Replies

Something needs to break the current not-quite-a-stalemate with islam. As long as they are winning the death by a million camel-flea bites campaign, we lose.

Not sure I entirely agree. The radical Islamists, oddly enough, also see themselves in a losing battle if they don't win quickly.

Not that they worry about being defeated militarily, but about the gradual erosion of Muslim support for jihad when put up against the material enticements of the West.

BTW, there is an SF writer who has written a couple of series in which major Muslim aggression against US, generally involving nukes on cities, leads to rather appalling American retaliation and a turn to what can only be called democratic fascism.

His name is Tom Kratman. Not the best writer in the world, although getting better, but his invented dystopias are great.

http://tomkratman.com/

The radical Islamists, oddly enough, also see themselves in a losing battle if they don't win quickly.

Not that they worry about being defeated militarily, but about the gradual erosion of Muslim support for jihad when put up against the material enticements of the West

I disagree with that. I've interacted with quite a few Moslem beards in my time in the ME and they don't see themselves in a losing battle. -- most of the time they don't think.

The in-breeding is pretty true among them and the "give free reign to your anger" is also a driving force

They see the entire world as being re-created each minute by the mind of Allah, so there is no consequence, no effects, no free will, nothing

They don't worry as such.

The scary part about the Pakis having nukes as opposed to the Soviets having that is that Moslems have no sense of consequence. They don't have the logic "do the Pakis love their children too"

As to the US leading the war against Islam, I'm sorry, but logically I don't see that happening. Western democracy works when people are logical and look for their own interests but care about others -- it can't work with Islam where Moslems are neither logical nor look out for their interests and definitely do not case about others

Ditto with multiculturalism: it works with English, French, Italian, Marathi, Gujarati, Cantonese, Vietnamese, Tamil etc. -- works somewhat, but it cannot work with Islam

The US is hamstrung by democracy and a sense of decency

It's like the "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" bit about Krikket -- we can't understand their fanaticism and single-mindedness aim to destroy us. "We" is all of the west and the stupidity is exacerbated by liberals who can't understand it at all, but even many of us conservatives can't understand the depths of this fanaticism

No, the ones taking up the mantle against Islam will be equally radical autocratic forces -- Putin's KGB Russia and the Chinese

Add in the VHP/RSS of the Hindus and this is the combination that will oppose Islam

The code is simple, it's not a Christian 'turn the other cheek' --> we tried that in 640 and lost one third of Christianity: the Oriental Church

This was tried in the 10th and 11th century and Timur-e-lang slaughtered the entire Assyrian Church

No, the sword is the only way against Islam and it will NOT be lead by the West unless the west jettisons a welfare-state type demogogry

leads to rather appalling American retaliation and a turn to what can only be called democratic fascism.

I doubt that, we're not able to think that way.

I give you a case in point of 2003 --> after knocking off the Taliban, we should have gone in for the kill, taking on Pakistan

Total war.

But we shrunk back.

Against a fanatical enemy the only option is total, utter destruction.

For this we must look to Republican and Primate periods of the Roman Empire -- utter ruthlessness to the enemy and where all, including the elite, fight