You have some fundamental misunderstandings, Plato

Submitted by Noah Wilk (United States), Feb 10, 2007 at 06:42

Plato wrote: ...

"I don't know how you guys, Noah and Susan, do it. Practically instant instant reposts to so many on this forum and pretty detailed ones too. Are you prosperous retired people. Tell me if I am right, if it is not a secret. Do you have a whole lot of people working for you on these posts?"

LOL! No, I just type really, really fast, and already know my arguments inside and out, plus I have a library of ready links, so posts are a lot easier than they appear. :-)

"I am having a tough time juggling time between work and moonlighting on this forum. Answering this particular post has my finger joints creaking, my wife screaming and my eyes watering...."

I gotta admit, it's taken a bite out of my free time late at night lately.

"If Gibbon is to be believed the Moors of Spain did a pretty good job for some time. It took Christianity around 1800 years to go from persecuted minority living in catacombs to inquisitors to genocidal invaders to finally settle down as freedom loving democracies. You have to wait and watch only for another 400 years."

The Moors forced Christians to live as second class citizens (ie dhimmis) and expelled Jews at various times.

And your comparison to Christianity damns Islam all the more. For Christianity to go from persecuted minority to genocidal invaders and then evolving into peace-loving democracies in that time frame is quite impressive. Islam on the other hand has always been a violent invader, starting 1,400 years ago and continuing until today. It's like they're stuck in a time warp, on "kill" mode.

"I believe Muslims are weak-kneed when protesting terrorism but the numbers you have quoted for pro-muslim issues are not very impressive. I am sure the numbers would have been higher. They probably feared targeted surveillance."

First, I believe they've been under-reported. Second, I doubt it's because they fear targetted surveillance. I think it's because they're trying to ";ay low" and avoid attracting to much attention, as any destructive criminal would. The point being, they show up more often and in larger numbers to '"defend" Islam (fromfabricated "threats") than they do in any way to reform their religion. In other words, announce that you're having an anti-terror rally and try to encourage Muslims to attend, and they don't. Let someone take a suspicious immam off an airplane and they come out in droves and are crying to the media.

"Your liberals fear offending the Muslim living among yourself but the polls indicated support for the war in Iraq, and Afghanistan."

Liberals are backing the war? What poll is that? Most Americans are against the war, liberal or otherwise.

"You have garrisons practically all over the ME"

Which should end immediately. We don't need soldiers on the ground to deal with the Muslims if they start trouble.

"Noah, you really have me worried there. The leader of the free world without a squirt of military training or even a squirt of common sense. What am I supposed to make of that."

The truth. Bush never served. He's a politician, not a soldier. At least when John Adams was president, he had the common sense to appoint Washington as commander-in-chief, because Adams had no military knowledge. I'd bet you money that Bush has never been in any sort of serious combat (personal assault, etc) in his life. He's about as qualified to run the military as Mother Theresa is.

"You spend billions every year for what and on who? You mean to tell me that all those soldiers have been training with toy guns and planes. Or that West Point turns out world class idiots? No wonder Bin Laden is relaxing on his silk pillows in his air-conditioned cave without a care. Now that is scary."

No, no. You're taking that wrong. I said that Bush and the people calling the shots in the war have no idea how to manage a war. Most of them have never seen combat. Let Dick Marcinko run the war, and it would have been over and settled inside 90 days. Our soldiers know how to fight. The problem is that they're stuck obeying idiot politicians who would have trouble figuring out which end of a rifle the bullets come out of.

"I am not sure but you have been trying for decades to keep out the Mexicans. What is the level of your success?"

Ah, but there is a fundamental and gaping flaw in your argument. We've never actively been trying to keep the Mexicans out. Ted Kennedy led the march for amnesty and lax enforcement of immigration back in the 60's and it's been a joke ever since. The problem is that we are not trying to keep the Mexicans out. The National Guard is stationed there with their thumbs stuck up their backsides because they're not allowed to shoot, to chase, or to apprehend criminal aliens. Our own border patrol is not allowed to pursue fleeing alien criminals. Our judges "catch and release". Enforcement is a joke. We're not failing, we're simply not trying.

" Muslims need not carry Muslim sounding names, nor will their passports indicate they are Muslims. You have your job cut out for you to keep out Muslims bent on terror."

For one thing, we ban immigration from any Islamic country or country with Islamic majorities. We ban all people of Middle eastern descent unless and until they can prove they are not Muslim. Yes, it takes work. America has gotten fat and lazy, that's the problem.

"Just thought control by another name. No different from Mo calling attacks on neighbouring countries 'changing its political dynamics'."

No, it is not thought control. We are not telling people what to think. We would be banning a socio-political cult movement that is hell bent on destroying our country. That's not thought control, it's common sense.

"I agree killing is the simple part. As to the others, I am no security specialist, but still it looks pretty simple-minded to me. But good luck to your strategising. You make it sound so simple."

Like I said, how to they get into America? We ban immigrants from Muslim countries. They cannot fly in or boat/ship in. There are no trains running across the ocean last I checked. No busses either. We have no common border for them to walk/drive/tunnel across. So how would they arrive? They don't have a Star Trek Starship that they can teleport in by.

"Starting from Bin Laden all the plotting was done outside of the US of A and implemented in it."

Relevant phrase..."implemented inside it". They won't be inside America in order to implement anything.

"You are speaking on behalf of the natives. Let one of the few surviving ones including those who are your friends come forward about what happened to their ancestors.What choice do the native Americans have?"

Again, this is irrelevant to the topic. We cannot change history, nor can we condone what was done. This does not justify Muslims coming to the country to destroy it. Two wrongs don't make a right. What is your purpose for constantly bringing it up? I have already admitted more than a few times that what we did to the Native Americans was horrendous and unjustifiable by any stretch of the imagination. But again, there is nothing we can do about it. We don't have time machines and therefore there is no point in discussing it. America has learned since then, just as we abolished slavery. We moved forward and formed the greatest country on earth where people enjoyed rights never before seen in the history of mankind.

"Yes I know you have that aspect of your strategy all nicely tied up and packaged. I will stop worrying only when I get a second opinion from another strategist who has had a close look at the ribbon you used to tie up your package and confirm the ribbon is strong enough to prevent the contents from spilling out."

Again, tell me what method they will use to get in if they cannot arrive in airplanes or on ships. They are on the other side of the world. They can't teleport. So how do they get in? We'd have the borders protected. I mean actual protection, not the joke it is now. How do they get in?

"I am trying to digest those figures you are tossing around. "

Pretty disturbing numbers, aren't they?

"There is also a feeling of de ja vu about your Hiroshima plot scenario. Researching that Muslim habit of blaming everyone around for what one or two did seems to have rubbed off on you."

How do you figure? It's absurd to say "what one or two did" when 70% of Jordanians favor using suicide bombings against Americans. I've never understood this compulsion to minimize the number of fanatics that constitute Islam. Is it a fear that if we admit the truth, that the vast majority are either violent or apologists for the violence, that we'll be forced to actually face the threat and deal with it?

"Oh yes. Now I remember the cartoon story where Muslims turned around and attacked the nearest Christian for what happened in a country they had not even heard about. You say Muslims pull off this plot. What you are not saying is if Al Qaeda or Pakistan pull this off."

I hardly think Al Qaeda or Pakistan pulled the strings. This is how Muslims around the world react all the time. Do the research.

"By your own estimate there are 1.2 billion of them scattered over the planet and they are, if not privy to the plot, certain to acqueisce. So Al Qaeda is Muslim, Pakistan is Muslim. Let us vaporise them and also Mecca Medina, Al Azhar, Tripoli, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, southern Thailand, Mindanao while we are about it.. A job well done. That is the very Muslim reaction you so detest."

Again, first we deport, ban, and isolate. The nukes will fly only if they somehow figure out a way to commit a massive terror attack against us, which would be nearly impossible since no Muslims would be around in the USA and they'd have no method for sneaking in.

"Because they need repeating. Now that still leaves 800 million Muslims alive, discounting the 100 million that died in the US"

First, remember that my method virtually insures against such a nuclear war. Second, if we nuked their population centers, they'd all die. Some from the blast, others from radiation sickness (if we used neutron bombs), the rest from starvation. Remember, neutron radiation would also kill plants and cattle. No doubt they would resort to cannibalism, but they're barely able to eek out an existence as it is, with millions and in some cases billions of dollars in foreign aid. So they would die out pretty readily. We could always help them along by spraying with nerve agents, napalm, firebombs, etc. It would be easy.

"I have assumed your bombs kill only the Muslims, so much more satisfying assuming only the instigators will be picked up by the explosions and radiation."

No, unfortunately some non-Muslims would also die. Such is the nature of war. It is unavoidable. I would hope that most non-Muslims would have the common sense to flee once the writing was on the wall. In any case, sacrifices must be made.

"I thought I gave a better solution with not a solitary Muslim alive and you dismissed it as wishful thinking"

Because you presented the idea of a virus that only kills Muslims or some such absurdity. Remember?

"Again, far better than 500,000,000, and compare that to how many we lost in one attack on 9/11.Yes that is a great bargain 2 million for 500 million. And an even better bargain just 20,000 deaths instead of 500 million. A master plan that can't be faulted. Every last detail worked out. Who can resist such a great bargain. But just a little niggling thought at the back of my mind that refuses to go away. If out of the 250 million or so Americans all the country could find are strategists and planners with not 'a squirt of common sense or military training' leading to the uneducated terrorist Muslims in Iraq running 150,000 of the best trained and armed troops in the world to the ground, where is the guarantee that you can get away with just 20,000 dead."

Put some real warriors in charge and the job will get done, trust me. Again, many of the generals and other leaders know how to conduct a war, they are just hand-tied by idiot politicians. That's why we lose. Warriors are good at breaking the enemy. Politicians are only good at breaking promises.

"Where is the guarantee that your new strategists will have a piffle more that a squirt of military training and commonsense? Stupid me, that's where you come in with your master plan to end all master plans."

Again, get rid of the idiot politicians who are sleeping with the Saudis and let some real patriotic American warriors run policy.

"Your plan must be way beyond brilliant as it guarantees only 20k casualties."

I never "guaranteed" anything. That's just a good estimate. It could be a little higher, it would probably be a lot lower. In any case, even if I were wrong by a hundred-fold, that would still be a drop in the bucket compared to the alternative where global nuclear war breaks out. In fact, it would be a drop in the bucket even compared to a situation in which America did not respond at all to a Muslim attack that took out LA, New York, and Chicago.

"As you have so kindly reminded me several times I am stupid and a fool to boot and as to common sense your strategists could do worse than me which is why I can't see the brilliance of your master plan. Or it is so brilliant that it hurts my eyes, I can't see."

Your posts start out kind, then descend into snottiness. Weird. Anyway, you simply refuse to listen to reason, that's why you don't see the brilliance of the plan. You want it to fail, you want it to be unworkable.

"All I can see through the flash of MOABs and neutron and nuclear bombs is 500 million dead, the figure you so thoughtfully provided. And still 800 million Muslims left standing."

I swear it is getting tedious having to repeat myself to you a trillion times. Please try a reading comprehension course. As I have laid out the plan, it minimizes to near zero the likelihood of any sort of nuclear attack by any side against any other. It virtually guarantees against nuclear war. On the other hand, not implementing my plan virtually assures it, as Islam is hell-bent on nuking both Israel and America, and we all know damned well where that leads. Why is it that you refuse to acknowledge this after I have spelled it out at least 4 times now?

As for the 800 million Muslims left, wrong again, as I have pointed out. First, Muslims tend to be densely packed in population centers. Tehran, for example, has 12 million + in the city and surrounding burbs. One blast, 12 million evaporated. There are 71 million in Iran alone. Riyadh has 4.2 million alone. Again, one bomb, 4.2 millon dead. That's 20% of the Saudi population. Again, densely packed people, 27 million in Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan 22.6 million, Algeria 29.2 million, Egypt 63.6 million. Right there are 213 million dead Muslims, either immediately or directly after from starvation, disease, and with help from American fighter pilots and drones. They'd have no infrastructure, no clean water, no food, and lots of disease from all the rotting bodies and weakened resistance. The aftermath would clean up what was left, and even if there were 500 million or even 800 million left, they'd be left struggling just to survive to the next day, deprived of weapons or access to America. All they could do is die off. Oh, and let's not forget Indonesia. There's another 200 million dead. Now we're up to 400 million of them dead.

"A long way to go before you can write 'The Last of the Muslims'"

Again, there would be no need to write off the "last of the Muslims". They'd be cut in half at least, and left with an apocalyptic disaster (which at least Iran would be happy with!), and they'd be deprived of any method of attacking America. They would have to devote all their energies into surviving today and into tomorrow, and their barbaric tendencies would ensure that they focused all their rage on one another, fighting for the last living, non-irradiated virgin to rape. Islam would for all practical purposes be a thing of the past. We could simply turn our backs and watch them die.

"Again all worked out in minute detail. You will use only clean weapons. And sure the neighbouring countires will just suffer a little dust haze after Pakistan has been reduced to a dust bowl."

As I said, there is very little fallout from neutron bombs and it would not last long enough to threaten neighboring countries. We could also take them out with non-nuclear weapons.

"I know you have smart bombs with higher kill rates but just a little thought cropped up in my stupid mind. How many tons of ordinance was dropped on Vietnam. My stupid mind remembers something about it exceeding all the stuff dropped in WW1 and WW2 combined. And that gave food for thought to my stupid self. Vietnam was the lean and hungry tiger that mauled you. And now it is set to become one of the fat cats of Asia."

Again, an inaccurate comparison. One, we were not fighting to win in Viet Nam, and two, we were mainly bombing empty jungles, not dense population centers. One or two neutron bombs dropped in Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Malaysia would kill more Muslims than died in the entire history of the Vietnam war (1945-1975) with 2.3 to 3.8 millon dead in that war. Hell, one neutron bomb in Tehran alone would exceed that number by a factor of four.

"Can you please tweak your plan so that the 'nearly' occurring twice can be taken out. It make me nearly extremely nervous. "..pretty much inevitable." I will admit that is pretty prescient of you. I will tell you my preference after you get rid of the two 'nearlys'."Again, don't be foolish. You cannot reduce almost anything to an absolute zero chance. My plan does indeed make it nearly impossible though. On the other hand, Islam is trying to get its hands on nukes, it has already threatened to erase Israel and America off the face of the earth, and we know that when it comes to violence and genocide, Muslims do not jest. Allowing them to remain in America is inviting a planned disaster of which we are already aware, ie the American Hiroshima plot, and the Second Holocaust plan. That virtually assures nuclear war. Again, nothing is 100% certain, but let's use common sense!

I'll take a plan that generates a 99.9% chance of avoiding a nuclear war over a plan that generates even a 50% chance of nuclear war.

"America's civilized nature was not in doubt until I read all of the above. And I am sure those who leave peacefully will get a handsome price for their homes. Your BBB will ensure that."

If they don't, too bad. They at least get to keep their lives, which is more than they allow the victims of their genocides and planned genocides. Remember, they have had ample time and ample opportunity to reform their religion, if that was their intention.

"Okay. Pakistan and Iran are kaput. Why will Russia and China not makea little nuclear money on the side as they are doing now. You going to target them. This I gotta see."

Russian and China are not suicidal Muslim countries. Precisely why M.A.D. worked with Russia (Soviets). They are not going to commit suicide by stepping into a nuclear war in order to defend Muslims.

"Pakistan supposedly has a tight leash on their terrorists. And there are enough terrorists out there who will welcome thermonuclear annihilation as a short cut to martyrdom and the pleasures of direct entry to heaven instead of having to wait till Judgement day."

So why in God's name are we not giving them what they want? Kill 'em all, let Allah sort them out, that's my policy. If they're so eager to sacrifice themselves, why not be humane and assist them in their quest for martyrdom?

"Let us hope the Saudis are listening in but how are you going to prevent Bin laden type individuals (not much of a threat) among Muslims from doing unacceptable damage. Oh I know, you will squash the whole lot of them with thermonuclear annihilation."

Again, how do they get into America? Second, if there is even a smidgen of common sense or survival instinct left in the Muslim world, they will simply cut funding and not attack. And if they do, call out the exterminator, nuclear style. Bye-bye!

"I only want you to listen to my opinions not respect them."

Why even bother to listen to them? I can find a great many better things to fantasize about than insane plans to reform Islam from within via all the mythological moderates that you seem to believe exist yet in reality are about as evident as Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster.

"I gave you a plan that eliminated 1.2 billion people and your best(worst?) case scenario could eliminate only 400 million."

Your "plan" was a snotty remark and clearly not meant to be serious. Get real! Concocting a virus that only kills Muslims? What sort of nonsense is that?

"But then you know mine is unrealistic and half-baked etc. whereas a country that could come up with war strategists with not even a squirt (figure of speech) of commonsense are now going to come up with a detailed plan that will have a range of casualties anywhere from 20,000 to 500 million"

Again, it appears you have zero comprehension of my plan despite having it spelled out to you and despite having corrected you a million times. My plan, as you put it, does not have a range of 500 million dead. That is the number of dead likely through not implementing my plan and allowing the Muslims to continue to infiltrate and plot a nuclear blast in NYC.

"Comonsense, at least my kind of commonsense, tells me paper plans are as useless against the threat we are faced with as the paper it is written on"

It's not just a "paper plan". It is a well reasoned plan that has historical precedence on its side, and reality backing it as well. I suspect that's why it bothers you so.

"They have been fighting each other for 1400 years and still gave us plenty of thought. "

Only because we allowed them to migrate into our lands! Otherwise, they'd still be killing one another.

'We will have to sell them some neutrons and MOABs before we will hear their death rattle"

Wrong again. Well placed bombs would destroy most of their population, and the rest would die from the after-effects, ie lack of clean water and food, disease, lack of sanitation, lack of medical care, etc.

It is interesting though, how people like you who are so strongly opposed to my plan always seem to focus on the idea of a nuclear war. You seem to have a compulsion with looking at all-out nuclear war as the most likely and most preferred result, whereas my plan makes it the least likely and least desireable outcome.

"What! The Crusades exhausted them? I thought I was the only delusional one here. As long as they blindly believe their Book, they will never be exhausted."

When I say "exhausted", I mean beaten back, defeated. The Christians freed many Christian lands, but then played a game of give and take with the Muslims. And it does not matter if they believe in their book or not. As long as they are isolated, all they can do is kill one another, which is perfectly acceptable. If they turn twards the West, we annihilate them. They are totally free to engage in their orgy of genocide, rape, murder and mayhem as long as they confine their barbarity to Arabia against one another.

"They will be truly exhausted when they realise the nature of the book they swear by. If you can up with a plan to expose the Koran and other scriptures to the Muslims I will be first in line to approve that plan. Cheaper, and less blood and body parts on our TV screens."

"Expose" the Koran? It's already been exposed. People can read it in every language on the planet. It's only the Muslims and their apologists that live in denial of what it truly says. And again, it is not my burden to come up with a plan that fits your absurd claims. You're the one claiming that we can "convert" the so-called (and mythological) "moderate" Muslims, so it's your burden to come up with a detailed, realistic plan along those lines. I insist that any such plan is doomed to fail.

"Challenging the well-spring of their belief sounds simple kind and gentle? I have some experience of it. It is like twisting a serrated knife thrust in their rib-cage. Sometimes out comes the bullet and they are all the better for the pain. The Book of islam is under scrutiny everywhere. You may not admit it or know it but you are playing your part in it. You don't have to dive into a whirlpool (Saudi Arabia) to save a drowning man and die yourself, you throw him a lifejacket."

Again, you suffer under the delusion that you can compete with the entire culture of Islam...in their schools, their madrassahs, their mosques, and their homes. Where Islam dominates, you cannot convert them. Even in America you cannot convert them, because virtually to a person they believe their religion is infallible. Here's how I can concede your plan. We'd have to literally kidnap all the children from adult Muslims, house them in a de-programming detention center in order to purge their violent brainwashing, then into a re-indoctrination center to re-program them towards peaceful beliefs. Even restricting that action to Muslims in America alone, how do you propose to do that? What do we do with the resistant ones? Kill them? How do we deal with the parents? Kill them?

I know plenty of 3rd and 4th generation "American" Muslims, and to a person they are just as violent and nutty as the 1st generation. The only way to change them is to deprogram them. Where in the world are you going to get the ability, manpower, and facilities to do that?

"Keep your eyes on the underlined words when you read Mo's double speak (my paraphrasing): Muslims are allowed to change the political dynamics of other countries where sharia is not practised. I did not know we are expected to be mathematically precise in our observations. The thrust of the argument is irrelevant it seems. I will now take even longer to answer as I will agonise about whether I got the exact mathematically correct drift of your posts. As in differential calculus where in the limit delta x tends to zero the number of peaceful Muslims in the aggregate are just aberrations like the zero in calculus, zero but never really zero. Your mathematical definition of the quantum of peaceful muslims compared to the violent ones has exposed me as a liar, shame on me"

Again, you're being absurd. There are always exceptions to any rule. That's why the rule is the rule and the exception is the exception. For some reason, you and your crowd seem to believe that just because 0.00001% of Muslims are peaceful, that means there is hope for Islam to become peaceful. And yet the very opposite is happening...they are getting more and more violent with each increment of freedom and access to the West they receive. Hence the phenomenon of "moderate Muslims" is an aberration, an anomaly, a blip on the radar that holds no promise, no hope, no chance of success.

Aberration - n. - A deviation from the proper or expected course. A departure from the normal or typical.

Anomaly - n - Deviation or departure from the normal or common order, form, or rule.

"What is considered significant by one person could look insignificant to another like a glass being half empty or half full. And if you do not hold me to the gold standard of American values I could name some Muslim countries that are struggling to reach those standards."

Oh, don't give me that relativistic nonsense!

"Yes wish me good luck. For me even a fraction of 1% is okay."

Sorry, but a fraction of 1% is simply not workable in reality. You may, for example consider a replacement birth rate of 1.3 to be sufficient to allow a culture to continue growing, but reality tells us that is far too small a number. Likewise, a fraction of 1% of Muslims being peaceful is not going to be able to stand against or influence the other 99.999% who are violent.

"I know, you are not willing to spare the time."

It's not a matter of wanting, it's a matter of not having the time left! Muslims are migrating and reproducing at an alarming rate, and are as persistent as locusts in consuming their host countries. And we all see what happens once they reach a level of power. Genocide against non-Muslims. Happens every time. We cannot risk the future of the free world and billions of descendants' freedoms on the unprecedented, unrealistic, and delusional belief that a tiny aberration inside Islam will swell to encompass the whole. That's suicidal, insane behavior.

"Since you already know the answer to the thought experiment you threw at me my answer is superfluous. But allow me to expand on why I bring up the Native Indian issue. First of all they still exist in some corners of your country. Second I may be wrong, but I have never heard of a public apology by your government or senate for the valiant deeds of your recent forefathers. The Germans are reminded every now and then of the Holocaust, as rightly they should be. Why do you get hot under the collar about the Holocaust in the Americas. You are a military tactician and strategist and I need not tell you, you attack the weak point of your opponent. And like Ali working on his opponent's cut eye brow I am working to open the chink a bit more to see what is under the skin."

No, what you are doing is skirting the issue and engaging in obfuscation. We've covered this a dozen times, I have answered in detail on it each time, and it is irrelevant in any way to what we are talking about. What you're actually trying to do is engage in a transparent attempt at moral relativism, and I will not be led down that road of lies. I don't get hot under the collar about killing the Native Americans. I denounce it in the strongest possible terms...it was unacceptable, reprehensible, illegal, horrendous, inhuman genocide. Period. I have never said otherwise. But it is also irrelevant to our discussion. If you want to start a thread on another subject about the genocide of the Native Americans, feel free. My objection is that you are trying to link it to the Muslim issue, and the two are totally unrelated. It is nothing more than an attempt to derail the argument. There's my only objection. You're getting like Michel, thinking he's found a sensitive or soft spot. Wrong. You give yourself (undeserved) airs.

"Now that you have released some more details of that detailed plan of yours (with the reality of history built into it) the greatest number at risk is 500 million deaths which is insignificant, like those mythical peaceful Muslims, or happily if all the well laid plans of mice and men go as planned only 20,000 deaths."

And yet all you can do to attack my plan is offer strawman arguments and misrepresentation of my details.

"I am with you there all the way but not by genocide and misery even of a death cult, for sure then you will become their mirror image"

Again, don't give me that nonsense. Did we become the Nazis in WWII? Did we become the Soviets in the Cold War? No. Your argument is invalid. And for the 50th time, I am not advocating genocide. You seem to attend the Goebbels School of Debate, believing that if you utter a great lie often enough, it will be believed. Unfortunately for you, I am able to counter your propaganda each time, and correct you publicly, where your lie is clearly exposed. I am calling for the deportation and banning of an evil sociopolitical ideology called Islam, an evil ideology dedicated to our destruction, and the isolation of that evil to its breeding grounds. Nuclear annihilation is a deterrent, the same deterrent we used against the Soviets.

You, Plato, cannot debate this with me honestly, because you know you will lose. You insist on using lies and propaganda to misquote, misinterpret, and misrepresent my claims, because you need that propaganda in order to vilify me in your eyes and allow you to dismiss my plan without the burden of looking at it honestly.

"Your wish is coming true in Iraq with some help from your government. You should be happy."

I guess we are doing something right after all!

"Your action there has probably created more terrorists than ever existed"

Nonsense. They're simply being enticed out of their hiding holes like cockroaches. Most of them are coming from terrorist states like Iran and Syria.

"The Native Americans are really getting under your skin."

The Native Americans are not getting under my skin. What's irritating me is listening to you whine about them incessantly when they are utterly irrelevant to the discussion. You're thumping your chest because you believe you've "touched a nerve" when all you've done is tire me of listening to you evade and obfuscate the issue with your Native American nonsense.

"If you end up annihilating 500 million muslims (the worst case scenario in your detailed plan) a descendant of yours may have to squirm with discomfort when he has to field a similar question. Shoot me down again. But the Native Indian issue will rise again like the Phoenix."

Wrong again. No one, least of all me, is "squirming with discomfort" over the situation with Native Americans. I have no guilt over that, as I have no guilty over slaver in the early days. I had nothing to do with it, I condemn it, and it's a dark chapter in American history. One which I condemn. However, it is irrelvant to the discussion and nothing more than an attempt at obfucation and evasion. And it does not matter if you kepe bringing it up, because I am tired of repeating myself on the issue. You've had it explained to you enough times to understand my point, if you have even a smidgen of intelligence. From now on, when you bring it up, it will merely be dismissed as what it is...an impotent attempt to distract from the matter at hand and an attempt at obfuscation.

"You have minimised it to the extent of 100 million out of about 600 million. Reality begins where delusion ends"We killed 100 million Iraqis? Then there are no Iraqies alive, since there are only 26.7 million Iraqis. I guess you're getting your numbers from the same insane source where Michel gets his 30 million Muslims in America. Hmmm...maybe you're one of Michel's split personalities, just Michel posting under another user ID and talking to yourself? Interesting.

"The above is what I got from Wikipedia. You seem to have tweaked the concept to punish people in the present life itself than in the reincarnated one as in the original."Unfortunately for you, I am somewhat of a Vedic scholar. The definition of karma you see there is a perversion of the original Vedic concept of karma, which was merely the law of cause and effect. You touch a hot stove, you burn your hand. That's the original concept of karma, summarized and simplified. It's not "I did bad things in this life so bad things will happen to me in the next". That (mis)understanding is a simplistic and inaccurate definition.

"If what is happening in the world is according to karmic principles why are you so worked up about Muslims running rampage. They are just working out their karma."

Wrong. Your understanding of karma is inaccurate and simplistic. Karma is Islam attacking the west and being annihilated in response. Cause and effect.

"Very ancient Pythagorean and Indian pschobabble"There we can agree! However, it is your understanding of karma that is psychobabble. The original concept is valid.

"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.."

People are not "obsessing about" the Holocaust in the 21st century. We are remembering it because it is being attempted once again. The entire Muslim world wants to enact a 2nd Holocaust on the Jews, even while denying the first one (in which they played a role!). They have publicly admitted to their insane, genocidal goals.

No one, on the other hand, is advocating a genocide against the surviving Native Americans. Nobody said the Native American holocaust was not a holocaust, least of all me. It is simply irrelevant to the discussion and being used only as a tool to derail and obfuscate the discussion, and as an instrument to argue for moral relativism, which it does not accomplish. It's nothing more than smoke being blown by two people (who may be the same person posting as different people...notice how Michel has gotten very quiet while you've suddenly become very active and with the same grammar and spelling).

And the ethics of deporting Muslims is not deplorable. I maintain that they endorse and encourage terror or at the very least refuse to purge their religion of it. Hence guilty as willing accomplices. Now go change into your Michel clothing and tell us about your walks along the beach with your pack of dogs.

---

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".