I'm all in favor of that.
"The truth about islam would be the end of islam in the Western world."
That might be nice if true, but I rather doubt it. Maybe you have something additional in mind, though, that I am not getting yet.
See, I've got this silly idea that people haven't been terribly deferential to Islam in the west until quite recently, and I've sort of noticed that there aren't great masses of voluntary converts all around me. I quite agree that there is little in Islam to attract modern westerners, or for that matter non-barbarians with a conscience, voluntarily, anywhere at any time. But people also tend to follow the faith they were brought up in, even if it is certifiable. I somehow doubt that all existing Muslims in the west are going to say "Oh! Sorry, I didn't know Islam was so nasty", slap their foreheads, and find Jesus.
"The "religion of peace" has never been such a thing."
I quite agree with that, too. It is obviously lying spin. Not being a pacifist myself, and being rather glad my country isn't pacifist either, I do not in general think ill of anything simply on the basis that it is not peace. I think plenty ill of Islamic fanatics and terrorists, but not because I think they'd have to be pacifists to be moral. I've got this crazy idea that it matters whether those one fights are guilty or innocent, whether one fights for the interests of a state defending itself or as a self appointed band of messianic nutjobs, and lots of other ridiculous distinctions slightly less elevated than whether each person involved is St. Francis.
I have argued at length on this board that the real issue is religious tolerance, not "peace", and that the civilizational problem is that Islam has not accepted religious tolerance, in the real meaning of that term. (Which is not letting "peoples of the book" remain breathing, it is the right to be wrong about matters of conscience). That is my take on that aspect of the question.
"It's koran is violent and barbaric."
I agree with that too. The maxims of successful 7th century brigands are not the place I for one would go looking for principles of justice.
"Islam's history is worse."
I'd call that one a toss up. Mostly it follows the maxims of successful 7th century brigands. In some times and places, it got somewhat better. In others, considerably worse. It is not a high bar to clear.
"The present isn't looking so good, either."
Agreed. They have a serious problem, and we have a serious problem with them. Especially some of them, but all of them are involved, in terms of how they react to us on the one hand, and the more fanatical among themselves on the other.
"It seems there was a fanatical, barbaric religion in Japan a few years back."
Oh, I think that was largely a matter of state power, actually, and ambition for empire, and miscalculation about the chances of the Germans.
"Perhaps we could use the same technique we used on those treacherous animals."
Do you mean that we should ask for the unconditional surrender of all Muslim-majority states on earth, and nuke those that do not comply? Or do you only mean that states we know have attacked us, we should fight back against conventionally, until we defeat them? I would like a little clarity of detail, please. Too elliptical. Spell it out.
"Of course that would be intolerant and politically incorrect"
If it is necessary for our survival, who cares? Political correctness is pretty meaningless anyway. I should think, however, that a little strategic analysis would be in order around this point. As in, which enemies to take on when, over what, with whom, by what means, etc. Thus the need for a little detail, spelling out practical recommendations you think follow.
"we mustered the strength to tell the truth about Germany and Japan once."
Oh, I hardly think it required any great strength to tell the truth about them after their acts of and declarations of war. We didn't seem to manage to earlier, in the isolationist period, after Japan went into Manchuria, etc. A few did, to be sure. What did take some strength was beating them, particularly the Germans. It also took a little intelligence to plan beating them. We got some help along the way, from enemies they had already picked up. We did not simply jump from "this is a false ideology" (they nearly are all false, of course) to "let's wage war to the death with it".
"If islam is what the koran says it is"
An interesting turn of phrase. Does this leave open the possibility of a non-literalist Islam? One not slavishly tied to every barbarism of the 7th century between the covers? Or is it just a sort of rhetorical flourish, a way of saying "of course, it is, and that is all it is, or ever will be"?
"we should eliminate it."
Which makes the previous a rhetorical flourish, I take it. That is, you do not really mean this as a conditional, inside of an "if" that to you is really an "if" - is that fair? What you really mean is that Islam should be eliminated. It is a view.
"Nobody misses fanatical kamikazee Shintoists, either."
Oh, somebody probably does, but I sure don't. For that matter, there probably still are some, but they are individual wackos knocking off individual politicians with short swords, or killing themselves artistically after writing pretentious short stories about it all. Which are loads better than them having control of an industrial nation with a large navy.
I thank you for at least having the honesty to spell out what you think it means. But I'd like you to go just a little further and examine the practical aspects and strategy of it. Should we simply pick countries the CIA world fact book lists as having majority Muslim populations, and nuke each of them? Issue any ultimatums beforehand about renouncing Islam or else, or not? Should we pay any attention to the stated positions of the governments of each of those countries, or ignore those as potential lies, or what?
Map it out for us. The whole idea, as a practical program. See, I suspect there are some who may get off the train sometime after it pulls out of the station. Maybe not, maybe your recommendations will appear so airtight certain to everyone that they will all go the whole way. But if you don't explain the actions envisioned directly, and let us consider them, turn them over and look at them, then people will be judging in ignorance. I am sure I am not the only one interested in the practical program, in all its this world messy detail.
Telling the truth would be a nice start.
I quite agree that there is little in Islam to attract modern westerners, or for that matter non-barbarians with a conscience, voluntarily, anywhere at any time. But people also tend to follow the faith they were brought up in, even if it is certifiable.
True enough. Your first post gave me the impression that you were going to argue for the side of islam. Glad we got that cleared up.
"It seems there was a fanatical, barbaric religion in Japan a few years back."
Oh, I think that was largely a matter of state power, actually, and ambition for empire, and miscalculation about the chances of the Germans.
Okay, you're right. The muslims aren't even considering the chances of the Germans.
Do you mean that we should ask for the unconditional surrender of all Muslim-majority states on earth, and nuke those that do not comply?
Hmmm. Tempting, isn't it?
Or do you only mean that states we know have attacked us, we should fight back against conventionally, until we defeat them?
Without delay, without UN permission, without regard for the fact that those targeted may feel that we've "profiled" them, without concern that we might hurt their feelings if we shoot at them. Conventionally, until they dare to use WMD's on us, at which time we consider that "permission" to obliterate them.
I should think, however, that a little strategic analysis would be in order around this point. As in, which enemies to take on when, over what, with whom, by what means, etc. Thus the need for a little detail, spelling out practical recommendations you think follow.
You really think the whole USA will follow my game plan? Golly. How about we target those who fund the fanatics? Add to that the idea that we target Mecca, and then tell them all to behave "or else"? That way the nuking of Mecca could be blamed on muslims.
Oh, I hardly think it required any great strength to tell the truth about them after their acts of and declarations of war.
Then why is it so hard now? Have you heard? Saudi Arabia is our ally. Islam is a religion of peace.
We did not simply jump from "this is a false ideology" (they nearly are all false, of course) to "let's wage war to the death with it".
And we didn't rely on the strategies of posters oN FR. Good thing, that.
"If islam is what the koran says it is"
An interesting turn of phrase. Does this leave open the possibility of a non-literalist Islam? One not slavishly tied to every barbarism of the 7th century between the covers? Or is it just a sort of rhetorical flourish, a way of saying "of course, it is, and that is all it is, or ever will be"?
1. Ask around at your local University. 2. Only on campus. 3. Yeah, that's it.
"we should eliminate it."
Which makes the previous a rhetorical flourish, I take it. That is, you do not really mean this as a conditional, inside of an "if" that to you is really an "if" - is that fair? What you really mean is that Islam should be eliminated. It is a view.
Uh, okay.
"Nobody misses fanatical kamikazee Shintoists, either."
Oh, somebody probably does, but I sure don't. For that matter, there probably still are some, but they are individual wackos knocking off individual politicians with short swords, or killing themselves artistically after writing pretentious short stories about it all. Which are loads better than them having control of an industrial nation with a large navy.
LOL. Thanks for that.
thank you for at least having the honesty to spell out what you think it means. But I'd like you to go just a little further and examine the practical aspects and strategy of it.
Way out of my league, and I'm not sure why you want my opinions there. That islam must be defeated for Western civilization to survive is plain enough. How do we accomplish this? Good question. I don't have detailed plans, but I do know that pretending that there is no problem will not make it go away. That is why I spoke of starting by "telling the truth".
Should we simply pick countries the CIA world fact book lists as having majority Muslim populations, and nuke each of them?
Nah. Go for the really nasty leaders, movements, camps, and "armies" first. I wouldn't go for "majority muslim" as much as "capable and determined to inflict serious damage on the USA".
Issue any ultimatums beforehand about renouncing Islam or else, or not?
Probably not very practical, but I do rather like that.
Should we pay any attention to the stated positions of the governments of each of those countries, or ignore those as potential lies, or what?
What do you think of letting their deeds declare their intentions, rather than their words?
Map it out for us. The whole idea, as a practical program. See, I suspect there are some who may get off the train sometime after it pulls out of the station. Maybe not, maybe your recommendations will appear so airtight certain to everyone that they will all go the whole way. But if you don't explain the actions envisioned directly, and let us consider them, turn them over and look at them, then people will be judging in ignorance. I am sure I am not the only one interested in the practical program, in all its this world messy detail.
Yeah, okay. Give me ten more minutes.
I have argued at length on this board that the real issue is religious tolerance, not "peace", and that the civilizational problem is that Islam has not accepted religious tolerance, in the real meaning of that term. (Which is not letting "peoples of the book" remain breathing, it is the right to be wrong about matters of conscience). That is my take on that aspect of the question.
While you're waiting for my detailed plans, why don't you map out your own detailed plan for a change toward religious tolerance in the muslim world. Given your tone, you must have a practical program with airtight recommendations yourself. I'll take the war plans; you take the social transformation plans. I'll email them to the Whitehouse when we're finished.
At last the heart of the problem. When Mohammedanism becomes tolerant it will cease to be Mohammedanism.