A threat to vaporize 100 Muslim cities

Back in the days of the Cold War, the U.S. had a nuclear-weapons doctrine called Mutual Assured Destruction, or MAD for short. This doctrine held that if the U.S. were attacked with weapons of mass destruction, or WMD, we would immediately and without debate counter-attack the homeland of the perpetrator in such a way and with such overwhelming nuclear force as to make the cost of the initial attack too much to bear.

For instance, if the Soviet Union or the Chinese would have attacked us with WMD in the Cold War, we would have counter-attacked at the very least by destroying their 100 largest cities. The theory was that once you have destroyed the 100 largest cities of any society, even an evil empire, that society effectively ceases to exist, perhaps for several generations, thus deterring any WMD attack. Variations of this same nuclear doctrine were held by our Cold War allies and advisories, including the evil empire.

Although gruesome sounding, the beauty of MAD is that it worked. Even though both the U.S. and the Soviet Union were armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, none was ever used. In fact, both sides went to great lengths to establish hardened and redundant command, communication and control systems to prevent the accidental or unauthorized launch of nuclear weapons, fearing the dire consequences.

The primary reason MAD worked is because it was simple and unambiguous. Both sides let the other side know in no uncertain terms that a nuclear first strike would be followed immediately by an overwhelming nuclear counter-strike destroying the heartland, culture and society of the attacker. This was a price even the most evil 20th century dictators would not even contemplate.

We now have a new enemy, Islamic terrorism, hellbent to either enslave or destroy us. This enemy is in many ways much harder to cope with than an evil empire. It does not have an army, an economy, an infrastructure, a capital or a state to attack. This enemy refuses to show itself on the field of battle so we can destroy it with our superior weapons and tactics.

However, Islamic terrorism could not exist if it did not enjoy comfort, support and succor from the Islamic societies from which its members are recruited. Besides the overt state support from Syria, Iran, pre-invasion Iraq, Libya, Sudan, North Korea, etc., this enemy also enjoys popular support in Islamic states. The popular support of the terrorists is much larger than it is politically correct to discuss in most forums in the West. But, does anyone doubt that bin Laden would be elected dictator-for-life in Saudi Arabia if that nation had free elections? Let's not allow political correctness to blind us or kill us. The terrorists are merely an extreme form of widespread corruption, totalitarianism and venality prevalent in Islamic states and societies worldwide.

Now, here is the urgent problem. The Islamic terrorists are seeking nuclear weapons to destroy us. If and when they acquire a nuclear weapon with the help of their state sponsors, they will use it in the U.S. homeland without warning. Can you imagine the effect of just one nuclear weapon being detonated in New York or Washington? In addition to the initial horrific destruction and casualties, the U.S. economy and perhaps the world economy would go into a depression that would make the Great Depression seem like Sunday school. Investment would stop for fear of further nuclear attacks. If they have one, maybe they have more? Our wealth would be dramatically reduced, and the economy would be in chaos for at least a generation. The American way of life would be dramatically altered, perhaps permanently. In short, the Islamic terrorists would win.

The stakes are as high as can be, and our current strategy of planting democracy in the Middle East may work too slowly or not work at all. How do we prevent that first nuclear attack and mobilize the world, even the Islamic societies, against the terrorists' nuclear ambitions? We need a new nuclear doctrine that puts everybody's skin in the game. We need a new nuclear doctrine that places the American people, the American society, the American economy and the American way of life far above politeness and political correctness.

I propose that the U.S. immediately adopt and publish the following nuclear doctrine:

In the event of a WMD attack by terrorists on the U.S. homeland or U.S. military facilities overseas, the U.S will immediately and without discussion use its immense nuclear weapons capabilities to destroy the 100 largest Islamic cities on earth, regardless of state, and destroy all of the military facilities of Islamic-dominated states. This will include all of the capitals and at least the 10 largest cities of all Islamic-dominated states and the "holy" cities of Mecca and Medina. In addition, North Korean cities and military installations will be destroyed. Now suddenly everybody from Casablanca, Cairo, Damascus, Riyadh, Tehran, Islamabad, Pyongyang and Jakarta have skin in the game. The last thing they want would be a WMD attack on the U.S. It would mean certain destruction of their societies. They might even be motivated to actually and feverishly work against Islamic terrorism instead of the tepid lip service they currently give. Those "freedom fighters" currently being cheered in the streets would be transformed to deadly threats in the very societies that spawned them.

The beauty of this doctrine is that it encourages the 1.2 billion Muslims to actually prove that they are adherents to a "religion of peace," and it holds all Islamic states and North Korea accountable for their behavior. If you don't want your cities on the target list, you have to earn your way off the list. Give us the head of bin Laden on a stick, and you may get a pass. Shut down your nuclear programs in an open and verifiable way, and you can earn your way off the target list.

Another advantage of this doctrine is that it doesn't cost a nickel. We have the necessary weapons and delivery systems in place. This would only require a fraction of our existing nuclear warheads. I presume the platform of choice would be Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines patrolling the Indian Ocean.

Of course, the hand wringers, peaceniks and leftist elites would shout and scream bloody murder about how aggressive, unfair and politically incorrect this doctrine appears. However, I believe it would accomplish the same thing as MAD – namely, the successful deterrence of nuclear holocaust. All we need is the will to declare it.

Scholars of Islam speak out against terrorism; clarify position of Islam

Monday, September 17, 2001
http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/response.htm

Dozens of scholars of Islam issued a statement today, condemning the violent attacks of September 11th.

“We are grief-stricken at these horrifying events,” they wrote; “the murder of innocents can never be justified and must not be tolerated.”
In a lengthy statement, professors from major colleges and universities throughout the country expressed their compassion for grieving family members while also decrying the increase in violence against American Muslims this past week. “Anger and frustration are completely understandable and shared by us all,” they wrote “yet that anger must not be directed at individuals utterly innocent of these terrible crimes.”

In recent days, verbal and physical attacks against Muslims (and people who were thought to be Muslims) have been reported from California to Vermont. Muslims have been warned to stay home or to avoid wearing traditional dress. “Particularly distressing is the fact that many American Muslims have fled to the United States, seeking a haven from intolerant regimes in Kosovo, Afghanistan or Iraq. For them now to face intolerance and violence here is an abuse of our Nation’s most deeply cherished beliefs” they said.

The co-signers of the statement are members of many scholarly societies in the United States and Canada. They include:

Professor Asma Afsaruddin, of Notre Dame University
Professor Vivienne Sm. Angeles, La Salle University
Professor Ghazala Anwar of the University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Professor Jonathan Brockopp, Director of the Religion Program at Bard College
Professor Patrice C. Brodeur of Connecticut College
Professor Arthur Buehler of Louisiana State University
Professor Amila Buturovic of York University
Professor Juan E. Campo of the University of California, Santa Barbara
Professor Vincent J. Cornell of University of Arkansas
Professor Frederick M. Denny Chair of Islamic Studies and the History of Religions, University of Colorado
Professor Abdullahi Gallab of Hiram College
Professor Behrooz Ghamari of Georgia State University
Professor Alan Godlas of University of Georgia
Professor Hugh Talat Halman, of University of Arkansas
Professor Pieternella (Nelly) Harder Vandoorn,, of Valparaiso University
Professor Marcia Hermansen of Loyola University, Chicago
Professor Valerie J. Hoffman, of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Professor Qamar ul-Huda, of Boston College
Professor Aaron Hughes of the University of Calgary
Professor Amir Hussain of California State University, Northridge
Professor John Iskander of Georgia State Univeristy
Professor Ahmet Karamustafa of Washington University in St. Louis
Professor Tazim Kassam of Syracuse University
Professor Zayn Kassam of Pomona College
Professor Ruqayya Khan of University of California at Santa Barbara
Professor Kathryn Kueny, of Lawrence College
Professor Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Dean of the College, Georgetown University
Professor Richard C. Martin, Emory University
Professor J.W. Morris, Chair of Islamic Studies at the University of Exeter
Professor Gordon D. Newby, Executive Director, Institute for Comparative and International Studies at Emory University
Professor James Pavlin of Rutgers University
Professor Jack Renard of St. Louis University
Professor Omid Safi of Colgate University
Professor Walid Saleh of Middlebury College
Professor Zeki Saritoprak of Berry College
Professor Michael Sells, Haverford College
Professor Laury Silvers-Alario of Holy Cross University
Professor Alfons Teipen of Furman University

Al-Qaeda is a group of crazy people, says mufti
Sydney Morning Herald ^ | March 19, 2004

Posted on 03/19/2004 6:09:51 AM CST by Piefloater
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1101089/posts

Al-Qaeda was a group of crazy people but should not be underestimated, Islamic spiritual leader Sheik Taj el-Din Al Hilaly said today.

Sheik Hilaly's comments came after a statement attributed to al-Qaeda threatened "America's lackeys", including Australia, with attacks similar to those in Madrid last week.

Chechen leaders’ relatives say stop terrorism, punish massacre perpetrators
AsiaNews.it ^ | September 7, 2004 | Staff
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1101089/posts

IRAQ: Shiites, Join Sunnis in Solidarity March ( Terrorists fail in their objective )
The Las Vegas Sun ^ | March 03, 2004 at 15:25:37 PST | HAMZA HENDAWI
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1090287/posts

To name but a few. You also might want to look at the links in my previous reply. As to why these kind of thing don't make it into the MSM much...I make no comment.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.