Replies

We also have the consequence (positive) that we have been able to define and control the battlefield, and draw jihadists to a battlefield we defined under our terms versus running around all over the world.

We haven't even dented their birth rate. You're only fooling yourself here. There are over 1,000,000,000 Muslims.

Let's assume that we've killed 100,000 jihadis in Afghanistan/Iraq.

100,000/1,000,000,000 = 0.0001 = 1/100^th of 1% of worldwide Muslim population.

Obviously, we need to lure many more to the Iraq "jihadi killing fields" (since that is what you think they are) and what justifies our war in Iraq. How about if we posit killing a million jihadis in Iraq?

1,000,000/1,000,000,000 = 0.001 = 1/10^th of 1% of worldwide Muslim population.

Due to their barbaric religion and culture, they have a large demographic of young combat-aged surplus males. The corrupt Muslim ruling classes also like to have mistresses, temporary "marriages", or even outright harem arrangements. This is why sodomy is both despised and prevalent. Sheer lack of women. So to get their virgins, off on jihad. Most people have no idea just how perverse and strange the ideas of any group of a billion people can be. This is what Ron Paul means when he refers to the Reagan's description of "the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics". It's like using your own teenagers in a suicidal charge to clear a mine field for your troops (something they did do on both sides during the Iran/Iraq war).

Anyway, our present method of jihadi extinction isn't mathematically sound and the deterrent effect seems quite limited in their very closed societies.

I think the whole Iraq-as-killing-fields-for-jihadis argument is numerically flawed, however many times it is repeated as a mantra. Unless you can find a way to kill at least 10 million jihadis, you haven't really made a dent in the birthrate. You should also keep in mind that it is the most Westernized and privileged Muslim youths who jihad against us. Particularly the jihadis in Britain and those who attacked us on 9/11.

I suppose this is a crudely phrased argument but this is probably the only to measure it. I have no doubt that the Pentagon and the State Department think in exactly these terms. They're a rather cold-blooded bunch if you ever read their declassified materials.

George, (Yeah, I know I'm breaking my Opus here temporarily) it's like talking to a brick wall. You click on the Paul threads and you see the same garbage posted. Paul's a kook, Paul's in bed with Al-Quaida, Paul's a lunatic, etc. It's obvious that FReepers don't care about limiting government, reforming the tax system, or ending Roe vs. Wade. Nah, they want to beat their chest and cheerlead the feckless administration about the billions of dollars wasted spent on trying to eradicate every single last terrorist in the world.

It doesn't matter what they think. Paul has his supporters, he has strong grassroot support, and they're going to turn the primaries upside down. The laughs, feces, and giggles at Paul are going to turn into desperation, panic, and shrill name-calling as Paul matches whoever is the GOP front-runner step-for-step in both donations and primary victories. If the GOP and their bootlicking supporters doesn't pay Paul the tribute he deserves, the GOP nominee will simply not win the independents and swing voters crucial to the election, and that's a fact.

No offense as it seems you put a lot of thought and typing into that, but that has to be the dumbest comeback possible (OK, your comparing Hannity’s show to a Nazi rally was pretty close).. we don’t need to kill 1 billion, or even 1 million Muslims, we only need to kill those whose twisted ideals bring them to the battlefield..

As your normal, every day Muslim around the world sees that following the jihadi actions doesn’t lead to the paradise on earth, but instead death and suffering, they will be less inclined to join the battle and listen to the nuts who tell them that strapping bombs to themselves and their kids leads to heaven.