan. I did not see any fear there."
I said "the Western world". In America, in Britain, in so many Western countries, we fear offending them. We dance around the issue and bend over backwards to avoid "offending" them (for example, not allowing people to wear a crucifix necjlace at work). We use euphemisms to avoid calling them what they are
Oh I see. You detest the fact that your liberals fear offending them in your countries but approve of shocking and awing Muslim nations. Which is why we see Muslim leaders jump when you say rise. A better bargain than not having to wear a crufix at work. .
As far as the war itself, we're not even fighting that properly (which is why we're losing). Our tactics are not determined by how to win, but rather by how to avoid "offending" and "angering" the Muslims
I am no military tactician or strategist so whether the tactics/strategies of the West is causing their defeat, I am in no position to judge. I leave that your expert judgement.
"As you yourself said in a post you know how to bring America to a grinding halt with just a few people, you should know better. You don't need nukes to do that."
No, but you do need access to the target. You do need a presence. You do need to be there. Hence, we keep them out. This is precisely why I say we must deport them and rid our society of their presence. Their very presence is a threat
You can keep every last Muslim out of America? You sure have a detailed plan for that, and I am not asking you to reveal it. What will you do about the many Afro-Americans and White ones who convert or wish to convert. Thought control? Of the 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, not even one in a million of them will be able to gain access? That is still 1200 determined Bin Ladenites. The other thing that strikes a non-military strategist like me is if a few hundred guards are required to guard a few hundred Gitmo prisoners how many will you need to pin down 1.2 billion. It will keep all of the Free World busy 24/7. End of progress. End of global warming too!
"The only choice you have is to wipe out a large portion of humanity. You seem to be willing to do that."
Plato, you are becoming as dishonest in this debate as Michel is, because you insist on ignoring what I have explained several times now. Why is that? Is it because admitted to what I've said would eliminate your only defense ("Noah is too radical and wants to wipe out Muslims")?
I've already told you several times, I am not advocating rounding up Muslims in order to send them to the ovens. I am merely deporting enemies of the state. Enemies whose religion believes that it is ok to kill us if we do not convert to their insane death worship. Do you also whine about deporting illegal aliens and allude to it as "genocide against aliens"?
You don't mind risking the fact that almost everyone you deport (two million?) will become an acolyte of Bin Laden. You see no danger to your well laid plan in that? All the best laid plans of men and mice... And the illegal aliens mention brings up the fact that you are all illegal alien in the sight of the natives there. I don't whine about it, even the Indians have stopped or were made to stop whining about it. You will have to imprison all Muslims including their supporters or imprison yourself in your continent. Probably shut out planes flying, ships sailing in from anywhere in the world. A blockade on that scale is as good as blockading yourself.
Twice at least I have explained how deporting them will lead to less deaths, not more. The Muslims want to explode a nuclear bomb in America. In fact, it is Bin Laden's stated goal to detonate several such bombs. We can expect tens of millions dead and many millions more dead through the after-effects. When they do that, we would no doubt respond with a nuclear strike of our own, and there go a few tens of millions more. God forbid, China or Russia might take a shot at us when they see us weakened by the nuclear devastation the Muslims inflicted on us. Then we take retaliatory strikes on China and Russia. Global thermonuclear war, instigated by Muslims, by a depraved death cult, a human cancer, that does not have any business dwelling in America
My stomach churned when I read that. Sorry I had not paid attention to your plan before. But thanks for repeating it now.Well, well you seem to have your plan down pat. I wish you would give us an estimated number of "less deads". You do mention a few tens of millions. Could you put a figure on the 'few'. Or is that one of the secret parts of your plan. Your perfect plan says God forbid. You must plan for all contingencies. Suppose God does not forbid. How many tens of millions more would it add to the 'few'. The Chinese and Russians and Pakistanis may not have clean killing bombs. I think your plan instead of talking about a few tens of million dead must be revised to reflect the few millions that will survive. You now have a brand new shining glassy planet. And thank the Muslims for it. They were responsible. They instigated the whole holocaust.
My method minimizes that risk and virtually assures that no worldwide nuclear holocaust will take place.
Minimizes that risk', very comforting indeed. 'Virtually assures', a virtual holocaust, not a real one? I did not believe it when some philosopher of science told me we are evolving slowly into a virtual world. I did not expect some people have already reached that higher level of existence. I can already see the masses of glass of that virtual world.
Why don't you comment on this and address it instead of ignoring the logic of it while dwelling on events from hundreds of years ago?
Not just the logic of it but the logistics must also be considered. How are you going to guarantee that almost all Muslims will leave the land of the free and the brave. Even Kim-il Jong's starving, speck of a nation can churn out nuclear weapons and not the clean killing equipment the free world has. Does your plan guarantee that the Muslim world can be sanitised of WMD's. Just because after looking high and low in Iraq you found not an atom of uranium you believe they don't exist elsewhere or will come into their hands (Pakistan already has it). Logistics can be a dampener. The logistics of ensuring every Muslim is evacuated from the free world and the logistics of intrusive surveillance of all Muslims nations don't seem to faze you. I am sure your war game plan has all that locked up. So had Rumsfeld and his team of master strategists.
Now for the detailed plan you are demanding to solve the problem. A brainwave from the foolish anti-semitic wishy-washy dishonest Plato. Your scientists and engineers have come up with clean killing equipment but the Chinese, Russians and Pakistanis are still worrisome elements. Why don't your scientists work helter skelter somewhat like the Manhattan project and come up with a virus, a chemical that targets only Muslims, maybe target people with Muslim-like thoughts and viola you will manage to sanitise the planet of the vermin bothering you. No glassy regions to the planet. The Russians, Chinese will have no objection, they will be rid of their own Muslims too. The Pakistanis will not know what hit them. I got the idea when I once entered the virtual world of Alice in Wonderland. This method of mine is an iron-clad guarantee which not only minimises free world collateral casualties but completely eliminates it.Only people without Muslim-type thoughts will be devoured. Let's call it Weapons for Muslim Death, WMD. Isn't it a nice thought. Far fetched? Scientists already think they know where the religion centre is in the brain. You will object it is moot because it lies in the future. We already have RFIDs, nanotechnology, DNA fingerprinting. Or how about nano fMRI s sniffing out those with Islamic thoughts and then destroying them with nano bombs. Moot, pathetic, unrealistic, unworkable?
Maybe, just maybe, this solution is already bubbling in a test tube in some lab in the land of the free and the brave. Just MAD. Muslims' Assured Destruction using WMD, Weapons for Muslim Death
"I believe it is not necessary and better results can be achieved by the other weapons at one's disposal. The pen, for instance."
And for...what is it, the 50th time?...I am asking for a detailed plan on how your "mighty pen" (and Michel's) is going to change the world and face the challenge down. Until either of you can produce and present a logical, realistic, and workable plan utilizing your "pen is mightier than the sword" nonsense, all you're doing is babbling. (
Er.. a bit of psychobabble. You may not agree but what powers the Islamic sword, is the Book. The Book of Islam must be defeated with another book otherwise it will continue to haunt you into the indefinite future unless you the scour the planet for every one of the Book's followers and pen them up in Arabia better than in Guantanamo. You have developed a master plan because you have concluded an all consuming Islamic night is descending on the world. You could be right and I wrong, I concede. But again history can be a guide. The world came out stronger and better from the dark days of the Middle Ages. I am not aware of any organised purification or domination drive in the Muslim world as was the case with the Vatican. Their only central command is their Book. The masses know nothing of what it contains. Show them what is really in it and the sane ones, who unlike you, I believe are the vast majority (the Jordan survey, so beloved of you, notwithstanding), among them will reprogramme themselves with a defanged interpretation. You say there are no peaceful Muslims. I say there are enough to save the world. That is our point of departure.The Bible is God's word literalists were alive and well not such a long time ago. Ustad Taha was hanged just a few decades ago.Salman Rushdie, Taslima Nasrin, those Memri Arab authors do exist. Consider the number of tafsirs doing the Islamic rounds. All fertile areas from which the Islamic reformation can take wings.
You are probably not willing to wait for the process to work. It is slow hard work and I admit I feel like throwing in the towel when aruging with people like Mo with his nice line in equivocation for Islam's drive for world domination (if you have not read it : changing the political dynamics of countries, make countries sharia compliant). Here is a twentyfirst century Muslim wary of admitting that Koranic verses support invasion of countries not considered Islamic (Taimur attacked Muslim countries charging them with being un-Islamic). Whereas even a few decades ago Muslims like Maududi, an Islamic scholar, had no hesitation in admitting that the Koran invites Muslims to conquer non-muslim nations.We take opposite ends when it comes to the solution to this aggressive Muslim attitude, but we seek the same end.
I do care, terror sympathiser that I am.
"Now you have the unpleasant task of eliminating the stupid Westerners too!"
There you go again, misrepresenting my stance. I am advocating a policy of deportation and denial of Muslims not a campaign of elimination. Apparently you cannot engage in honest debate, since you have to keep misrepresenting my arguments
My apologies if you felt I was misrepresenting and being dishonest, unintentionally ,if you will believe me. Part of the reason being I do not have the time to read every post in detail. I have been paying more attention to Mo. There are a lot of fundamental things about Islam that will surface for Muslims on this blog to ponder in our exchange.
The hardest question here is one of ethics. The ethics of having decimated a whole race. Remember the Holocaust is also in the past, why is everyone obsessing about it today in the twentyfirst century. Why is the Indian case any different and does it not count as a holocaust? And the ethics of deporting millions of Muslims,the good and the ugly along with the bad Don't tell me. You don't care, their ethics are deplorable.
"From what you have been saying it seems to be your firm belief that Muslims are neither peaceful, nor can be reformed."
I see no evidence that they are peaceful or that they can be reformed. History backs my views. Their "religion" was founded by a violent, barbaric man in order to unite a violent, barbaric, tribal people. Their cult has endorsed and propogated death for 1,400 years, and they have not managed to change in all that time. So reality backs my view. Still, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and allow them another 1,400 years to reform. I am not, however, willing to allow them to engage in an orgy of violence, genocide, rape, and terrorism at our expense while they work out their mass psychosis. Let them do it in their own backyard.(
I have to agree that the evidence is a bit thin but the fact that there is a multiplicity of sects among them argues for reformation. We are not suggesting that you allow them to engage in genocide etc, just hit back with double the force when that happens as you always do, as in Afghanistan And not as in Iraq where you only suspected they were cooking up a nuclear broth. What you now have there is a Shia-Sunni blood soup coming to the boil, with Western blood as flavouring
"And confining them to Arabia is an impossible task. So the only good Muslim is a dead one."
It is not impossible. Claiming it is impossible is the battle cry of the weak and the already-defeated. Once we deport them, we deny them entry into this country. No flights, no ships, no crossing over from Mexico on foot. This can easily be done, given the will to do it. Other countries can likewise ban them. Hence, they are confined to Arabia. A few may trickle out towards the borders, but they can't swim across the ocean to get to America, plus they can be turned back at the Arabian border. Believe me, they would so quickly turn on one another (Shia vs Sunni, etc), that all their energy would be directed on one another and they'd forget the rest of the world. All that anger (which Islam foments like a pressure cooker) needs venting, and we would simply deny them the ability to vent it on us. Viola! Civil war in Arabia, and we can just ignore them.
I see the making of another detailed plan for sealing the borders of Arabia. How many thousands of kilometers is that? Sure like MOAB you have some super-secret technology to tag all Arabs (not impossible) and track their movements and anyone makes a move to go beyond that line in the sand you zap them with your space weapons. Or more realistically you build watch towers every 100 metres and raise another army to man them. Enthusiam for these 'water-tight' plans is fine but where are the resources
"True. A moot issue. But why are you trying to undo another moot issue. The existence of Muslims in America, Europe and elsewhere"
That's not a moot point. It is the root of the problem, and unlike the past it is an issue we can do something about
Yes you have a detailed plan to "something" about it. It is the "something" that is bothersome. .
"A thought experiment for you. What if the surviving Red Indians demand the new occupants go back to where they came from a la your demand that the Muslims go back to Arabia or wherever. The Indians were also taken over by migratory as well as armed attacks."
As I said, this is nothing more than deflecting the issue. I've already admitted to the atrocities committed by Americans and Christians in the past, but there is nothing that can be done to change that. It is still an undeniable fact that America is the greatest country that's ever existed, where more people have had more rights and freedoms than at any other time and place in the history of mankind. And that needs defending
Yes freedoms needs to be defended with all you have got, except the freedom to repeat another version of the atrocity committed on the Indians. My firm belief, maybe foolish but not a dishonest one, if you do what you propose to do all that you defend will turn to ashes in your hands. ( yes only a belief but just as you are willing to die for freedom I am willing to do the same for this belief).
It is interesting how both you and Michel keep bringing up non-issues from the past that have nothing to do with the current situation and nothing to do with our debate, and when I point out that the issue is moot, both of you accuse me of skirting the issue, of avoiding or deflecting it. And yet each of you have been deflecting and avoiding pointed questions to various relevant issues which I have raised, and both of you continue to do so. I suspect this is because you know you cannot win the debate
The idea for me here is not about having a debate or about winning or losing the debate but bring some sanity to it. I don't mind losing it as long as among the hundreds here who agreed with you at the beginning just a handful see a wee bit of merit in what I am saying. In that case you have won the debate but it would be a personal victory for me and not in the triumphalist sense
"The Jews demanded and got back their ancestral homeland, in all probablity leading to those planes slamming into your towers."
And the anti-Semite in Plato reveals itself at last! So it was the Jews who caused the 9/11 atrocities, not the Muslims? You're a fool, and a... terror apologist.
I'll skip over the next 3-4 paragraphs of whining about Native Americans since it is irrelevant to the discussion.
Sure I will stop that if it irritates you so. Poor Native Americans, one cannot even whine for them. YOU have nothing to whine about seeing you are now the masters of all you survey there.
"Why can't you accept that there is a chance that Muslims of the future can also turn around and look at their ancestors beliefs with bemusement if not amusement."
It took Christendom some 1800 years, give the muslims another 400 years. Muslims like Mo have already started equivocating about passages that call for invasion of infidel countries (changing the political dynamics, sharia compliance etc). Just half a century ago Muslim scholars like Maududi had no hesitation in admitting that Surah 9 is all about invading unbelieving nations.
Now you have left us with our delusions.
"I will grant you that today America is a shining example and has contributed a lot to the world."
Wow, a concession to reality. Is this a sign of progress, or simply a token gesture?
"But I hope that advancement does not lead to the heat death of us all."
Yup, it was a token gesture. We're guilty of causing global warming, huh? Plato, it's clear that you, like Michel, favor the enemy over the free world and over countries that respect freedom.
What has respecting freedom got to do with global warming. It seems it takes very little to become enemies of freedom, just as it takes very little to become enemies of Allah and his Prophet as Salman Rushdie, Taha..realised. I wonder whether that kind of freedom is worth the bother. I am dumb on nuclear and global war issues. But God forbid, others also can enter the fray, like China, Russia, Pakistan as you said and they don't have such clean bombs unless you care to sell them some. And how many of those clean bombs does your detailed plan call for. Sorry I forgot you can't reveal that
"May be you know better than most of us about MOAB, neutron bombs and other clean killing equipment. When Chernobyl let out a bit of gas we had Europe running for cover, and not from the smell. Converting those land masses into masses of glass would I expect make the rest of the earth also unlivable. Hating someone enough to become suicidal I cannot understand."
First, a nuclear war is not suicidal. Second, the release in Chernobyl was not "a bit of gas". Third, neutron radiation lasts for a very, very short time. That bomb was developed specifically so that the small amount of fallout it produces becomes inert very quickly, and thus poses no threat to those who come in after ignition. MOAB is non-nuclear, so perhaps you can explain to me how a non-nuclear bomb using conventional high explosives can produce nuclear fallout?
Yes, Yes the US has been known to laugh away collateral damage. I can't argue with what is a national given
"The same should hold in the Muslim world too. At the moment their hawk population is on the ascendecy helped along by the hawks in the free world. So eventually it may not be voices of reason that prevail, I grant you, but the logic of mathematics."
Strange, isn't it, how your absurd theory has not come true in over 1,400 years? Oh wait...that's because it is indeed absurd and in denial of reality
Not my theory. Evolution works its wonders a bit slowly for us to notice, generally, but it seems to be an iron law, and the mathematics just models that law. One caveat though, the game theory paradigms I believe have not factored nukes into its equations. That is the worrying part. If even the small number of hawks decide to let fly (free worlders or Islamists is immaterial) the theory will go up in smoke with not many hawks or doves left to come up with a new theory. What the "absurd" theory is telling us is that one must defend freedom to the death but not go out and kill for it. Killing involves ending the right to life, the greatest freedom of all, even of someone who does not allow that right to another such as Muslims who kill for blasphemy and apostacy. That is some more wishy-washy pshychobabble for you to shoot down.
Plato, you and Michel need to give the rest of us a detailed, workable plan that does not fly in the face of reality, to back your argument that reform is the answer. Until you do, you're just whistling out your backside, because it's all fluff and wishful thinking. Is your inability to present a detailed and workable plan for your claims is perhaps due to the fact that you realize it is indeed impossible?
I have now seen your detailed plan. Mass deportation, Shia-Sunni armageddon, MOAB, neutron bomb, real nukes, and God to forbidding the Russians and Chinese from chipping in any away. I have given you my solution MAD with WMD which has the the added advantage of zero collateral damage as there will be no radiation and no boots on the ground.
Seriously Noah, I am with you in that we have a serious problem on our hands but I most definitely am not with you on the solution you propose.
I have moved. I will be a bit slower to blog from now on. I have a job to do. Here I am just moonlighting without pay.. .
Besides, if we used regular nukes, where would the fallout from Iran mainly land? In Afghanistan and Pakistan, centers of anti-American Muslim savagery. I'm really not concerned about fallout there.
It has not happened in 1,400 years, and there is no evidence that it is going in that direction. In fact, it is going quickly in the opposite direction.
"You can't bring yourself to believe that."
True, because I am not delusional like you and Michel! You'll get no argument from me on that!(That term of endearment, anti-Semite, tells me a lot. Especially to someone with a tinge of the Semite in him, though not of the Jewish variety. Whatever conclusion you come to will be a long way off target. There is a bit of Muslim logic here it seems. Jumping to the wrong conclusion if it supports one's hypothesis. The Arabs consider the Palestinian problem brought brought about by the Balfour declaration and what they consider Western-supported Zionist conspiracies, rightly or wrongly, I am no historian to judge to be the main sticking point in their relationship with the West.. So if I just suspect, not conclude, that it could have led to that defining moment in history, I am an anti-Semite, fool and terror apologist. Whew. And for a moment there I thought only Muslims were adept at reading into a statement meaning to suit their purpose. My apologies to the Muslims....
"Very relevant. You brought in the topic un-Americanism (shades of MaCarthy?). If you can invade America and reform (obliterate) the Red Indians why should the Muslims not believe that they can launch a migratory attack and reform (convert) the presents owners of that land mass."
Two wrongs do not make a right. And you are obsessed with events from hundreds of years ago which I have already condemned and about which nothing can be done. You should be intelligent enough to realize that, so we can only assume that you are either Native American and holding a grudge, obsessed with the past, or simply trying to divert the debate in order to avoid answering hard questions that both you and Michel have been avoiding. Hmmm...wonder which it is?.
"Noah, I thought you knew your history. They have been fighting for 1400 years in their own backyards and there are still 1.2 billion of them or 2 billion if their claim is to be believed and growing."
Which is fine. If we keep them in Arabia, I don't care how much they fight one another. Let them extinct one another, I simply don't care. (...
Individuals join to make movements, and trickles coalesce to make giant rivers. About those 50,000. It is not an event I have read about but if you say it happened I believe it. That is one of the problems with Muslims. They holler louder than a new born baby to draw attention to real and mostly imagined grievances and are almost immune to the sufferings of others, Sudan is a case in point, as they are hell's fuel anyway. I do not know what the demographic statistic of that rally was but if even 5% of them were Muslim the optimist flame in me brightens. About your 'why is that', it could depend on who called the demo, the nature of the local imams etc. Also a couple of hundred out of 50,000 when the women and children are ruled out gives you f percentage of about 1%. I don't consider that bad for a rally of that type. I grant you that the ones who did not turn up are suspect in their loyalty to the nation but not necessarily potential terrorists.
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 and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".
Reader comments (2097) on this item
Comment on this item
You can help support Daniel Pipes' work by making a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum. Daniel J. Pipes