You Want to Escalate, We'll Escalate, and You'll Lose...Big!

We hear the chilling news about the possibility of suitcase nukes inside our borders, we hear that 10, maybe even 20 of our cities may be at risk.

The risk we face is nothing compared to what the Islamic World faces if terrorists choose to escalate the war on terror.

We currently have Poseiden Nuclear Submarines on patrol in the Indian Ocean. No terrorist could ever find them, much less destroy them. A single sub can unleash 50 missiles with pinpoint accuracy, each with a warhead bigger than the sum of even 20 suitcase nukes.

If the terrorists want to ensure that there would be no retaliation, they would have to destroy not only our major cities, but also our bombers, our land-based missile systems, our complete command and control network, and our nuclear submarines.

They cannot do this, and escalation brings with it such huge risks of anihilation of the Islamic world that it would seem incomprehensible that they would try to raise the stakes. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

"...are Muslims more or less rational than the imperial Japanese were?"

It dosen't matter. There is no 'Emperor' to surrender and order an end to hostilities. There seems to be no one to speak with ANY authority. I fear it will take a massive revolt from the local Muslim populations to end this. It will take serious retaliation by 'us' against 'them' to get their attention. I wonder if the 'Grand Ayatolla' or whoever, could call for an end? I think there is no central authority over our enemies, but they generally believe they have their god on their side. There are generations brainwashed into this faith and its going to take a lot to turn them around.

This is exactly analogous to our strategy in the Cold War where we planned massive retaliation on Soviet cities for any attack on us or our allies.

It is analogous, but it is a strategy sure to fail when it comes to jihadists. If the rank-and-file of the world of Islam weren't able to figure out and/or do something about the Taliban on their own, what makes you think they would be effective at stopping deeply-entrenched terrorism?

Governments in the problem nations won't stop them; they've been coddling and harboring terrorists for centuries. Remember, the terrorists pose a very real and immediate threat to those whom you would have suppress them, creating a powerful counter-incentive to action.

Okay...back to you now. Let's dissect this post without--how did you say--"crosses to bear":

No. We know the enemy. The problem is that we are not the same country we were, say, 50-60 years ago.

That's true enough, that we're not the same; but I'd hardly think it a problem; (I know you said think 30 years ago, but Taquinas specifically said "50 to 60" years ago") at that time, entire races and ethnicities were discriminated against without justification other than in most cases the color of their skin;

Immigration has changed, and continues to change, our demographics and hence we're no longer a cohesive people as we were when this country's makeup consisted mainly of European Christians.

This country has been in constant flux as far as demographics, and I'm not sure of the stats, but I think we're still pretty much a Christian majority in this country; not neccessarily the most vocal, but still statistically a majority

Immigration is for 21st century America what civil rights were in the 20th century. Both were intentional with the intent to destroy our Christian way of life and culture.

This is probably the statement with which I see the least logic--I don't see how civil rights (which were passed in the 1960s as much as you'd like to stay from that decade and era) can be equated with the irresponsible manner in which today's government is handling immigration. But, while we're on immigration, I'd be interested to see the proportion of Christian to non-Christians that have emigrated to the U.S. in the 21st century, both legally and illegally.

The enemy is within our borders, not waiting at the gates. Our enemy is the enemy of Christianity. Know thy enemy! To know the enemy is to destroy it.

I'm not sure what he means here since he always stops short of getting banned.

Great post... But it looks to me like we see these statements from completely different perspectives....

Here's how I read the post.

1. 50 or 60 years ago we fought WW2 and didn't have that much "known" domestic dissent (none that the MSM published anyway).

2. There was no PC police then and if the government saw it fit to intern the Japanese, not many argued or protested. So with respect to the fact we are not all-for-one one-for-all the way we were in WW2 I would have to agree with him. We would never get away with internment camps today.

3. Now the meat of his post that got everyone up in arms. The civil rights movement did the following: CORE, SNC, Black Panthers, NOW, et al. intentionally set out to change our culture. I don't think you can argue that point. In my opinion, for the most part they accomplished their goal. There may be some in our society that may claim not enough, but I doubt they think it's the same as PRE 60s.

To me that was the gist of his statement. The stated goal of the civil rights movement was to change our culture.

3B. With respect to the Christian heritage aspect if his statement, I read it to be that some of the same "civil rights" groups are currently doing their best to remove every icon of Christianity from the public square. I doubt you could argue that the ACLU is not a "civil rights" group, and I doubt you can argue that their stated goals is not to remove all vestiges of our Christian heritage. To include religious symbols, prayers, and references to the Christian God from official American discourse.

4. I saw no reference to the government in his post. He stated that immigration today is working the same way as the civil rights movement did as stated above. I can't say that I can find fault in that argument either. The stated goal (proven through past performance) of our enemies is to infiltrate the USA via the open borders and liberal issuance of visas to establish sleeper cells in our country to strike when given "the signal". The stated goals of the Islamists is to change or destroy our culture which they abhor.

5. I read his post to say that we must recognize that these sleeper cells are here and they are working to change our culture and destroy our Christian heritage.

In conclusion, the civil right movement intentionally changed our culture and some components of the civil rights movement are threatening the icons of America's Christian heritage. Some people consider all of these to be positive changes, some in our society do not.

The stated goal of illegally immigrated terrorists is to change or destroy the culture our country and intentionally remove all vestiges of Christianity in America. Some people consider all of these to be positive changes, some in our society do not.

In my opinion, the illegal immigrants who want to change or destroy our culture through terrorism and kill us simply because we are not Islamists or because we are Christians are our enemy and should be destroyed. I saw not one single racist remark in his post that was any different than the racists anti-Islam statements made in the posts I sent you earlier. I read his remarks to say the our country's culture is about to be changed and our Christian heritage attacked in ways as dramatic as those made by the civil rights movement. You may not agree, and while one 'cause' may appear more noble to you, I can certainly see a correlation.

You must understand that part of my frame of reference is reading his past posts that purport that the white founding fathers of this country meant for this country to be for their descendants and only their descendants. It might alleviate things if he occasionally took the time and consideration to actually answer the challenges and questions we've posed of him rather than leaving people like you to do so and running off back into the Natalee Holloway thread which he only entered, for what it's worth, a few weeks ago to try and assert that it was the 2 black guards and not "the Dutch boy" who could've done it. He's changed his tune on that.......I think.
I frankly don't think that he shares the same subtleties and distinctions that you've read into his posts and tried to communicate to me (not that I fully agree with yours either, but at least they are not as one dimensional as his) i.e., I don't think the two of you are on the same page.

I'm sympathetic to your frame of reference, but I guess I didn't see those posts when rdb3 sent me on assignment. I read through all on the page he linked me to and didn't see any with the tone you've noted.

I really can't speak for him and am not trying to. I'm only giving you the impression I had when I first read his post. I was surprised of the immediacy and violence of the attacks and pingers launched at him for comments not unlike many others on this thread. I'm not in a habit of reading the history of posters in threads I read. I pretty much read them as I see them. That is unless I've already formed an opinion from previous threads.

Thanks again for your thoughts.

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.