Replies

I'd like to interpose my own $.02 into this discussion, if I may.

First, I understand and agree with Ronly's point regarding the moral disgrace of advocating extermination. On the other hand, Cato's point of throwing away the scabbard is also well-put and succinct.

I submit, gentlemen, that your arguments are both erring on the area of semantics. I offer to you the supposition that it is not Muslims who deserve extermination; but the ideology of jihad and its familiar accountrement of brutal, hate-filled indoctrination into unthinking, cataclysmic violence.

A distinction perhaps minor, but important.

To exterminate Muslims would be inappropriate. To single out and decisively kill the major proponents of jihad, following the declaration of war we heard quite clearly on September 11th, 2001 - not to mention the repeated instances of horrific butchery flagellated in our faces by the jihadists since - would be fully appropriate.

What took place in Srebrenica was foul, indeed. Yet it is nothing more than a footnote in history when tallied against the barbaric list of human crimes throughout the ages.

In summary? The Israeli Defense Force's current strategy versus Hamas is a superb example of appropriate response.

Continue beheading the snake. Ultimately the replacement heads lack the Darwinian experience of the previous heads, rendering the organization less and less effective until it can be stamped out through the spine.

Actually, I agree with you completely. The notion that I have ever advocated wanton slaughter of moslems as moslems is a straw man erected by ronly bonly jones. If you read all of my posts, it should be clear that my primary objective is to kill all of the Islamists, whom I believe seek to kill or enslave us. I would prefer, all other things being equal, not to kill "innocent" moslems. I would agree that it would be morally reprehensible to advocate exterminating moslems as moslems.

I would also agree that it is the ideology of islamism that needs to be, literally, exterminated, not moslems who are content to go about their business, not bothering non-moslems anywhere, and not seeking to impose islam on the rest of the world.

However, unless the "innocent" moslems clearly disassociate themselves from the jihadisti, it can be extremely difficult to know who is who.

And, there is the open question of just how 'radical' an interpretation of islam Islamism actually is. There people who say it is a perversion of islam. Others, suggest it is a mainstream islamic view entirely consistent with the Koran and the traditions. My own reading of the Koran and secondary works, and works about the history of islam and the West, and my training as an historian and philosopher, incline me to the later view. Certainly, the Koran does take the view Islam is entitled to rule the world and everyone must submit to islam.

Certainly, a large number of moslems seem to support the Islamists, and were cheering at the attacks on the US and the mutilation of our soldiers and civilians.

If, in order to protect ourselves adequately from those who would kill us, 'innocents' who will not disassociate themselves from the Islamists are caught in the crossfire, it is a regrettable necessity of war.

In summary? The Israeli Defense Force's current strategy versus Hamas is a superb example of appropriate response.

Continue beheading the snake. >>

I cannot disagree with this--although I would restrict such operations to those who ACTIVELY SUPPORT through arms, funding, training, or other materials. A deli owner with a picture of Osama on the wall doesn't deserve to have his children shot, but he sure as hell deserves to be boycotted.

I do NOT want to see us doing a "kill 'em all, let god sort 'em out" approach because those doing the killing of 'em all will be sorted in precisely the same place as the jihadist murderers.