How can Bryan be so wrong?

Submitted by Noah Wilk (United States), Apr 22, 2007 at 17:28

Bryan, how can you be so delusional? And if you truly believe what you just wrote, then yes, you are delusional in the extreme!

Bryan Jackson wrote:

BJ: "If all of Islam was radical, as you claim it is, explain to me how Israel is still here? a billion+ Muslims in the world, 250 million+ live within striking distance of Israel, and yet they still exist, they are still prospering, and there are still 1.5 million Israeli ARABS who just so happen to live in harmony with their Jewish neighbors."

It's called the will to survive coupled with superior military capability. Are you so cripplingly ignorant of history, or have you forgotten the many disastrous wars the united Muslim world launched against Israel, with the intent of genocide? It's only because the Israelis are far superior that they survived at all.

BJ: "The Palestinians many of them are radical, but a large part of that is Israel's racism towards them."

Sounds to me like you're just a Muslim apologist/propagandist. The so-called "Palestinians" (in actuality they are mainly Jordanians) enjoy all the same rights as Jews in Israel, and in fact enjoy far more rights and freedoms than they'd ever have in any Muslim country. Of course, that kindness on the part of Israel does not engender friendship, only continued war and terrorism.

BJ: "They have been beaten senseless both by Israel and by other Arabs for 60 years now, and oppressed people tend to not be the most-moderate of thinkers."

I suggest you study the real history of the area instead of just the propaganda designed by the Nazi-collaborating PLO and other Muslims. The Palestinians are barbarians and don't belong as part of any civilized society. They worship destruction and vote in terrorist groups when given the freedom to vote.

BJ: "Second example - Turkey. If all of Islam was radical, how does Turkey, which has been devoutly secular despite a 98% Muslim population, stay afloat for 90 years?"

It's called a "police state" for a reason. Apparently you are also ignorant of the atrocities committed by Turkey over the years.

BJ: "Third example - Muslim populations in the West. Europe has its radicals, but we have them here in America, too. THREE examples of terror have happened in the West from home-grown Muslim extremists - 3/11 in Madrid, 7/7 in London and Theo van Gogh's murder in Amsterdam."

A Muslim is a Muslim. Your examples simply serve to prove my point. The only thing that will work is banning, deporting, isolating, and deterring. Muslims cannot live in civilized society without wreacking havoc, because Islam is a religion of barbarism and violence. There can be no debate on that issue.

BJ: "All of those were not motivated by Islam either - the bombings were motivated by the Iraq War, and van Gogh was killed for him and Ayaan Hirsi Ali's movie."

Are you simply delusional, or does stupidity play a role? All of those atrocities were commited by Muslims in the name of Islam. They were motivated by , performed by, and justified by Islam/Muslims.

BJ: "I would say to those guys - you live among us, you live by our laws, and if you don't like it there is nothing keeping you here, you CAN go back home if you wish to. But most wouldn't even consider this. Why? Because its better here."

You would say that and they would laugh at your ignorance. They take advantage of the freedoms of the West in order to undermine the West. It is a battle of civilization vs. barbarism. They will not leave. They stay beause they are free to subvert our society. They must be forced to leave, every last one of them. Ban, deport, isolate, deter. The only solution.

BJ: "Shove on the Iranians, saying "you be friendly with us, and we will be friendly back. We are not the devil, we are not out to give you guys grief." Think Iran will listen? I do."

Then you're a fool. It's people like you, the delusional fools who fall for the enemy propaganda, who are the worst threat. It's gullible, delusional people like you who allow the Muslims a foothold, and support, and freedoms to enact their subversion.

BJ: "You are saying my tactic won't work, but then you endorse my tactic. I think there is a difference here. I say encourage them to fix their problems, and help if we can. You say treat them like vermin and make them change. Take you path and they will change alright - but they will grow an ingrained hatred for us, and when you get to that level they will attack anything they can hit. Imagine a wave of Osama bin Laden governments from Indonesia to Morocco. You want that? A few of those governments ARE nuclear-armed."

Pakistan is nuclear. And that is where the deterrence aspect happens. We tell them that if any Islamic state or entity attacks the USA, the immediate, automatic, non-negotiable response is an all-out nuclear annihilation of all Islamic population centers and "holy" sites. Tehran, Mecca, Medina, Riyadh, etc...they glow in the dark minutes after any Islamic attack.

The only thing Islam fears is non-existence, so we must threaten them with non-existence.

BJ: "The only way your path will work is if we destroy them, all of them."

You clearly do not understand anything I have written. I have repeatedly and clearly spelled out that the only way that we destroy them is if they launch an attack on us. Period. Do you comprehend that yet? We ban Islam, deport Muslims, isolate them, and deter them with the threat of nuclear annihilation.

First, once isolated, their inherent barbarism will force them to turn on themselves, as in the Iran/Iraq war. They'll be too busy raping, arsoning, murdering, and destroying one another to worry about us. Second, it will isolate them geographically and reduce the possibility of an attack against us to near zero, thus virtually guaranteeing that we never need launch a retaliatory nuclear strike. Right now we're wide open to attack, thus making a nuclear response more likely than in my scenario.

BJ: "You gonna be able to stomach murdering a sixth of the world's population? If you can, you need mental help Noah."

Damn right I'm willing to incinerate 1.6 billion Muslims in a nuclear annihilation if they launch a mass terror attack against my country! I'd pay for the honor of flipping the launch switch myself! All they need to do to avoid that is act like civilized human beings instead of barbaric savages, put aside their religious hatred, and not attack us. They literally need to do absolutely nothing at all to remain totally safe from attack.

I'm armed, Bryan. You and I may meet in a bar or on the street or perhaps we have a fender bender in traffic. The only way my weapon is ever drawn towards you is if you first draw one on me. Unless and until you actually attempt to kill me, you are 100% safe and there is 0% chance of me shooting you. Do you see my point? The only way I become a threat to your safety is if you decide to violently attack me. How much safer can you possibly be?

Same situation, just expand it to a world-wide scale. This isn't some radical new idea. It's been around forever. We perfected it during the Cold War.

BJ: "We can beat these guys without going to the level of Nazi style massacres."

That is a dishonest, ignorant, inaccurate, and insulting comparison. No one, least of all me, has ever suggested rounding up Muslims and sending them to gas chambers or experimenting on them ala Dr. Mengele. The Nazis did not simply deport Jews because the Jews were a threat to Germany. They systematically murdered the Jews in an attempted genocide for the simple reason that they were Jewish. The Nazi policy and my policy are totally unrelated.

BJ: "The world has shrunk, and all of us know it, and we have come to realize that not every Muslim is an Osama bin Laden believer. You obviously have the opinion that they are all evil and that a showdown is coming. I don't believe that for a second."

Get a clue, son. The showdown already happened, and we blinked. The war of survival is now happening. Every single Muslim who is not actively campaigning to reform Islam or who does not convert to another religion is the enemy, no different than Zawahiri, Bin Laden, or Amadmanjihad. By supporting the infrastructure, philosophy, and network that funds Islamic activities, they are the enemy by association even if not actively blowing things up. In many ways, they are even more deadly a threat than those out conducting terrorist acts. I'd sooner annihilate the silent supporters than the actual bombers.

BJ: "Democracy in the Islamic World is coming, and Islam is in its period of uncertainty, just as Christianity was 400 years ago. They are living through the same issues we have."

... Afghanistan got the freedom to vote, and they voted in Sharia law. The Taliban is also gaining power there. The so-called Palestinians got a chance to vote for reform, and they elected the terrorist group Hamas. Iraq's constitution states that no law is above Sharia law, despite not being a Sharia state. There is no uncertainty. Intelligent people see where this is all going, and it is not good.

BJ: "If we let the psychos win, and you are suggesting just that, than it will result in the ugliest genocide in the history of humanity, one which would likely destroy everything modern society has been building for the past 200 years."

You're clearly ignorant of reality, history, current events, my theory, and my proposals. First, the only way the "psychos" (as you call them) will win is if we fail to ban, deport, isolate, and deter. They are undermining our societies as we speak. Try waking up to current events. Pay attention. See my link posted months ago about CAIR and what is happening in Detroit. It's time for the ignorant and the delusional to open their eyes, pull their heads out of their backsides, and sniff some reality for a change.

Modern society as we know it, and everything we spent over 200 years building up, will come to an end only if we fail to ban, deport, isolate, and deter the cancer known as "Islam". My proposal assures our continued existence.

BJ: "I'm not going to take that road if I don't have to. Fascism is dead, Communism is dead, we can make Radical Islam die as well, and Communism was not defeated by bombs and guns, neither will Radical Islam."

I'll give you another clue, but at this point I need to start charging you. First, we have no choice. We do need to take that road if we hope to survive. Second, we destroyed Nazism and fascism by bombing the life out of them. We torched entire cities full of citizens in Germany during WWII. As I continually point out in response to Dr. Pipes and others who say we need to "fight the Islamists the way we fought the Nazis and the Soviets", you must remember how we defeated those threats. In WWII, we firebombed entire cities full of German citizens (non-combatants). Those who did not burn to death suffocated to death. We defeated Japan by dropping two atomic bombs on population centers. We defeated the Soviet Union with the threat of nuclear annihilation. So why then are those who claim that they believe we should "fight the 'Islamists' the same way we fought the Nazis and Soviets" always terrified of actually doing so? Is that dishonesty or simply ignorance?

BJ: "To me, make these people know that we will work with the smart ones among the Muslim world - just as Dr. Pipes says."

And I will throw the same challenge at you that I continually throw at Dr. Pipes and everyone else who claims that there is some mythological moderate movement in Islam - SHOW ME THE PROOF! So far, none of you have been able or willing to answer that challenge. I wonder why? Show me where there is a significant reform movement in Islam. I'm not talking about aberrations where less than one one-hundred thousanth of one percent of Muslims stage a rally. I mean a real, true, significant force for change.

I clearly will not be holding my breath, as none of my opponents has ever been able to rise to the challenge.

---

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".