The Way to Silence the Islamofascists

[karpovage]

Okay, here's the solution to attack the enemy both psychologically and physically. Issue an ultimatum with gradual deadlines. If the foreign fighters of Syria, Jordan and Iran do not get out of Iraq, if they fail to hand over Al Queda operatives and if the moderate Muslim governments and leaders in the world do not pressure the extremists to stop their war against the "west" then this is what will happen. Clear and simple. The U.S. will use it's superior precision-guided firepower and start a systematic campaign of destroying the most symbolic Muslim structures in the world with a final target of the mosques in Mecca and Medina, two of the holiest cities to Muslims. Here is the reason why this will work:

The enemy has destroyed and damaged two symbols of America (WTC - capitalism and Pentagon - power) and they seek to destroy other symbols such as the Statue of Liberty - Freedom, Washington Monument, Wall Street - wealth. So, why not give it right back to them. Start with some holy mosques and gradually escalate the targets. Who will be responsible for this damage? The muslim governments who fail to put pressure on the terrorists and the terrorists themselves. How's that for breaking up their coalition of religious freaks! There will be infighting and blame passed between Muslims. I can guarantee results!

Remember this is a war of religion and survival.  Extreme Islamic fundamentalists who want a return to 15th century middle-ages tyranny versus the religion of modern-day freedom of religion, capitalism and democratic voting. So why not play the religious card right back at them? This is where it will hurt the most.

If the politicians in my government have any balls left over they need to start thinking radical, politically incorrect ways of defeating the enemy. Oops, forget it was an election year. Guess that won't be happening until say, the Sears Tower in Chicago falls. Then the American People will wake up from their Post 9-11 nap and get back in the game.

 

[Duotone81]

I think that's an excellent way of turning every Muslim person in the world against the West. Why? Because when you target holy buildings you turn the War on Terror into an holy war (which I don't think it is). The Saudis (and all other oil rich Arab countries) are already doing business with the West. So technically their should be a lot more in fighting in these States than their already is because they are doing business with the West yet that is not the case. Your plan gives them excuses, it just feeds the fire. You have to systematically get rid of any advantage they have, any reason to strike. Granted that they will still fight reagardless however the lines don't get blurred and it is easier to gain international support.

Well that's hhow I look at it anyway.

 

[Jarnhamar]

The U.S. will use it's superior precision-guided firepower and start a systematic campaign of destroying the most symbolic Muslim structures in the world with a final target of the mosques in Mecca and Medina, two of the holiest cities to Muslims.

I don't think this will work at all. I believe the terrorists attacking the US don't give two shits about religion. Their just as happy shooting a baby in the head as they are an american soldier. They would shoot the baby first because it's easier.  They are starting to target their own people now. They hide inside mosques knowing full well americans will destroy them when they shoot back. They don't care.

If americans started doing as you suggested every nutbar, muslem AND long haired hippie american, would go beserk. You'd be attacked by every terrorist in the whorld who hates the US and doesn't give a rats ass about religion. These guys use it as an excuse.

It's hippocritical.  They can do it to us but we can't do it to them.
Were you kidding when you wrote that?

 

[winchable]

I think if this were to happen you would turn even the most moderate of Muslims (myself included) into very angry individuals. Then you've got ALL the Muslims VERY angry, not just a minority of wayward zealots.
Angry in a way which has never been witnessed.

If we did go through with this, even if we did try and pawn the blame off on the governments of those particular countries, we would suffer the brunt of the agression.

 

[casing]

I have to agree with the other responders in this thread.  Karpovage's "solution" would make matters far worse.  I won't go into reasons as the other replies have outlined them already.  Targeting places of religious significance would be a grievous error.

 

[karpovage]

So Muslims would be "angry in a way never witnessed". Well, I've witnessed angry Muslims fly planes into buildings in the name of Allah and burning people jumping to their deaths, I've witnessed beheadings of innocent civilians in the name of Allah, I've witnessed car bombs, assassinations, torture, etc, etc, So, what will happen next - oh, wait, I know. Muslims will use a nuclear bomb on NYC as a result of bombing Mecca. That's never been witnessed yet. Guess what, THEY ARE ALREADY PLANNING ON DOING THAT! So ,what would be worse. Do we wait until this happens and not piss anymore muslims off or do we be proactive and try to stop this from happening by waving a big stick?

Che and Ghost, you're reaction to this strategy is precisely what is holding back an end-game to this war. Don't cross the line into religion because you might make someone mad. Well that is precisely the point. A bombing of this nature will provoke anger. The same anger felt by countries whose citizens are being beheaded or car bombed. It will show the rest of the world that the U.S. is mad as hell and will cross over the same lines that terrorists have in order to protect its nation and national security interests.

Americans are not here to convert people to other religions. On the other hand a Muslim empire is what AL Quada seeks. Rule by religion. America has no interest in telling you what God to worship. Believe me we want peace. But how do you stop terrorism? There currently is no answer. So, I say step across the line and try something that strikes fear into the hearts of those who consider attacking America. If it works it works, If it doesn't then what has AMerica lost. Respect? Hah. We are now the most hated nation is the world for defending are interests and people.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

You want to make an impact then the US gov't should sever all ties with Suadi Arabi to start.  Right now they have the cake and the icing.  Heavy sanctions against Iran, Syria, and everyone else that harbour terrorists

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

The fundamentialist will never go away.   the best case is to minimize their influence.   Why not just nuke every Islamic run nation then?   Quick and easy.   As big and bad the US is they still need support from other countries.   The last thing you want to do is unite all Muslims towards the destruction of the US because they will win.   The only way to silence them is to wipe Islam off the plant and I can't see that happening.

 

[casing]

Karpovage, the problem with your plan is that you want to punish all Muslims in the world for the actions of the terrorists.   Including the Muslims in your own armed forces!   That is not the right course to take.   CFL has it right when he said to kill the leaders and their families.   Sure, others will take their place.   Then you kill them and their families too.   Kind of like how the PM (was it the PM?) in Iraq a few months ago was assassinated, then his replace was assassinated shortly after, then his replacement was almost assassinated.   Soon, no one wanted the job!   Now that is a plan I could see working.   Difficult to accomplish, but not impossible and would certainly have less backlash from the Muslim community.

I believe drastic action needs to take place.   But that drastic action should not be waging war on all Muslims, regardless.

 

[karpovage]

Yeah, you know, you're right. I just got all fired up and pissed off about this whole damn war which we did not start. We had war declared against us. I know deep in my heart that to do something like this WOULD unite all Muslims against the U.S. and that is not what our country is all about. We are all about inclusiveness and tolerance and the right to worship Allah as freely as you want to worship Michael Jackson. I just do not see and end-game to this war. There won't be any treaties, any surrenders, any capitulation. Just more and more death and destruction. My thought on the religious bombing campaign was to pound the enemy into submission - which really is the mission of the armed forces. It's my unconventional way of conducting and unconventional war.

Cutting the head off the snake - yes that is a solution - but this snake is Medusa. It will live and live and live. When will it die?

 

[karpovage]

CFL - I agree with cutting off Saudi Arabia. They are the root and they provide a bulk of the financing for this war. I have no problems with that at all. But here's the lesson again. We go through the U.N., we get the proper world condemnation, we do the economic sanctions, the diplomatic pressure, etc. But that has not worked in the past. Take Iraq for example. The Oil for Food program was a failure and not a detterent. Saddam and the U.N.'s own officials bagged $10 billion. Economic sanctions always have loopholes and smuggling to get around. They are a joke. Look what France and Germany and Russia did. They were providing assistance to Iraq during the UN sanctions. When it comes down to it Man can relate to force to sway his decision-making. Thus the reason we have armed forces. To "force" the adversary to stop what ever he is doing. Did sanctions stop the Rawanda killings, the Sudanese killings and slave trade? No. The rifle in the face stops these activities.

But to totally NOT buy anymore oil or ANYTHING from Saudi Arabia would definitely have a huge impact. But tell that to the oil companies, try selling that to the UN security council. That's about as realistic as the U.S. bombing Mecca.

So here we are again pissin in the wind....

 

[karpovage]

I'm posting this article from another forum on Ralph Peters (a military author). He poses some of the same questions I'm struggling with on the Muslim religion and the atrocities committed. I have to get back to my day job now.

Great debate by the way..

Here's the article:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13849

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

That's why I believe that it is important to develop a tangible renewable fuel now.

 

[Bert]

I think everyone has a sense of events today.  Atrocities have been committed.  Wars are in progress.  Dispite the events in the
middle east and central asia, the situation in Africa now is much worse.  Human history goes back 2.5 million years and look at whats
happened in just the last 6,000 years.  Its goes on and on.  I'm not a religious person or a believer in anything for that matter,
but if everyone read the ten commandments found in the Koran, the Holy Bible, the Torah, and similar writtings found in
other religions, and ACTUALLY FOLLOWED THEM, I'd bet we wouldn't have problems of today.  Until we learn to live together
history gets repeated again and again. 

 

[Jarnhamar]

I'm for stopping terrorisim as much as the next guy. I'm also pretty agressive when it comes to punishment. Someone is a serial rapist? Castrate them. Someone is convicted of first degree  murder? Put them to death. If a country , ie saudi arabia, is funding this crap, cut them off. Punish them with whatever means at hand. (I'm not sure WTF the US is doing being buddy buddy with the Saudies).

I'd say most of the world isn't too happy with the US right now for a host of reasons. A good number of the world probably relate the US to ancient Rome or germany in ww2. Thats not my opinion exactly but i have a lot of friends all over the world who i keep in touch with online and 99% of them see the US in a bad light.  Bombing a religious symbol like you mentioned? I couldn't really tell but I think you realised what you were saying wasn't a good idea.

I don't think there is an answer to exctlty what to do and how to stop this. This isn't a country we can just invade, beat the hell out of, install a new government and go home.  Considering the most powerful leaders in the world can't come up with an answer i don't feel bad that I can't either.

If i had to offer a solution it would be way out in left field.
The most powerful nations in the world make a NATO type military force and with it they disarm the world. Period. People obviously can't play nice and get along so tough luck, they get al their guns taken away.
Give people a chance. Tell countries to put a stop to terrorisim themselves OR the NATO like force will move into their country, disarm their military and begin disarming the terrorists one country at a time.  You'll have an easier time starting world war 3 and occupying the world than stoping all these ready mix terrorists.

 

[Goober]

... (I'm not sure WTF the US is doing being buddy buddy with the Saudies)....

"Saudi Arabia
With one-fourth of the world's proven oil reserves and some of the lowest production costs, Saudi Arabia is likely to remain the world's largest net oil exporter for the foreseeable future. During 2003, Saudi Arabia supplied the United States with 1.7 million barrels per day of crude oil, or 18%, of U.S. crude oil imports during that period."

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/saudi.html

If i had to offer a solution it would be way out in left field.
The most powerful nations in the world make a NATO type military force and with it they disarm the world. Period. People obviously can't play nice and get along so tough luck, they get al their guns taken away.
Give people a chance. Tell countries to put a stop to terrorisim themselves OR the NATO like force will move into their country, disarm their military and begin disarming the terrorists one country at a time.  

This in my opinion, is a great idea. Its how I forsee the future. Sooner or later, we'll have to stop thinking in terms of "I'm from this country, your from that one" and start thinking, I'm from Earth. What planet are you from?

 

[Gunnar]

And who is going to pay for your CoDominium forces, hmm?

Not to mention the hue and cry about invading other countries, suppressing their right to self-defense, etc., etc.  The fact that all of these annoyed countries will start working together to ACTIVELY destroy the US on a governmental level, instead of on the "hey, let's fund a few nutbars to annoy the US level".

The US enters countries militariliy when it is in its own best interest, i.e., in the interest of the people who pay taxes to the US government to protect them.  It doesn't need to be a world policeman to accomplish that.  What the US COULD do however, is simply refuse to trade with such nations.  At all.  Or maybe have a foreign policy, immigration policy and defense policy that were integrated and made sense, instead of handing out weapons to the "lasting friends for the next 2 seconds" who hate the US, but want their technology and money.

 

[karpovage]

Ghost,

Your solution is the exact same solution the world came up with after WWI - the League of Nations. Was suppose to stop all future wars. It failed! Then came WWII and another great concept to stop future wars - The United Nations, which was set up by (your words exactly) "The most powerful nations in the world." And the U.N. has failed too. Undeniably. So, I've inserted the word United Nations into your NATO proposal because we already have what you are asking for:

Make a "UNITED NATIONS" type military force and with it they disarm the world. Period. People obviously can't play nice and get along so tough luck, they get al their guns taken away. Give people a chance. Tell countries to put a stop to terrorisim themselves OR the "UNITED NATIONS" like force will move into their country, disarm their military and begin disarming the terrorists one country at a time.  

So, why use NATO when we have the U.N. to take care of all of our problems? Oh, wait. The bulk of the money and the bulk of the fighting forces for the U.N. comes from , guess who, the U.S.! So, should we just drop out of the U.N. membership and let the rest of the world deal with all the problems? Afterall we suck. We are the bad people in the world. right?

The thing is President Bush recognized the U.N. failure to do exactly what you are proposing and he put the U.N.'s entire relevance for existence on notice. Well, it failed to act once again. So, we acted on our own. And now we suck because of it.
If John Kerry gets in office he will hug the U.N., hug the world and once again we'll be buddy buddy with everyone but the underlying problem of terrorism will not have disappeared.

 

[RCA]

Just a few points regarding the UN:

1.  It was placed in New York so the US could keep an eye on it.

2.  Some correct me if I'm wrong, but the US is in arrears of its dues because Congress doesn't agree with the UN policies. This may have changed.

3.  The US contributes no military forces to the UN becuse forgeins can not command US troops.

The US is just as guilty as the other security council nations by emasculating the UN by gong unilaterally when national interests suit it.

I'm glad you re-thought the bombing  proposal. I hear your frustration but all that would happen would the start of the modern day crusaders. The last one lasted, what 200-300 years.

As well the connection is being made between Bin Laden and Sadden Hussein. They are two separate issues. Bin Laden is the terrorist who is hitting back the US for having its troops in Islamic Saudi Arabia (from the aftermath of Gulf War I). All his acts have occurred after 1991.

As for Saddam Hussein, the US probably thinks of themselves as liberators, but I suspect that many Iraqis relate to them as occupiers. Think of when the Germans invaded France, and the French resistance (and no, I am not equating the US to Nazis, just the resistance to a foein invasion). The hostage taking is taking place mostly in Iraq, and what are there demands, Not conversion to Islam, but get out of Iraq.

 

[karpovage]

U.S. was holding back it's dues a few years back because Congress was concerned with the corruption and lack of a housecleaning to correct that problem. I think it was Senator Jesse Helms that led that fight. I believe then that Ted Turner, owner of CNN and Atlanta sports teams ponied up $1 billion to cover those dues at that time. It was incredible that he parted with that kind of cash in belief of the UN mandate. I think the U.S. is now on track - simply because I haven't heard otherwise.

"THe U.S. contributes no military forces to the U.N?" You need to clarify that statement.

Yes, that is what I've read on Bin Laden's cause for war - that infidel troops are on holy land - correct. (not a very religious reasons huh?) and we struck back and the world didn't have a problem with that. But as soon as the U.S. fulfills 13 years of UN Security Council Resolutions and takes the Iraq government dictatorship down and replaces it with a democratic government - then we are considered the scum of the earth.

Am I missing something, wasn't world opinion supposed to happen in reverse? That the U.S. should have been condemned for attacking a defenseless country in Afghanistan, whose Taliban government never did anything to us rather than house a Bin Laden guest? And that the U.S. should have been praised for acting in the U.N.'s interest against a cruel dictator? So what do we do wrong?

I still believe this IS a holy war. Not in a Bible vs. Koran sense so much from our side. But in what we in the west consider holy. And that is individual rights, freedom or expression and religion, free trade, capitalism, etc. Those are the holy things that we as civilized nations cherish. Islamofascists consider this a holy war because they do NOT believe in those things, they believe in their interpretation of the Koran as being something completely 180 degrees from this and they claim it in the name of Allah and the muslim religion and thus killing infidels to their religion. They employ terrorist tactics as a means to an end to fight this holy war because they do not have the conventional fire power to conduct their persuasion on a battlefield. So stop fooling yourselves. If they got a hold of WMDs then they would just use that as another tool to further their holy war. This is not so much a War on terrorism (because that is a technique) but a war on whose form of government and whose freedom of rights will prevail.