Citizenship changes nothing, it appears

Submitted by Noah Wilk (United States), Jan 28, 2007 at 06:45

Michel wrote:

"I decided a long time ago, to always look at the glass from a half full perspective. Even if the glass is only 10% full."

Well there's the definition of delusional! You admit that if the cup is 90% empty, you prefer to believe it's half full!

"In addition to that, if one has no hope, then one has nothing. "

I have hope, as in I hope it changes. Hoping against reality though is dementia, not optimism.

"He makes the statement that beneath every single gravestone, there lays a universe and asks the question, if one single life may be as much worth as a thousand? "

Mental masturbation for those with more time than common sense. No, one life is not worth as much as a thousand. A single death may be tragic, but mass deaths are all the more tragic.

"In many of my posts have I mentioned that sometimes indeed the greater good must be considered, the lesser evil selected. But who will be the judge to make such terrible decisions?"

Those with the insight, the knowledge, the wisdom, and the will to do the right thing. It is an inescapable fact of life that innocent people die in wars. There is no way around that fact. Never was, never will be. You simply weigh the benefit to the price. Were there some innocent people in Dresden or Hiroshima? Undoubtedly. Was it more important to win than to spare some innocent lives? Would the sacrifice mean a hell of a lot less deaths later on? Absolutely. It was worth it.

"The point I am making with this analogy is not to let the serial killers go. The point I make is that every avenue, every possibility must be explored first, before taking the ultimate action."

Which is what I have done. Which is what Susan and Gellin & Infidellin and others have done. We've explored every possibility, and none provide a beneficial outcome except the ones we've outlined, ie an existential war against Islam to either force it to reform into a peaceful religion, quarantine it from the western world, or annihilate it. Quarantining it is essential as a first step. Reform or annihilation is up to Islam.

"In your specific example, I myself can not come to another conclusion."

If that's true, then you would not oppose my solution. Why? Because that is indeed what the Muslims are plotting. They want nukes. They want to nuke America. We can't afford to wait until iran launches an air burst over America and sends us back to colonial times.

"Who is convicted of above - after the guaranteed due process – shall be punished according to the law."

You're confusing criminal acts with acts of war. We know the Muslims have declared war on us. Only a blind, deaf, and retarded fool would fail to understand that. They say it in public every day. They publish it in their newspapers and on their websites. They say it right to our faces.

"I disagree with you only on the statement, that all Muslims are per definition our enemies, focused on our destruction."

And yet you've failed to prove that moderate Muslims exist. You've failed to give a logical explanation as to why, if roughly 90% of them are peaceful, rampant violence dominates everywhere Islam rears its ugly head. You've failed to show us any significant movement among the mythical moderates of Islam to reform ... In short, Michel, you have not shown us one stitch of evidence that Muslims can co-exist peacefully with others nor have you shown us any evidence that points to denouncement of terror from the mythical moderates.

We, on the other hand, have posted mountains of undeniable evidence showing the historic and modern tactics of Islam (which is a redundancy...they haven't changed in 1,400 years), which outlines their true goals. We've shown you mountains of undeniable evidence that wherever Islam exists, there is strife, violence, poverty, and misery along with intolerance to the point of genocide.

We have shown you mountains of undeniable evidence to prove that the so-called "moderate" Muslims in fact endorse terror and refuse to refute it and refuse to reform their religion. We have shown you mountains of undeniable evidence that in polls the world over, the vast majority of Muslims advocate terror and violence in the name of Islam.

Which side would any sane person believe? The side that has mountains of undeniable evidence, or the side that has failed to prove any of its claims or to even prove the existence of a factor on which its claims are dependant?

"Atomic/Chem/Bio warfare within the special forces arm, was my specialty."

Was that before or after you travelled the world on business, hobknobbing with the natives in the resorts in all those Muslim countries? [rolling my eyes] Give us a break Michel! Your claims become more absurd the more you talk. Care to offer some proof of that lofty claim?

"Compared to my example, Tschernobyl, they'll unleash hell upon a huge region, within 3- 8 weeks, depending on weather and mostly wind conditions, reaching radiation levels in the mentioned area way beyond what Tschernobyl did. Believe me, Noah - even the (comparably ;-) small) crater of a bunker buster is a wide open hole, compared to the "crack" which paralyzed Europe at the time. The term "low yield" is extremely misleading - that darn relativism again – compared to what?"

Once again, I direct your attention to neutron bombs and non-nuclear bombs such as MOAB. Cluster bombing Iran with non-nuclear MOAB bombs will do just fine, and I'm sure we have some dependable non-nuclear bunker busters.

" We may indeed be forced to action as terrible as none in history before. All atrocities combined will pale in comparison to this one and - we may have to do it anyway in order to select the lesser evil. "

This is not only likely, it is probably inevitable, and I do not pity the Jews. They apparently have not learned the lessons of history, and so they are condemned to repeat them. Shame. They're generally good people. I fear that a nuclear war is inevitable at this point, but perhaps necessary and perhaps a good thing. If Iran nukes Israel, America would most likely be forced to respond in kind and wipe out Iran, since Iran has also vowed to nuke us. I say we nuke them first, and let Allah sort them out. They can't even complain about that, since we'd be doing them a favor...they'd all be dying in jihad against America, so they get their 72 virgins in Allah's demented carnal paradise. It's a win/win all around!

"Once again, if we really must focus on a "Muslim" Enemy, I recommend to focus on this one, the single biggest danger our entire civ faces, Muslims included. Focus your efforts here, is my sincere opinon, as all other threats seem marginal in comparison."

Iran is just one faction of Islam. There are also the Sunnis to deal with. I agree that we need to take Iran off the map yesterday. But that must be an unannounced attack...no warning, no prep time for the enemy, no tip offs. Just take them out one fine morning. The president should then get on the airwaves and proclaim that we have taken out Iran and are seizing its oil as our claim and that anyone who opposes us will feel the same, full, retaliatory wrath we unleashed on Iran. Islam should be notified that we are at war with it, and countries such as Saudi Arabia need to be told in plain English that they're next if anyone even thinks about retaliating.

"How realistic. Having dismissed your call as surreal, I recommend to take other avenues with a chance for implementation."

My call is not surreal. There is a great undercurrent of anger in America, and it would not surprise me to wake up one morning, turn on the news, and see some politicians being lynched by patriotic mobs. At least the morning would be off to a pleasant start! It's within the realm of possibility to get the Constitution Party elected, which would be the next best thing to a bloody revolution. However, all other avenues are unrealistic. Either America returns to its roots and wakes up in order to defend itself (which must include delcaring war on Islam and deporting Muslims with the threat of annihilation if they attempt an attack), or we die. Anything else is useless, masturbatory, and unproductive psychobabble.

"And who has the arrogance to make that call? What's enough? 1%? 10%, where do you draw the line?"

It's very simply Michel. I have spelled this out for you every way I know how outside of translating it to a foreign language. Islam must reform itself. Period. Until it does, it must be forced into quarrantine. Period. I don't care if 1% or 50% of them say one thing or another. Actions are what count, not words. When they become civilized, we can take the next step. Until then, we must treat them like the savages they are and isolate them away from us. No other method will work. If you believe another method will work, then I defy you to show me a detailed working plan on how you believe you can accomplish the task, that does not fly in the face of historical and current reality. I've asked this before, but neither you nor the other "doves" have given anything solid in response.

"Your methods are pushing an entire culture into the underground. Banning Islam? How would you try to enforce that? How to deport millions, if the US does not even know, where they live?"Pushing them underground? They're already underground, hiding in their restaurants and mosques plotting against us! I would enforce it by declaring that Islam is not a religion but rather a socio-political death cult (which can be proven) whose goals are to destroy the United States (and they have declared that publicly) and that we are in a state of war against Islam...a state of war that will not end unless and until Islam reforms itself and gives up its violent expansionist insanity. I would then order all mosques and madrassahs closed and have them blown up, with Muslims inside if they're too stupid to leave. I would declare the practice of Islam an act of war against the USA and would have the military and police round up and deport all Muslims who refused to leave of their own accord. I would freeze all the assets of those who are forced to leave, and claim them as booty in the war on Islam. Those who leave willingly can take their cash, their assets, and other things with them. That's called incentive. Those who resist would be killed as enemy combatants. Finally, we know where they are. Come to Chicago and I'll give you the tour and show you where they all live. Finding them is not a problem.

"We do not have any statistics which are more than estimates and extrapolations. Our laws do not permit to ask for "religion". How would you hence segregate people who practice their religion underground? Apart from the fact that I strongly believe that it is the wrong approach, it is not feasible."

Explained and answered. We know where they are. Many would leave immediately once they understand that we mean business. Even children that stay would be executed. No mercy. We were able to round up the Japanese in WWII with far less technology than we have now. Don't tell me this cannot be done.

"Split the problem "Islam" up into realistic categories and address each category specifically."

You cannot split the problem. Islam is the problem. Those who practice Islam are the problem.

"Just to mention our domestic minority, I recommend to isolate the radical cells, the fanatic teachers, and after due process deport them. Isolate the moderates and give them a platform. "

You still cling to the insane idea that there are moderates. Prove it to me. You can't. I've proven to you that either moderates do not exist, or they simply have no interest in reforming their religion and hence support terror. Either way, they are the enemy. No time for due process and court. You don't hold court in a state of war...you kill the enemy. Period. We've given your mythological "moderates" plenty of platform for 6 years now with not a peep of reform coming out of them. The only time they speak up is when some sneaky and suspicious Muslims are banned from a flight, then they come out in droves to protest and sue. All of them are guilty by association and must be punished.

"Tighten and enforce our legislature to counteract any form of radicalism. Support any effort to resurrect the core values and principles our country was built upon. Counteract the obesity of our society, involve the populus again, select leaders with charisma and vision, able to recreate patriotism across religions and subcultures. Enforce assimilation a la Switzerland, prevent ghettos and catering to minorities. Unify instead of alienate."

Again, New Age, group hug, Kumbayah singing psychobabble. The cancer is here, and it must be cut out. We don't have time to play games here.

"The face of the US is changing. 60% Hispanics, 20% Asian, 10%, other (African and Eastern block), 1% white Caucasian, is what the mix currently looks like."

Yes, a terrible tragedy indeed. We need more white Christian European type immigrants and a hell of a lot less of the rest. We need to curtail all immigration for some time to come. We need to root out all the illegal Mexicans as well as the legal Mexicans who help the illegals come over. We need to make America, "America" again.

"Now we can either accept this as a fact and make all newcomers true Americans, or we can lament and stand there complaining."

We need to prevent anyone who is not willing to become a true American from coming over. It's that simple. I propose mandatory 5 years of military service in the US Army (or Marines, etc) before immigrants can become citizens, for starters.

"I do not think that we have another option ( such as closing the borders), as immigration is a fundamental basis for the strength of this country (Innovation, military, understanding of others) and hence can not just be "abolished"."

It certainly can be suspended for a time until we can reform our immigration laws. No more Muslims, no more Mexicans, no more unfaithful squatters, leeches, and parasites. We need immigration laws that are tougher than even the Scandinavian countries. We need to allow in only the best of the best, not the scum of the earth.

"America is strong, because we melted the best all these countries had to offer.(Mostly). If you knew, what the legal immigration process entails here, if you knew what it means to leave your country, home, friends, familiy to start anew in a foreign world, you would understand, what I mean with "the best". It is mostly courage, overcoming your fears and accepting change, what made most of these immigrants "the best"."

That was true in the distant past, but it is no longer the case today. Too many parasites are coming over to leech off us. Too many diseased, uneducated, and unfaithful who are diluting our cultural and national heritage.

"While you do make a good point here, the 20% of Oil coming from the middle east makes us as independent from potentially dangerous countries as never before. I allow myself to see it again as positive and admit at the same time, that there is much potential to further decrease it."

Huh? What you just said makes no sense. Depending on oil from countries like Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia makes us independant from potentially dangerous countries? What are Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia? Peaceniks?

"Well,, listening to the devil incorporate in that regard during his state of the union address, even staunch republicans seem to shift. Again – I see it as a positive sign, nothing more."

It's politics and nothing more. Don't fool yourself. Politicians are congenital liars.

" The victory on the battle field via a never heard ground strategy which makes the Blitzkrieg look pale in comparison, suffering casualties less than 1000 men, was absolutely mindblowing."

Not when you consider that it was probably planned in advance (on their side) to allow such an easy victory. They knew we'd mow them down, so they played possum, then came back to resist via guerrilla warfare, which our country still has not learned how to fight. We were outwitted by a bunch of semi-civilized savages in the desert, because we don't have true warriors running our wars. And so we're going to be embarrassed once more.

" As far as the military is concerned, they did their job in a manner which will find its way into the history books and strategy lessons of the future."

Wrong. It's going to go down in history books as one of the worst, most incompetently mismanaged wars in history. We didn't even secure the areas we captured! And now we have an insurmountable guerrilla insurgency that exists only because we practiced "catch and release", the same tactic we use with criminal aliens who sneak into our country.

"Now they even argue about measly 20k soldiers to follow through. People like Obama and the likes are a scary propositon for our future indeed."

To highlight how inept our government is, and how no one in the world seems to fear the "Great Superpower", Zawahiri released a tape taunting Bush to send another 100,000, claiming that they would not make a bit of difference. And you know what? He's right! I respect Zawahiri more than Bush at this point! At least he's honest! And he is right...another 20,000 does not make a bit of difference. I could personally handle that war better with just those 20,000 than Bush can with 150,000!

"The real danger lays in a soft target approach. America is vulnerable indeed and some of the lack of success of Al Khaeda must be attributed to their own idiocy or Napoleon Complex. Nevertheless, Their operations have been severely impacted and being on the run is not conducive to plan and carry out further such attacks. For instance air travel security is significantly improved (I cursed it myself oftentimes).

Don't delude yourself. Airline security is a joke. It's a circus, a stage act to make stupid people feel secure. Al Qaeda is not stupid. They can easily bring this country to its knees if it wanted, and we could not stop them. Why? Because they have Muslims in all our cities. We've been infiltrated and it is just a matter of time before some of them get the green light. Mark my words on this. Their operations have not been severely impacted. Note the bombings in Spain, Britain, Bali, etc. Right now it serves their purposes to focus on the fight in Iraq so that it forces us to pull out and look like losers and to make us look weak and pathetic. That does more for their side than another 9/11 would. After we pull out of Iraq is when the attacks in America will start in earnest. Mark my words, write them down and stick them to the fridge with a magnet so that when it happens, you can remember and say "Noah predicted this!".

"I am already here for now 13 years. And I have voiced harsh critique even in public. I have not been censored here, when I dared to point a finger at Christians, Hispanics, even our own black minority."

Then you must be talking to yourself, because that's generally not allowed. Try getting on the ABC news or CBS news and telling the world that Muslims in America are our enemies, or present the facts about how the illegal Mexican aliens are destroying our economy. Good luck! And if you have any position of authority, you will be out of a job.

" I am not afraid, as, if what you say is fact, then I have a ton of legal means and a great case to win in any legal court."

Good luck then. You're in for a startling shock.

"Mamma Mia, Noah – only the enemies enjoy it? Listen to yourself. As if some evil government or movement empowers only the enemies of state to pervert our freedoms. Its being perverted from all sides and corners of our society, starting with OJ Simpson to ACLU. Any form of enemy of the state is using our liberties to further their goals, not just Muslims."

Yes, what I said stands. Only the enemy is allowed to speak the truth. The ACLU is the enemy. Those who side with the Muslims, the Mexicans, and other enemies of the country are also enemies. The ACLU should be shipped out along with the Muslims. They serve no good purpose in America and work only to destroy this country. Just another cancer to remove.

"The age old excuse for any lazy whiner not to go to vote. ( Not that I call you so, I might add)
My voice does not count, is marginal, meaningless.
My stand ; Okay – put up or shut up. If everybody thought that way, then nobody will vote and no change will ever happen. If we however show up en masse, our voice will and can be heard."

I didn't explain myself properly. Yes, I agree...vote or shut up. My point was that voting is not enough, and voting as a knee-jerk reaction ("my family always votes Democrat!") is a waste. We need to vote in only those who truly believe in a Constitutional Republic, only those who have a proven track record of voting the way our forefathers would vote, and we need to remind those in office that if they betray us, it is not only our right but our duty to drag them out of their office and hang them from a street lamp. The government must fear the people, not vice versa.

"You are right. 100%. So why not try to motivate them? Or shall we just accept it as given? It starts with school, our children. It is a huge mountain of work, but as opposed to you, I feel that it can be done."

Yes, it can, but it will take several generations and we simply don't have the time or the numbers. As you pointed out, too many foreigners from hostile and crappy countries coming in here and trying to change our country into a copy of their homelands. This has to stop. Immediately. And we simply don't have time to transform a nation that has been degenerating for half a century or more, without deporting the subversive enemies sworn to our destruction.

"Exceptions like that are deplorable, but not the rule."

You think those are the exceptions? Think again! They're the rule, and it's spreading into our high schools and even grade schools. It's getting worse, not better.

" Banning of ISLAM and /or deportation on a massive scale however are strong (I call them extreme) measures. I disagree as to the "success of those" in the past. The suppressed (underground) movements survived all those regimes in the long run. Packaging of all Muslims into one category of fanatics and haters of the western civ seems naïve to say the least.'I'm still waiting to hear a sane, realistic, workable alternative from you. They are not extreme measures, any more than removing a cancerous tumor from the body is "extreme". You remove it before it spreads and infiltrates other areas of the body (metastasizes), otherwise the prognosis is grim indeed.

"Okay then – take a passage out of the Koran and see, how many different interpretations there are. I dare to offer the hypothesis that 10 different Muslims from 10 different environments will come up with 10 differing meanings."

First, there will not be 10 Muslims willing to participate here. Second, they are congenital liars who are mandated by their religion to lie to us, so their words are useless and worthless. Third, we see how they interpret those passages, and we have Western scholars who have explained how Islam workd (for example, the later violent verses supercede any earlier peaceful ones, etc). Why do you refuse to accept the words of PhD experts in the field who are not mandated to lie to us (as they are not Muslim) and who have proven their credentials? You're still looking for an easy out.

"Superficial? Speak for yourself. Representative? Probably not. But am I prepared to putting these friends of mine into the same pot as Osama? Hell no!"

Superficial, yes. Ultimately, you are an infidel and that's all that matters.

"Removing the threat of Islam would in my analogy seriously weaken America to say the least. "

As usual, you do not back your claim with evidence to support it. Islam is weakening America as we speak, through litigation that silences critics, through violence to intimidate critics, through mass migratory attacks designed to outnumber us and impose their death cult on us, and through subversives plotting our demise. Show me how removing these things makes us weaker. It makes us stronger. It removes a threat, it shows the enemy that we mean business (ie propaganda and psychological warfare), it reverses much of the subversion they have enacted, and it removes most if not all of their ability to mount a serious attack on our homeland. How in your mind does that translate into "weakening us"?

"Removing Islam by the means you promote would set precedence in any sense of the word and belay everything this country stands for."

Again, you're wrong. Show me how it belays everything this country stands for. This country stands for God given rights and freedoms. "One nation, under God", not "one nation under Allah" as CAIR and other Muslims want it to become. America and Islam are antithetical and anathema to one another. America believes in the rights of the individual and that all men have the same rights. Islam believes in subservience under the threat of death to a socio-political religious caliphate, and that Muslims have more rights than non-Muslims. America believes that there should be religious tolerance, Islam is dedicated to wiping out all other religions. America believes in separation of church and state. Islam believes the church is the state.

"I think we found the culprit, Noah. You measure Islam by the book. I measure Islam by the people who practice it."

Have you truly lost your mind? Good lord! Open your eyes and sniff reality!

What do you think Hamas, Hezbollah, PLO, Islamic Jihad, Islamic Brotherhood, and 90% of all the terrorist groups practice? What do you think Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon practice? What do you think the terrorists who blow up innocent people in Israel and all over the world practice? What do you think the people who fly airplanes into skyscrapers practice? What do you think the barbarian hordes committing genocide in Sudan are practicing? Or the people rioting, arsoning, and murdering nuns over the publishing of harmless cartoons? What are they practicing? What are the people who blow up trains in Spain and Britain practicing? What are the people who plant roadside IEDs that blow up innocent children practicing? What are the people who shoot up Jewish centers and who drive SUVs over students in a college campus practicing? What are the people who deny the Holocaust and who are threatening to wipe Israel and America off the map practicing?

Pop quiz, Michel!

Are they practicing...

1. Christianity
2. Buddhism
3. Islam
4. Taoism
5. Catholicism

The answer in all cases?

3. Islam

Now I defy you to show me evidence of all those mythological, moderate, peace-loving Muslims you believe in. I have been challenging you with this for weeks now, and am still awaiting proof on your part. I trust that I can sooner prove the existence of the Tooth Faerie.

"So what, if they practice only part of it. It is exactly those Muslims, I am not willing to condemn, and I believe that there are many more than you see. (here domestically)"

Again, your beliefs contradict reality, and you have failed to this point to prove your belief.

"… Is your opinion which I do not share."

Then perhaps you can explain to me precisely how allowing a subversive enemy whose stated goal is to overthrow the USA and install Sharia law is "securing the blessings of liberty" for us. Perhaps you can show us how intimidating people in a free country from speaking the truth about Islam is "securing the blessings of liberty". Can you do that, Michel?

"No Problem there, if they are. And, if it is a group of militant fanatics and not an entire people. Rounding up an entire segment of our population, just because they are Muslims ( Hence discriminate for religion), then either force them to swear off their religion or be deported, even, if they have not been proven guilty of destabilization of the state, treason or murder, is, I can not see it any other way, the way of a totalitarian regime of the worst kind."

You have offered no proof that they are faithful to the values of America. You have shown us no evidence that they are truly peaceful or that they are willing to reform. On the contrary, we have shown you mountains of undeniable proof that stands the test of reality and that shows that they are mounting a multi-level attack that incorporates mass migration attacks, legal attacks meant to stifle criticism and dissent, propaganda meant to weaken us, and hidden terror plots meant to destroy us.

A totalitarian regime removes only those people who are considered "undersirable". I propose removing people who are a clear and imminent threat to the continuity of our way of life. There's a world of difference there.

" (thanks a bunch for not putting them into a gas chamber. In that regard, true, not quite as despicable as Hitler's approach. ) Sorry for the sarcasm."

"Not quite" as despicable? Michel, that's akin to saying that throwing someone out of your house for causing trouble is "not quite" as despicable as drugging them, raping them, killing them, and finally eating them (ala Dahmer)! There is nothing "despicable" about deporting a mass of people dedicated (passively and actively) to the destruction of one's way of life, one's culture, and one's freedoms and safety. It's called self defense.

"I rest my case. So much for the cold, pragmatic, logical person you describe yourself to be.
You came evidently to the realization, that I will not waiver or loose my cool, and your frustration becomes evident. I do not think that I have (intentionally) ever insulted you but tried to argue respectfully and unemotionally – maybe sometimes with a bit of sarcasm, no matter, if you did exactly what you blame me for….insulted my intelligence, patronized me or belittled me.
Why do you think that is?"

Because it's getting tedious listening to you change your story each time you post, it's getting tedious listening to you make absurd claims that do not hold up to the light of reality. it's getting tedious listening to you deny historical facts and current events, it's getting tedious listening to you label anyone who does not agree with your baseless Kumbayah singing non-solutions as "fanatics' who "Hitler would be proud of", and it's getting tedious listening to you insult people by comparing them to mass murderers when they are not advocating mass murder. Can you see why someone would get fed up with this nonsense?

"As far as Germany is concerned I even tend to agree, as some technology may have indeed prolonged the war. In the case of Japan however, the war would not have lasted much longer."

And yet military planners and experts who understand the realities of warfare, and most honest historians agree that in the case of Japan, we would have endured millions more losses. And what would have happened had Hitler gotten the atom bomb?

"Again a tough question and certainly understandable that the US preferred to not loose another 50k soldiers but rather kill a few 100k Japanese - after all we did not start the war."

Bingo! You don't start a war, you don't lose hundreds of thousands of your people. Simple enough!

"Just a word. We progress, we evolve - hopefully for the better. One day human nature to wage war or engage in any form of violence must be overcome, otherwise sooner or later a bio weapon will be released which will extinct us. Will we evolve? Will we mature as a species? Odds are really lousy."

And all this meaningless psychobabble means nothing. We have not advanced much in 6,000 years. Humans are still killing other humans for believing in a different god (or even the same god but with a different lineage of prophets!), for differing color of skin (a shade off in the case of the Hutus and Tutsis), for different political ideologies, and for every other reason under the sun. Most of the world is at war. The 20th century was the worst calamity for mankind, with more people killed than any other century in human history. I believe more people were killed in the 20th century alone than in all other wars together in the 6,000+ year history of mankind!

You call that progress?

"Noah – all I can say is that I hope you are wrong. And that I am not willing to accept defeat quite yet."

Neither am I. I am committed to winning at all costs. Even if that cost entails nuclear annihilation of 1 billion people.

"Here is, where we go different ways. The "alcoholic" in your analogy must come to the realization of the need to reform. We can offer help and support in this effort, but we can not – unless directly, provenly threatened – put a gun on their chest and demand it. (I speak again in a domestic context)"

No, but we can deny him the privelege of owning a gun, of driving a car, of being out in public.

"In a cruel way your logic is stringent. Yet, I can't help myself to ask, if the "ugly Muslim" you and Susan depict is really the majority here in the US?"

Show me some proof to the contrary.

"You say it is - I say it ain't. No compromise possible here. No resolution."

The difference is that you believe in a mythological group of moderate Muslims which we have no evidence to prove exists. You might as well be positing the existence of the Tooth Faerie. Where are they? What are they doing? Why are they not cleaning up and reforming their religion? Why, in a community of 50,000 Muslims were they not able to gather even 1/2 of 1% to stand against terror? The number might have been as low as 1/10th of 1%.

Again Michel, show me proof of these so-called peace-loving, America-loving, moderate Muslims! I've seen more proof for the existence of Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster, for crying out loud!

"Both of us see the dangers of Radical Fundamental, Muslim terrorism"

Correction...I see the dangers of Islam, period. You believe in the delusion that Islam consists of a peaceful element and a violent element that are in opposition, despite no evidence to back your belief.

"As strongly as we seem to disagree about MO, classifications and categories, I see above as not irrelevant. If we were forced to come to an agreement, the above could be a place to start from."Again, you don't seem to be willing to acknowledge the multi-level strategy of warfare that Islam is conducting against the USA, including their migratory attacks, their legal attacks, etc. You deny this and insist on believing in a vast majority of mythological moderate Muslims who supposedly have peaceful intent in their hearts, despite a total lack of even a shred of evidence to support that belief, and despite historical evidence that such a thing does not exist.

It's a non-starter. We can't agree because you refuse to acknowledge the threat, despite believing many of the same things otherwise.

"You are more pessimistic in your approach and outlook (Call it realistic, if you wish), whereas I still have some optimism left (call me fool, if you wish). But abandoning hope is simply not in my design."

I never advocated abandoning hope, only being realistic about what we hope for.

"Reading the aforementioned article about the second holocaust we may see during the very next decade, I am distinctly afraid that you may be proven right in many things, as this would be a grim scenario with a high level of probability at present conditions."

I am willing to bet my life, the lives of everyone I love, the existence of the country I love, and the future of all my descendants that I am correct 100%. I would stake my very soul on it. Predicting the future does not take mysticism, a crystal ball, or psychic powers. All it takes is an honest look at the direction things are taking, historical evidence, and the realities of our existence to come to an accurate assessment of the future. I see nuclear combat within 5 years, tops. Perhaps sooner, but definitely not later.

"Should you come to CA - look me up ( you got my e-mail) , as I gladly buy you one."

Should I come to CA, you will hear me roar. I'll be rounding up all the illegals to help deport them. Thirsty work, so I may just take you up on the offer! ;-)

---

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".