Posted on 08/13/2006 9:45:37 AM PDT by HeartlandOfAmerica
Am I dense or what? I don't believe exterminating anyone is the best answer, however coralling them where they belong so they can murder each other is probably better. think instead of trying to pick out the "good" ones (a matter of degree) from the "bad" ones, (since lying to the non-believers is perfectly acceptable) if the West is seriously considering that it wants to survive, is to begin mass deportations of all Muslims to their homelands. Period. End of story. Since conversion or destruction of all non-muslims is de facto part of their beliefs, and their beliefs are based on the koran, which is the word of God and not changeable, well, do we have a choice? We better start changing our laws and getting the PC crowd out of the picture real fast. If you had Communists and or Nazis on your shores, seeking to destroy your society, wouldn't you do the same?
If we deport 100% of them, we will be 100% right in preventing the MURDER of our CITIZENS!
They do!
Try corraling a nuke tipped ICBM.
It's come down to Us or them!
Yes, I know their leaders and a few million useful idiots in the crowd want to destroy us and of course they're wrong. We have infinitely more atomic weapons than they will ever have, and we can easily destroy the entire islamic world in a matter of, literally minutes. However, if we still believe in the basis of our Western civilization (Judeo-Christian), we don't need to indiscriminately "exterminate" all of them(i.e., the innocent if they can be discerned). We need to get them out of the rest of the non-islamic world and put them back where they belong; they can slit each others throats like they have for centuries. If they then desire to try and destroy us from afar, we can do them the same favor and wipe them out in their homelands. A few submarines sitting in the Arabian Sea or Indian Ocean can send forth dozens of missiles and get it over with. As long as their oil can still be had, the West will be fine. What else do they have to offer? As a matter of fact, if they didn't have oil, no one would care, because they couldn't finance this terrorism to begin with. And the sad fact that liberals in the West who seem to think all cultures and societies are relative and we can all live peacefully together, are now finding out the opposite. An ugly, historical reality.
Let me respond one point at a time.
The problem is only as difficult as you make it. If you set the solution parameters at an impossible level, then the solution is impossible.
You are absolutely correct. The difference is morality. We could make a parking lot of the ME and build a big Walmart and call it good. But frankly, that is immoral. So, we have to set up moral parameters which, without question, make this a much more difficult fight. The "hearts and minds" effort is not easy, and perhaps impossible, but we must try.
Making screeners waste their time searching Americans looking for Muslim terrorists is a waste of resources.
You are also correct on this—to a point. "Americans" is a pretty generic term and undoubtedly includes people of all ethnic origins. That makes it nearly impossible to simply "sort out" non Americans. Radical Muslims come in all flavors, and while ME men between 18-40 have should be more carefully considered, it is becoming increasingly clear that they will ally themselves with anyone willing to convert to Islam and sign on to their world view. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world among many cultures including those in Asia and even some Europeans. It's hard to tell what people believe from the outside. Therefore, we need to profile by looking for specific behaviors as profiling specialists suggest.
Dropping smart bombs to knock out weapon holding non uniformed Jihadists amongst unarmed supporters turns the job into a cat and mouse game dangerous for our young warriors.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, but all war is dangerous for our soldiers. They know that going in. We are blessed to have them take on the challenge of drawing the line between being a moral warrior and thrashing killers. When you look at the difference between, say, Hezbollah and the IDF, those distinctions are clear. We could fight dirty, but in doing so, we become no better than our enemy and have lost the moral high ground and in doing so completely lose the reason for fighting this thing in the first place. We ask these men and women to hold that line, to live and behave morally in the midst of chaos and IMO that is exactly what makes them so heroic. Anyone can cause mass destruction. True heroes are willing to take risks to save those not directly involved. Let me say this again—this distinction is the soul of the difference between us and the terrorists. Without that moral clarity and distinction, this is not a war worth fighting, or a conflict worth engaging.
A more direct and economical set of solution parameters would be to exterminate all Muslim clerics that preach that America is the Great Satan, et al.
Again you are correct, but wrong. There is no doubt that your solution would be more direct and economical. But how does it differ from what, say, the Nazis did to the Jews, or the Romans did to the Christians? From history we know that while we can diminish the tools of our enemies militarily, we can not obliterate a philosophy with force. Nazism and Communism still exist, but there power has been stripped because they have discredited themselves. For the most part, they are toothless monsters. In addition, Christianity is strong, as is Judaism, but if you look at them you see that in the mainstream they have moderated themselves over time. First, we take care of the imminent threat of violence. Then, the goal is to force Radical Islam and the extremist clerics to discredit themselves, while at the same time supporting those in the Islamic community who are willing to moderate themselves and their own belief system to peacefully coexist.
And I would throw in the destruction of Mecca and make outlawing Bibles illegal in Saudi Arabia. We have 1.2 billion Muslims mad and contemptuous of us now. We would then have 1.2 billion Muslims fearful are respectful of us.
Finally, this just made me laugh. We can not make laws for other countries, unless you support one world government...which I am assuming you do not. We can put pressure on them, but we can't make their laws. Secondly, if we use your proposed approach, I'm pretty sure that there would be close to 1 billion Muslims DEAD and maybe 2 million fearful and mad at us. Somehow, that doesn't seem like a particularly long term strategy since the remaining few would simply go underground only to reappear later to "get back at us." That is after all, what happens over and over in this world with a military-only approach to solving problems.
While I completely and utterly understand your frustration and your sentiments, I think you let your emotions get ahead of your logic. It's not that the goals are difficult, it is that the MORAL road to fixing the problem is difficult, as the moral road always is. There are no shortcuts in doing the right thing. Doing the right thing takes patience, sacrifice, responsibility, compassion, loyalty, calm rational thinking, and the ability to see long term. It takes hard work. It takes virtue. Last time I checked, those were all things that conservatives espoused and admired.
We must not shirk from our duty, just because to do so would be cheaper and easier.
Agree 101% with that, r.
Miz,
Your have that right and that is what is so dangerous about the megaphone of the media which amplifies the crazycrats rhetoric. I'm still disappointed that the Bush White House hasn't been better in fighting the propaganda war from the traitorous left in this country.
-Mael
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.