You're obsessing...

Submitted by Noah Wilk (United States), Jan 29, 2007 at 19:37

Plato wrote:

"Noah, the italics are your comments. I hope your browser/danielpipes does not mix them up as I have noticed happens to many of my posts. They come out all messy."

I've noticed that myself in the past. Now I just make the quotes I reply to bold, and it seems to work out fine.

"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.

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.

"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.

"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"?

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 method minimizes that risk and virtually assures that no worldwide nuclear holocaust will take place.

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?

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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?

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

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 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.

"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 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!

"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.

"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?

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.

"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.

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?

---

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".