Oh. So It's War Then.
By Robert A. Hahn Posted in War — Comments (29) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
In case there are any doubts concerning "The War on Terror" and what it is about, the Mujahedeen Shura Council in Iraq would like to set us straight:
You infidels and despots, we will continue our jihad and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism, when God's rule is established governing all people and nations.
The proximate cause of this particular outburst was the recent speech by Pope Benedict XVI, but you'll notice they aren't claiming they'll start a jihad over that, they just plan to continue the one they already have.
Addressing the Pope, they added:
Read on...
You and the West are doomed as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere. ... We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose the 'jizya' tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion or the sword.
As we know, these guys are pretty good with the bluster. When they aren't roasting our stomachs, they're calling for oceans of blood and seas of fire. Nevertheless, we have learned the hard way that we ignore their bluster at our peril. They're not exactly the Wehrmacht, but they are far from harmless.
So what to do? Nothing seems to satisfy them; it's bombs, swords, and dead nuns from Somalia to Thailand, from Beslan to New York and Washington. Some people in our country seem to think it's all about us, but that can't be true. They kill Hindus, they kill Danes, they kill Russians, they kill Brits... they'll kill just about anybody, anywhere on Earth. Insult them, and they riot... or shoot a nun, or burn a church. Or shoot a nun and and burn a church; maybe lots of churches.
And now they're telling us that they'll never stop. Ever. As the AP summarized their little rant,
Al-Qaida in Iraq warned Pope Benedict XVI on Monday that its war against Christianity and the West will go on until Islam takes over the world
These people could not be clearer. We have heard this same thing from Osama bin Laden. We've heard it from his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri. This time it's the Mujahedeen Shura Council.
It doesn't seem to matter whether we'd like to be at war with these people. They want to be at war with us. They don't want land, they don't want money, and they most assuredly do not want peace. They want to take over the world for Islam, and by 'world' they mean the world.
There is little to do but kill them all. They won't have it any other way.
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
But it's kind of amazing that I still have to. In fact, it's downright extraordinary that RAH has to go to these lengths to detail this stuff, because it's so obvious, so plain, so clearly in front of people's faces, and has been for a long, long time now.
And that's why I want him to keep these coming. Because people like Dana Milbank are still working at Slate and the Washington Post to convince people that all of this is just a bunch of Republican electoral hype.
...they aren't claiming they'll start a jihad over that, they just plan to continue the one they already have.
And I kind of disagree about the comparison to the Wehrmacht. A bunch of jihadists with boxcutters did more damage to America in a few minutes than the Wehrmacht ever did.
The worst part is we don't how many "they" constitute. This latest threat emanated from Iraq, a nation we just liberated from a monster who killed Muslims for sport. How many of the "they" are Iraqi citizens? Chilling stuff there, and the implications are jarring.
From what I've heard, about 15-20% of all muslims share this view. 20% of appx. 1.2 billion is a LOT of people.
too. Killing does seem to be a theme. I also say we have to kill them all and the sooner we start, the sooner we finish. Put them on the Virginville Express.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
I just noticed the Iranian dictator encouraged more protests against the Pope. This could get very, very ugly quickly.
Making sure we do not offend these people.
And what is our Supreme Court doing? Making sure all we do is worry about the civil rights of these people.
And what is the DNC, NYT and the rest of the liberal edifice committed to doing?
To making sure we bow as quickly and gracefully as possible to their will.
I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph. And there's purpose and worth to each and every life.-Ronald Reagan
I now believe the Pope did this on purpose. Why?
1) He knew that Muslims would go bat-crap crazy over it. All he had to do was look at the reaction to the Danish cartoons and Salman Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" for an example of the typical reaction.
2) His purpose was to perhaps, maybe, force the world to confront the fact that this is indeed a religious war (not merely a geopolitical conflict or "War on Terror") and to prepare itself for that fight.
3) If the mere spectacle of the overreaction is not enough to spur the Judeo-Christian world into action, I fully believe he intends to allow himself to be murdered. In his mind, if this does not steel the resolve of the West to confront this threat once and for all, it is not worth saving.
"Everybody needs money! That's why they call it money!"
rarely does anything without careful consideration :-)
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
...the "apologies" coming from the Vatican have not been deeemed sufficient (and have resulted in calls for the Pope's assasination) merely adds strength to this theory.
"Everybody needs money! That's why they call it money!"
I wanted to hear from The Holy See are the following:
"The Prosecution rests."
and
"Deus Vult!"
followed by
"That is all."
But I admit I'm surprised by neither the initial response from Jihadistan (don't call us violent or we'll burn your churches and shoot your nuns!), nor the "apologies" from the Vatican, nor the subsequent "Grovel, Satan!" response.
It's like Kabuki Theatre - with guns.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
People thought I was joking.
What better way to get Christendom to wake up to the threat posed by the fundy Islamists, than to have a Pope assassinated? If you accept that Islam and Christianity are on a collision course, and it will take a major attack on a Western city to get the West engaged, it's difficult to wait, wondering which of your flock will get hit. Unless the Pope is killed, that is.
The math is pretty easy: the life of one old man who has reached the pinnacle of his career for, say, 100,000 innocents.
If that was his plan ... Salute!
--
There be one Cap'n here.
that we're talking about killing all jihadists, not just Muslims...
But how do you counter the argument that killing them just creates more?
And how do you separate them from non-radical Muslims? How can we get them to come out from behind their women's skirts and fight like men?
Don't get me wrong – I'd like to see the whole lot of 'em sent to the pits of hell where they belong, but they seem to be pretty wily so far.
Why don't you give us the argument, and some evidence to support it, and then maybe someone will try.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
that it wasn't MY argument, but the one I hear most often. But I see how your answer will work - ask them to provide the evidence.
I guess this could be anecdotal evidence, but what about the recent converts to radical Islam that we see cropping up in England? These men are apparently secular, well-educated young people, who then convert and then plan to blow up airplanes with sports drinks. What makes them do this?
I suppose it's the same thing that leads them to wear black masks and firebomb McDonald's in the name of anarchy, communism, anti-globalism or whatever, or lead people to join domestic terrorist groups like the Weathermen, the SLA, and the like back in the 70s. It isn't surprising that some have chosen Islam as their way to "fight the power."
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
How do you counter the argument that killing them... kills them? Or that killing them deters others? Why does any of this make any difference if you aren't planning to convert to Islam?
As I see it, it is up to the non-radicals to separate the radicals. The technical term for not doing that is usually "collateral damage".
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
- how do you counter the argument that killing them just creates more?
There is a hidden assumption in that argument, which is that the rate at which they breed exceeds the rate at which we kill them. With the various means of violence available to us, we can easily adjust the rate at which we kill them so as to exceed the rate at which they breed.
- How can we get them to come out
We can't. It is in their interest to hide that way. Therefore we must make the others want to push them out. We aren't really serious about this matter yet, so we have not truly been working that problem. But a number of engineering solutions come to mind. If every time one of their bombs went off somewhere, we dropped a daisy cutter on the casbah in some medium-sized city over there, we could expect that after a dozen or so such incidents, civilian support for having terrorists around setting off bombs would decline. There are obviously other forms of extreme violence available. Any of them will do.
It is likely that the terrorists today threaten the civilian population if they do not agree to harbor and hide the terrorists. Therefore any violence we apply to the civilians to make them disgorge the terrorists will have to exceed whatever violence the terrorists themselves are capable of inflicting. Yes, I realize that this is all morally reprehensible. That is why we are not doing it. However, at some level of violence perpetrated against us, these considerations will be set aside in favor of making the violence against us cease. We are not just going to roll over and die. You might want to start steeling yourself now for the morally reprehensible part. Hopefully it can be brief.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
But unfortunately, it is apparently going to take more than 3000 civilian deaths to steel the American backbone to do the things which you have outlined. How many more deaths will it take to wake America up? 10,000? 100,000?
You already hear laments on how many Iraqi and Afghanistani civilians have been killed in the war so far. "We've killed way more than the 3000 they murdered on 9/11 – it's not fair! We should stop!", as if we should have only killed 3000 of their people in response to 9/11. Can you imagine what the outcry would be if we applied even more violence to the civilian population?
My guess: only if the terrorists kill 100,000 Americans, will the hand-wringers be okay with us going in and killing 100,000 of their civilians. (But not a person more.)
Will never be OK with our acting against the threat of terrorism. It doesn't matter how many of our citizens they kill. Even if they were to set off WMD killing 100s of thousands, the "CIA did it" crowd would start coming out of the woodwork a week or two later, just as it did after 9/11. Those people are certainly not going to support the mission.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
It would be disaffected Republicans who are taking out their anger on not being able to steal another election.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
- only if the terrorists kill 100,000 Americans, will the hand-wringers be okay
That's my estimate as well, although it might be fewer if we're losing 10 or 20 thousand at a pop and it looks like such incidents will continue. Even if they set off a nuke, people will want to wait and see if they have two.
The point is, if we take the Jihadis at their word, they are not going to stop coming until we give up, convert to Islam, and accept Islamic law. It's going to be one exploding airplane, anthrax attack, or cyanide-in-the-ventilator after another... forever. I'm just saying... at some point people will have had enough. Whether it's ten thousand, or a hundred thousand, or a million dead I don't know. There is no evidence that the Islamic Fascists are going to stop coming... ever. So we might as well get used to the idea that to make it stop, we are some day going to have to engage in a period of Extreme Violence against people who probably don't deserve it. That's too bad. But we are not going to sit here and get bombed and gassed until we're all dead. (I agree that roughly 42% of the population would sit here and get bombed and gassed until we're all dead, in the belief that we deserve it. Besides, doing anything about it would be so icky. But I don't believe they will prevail. Note that by saying this I am not questioning their patriotism.)
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
So the Muslim community is offended by an out of context remark by the pope. They need to take a number because I am and have been offended by their remarks and actions for years. The pope should apologize to them as soon as they have apologized to the world, including the Muslim world for all the deaths and suffering they have caused while hiding behind the veil of religion.
come under the provisions of Fatwa A3C-2311343-55332-746993-77346638-B and are now to be executed on sight. (BTW, they have more Fatwas than Mars has M&Ms so everything is covered)
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
that there are many people in America (including about half those running for Congress) who would say all of this is Bush's fault.