Understanding Sharia

[Exsubmariner]

Well, Nuts, you do have some valid points. Deprivation of oil would strangle our economy, taking over oil producing countries would result in WWIII, and spawn coalitions who should worry us, namely India and China. We may already be fighting WWIII and are simply unaware of it at this point.

Of course, control of just 10% of the worlds oil fields would give us all the crude oil we needed to bend every other economy in the world over the barrel (pun intended) by manipulating the prices and controling who we sold cheap oil to. This would pretty much neutralize the developed world, IMO and force them to play ball on our side.

Killing the radicals - the problems which you present - are real and probably reasons why we are not openly, at this time, pursuing that end.

My campaign of extermination would be simple, invade Muslim countries one by one and install democratic, secular, regimes. This is the policy of the Bush Administration and it does undermine the Islamofascists ideaology by putting them at direct odds with the societies they are trying to control. The biggest mistake Bush made, however, was invading Iraq instead of Iran. Iraq already had a basically secular regime, although it was controlled by a dictator who came from an ethnic minority. I would take it a step further, however. I would, upon invading a country target all the radical clerics with extreme prejudice and seek to kill them. If I captured them or they surrendered (not likely) I would ensure some process for their speedy execution was in place. I would allow other religious leaders to step forward from the community but quickly assassinate them if they started preaching the same tired Islamofascist babble.

If there were entire populations of radicals in place, I would round them up and kill them systematically. I would put a campaign in place to detain every reporter who came into the area until this process was complete, thereby preventing the flow of information out of the area.

Eventually, the radicals would be replaced by more moderate, spoken tolerant, Imams. Once the movement is neutralized in one country and a democratic state with a free market is established, move to the next state, where the Islamist movement is the strongest. Execute all their radical Imams and so on.

Supplement this with an energy policy domestically which sought to reduce the use of oil in the transportation sector, and therefore it's value (drying up a source of funding for radical Islam) and you have a recipe for winning. Unfortunately the Bush Administration is not pursuing the domestic side of the energy policy and this will only get us more terror with a different evil genius as the figurehead.

X

At last, someone who's not ranting and raving. Thank you.

It's getting very late and I'm getting tired (I'm already old).

I only glanced over your post. I'm looking forward to reading it thoroughly in the a.m. and replying.

Again, thanks.

[ QUOTE ]

We may already be fighting WWIII and are simply unaware of it at this point.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think we in fact are. It’s just not the type of war we’ve known in the past. And I don’t mean just the terrorists. But, another subject for another time.

[ QUOTE ]

…invade Muslim countries one by one…


[/ QUOTE ]

The Arab community is not as united as it once was (thank you Israel) but I’m not so sure all of them would stand by and let this happen. Of course, it would take a while for them to realize just what we were doing and they’d babble and bicker for quite a while before uniting.

I agree Iran is the primary target (and probably onscreen now in more than one “what if” scenario). As to Iraq, I would have been on Colin Powell’s side when he apparently argued against the invasion. I definitely believed it was the thing to do when the intel we now know wasn’t accurate was presented to the White House and him. I never doubted his sincerity when he was presenting our case at the U.N. Nor GWB’s when he made the decisions he did.

My fear then was that we were about to embark on a trip we’d never undertaken in our history. The first strike. Now that we’ve done it, well we still don’t know.

And, had we taken out Iran instead of Iraq, Sadaam would probably be the pussycat Khadafi is today.

[ QUOTE ]

…upon invading a country target all the radical clerics with extreme prejudice…


[/ QUOTE ]

100% agreement

[ QUOTE ]

…allow other religious leaders to step forward from the community but quickly assassinate them if they started…


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. 100% agreement. And I think the word would get around pretty quick!

[ QUOTE ]

…same tired Islamofascist babble…


[/ QUOTE ]

I’d like to see the Imams all brought together to hash out just exactly the Koran says and means. OK, that’s not totally doable, but some sort of ecumenical council ought to at least settle the major differences. One says “this” about killing and another says “that.” Too bad they don’t have a Pope. (oh, and that thing about the virgins? How many donks have strapped on a pack for that little gem?)

[ QUOTE ]

If there were entire populations of radicals in place, I would round them up and kill them systematically. I would put a campaign in place to detain every reporter who came into the area until this process was complete, thereby preventing the flow of information out of the area.


[/ QUOTE ]

So, Ex, how do you really feel? J Man, you are really opening the proverbial can here. The potential threat of insurgents has to be dealt with, yes. Early and decisively. Word of the “unfortunate fate which befell certain countrymen” will spread without CNN’s help, I’m confident.

I think the media embed idea had a lot of plusses and few ticks on the downside. Major downside ticks in your scenario, so leave ’em back at their comfy hotels. For these little forays of yours, you have to use small groups of our guys that know how to do it, fast, and keep quiet about it. My only concern would be insuring we’ve got the right targets sighted. I could be convinced.

[ QUOTE ]

Eventually, the radicals would be replaced by more moderate, spoken tolerant, Imams. Once the movement is neutralized in one country and a democratic state with a free market is established, move to the next state, where the Islamist movement is the strongest. Execute all their radical Imams and so on.


[/ QUOTE ]

Here’s another sticky place. Without some sort of cohesiveness among the Imams and commonality in their teaching, the cycle will never be broken. Some little guy claims he’s spoken directly with Allah, knows the “true way,” forms his own little army, and stuff starts hitting the fans again. Simple eradication won’t solve it, I don’t think. (see ecumenical council)

Also I question whether our (the US) definition of democracy and free market is ever going to be accepted, totally, in that part of the world. To many of them, free market means Sadaam’s way of doin’ bidnezz. So many of them don’t seem to give a rat’s ass about their countrymen starving. And keeping them uneducated is the best way to do whatever the hell they want. Not unlike Mexico. (ooops, another subject)

When we somehow get things sorted and semi-settled in Iraq, I don’t doubt their neighbors are going to be watching more than a little closely at how it‘s working. Eventually, success there, I believe, is going to make for changes throughout the region. The intent of GWB’s policy. Then we don’t have to do this “invasion thing” again.

Yes, our use and mis-use of energy has to change. I don’t think you can isolate the transportation sector. It’s across the board. We use it like it’s never going to run out. And still goes for ten bucks a barrel.

Also, the good citizens of Florida and California are going to have to accept oil rigs operating off their pristine shores. It’s out there, we need it (until the damned fuel cells are a reality) and they sure as hell shouldn’t be allowed to prevent them. (can you say Public Domain?) Oh, and let’s not forget the ANWR thingie. It’s got too much potential to be so worried about a few critters in a very small portion of a very large area. They’ll move.

While we’re drilling, our less than adequate and dangerously located (can you say hurricane?) refinery situation has to change. Somehow, someway, the pollution problem vs. profit necessity, differences have to be settled.

OK, I feel a lot better now! Thank you for the opportunity to calmly air our semi-mutal views. Permission to go ashore?

Good luck to you and hope to cross words with you again. (I think there’s a line back there but I’ll pass, this time.)

[Exsubmariner]

Nuts,
Please keep in mind that I am not being subtle here on purpose. It simplifies things greatly. Better minds than mine could probably formulate subtle and effective ways to accomplish what it is I am talking about. Using scaples instead of broadswords, figuratively speaking.

I feel compelled to point out that the capacity of the US government to conduct "black ops" has been greatly reduced, mainly thanks to eight years of the Clinton Administrations policy of "spies? we don't need no stinking spies."

Special ops and a policy of assassination would probably be very effective. Kill the terror cells in their infantcy. Of course, it would be impossible to ensure 100% bad guys only would be killed, so we must be morally clear that innocents will die and accept the blackness of that on our conscious. As a society I doubt we have the capacity for such an undertaking.

Unfortunately, I fear that means many, many more of us will die before we do. Terror will only get worse. 9/11 has already become the benchmark. I doubt that open war or covert war makes any difference.

As for a Moslem equivalant of a kind Vatican counsel...I think it is coming, but the participation of clerics form extreme Sharia practicing sects is highly unlikely. It will probably be constituted of religious leaders already living in the west, which would give the eastern sects reason to discount it.

The key to domestic energy production is the political victory of the nation's interest over the special interests of enviroactivists in this country. The backlash is brewing. On energy and many, many other things. I look forward to 2008.

X

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
My campaign of extermination would be simple, invade Muslim countries one by one and install democratic, secular, regimes. This is the policy of the Bush Administration . . .

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation: (a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam."

Draft Iraqi Constitution, Art. 2

[/ QUOTE ]
I suppose one can't be too obsessed with facts when proposing something as modest as a "campaign of extermination." Not everyone knows what "secular" means.

Your post is more evidence that one large, possibly dominant group within the American right are fascist, genocidal maniacs like yourself who simply hope to murder as many Muslims as possible. It's the reason that the U.S. probably won't be around 50 years from now, and why it won't be missed by the sixth of the world's population that calls itself Muslim, and probably a high proportion of the rest of the world.

[Exsubmariner]

If you think the Iraqi Contitution as drafted will result in anything less than disintegration of the counrty and civil war, you are smoking crack.

I have to concede the policy of letting troglodites write it has been short sighted and misguided and an affront to the sacrifice of every American Soldier who has died so that those idiots could get together and write what they did.

I am not advocating genocide by any stretch of the imagination. I am simply putting forward a strategy that I consider necessary to "win" against extreme elements of the Islamic faith. I respect the right of any Muslim to worship as they wish, provided it does not present a threat to my life.

[ QUOTE ]
the U.S. probably won't be around 50 years from now

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep your America hating fantasies to yourself, I'm tired of hearing about them.

X

[Chris Alger]

So you think "the policy of the Bush administration" (1) is to create secular, rights-oriented democracies; (2) together with the undeniable promotion and backing of the proposed Iraqi constitution, which it had a strong hand in drafting, yet (3) everyone knows that the fruits of bush administration policy amount to "disintegration of the counrty and civil war." Why don't you just say: "I have no idea what I'm talking about and can't even organize my thoughts."

And why were the drafters "troglodytes"? Answer: because they are Muslims, and therefore The Other, worthy in your mind of forced extinction.

[ QUOTE ]
I am not advocating genocide by any stretch of the imagination. I am simply putting forward a strategy that I consider necessary to "win" against extreme elements of the Islamic faith.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your term, not mine, for what you advocate is "war of extermination" against all "Islamicists" or perhaps the even more nebulous "extreme element" within Islam. Whomever these turn out to be, together with their wives and children, countrymen, fellows and braod swathe of bystanders, the toll inherently means the slaughter of innocnent millions.

Nothing needs to be stretched to fairly call you genocidal, self-destructive and suicidal. You're guilty of the sort of real, hard-core America hating of the sort that led other avowed "patriots" desolate Europe repeatedly.

[MMMMMM]

I think Exsubmariner may be oversimplifying and over-reacting a bit. More on that in a moment.

Also, let's clarify the term "Islamists." My understanding is that it refers to those politically extreme Muslims, who generally want to bring about rule under Sharia, and are often willing to fight for this end. Also, the Global Jihadists such as bin-Laden and Zarqawi are included in this group. Islamism refers to hard-core political Islam, and Islamists are drastically opposed to any separation of the religious and the secular.

The group called "Muslims" is a much larger set, and in addition including some Islamists, of course includes a great many more moderate Muslims as well.

I don't think it would be possible to completely destroy radical Islam. It is the sort of fanatical ideology that just appeals to some people.

If radical Islam, or Islamism, keeps attacking the West, and things escalate instead of calming down, things could get a lot uglier than they are now.

I think Exsubmariner is right that we need to defeat radical Islam and the jihadists, etc. A problem is that they are intermixed with the more moderate population as well.

I don't see us trying to take over Iran or Syria or Saudi Arabia anytime soon. However if attacks on the West escalate, and the jihadist mentality continues to spread, and especially if Iran gets nuclear weapons--well then the West may have no choice but to launch a war against those countries and attempt to occupy and reform the Middle East, much the way Nazi Germany and Japan had to be defeated and occupied. Hopefully this won't come to pass. But if it does we have to win. And for matter of that, we have to win even if it doesn't come to pass.

Islam, and more especially, Islamism, are inherently opposed to virtually all liberal Western values. If they keep attacking the West and trying to enlarge their territory by force, push will come to shove a lot more than it has already. And unfortunately there isn't much to reason with against religious fanatics who cannot in their minds separate the secular, and secular politics, from the religious. I don't think all Muslims think like this but basically all Islamists do.

More hopefully, there has been progress made against al-Qaeda as recent reports indicate. Also, some large-scale terror attacks have been thwarted over the last few years. al-Qaeda is under inceasing pressure and hopefully is experiencing increasing difficulties.

Again, I think Exsubmariner is oversimplifying and overreacting a bit. However he is right that we need to defeat this crazy and pernicious ideology of radical Islam, and the fanatics who are willing to fight and die for it. It may never be totally defeated but hopefully it can be contained and its allure can be diminished if the example of Iraq should eventually succeed. Al-Qaeda knows this and therefore is deeply committed to ensuring that the Iraq experiment fails. Hopefully we can hunt down and capture or kill as many terrorists as necessary to thwart their most evil ambitions on many fronts.

There is yet hope that Iraq will mold into a democratic state, and that reason and democracy will spread throughout the Middle East. How much or how little hope, is anyone's guess at this point. That sort of spreading success however could well be the best way to avert another actual World War, of the West against the Middle East.

Some elements of the Middle East are already prosecuting that war against us, but the scale is not yet to the point where we would be compelled to take over and occupy most of the Middle East. However if a spate of truly large-scale terror attacks should be successfully implemented against Western countries, and if Iran continues on its path towards acquisition of nuclear weapons, such a World War may be the ultimate result. Europe is already awakening a bit from its slumber and lethargy. If they keep getting attacked, and are attacked far more damagingly, I think we may eventually experience a mobilization of the West not seen since WWII.