Who's being harsh?

Submitted by Noah Wilk (United States), Jan 24, 2007 at 02:19

Plato wrote:

"Noah, being harsh on Muslims on these blogs serves no purpose."

Who's being harsh? I'm simply being brutally honest. Speaking the truth is never harsh.

"To the ones who already are convinced of the true nature of the religion it is merely preaching to the converted. To the Muslims who visit these blogs if they see calls for banning their religion, nuking Muslim holy places, sequestering Muslims and so on, you are only forcing them to tune out."

I am not interested in preaching to the choir, nor am I concerned with those fanatics who tune out. I endorse a merciless, militant, and uncompromising approach to a lethal, fanatica enemy. I really don't care what they think. They need to either adapt or be killed. All of them.

"What Michael and I are trying to do is make them tune in. Go ahead and accuse us of being delusional."

It is delusional to believe that you can make any significant amount of them "tune in". It's simply not happening. And if you believe in that nonsense about 85%-90% of them being peaceful, then how to you reconcile that oxymoron that a mainly peaceful religion is responsible for nearly all the ongoing violence in the world?

"At the same time yesterday's violence cannot be exclusively laid at Islam's doorstep. All religions, ideologies, and cultures indulged in needless violence to a greater or lesser extent."

Which is an irrelevant waste of time to discuss. It simply gives the enemy a welcome diversion. The emphasis must be on forcing Islam to surrender unconditionally and to reform itself. It is not our duty to reform Islam. It is only our duty to protect ourselves from Islam.

"What I am suggesting is, and you so vehemently disagree with, that good sense is given to all humanity not just non-Muslims. It will take a powerful lot of effort on our part to get the job done."

Again, it is not our problem. It is our enemy. It is the Muslims' duty to reform their religion. We did not make it violent, they did. We have no duty, no need, no desire, to put effort into doing their work for them. They need to understand that the choice is reform or annihilation.

"The saner voices among Muslims are few and far between but I see them growing slowly."

An insignificant and utterly impotent minority that has no effect on the ultimate spread of Islam. I prefer to focus on the actual threat in a powerful manner and not risk our future on some idiotic hope that history shows us will never happen, ie that the so-called "moderate" Muslims will turn Islam peaceful. I prefer to deal with reality.

"As to hen's teeth, evolution always brings up surprises and given enough time you may even see enough teeth in that hen to warm the cockles of your heart."

Again, I am not so stupid as to be deluded into thinking that Islam can be dealt with peacefully, or that by some miracle that defies 1,400 years of history, Islam will suddenly reform itself.

"It would simply overwhelm all the " inalienable rights, happiness, freedom, tolerance, and goodness" and you would end up getting" racism, sexism, death, rape, intolerance, suppression of freedom, suppression of rights, genocide, etc." Just the old axiom about two wrongs not making a right."

You clearly have never been in a life and death combat. Morals and ideology go right out the window. Survival is what matters. I am not at all swayed by the mewling about how deporting Muslims is "un-American". What is un-American is allowing a subversive enemy to come conquer our land through legal, political, migratory, and propaganda techniques. I want you to show me where exactly in the Constitution of the United States it says that the enemy has the God-given right to to come infiltrate our society, to preach hate against us, to instigate legal, demographic, and propaganda warfare against us, and to use our freedoms as weapons to harm us. When you can find that part, please let me know.

"Truly, even I feel like gloating given the superciliousness of some Muslims, I am sorry to say this but some posts here don't just gloat but want to annihilate 1.5 billion people.Your approach is doomed to failure."

First, I am not advocating the annihilation of 1.2 billion people. I am advocating forcing them out of our society, forcing them back to the barbaric Islamic lands they came from, unless and until they reform their religion. I am advocating the use of nuclear annihilation as a deterrent, just as we used it in the Cold War (successfully, as the Soviet Union fell). However, that deterrent must be real, must be believable, and must be an actual threat for it to be effective. And again, it would be up to the Muslims whether or not they endured nuclear annihilation, not us. As long as they left us alone, we'd leave them alone to do what they will in their Islamic hellholes. Just like how we never launched a nuke at Russia as long as they did not launch one at us. If Muslims are so intractably stupid that they refuse to reform and also allow their fellow Muslims to plot and carry out a mass terror attack against the USA (which, having deported and banned them and cut off all aid to them, would be extremely unlikely), then they deserve to be annihilated. End of story.

If I point a gun at you and say "Don't use than razor sharp knife on my child" and you go ahead and try to cut my child anyway, who's fault is it when I gun you down? Who deserved to die in that scenario?

"Noah, your approach to the Islamic problem is radically different to mine. But as the French say viva la difference. Only time will tell which is better."

On the contrary, history has already shown us what happens when societies lose their strength, their will to survive, their ver ysurvial instincts, while allowing hostile alien invaders to destroy them from the inside out. They cease to exist. We have neither the time nor the need to ponder this, as we already know the answer. Yes, our approaches are radically different because mine deals with reality, deals with the actual problem, and is the only way to win.

"But history so far argues for the non-violent method."

Wrong. Gandhi's ahimsa (peaceful non-resistance) worked on the civilized British, but would have failed miserably with the barbaric Nazis. And Islam is a more evil, more depraved, more violent movement than even Nazism.

"The seeds they planted gave you the flowers you so passionately love and want to kill for, " inalienable rights, happiness, freedom, tolerance, and goodness"

Flowers which must be fought for and sacrificed for. Flowers which will be trampled if not protected. Nobody said anything about wanting to kill to defend our society. It is, however, a necessity which I am not in any way opposed to. I would personally flip the switch if given a chance, if that's what it would take.

All this opposition to war, to fighting, to death...it's all nothing more than cowardice. A hypersensitive reluctance to be brutal when need be to survive. An utter failure of the survival instinct, which has been atrophied by our luxuries and our disconnection from not only reality but from the basic necessary actions in life...hunting for food, fighting to defend, etc.

"History tells us only when wielded in defence of those values you cherish rather than enforcing, has violence been effective in conserving them"

Which is precisely what I am recommending. Deterrence is a defensive manuever.

"Forgive this long monologue of mine, it is just that both of us stand for the same values, but I wish to emphasise that those values become valueless if not defended using the values that are being defended."

That's meaningless psychobabble. Show me how my ideas violates the American spirit. Show me how it goes against the values America was founded upon. Did you cry this hard against our M.A.D. nuclear deterred against the Soviets too?

"It goes against my wimpy liberal nature to condemn 1.5 billion ( to perdition or death) people who carry virtually all the genetic information that gave rise to me, you and also everyone I love and value."

I have no idea what you mean about genetic info, but you refuse to hear what I am saying. I am not condemning 1.5 billion people to death. That decision lies in their own hands. All they have to do to avoid that fate is literally to do nothing. As long as they do not attempt a mass terror attack on us, they will not be anihilated. Why do you and Michel insist on ignoring that aspect of the argument, despite my having brought it to your attention half a dozen times now? Could it be that you simply want to play the guilt card?

---

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".