You're making inaccurate comparisons and assumptions

Submitted by Noah Wilk (United States), Jan 25, 2007 at 07:32

Michel, you are making totally inaccurate and erroneous comparisons and assumptions.

You wrote:

"Even if admittedly rare, reason for hope. One single example like that deserves in my book fair treatment."

Pinning your hope on such a terribly rare event is like pinning your hopes for paying off your debts on winning the lottery, simple because someone else won it once. It's not realistic by any measure.

" Analogy: I am N O T willing to bomb a house full of Serial Killers to the ground, if there is one innocent child inside. You can not call me in above analogy right or wrong. You can either share or not share my philosophy."

This is an improper, inaccurate, and erroneous example for several reasons. First, it is an appeal to emotion as it involves killing a child. Second, it elevates the life of one above the lives of many. Certainly, it would be sad and regretable that a child was killed in such an attack. However, allowing such sentimentality to prevent the job from being carried out is a disservice that effectively emasculates those fighting the terrorists. If we allow those serial killers to escape due to the presence of one innocent child, how many more are condemned to die by our inaction? Perhaps hundreds of innocent people will die. The lives of the many outweigh the lives of the one.

Let us escalate that to a situation where Bin Laden, Amadmanjihad, Zawahiri, and other top terrorist leaders are in a cave somewhere on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. They have 3 nuclear devices and the plans and money along with the agents who are going to bring the bombs into the United States. The plan is virtually foolproof. They are going to nuke LA, NYC, and Chicago, killing 20,735,475 innocent people. Twenty million plus! There are a couple of little Afghani and Pakistani boys and girls living in the caves with them (probably sex slaves). Do you blow the cave and everyone in it to kingdom come? Or do you condemn over 20 million people to a horrible death, condemn our entire country to decades of misery and deprivation, condemn our entire way of life and future, simply to save a few children?

Absurd! I'd sacrifice my own children in that scenario!

"I am today preparing for my Naturalization test. "All men are created equal", Bill of rights. Your MO is in direct contradiction to the US constitution."

That says nothing about allowing subversives intent on destroying our country into our lands and giving them all the tools they need to enact their genocidal plans. My MO is not at all in contradiction of the Constitution. In fact, I would consider this supported in Article 3, in the section on treason:

"Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort"

Treason can be punished with a death sentence. You also overlook the fact that I would not be imposing a death sentence on all Muslims. I would be enforcing the deportation of an alien ideology hostile to the ver existence of the United States, and those who adhere to such an ideology.

"I am starting to doubt your military background, Noah."

Doesn't matter whether you doubt it or not. I know what I know. No, I am not an expert on nukes. Nuclear weapons was not my field. I was involved with the various special forces groups.

"What is "very little" fall out? Will you concede that that fall out of a strike even with low yield bunker busting, precision targeted smart delivery systems on the level needed to take out just 3 out of 20 (optimistic estimate) targets, would result in a fall out far greater than for instance Tschernobyl?"

Very little fallout would be fallout that is not significant enough to precipitate a rise in radiation related deaths. From what I have read, the bunker busting nukes we have burst underground, just like the test sites in the desert. Those areas (the Iranian nuke sites) would simply be fenced off and enclosed. Most of the radiation would be contained underground. The rest would disspiate harmlessly as it would not be a significant amount.

"Can you even fathom, what that fall out would do to a region of 1500miles? There is not enough grain in the world to make up for just the crops lost in this region. For decades after, genetic defects throughout the entire region including Europe. The crater such a bunker buster opens is 50 yards wide, for God's sake.Enough to send massive amounts of nuclear radiation upwards into the atmosphere. It would take several times Hiroshima levels to break through, down and destroy wide. Study the specs, if you can access them. Some of the stuff is by now declassified and you should be able to find them."

First, most of the explosion would be contained underground. What part of that don't you get? Second, better to irradiate a nasty swath of barren desert than to allow Israel or New York City to be destroyed.

"So you propose a totalitarian system? If you are right and 85% of the US population are against amnesty, then it will not pass. If they do not vote, they do not have a right to complain."

You clearly don't understand how America works. Roughly 85% are against amnesty, but the politicians don't work for the will of the people anymore. Hence, my call for revolution.

"Why is this so hard for you to understand, that I do N O T refute most of your examples, quotes and or references, but actually accept them as a fact. I just do not see those as 100% representative for the entire Muslim World. And I see your MO as not feasible, too radical and too simplistic."

No one claimed they were 100% representative of the entire Muslim world. Obviously there are Muslims who are the exception to the rule. Just not enough to skew the equation. My methods are not too radical, they are totally appropriate to the threat. What causes you such anguish over it? Is it the idea of being firm and determined and not wishy-washy? Is it the tough love approach where I force the perpetrator to atone his own actions? My solution spares the United States any further deterioration of culture by Muslims, it destroys their various, multi-level methods of jihad instantly, it rids us of known terrorists and appeasers, and it forces Islam into isolation while putting the burden of reform where it belongs...back on the Muslims themselves.

I fail to see why you object so vehemently to it, while failing to offer a workable and realistic solution of your own.

"Fact of life – not until the pressure becomes unbearable, are we willing to adapt. Have you looked at the sales of Trucks and Hummers in the US lately? The rise of the Toyota Prius? Look at what's currently driving around in any Western Europe Capital ( 2 seaters, 60m/g ). Look at the recycling efforts in Germany or Switzerland at present at up to 80%. The development of Solar and wind technology. Once again, you focus on what's not happening, yet fail to see the positive developments. Most western innovations after all."

And yet despite decades of supposed efforts to wean ourselves of oil, we are still addicted and using more than ever. Be realistic. The oil cartels control government. You're never going to wean America from oil while they run things.

"Denial goes both ways, Noah. Reduction of dependence on middle eastern Oil to 20% (USA) is utter?
Been on the streets of LA lately? More and more solar panels in CA? Stock development of Hi tech corps dealing in alternative energies? For heaven's sakes, I am not denying that we have a long way to go and are nowhere near elimination of the dependency, but there is clear evidence as to a will to reduce it. If you call such inexistent, then it's you who is in denial."

Again, your vision is pie-in-the-sky and unrealistic. We've been claiming the effort to become independant on foreign oil for over 30 years and we are no closer than we were 30 years ago. Sure, some environmental nuts are gung-ho about solar and wind energy, but they are also unrealistic about it and overly enthusiatic. It won't work. And it certainly won't work while we have a government run behind the scenes to a large degree by the oil companies themselves.

" The campaign in Irak was a master piece of conventional warfare, demonstrating the ability to adapt to any kind of enemy and minimize casualties."

On the contrary, the Iraq war has been a monumental example of utter stupidity and ignorance of the history of warfare. In our zeal to get to Baghdad, we failed to disarm and properly imprison enemy combatants after we pushed through a given area, we failed to secure those areas, and now those enemy combatants are back staging a guerilla warfare effort against us. We failed in the field of propaganda and psychological warfare when we failed to pound Fallujah into the dirt and allowed Al Sadr to continue living. He now runs the largest (and anti-American) terrorist militia in Iraq. We failed to secure the borders, which has allowed thousands of terrorist fighters to infiltrate from both Iran and Syria, and we have utterly failed to deter those countries from sending those terrorist fighters into Iraq. Everyone involved in the Iraq war (from a decision making and leadership role, not our brave soldiers on the ground) should hang their head in shame over such a mismanaged mess. If Rumsfeld had any integrity at all, he'd committ hara kiri (ritual suicide) over his actions, which have disgraced America and emboldened the enemy.

" Not one single terror attack since 9/11 here in a very vulnerable country is one hell of an achievement by the"War On Terror"

Don't be so fast to attribute that to the "war on terror", which is an idiotic misnomer. It defies common sense to believe that the "war on terror" is the reason that no major terror attacks have occurred on American soil since 9/11. Give me 12 fanatics and $100,000 and I could shut this country down and destroy the economy in 3 hours flat (no, I will not give you details under any circumstance). The terrorists are not that stupid. If they wanted to destroy our economy, if they wanted to cause unimaginable problems for our entire society, it would not take nuclear weapons or other WMDs.

There must be another explanation, because it is easily within their power to do so. And that explanation is that their tactics and goals preclude another attack on America. Such an attack would reverse the worldwide erosion of support for the war in Iraq, which would be counter-productive to their current goals.

"If above results and developments can not be seen as "societal", what can? You can not speak your mind freely in America?"

Boy, are you in for a big surprise when you get here! No, you cannot speak your mind freely in America. If you criticize Islam, your radio talk show gets yanked off the air. If you say something truthful about Mexicans, you lose your government job. If you say the wrong thing (though it is the absolute truth), you lose the election. You cannot mention God or Jesus in your graduation speech. Your blog gets shut down if you have political commentary, and they are trying to enact laws to limit political free speech online. So no, you cannot speak your mind freely in America.

"You yourself have used that as an argument, that Muslims use that very exact freedom to spread their lies….."

Yes, because the right of free speech is applied only to the enemies of the state and our culture. Islam is free to speak lies and propaganda and to disparage Christians and Jews without any threat of legal repercussion, but Catholic and Christian churches who simply preach their beliefs within their own church by saying they do not condone homosexuality end up with ministers and priests in jail, tax benefits lost, etc. America is a mess!

"I do not allow them anything. As soon as I can vote, my voice will speak against such."

And your voice will be meaningless. The goverment no longer fears the people...the people fear the goverment. Your vote cannot change things. Activist judges take upon themselves powers they are not allowed by the Constitution, and the Legislative branch does nothing to curb that usurption of power. Voting does not work. At this point, i fear only revolution can restore the USA to its Constitutional roots.

"I can not deny that our passiveness has led to perversions and the impression you describe above. But it still is in the hands of the people to stand up against, partake in the political process instead of simply complaining."

The sheeple are simply not movitvated. All they care about is the latest advance in HD tv, who the movie star of the day is sleeping with, and their own convenience and comfort. Americans watch on average 5 hours of tv a day! Add to that 8 hours of sleep, 8 hours of work, and two hours travelling to and from work. That leaves one free hour per day. Television and excess entertainment is eroding our nation like few other things can.

" We had the support of the entire Western World. We were unified (again). America stood like one man and up to this day, Gulf war veterans enjoy moral support on the home front like no Vietnam vet ever did"

Really? That's why a group of patriotic motorcycle bikers had to form an organization in order to protect the funerals of servicemen, whose funerals were being desecrated by cretins who were against the war? That's why professors are allowed to remain in teaching positions in American colleges while telling our children that we need a thousand more Mogadishus and that they hope our soldiers die in the deserts of Iraq?

"I stand against intolerance and any form of radicalism from any side."

Dishonest argument there. There is no intolerance from my side of the fence, outside of intolerance for terror and destruction of freedom and culture, which cannot be considered a bad thing. And my solutions are not at all radical, but indeed have been used in the past, successfully.

"I see one single example of positive as reason for hope and entry point for constructive approaches"

Again, an irresponsible and unrealistic view. You cannot pin your hopes on the exception to the rule. Doing so dooms you to failure.

"I am a relativist of the purest form. Reality, as you call it can be looked at from different angles and a variety of different conclusions can be derived."

I don't accept the theory of moral relativism in any way for any reason. Show me an instance in which the rape of a child can be a "good" thing. Show me where the cold blooded murder of a single mother with 5 children is a good thing. Show me where blowing up 3,000 innocent people, destroying at least as many families, and wrecking the economy can be considered a godo thing. You cannot, because those things are universally evil, and no amount of twisting of words or concepts can transform them into good things.

" I challenge you to grabb any paragraph out of the Koran for example ( or choose any other book) you like, then submit it to 10 different people from 10 different religious or cultural backgrounds and ask them to translate it or interprete it. Do it here as a lab experiment. You choose. My hypothesis: 10 differing interpretations. Wanna bet?"

Not at all interested. How the Koran is interpreted by the general masses is all that interests me. Clearly, it is mainly interpreted as violent. I can read all sorts of "cosmic meaning" into Dr. Seuss's Green Eggs and Ham , that does not mean it has any significance in reality.

"I ve seen terrible ugliness, but I have also seen the best in humans there is and the latter surrounded by unspeakable misery."

Those are superficial relationships and short term or intermittent. They do not reveal the reality of the matter. Again, try living openly as a Christian in Saudi Arabia, Iran, or the areas of Israel under control of the so-called "Palestinians". You'll quickly come to understand the reality of things, and see just how "friendly" the natives can be.

"I want to hear, what an average American Muslim has to say about that."

The problem is, how can you trust what they say, when Muslims are mandated by their religion to lie to you, an infidel?

"Don't deny the logic of the analogy. Can you accept that I promote the free will to either live with the amputation or not? Sometimes the surgery kills the patient. Sometimes the therapy is worse than the illness it tries to defeat."

It's you who are twisting the analogy. Yes, you can choose to love with the infection and forgo the amputation, but that would be an act of extreme stupidity, because it would result in death. Your analogy of the surgery killin the patient and the therapy being worse than the illness is inaccurate here, totally inaccurate. Removing the threat of Islam would not kill America nor would it be worse therapy than the illness itself.

"The difference between us is, that you state that all of them are evil, because by sheer logic of its teachings all Muslims are depraved., while I will not condemn them as a whole, no matter, how much evidence you list."

Islam by its very nature is depraved and evil. There is no escaping that fact except through the escape of delusion or insanity. That does not mean all practicing Muslims are depraved, because some only practice certain aspects of the religion. But by definition a "good, practicing Muslim" is an enemy of freedom and an enemy of the USA. Furthermore, I an not condemning them but rather positing a situation in which they are forced to reform their religion or lose their privelege of living in America. Living in America is not a right, it is a privelege, and priveleges can be taken away.

"Noah - I am studying for my exam tomorrow the constitution. Your proposed MO is in direct contradiction to what the US constitution declares, hence you clearly promote the abandoning of the principles of just the preamble and the Bill of Rights. I do not need to be a Supreme Court Judge to recognize that and see no way, how you could possibly argue yourself out of that paradox."

You keep claiming that, but you continue to fail to show me precisely how that abandons or contradicts the principles of the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. Here is the preamble of the Bill of Rights:

We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty, to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.Note the words "insure domestic tranquility", "promote the general welfare" and "secure the blessings of liberty for ourselve and our posterity". All of that is accomplished by removing Islam from America. Conversely, all of that is at risk by allowing it to remain.

"Your point of view is clear, but so is mine. Since you are unable to prove to me 100% accuracy of your depiction of Islam, I can not entertain a strategy, Hitler would be proud of."

Michel, this is why talking to you is becoming pointless. Your replies make less and less sense as time goes by. First, look at what you wrote. What you're saying is that if I were able to "prove to you 100% accuracy" with regard to my depiction of Islam, you would agree to a strategy Hitler would be proud of.

Secondly, your portrayal of my strategy as "something Hitler would be proud of" is so inaccurate as to be offensive, and I believe you're doing that intentionally. I want you to show me how the enforced deportation of a group of subversives back to their homelands is in any way equivalent with rounding people up in order to gas them to death, conduct medical experiments on them, rape and kill them, and finally bury them all in mass graves. Either you must show that moral equivalence or admit that your comparison is improper and inaccurate. Otherwise, I will have to consider it a purposeful insult on your part, meant only to be offensive and nothing else. I also want you to explain to me how my deterrence strategy, which is no different than the M.A.D. deterrence strategy we shared with the USSR, is something Hitler would be proud of.

I for one am getting sick of these ridiculous, inaccurate, propaganda-strewn, thinly veiled insults of yours. It does nothing other than make you look stupid and the rest of us tired of trying to discuss this with you.

"We the people…. The patronized melting pot….have legal means at our disposal ( I know that is boring and not sexy) to never let that happen. We will not go down quite that easy, my friend."

Again, boy do you have a lot to learn about realities here in America!

"Yes – to be truthful – the examples you mentioned were unnecessary and insane. "Really? So you would have preferred to forgo the nuclear strikes and instead mount a ground invasion which would have killed millions more on both sides? Interesting! And yet you cannot deny that WWII was won in a way in which our enemies became some of our staunchest allies, whereas the weak response we have against Islam is failing to "win the hearts and minds", much less the war. "Adding insult to injury, as the outcome at that moment was predestined already."

Again, wrong. There were elements in their military trying to take over and continue the war. It would have resulted in years more fighting at the cost of millions more lives.

"Philosophically spoken I am to the opinion that the ascent of man towards Utopia is only possible, if he learns to overcome this one strong motivational force - as a species, culture, society and as an individual."

There is no such thing as a utopia on earth. That's a pipe dream believed only by fools. History shows us that. Human nature shows us that.

"If not buying into purpose justifies all means, is being a fool, then by all means, call me that. My principles and core values transcend my tiny little personal life. Before I betray them, everything my forefathers bled for, Yes - cheerio and bye bye."

I hardly think our forefathers would place the future of our nation at risk simply because they didn't have the nerve to deport a bunch of subversive enemy combatants. And your analogy is wrong again, because your "principles and values" damn all the rest of us, who believe in survival and who believe that America is worth saving at the cost of her enemies.

"Deploring passiveness and living a paranoia of believing that they are all enjoying it or trying to kill me, is a whole different ball game."

Who said they all realized what they were doing or that they all wanted to kill you? They are useful pawns. Useful because they don't bother to question their motivations or their religion. It is not paranoia to face reality.

"The silent majority is right here in our own backyards. Average Americans, no matter the creed or origin, too afraid, disinterested, self-absorbed. IN your own logic therefore your enemy, as they are not with you. ( Nor with me for that matter). So what do you suggest we do with them?"

They are not the enemy in that they are not plotting to destroy America, they are not trying to subvert our freedoms, and they are not transforming our culture into a foreign one. Yes, they do need to wake up though, because they are not helping matters.

"I say it for the very last time: This blog alone has delivered any radical Imam, domestic or abroad, enough material to indoctrinate his community for years to come as to the hateful, intolerant, outright paranoid nature of us "infidels"."

And you conveniently ignore the fact that they don't need the material on this blog to incite hate, paranoia, and violence. Most of them will never be allowed to see or read this blog in their native countries.

"If I was a muslim reading what you posted, my only reaction could be resentment, anger, hatred - exactly the breeding attitude for fanatism and terrorism."

And my answer to you would be "tough...go fix your crazy death cult".

"I find myself appalled and helpless in the face of such extreme opinions. How can diametrically opposing cultures and religions find dialogue and compromise, if not even we, members of the same society, Western republicans can not find common ground?"

Precisely why we are doomed. Is it sinking in yet?

"I will admit that I engaged in this debate out of scientific curiosity. I wanted to find out, if I could pick one of the extreme posters and apply any form of respectful technique to come to a form of platform, both parties could buy into. I tried every single tool within my arsenal of modern conflict resolution techniques to no avail whatsoever."

You were doomed from the get-go because one side (Islam) refuses to even participate. You are obstinately blind to the reality that Islam is not interested in conflict resolution, in repsectful technique, in win/win resolutions. They are only interested in making Islam the dominant religion of the world. You will never make sense out of this nor will you ever get anywhere with it until you come to that understanding.

"I tested the wide spread hypothesis that there is no reasoning with fanatism and found it clearly confirmed here. Insofar, I apologize to you. The whole thing was initially an experiment. But it became much more in the course of the debate. It became a frightening example and strong evidence for the fact that hatred is almost impossible to overcome, once it is imprinted."

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. I am hardly "fanatical" in the manner you propose. I am adamant in my views and insist on realism, I am not swayed by New Age psychobabble or moral relativist theory, and I am unrelenting in pursuing a course of action that preserves the culture and freedoms of my country. That is not "fanatical". Furthermore, you insist on ignoring what I have repeatedly said, which is that once Islam manages to reform itself into a benign, civilized culture and religion instead of a cncerous death cult, it would be welcome back in America. It is not hatred that motivates me, it is love. Love of freedom, love of country, love of reality, love of my fellow Americans. It is even a form of tough love for Muslims...it is in their best interests to be forced to reform their death cult into a peaceful religion. You refuse to see this truth. You prefer to throw out inaccurate and disparaging labels which do not represent anything I am saying.

"There is no way The Imam in Birmingham or our own people as represented by you can and will ever find common ground."

Sure we can. Reality is the common ground of sane people. If Islam reforms itself into a peaceful religion, I have no problem with it. Our common ground should be "what must be done to promote peace, happiness, freedom, and life to both America and Islam?". And the answer to that is "reform", which in reality must be an enforced reform, much like an alcoholic or drug addict needs an intervention, or a cult member needs a snapper to remove them from the cult. Reform is the only solution because Islam as it exists will always be an enemy to freedom and to America, and their fanaticism and the seriousness of their threats demand an extreme reaction. By deporting and isolating them, we force them to either reform or to remain isolated. Either way, America and the West is spared a lot of grief, and Islam is given a chance to fix itself. My method actually lessens the chances of nuclear annihilation despite the emphasis on the willingness to use it, and spares more lives than any other method you can name.

"I can only hope and pray that people like Plato stand in between as a buffer between arch enemies."

A buffer will always remain an obstacle. Not a good thing.

"You remained steadfast like a rock, not giving an inch, ready for the next crusade."

And damned proud of that fact!

---

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".