Stop Asking Why


Muslim whackos want to kill you. Does it really matter why?


Decide which gun you want to kill little Jewish children with when you grow up, son! AK47... When you absolutely, positively have to kill every Jew on the school bus! That's right, son, aim for the little Jewish girl's head! Daddy said I can wear real dynamite and blow up a restaurant full of Jews when I turn 12! Stop crying, son!  I'll get you a real automatic weapon to kill Jews with soon!
What kind of people teach their children how to kill other children?

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

An important article

I am constantly on the lookout for articles written by people who "get it" when it comes to Islam and how far off most Westerners are in their understanding of Muslim goals of worldwide domination of Sharia law.

Today I found one of the best examples of a clear-headed exposition of this fact about Muslims. You can read it here.

This article makes the oft-ignored and/or oft-misunderstood point that Muslims do not want interfaith understanding and to be treated by those of other faiths on equal footing. They seek the ascendance and supremacy of Islam above all other things on Earth. Literally.

The response to the Pope's recent speech in which he quoted a 14th century emperor's writings denouncing Islam for being spread by the sword is illustrative in this context, as was the Muslim response to the Danish cartoons from last year depicting Mohammed. To a Christian or Jew (or, indeed, people from all non-Muslim faiths and those with no religious faith), the response would likely be to feel offended, possibly, but certainly not to burn buildings and call for the death of the perpetrator. So why is the Muslim response so much more heated and disproportionate? Precisely because they view Islam as the natural master, and all infidels and their religions as slaves. This is literally true.

The West makes a grave error in assigning our own motives and morality to Muslims. We've made this mistake since Islam began, and amazingly enough, we continue to make it in 2006. Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, and even Atheists all operate from a common underlying philosophy. That is, each believes his religion is correct, but holds no animosity toward the others for their (in their view) mistaken beliefs. There is an inherent spirit of "to each his own" in all other religions, even among those who work hard to proselytize non-believers into believing as they do.

The Mormon who knocks on your door and talks to you for an hour (if you let him) about his faith and how he wants you to see it his way is fundamentally different from the Muslim who sees nothing wrong with his version of proselytizing: submit or die.

This is incredibly important for all non-Muslims to grasp and never lose sight of. Muslims do not want you to merely respect their religion. They do not march in the streets and burn Pope effigies and declare Fatwas on cartoonists simply because they feel aggrieved by an affront or criticism. That's the common misperception, and hanging on to it may well get you killed!

No, they march and burn and issue death threats and fly planes into buildings and blow up busloads of school kids because we, as non-Muslims, are obstacles to their dream of a global caliphate. It's that simple. Please get this firmly ensconced in your minds!

They are not interested in convincing us that their beliefs are correct. This is not a debate. This is not even open to discussion. You have three choices under Islamic (Sharia) Law:
  1. Convert to Islam.
  2. Hang on to your current belief and continue living, but subject to Sharia Law and as a "dhimmi" (infidel with none of the rights accorded to Muslims).
  3. Die.
You see, they don't react violently to relatively minor transgressions like the Pope's speech or cartoons depicting Mohammed because they have a problem with proportional responses. That's the West's widespread misconception. It's utterly wrong! They react violently because we are infidels. We are unworthy. We are far beneath them. We are scum of the Earth. They will tolerate us (for now) as long as we are utterly silent regarding Islam and its proponents. We are, to them, the children who are required to remain silent until spoken to. This is not an exaggeration - please please understand this most salient fact!

Where we feel sympathy and even pity for poor Muslims living in squalor, they see themselves as the rightful rulers of the planet. They see us in our wealth and living our easy lives and they DO NOT feel envy. That's another myth! They don't attack us out of jealousy! Whoever started that lie deserves to be smacked around and told to stop making up lies.

No, we are unworthy and our material wealth merely serves to drive home the point to Muslims that we're in league with the Devil. They do NOT want to be like us. Get that thought out of your head and stop passing that lie on to others who may be impressionable! It's FALSE! They loathe us and our way of life. They want to make us like them. If they cannot, then they want us to live under their rule, as slaves. If that proves difficult, they want us dead. The reason is now and always has been the same, ever since Mohammed created Islam.

They are right, we are wrong, end of discussion. Submit or die.

We don't need Gitmo

That's right, we don't need Gitmo to house terrorist detainees. I've been against it from the beginning. Using our tax $$$ to feed and clothe terrorists is absurd and an affront to all Americans. Summary executions in the field is the answer for all terrorists caught red handed and their accomplices. No judge, no jury, just the cheapest ammo fired from the cheapest gun into the brain, point-blank range.

If we want to capture certain targets to bleed them for vital information to save the lives of innocent people and/or coalition soldiers, by all means do it. But don't bring them to Gitmo. Send the experts to them in the field. Interrogate them in tents or captured buildings. If they don't give us what we want in a few days, kill them too.

What's wrong with us? We even let some of the Gitmo detainees go and recaptured them weeks or months later on the field of battle AGAIN! That has a name. It's called INSANITY!

When will our leaders (and fellow citizens) finally realize that these people do not understand, nor are they swayed by, any act of kindness we bestow upon them? They see it as WEAKNESS and a sign that they are going to DEFEAT US. Period.

Using our tax $$$ to feed and clothe terrorists is treasonous and impeachable, as far as I'm concerned. That Liberal hero - Franklin Delano Roosevelt - would never have even contemplated such an action. To you Conservative Republicans out there: how's it feel to have a Republican President using your tax money to take good care (literally) of terrorists?

Sunday, September 17, 2006

We need to decide now what to do after

It's past time for Americans - citizens and leaders alike - to decide in a cold, rational manner what our response should be after several US cities are nuked by terrorists. A story just published by Canada Free Press (and others) indicates that a coordinated attack (possibly nuclear) inside the US is imminent. Abu Dawood, Al Qaeda's commander on the ground in Afghanistan, was interviewed by Arab journalist Hamid Mir, who is the only one to have interviewed bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri, and former Taliban leader Mullah Omar after 9/11/01. Dawood said the next attack inside the US will be larger than 9/11/01, and he warned Muslims living in the US to get out now.

That's actually an interesting suggestion, and one the Bush administration should use as the basis for removing at least all young Arab Muslim males from the US immediately. They are the ones who pose the threat. Simply removing all Arab Muslim males between the ages of 16-50 will instantly make us all vastly safer.

It rankles, of course, because America is a free and open society ruled by laws, but what good are our principles if we're not alive to practice them? Surely any question of principles presupposes existence. We have an obligation to safeguard our lives that supercedes considerations of honoring noble ideals like civil rights and liberty.

Removing the existing threat inside the US (revoking citizenship and deporting Arab Muslim males) won't happen, of course, which leads to another issue that we must not ignore any longer: what to do after the next attack inside the US. Assuming it is bigger than 9/11/01 - and especially if it's nuclear - how do we respond? We've already removed the one government (Taliban) that was in complete collusion with Al Qaeda. We're already killing terrorists and insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan on a nearly daily basis. The question is incredibly important: how exactly do we ramp up our response?

If the attack is nuclear, there will be massive pressure exerted by the public to respond with a nuclear attack. But, on whom? This enemy lives in several countries and does not wear a uniform or have clearly marked military installations for easy targeting. More problematic is the fact that they live among civilians.

Americans must come to grips with the real possibility that we will be left with only two viable response options: staying our hands and responding basically by continuing what we're doing already; or knowingly killing tens or even hundreds of thousands of civilians in order to respond to a nuclear attack with our own nuclear attack.

The problem remains that we face an enemy who is motivated by death, not the desire to continue living. Instead of being deterred by a response that kills on such a massive scale, they will be encouraged. Instead of convincing their leaders of the futility of their actions in continuing the war with us (the goal in our use of atomic bombs against Japan in WWII), our nuclear response will entrench this enemy. It will help him recruit. It will solidify his support among fellow Muslims.

This is truly the biggest conundrum of all time. If, as this story indicates, it's already too late to prevent nuclear weapons from entering the US and that 7 major American cities are the targets, we have an obligation to turn our thoughts to planning an effective response. Do we not?

My solution is economic isolation of all Muslims and Muslim nations. It won't happen quickly, but we should divest ourselves of all business dealings with such nations (including buying oil from them). We should remove their embassies from US soil, and remove all US embassies from theirs. We should give Israel the green light to do whatever they want to curtail attacks on their nation. In short, our response to the next Muslim terrorist attack should be to stop dealing with them.

Literally the only thing we get from any Muslim nation that truly matters is oil. It will not be easy or painless to wean ourselves, but it's absolutely crucial in this scenario. Undoubtedly, the drop in demand will devastate economies around the world. Animosity toward the US will (after the initial support in the aftermath of the attack on us) surely increase tremendously.

It will not be pretty and it will require a steadfastness I am not convinced Americans can muster, frankly. But I do not see another viable alternative. It's simply not feasible to infiltrate and remove enough of the key players to actually have much impact in preventing more attacks. The only real solution will be to draw a line on the planet: this is our side, that's your side.

If they want to live under Sharia Law, that is their right. The rational response to such a desire is not to try to convince them their way is wrong or to export Democracy. Ever argue religion with a really committed believer? Utter waste of your time and theirs. We need to accept this truth and its consequences. Let the Muslim nations be enclaves of 12th century life. Other than the short-term pain of getting ourselves weaned off the Arab oil addiction, there is no downside that is worse than the status quo. Perhaps after a few years of true poverty and isolation, Muslims who currently hold mass murderers as heroes will realize the error of their beliefs. Maybe not. Either way, the rest of us will be far safer and much happier.

Monday, September 11, 2006

Arabic for 'I will not submit'

I will not submit

Sunday, September 03, 2006

The biggest mistake in US history

Quick - what's the primary purpose of any national government? Tick, tick, tick. Time's up. If you didn't instantly snap out the answer - defense of the citizens - you're not alone. It's a testament to how far America has strayed from this core concept that many people now believe government exists to provide what are in reality secondary services: an economic safety net, roads, education, health care, etc. What good are any of those things if your property, your freedom, your very existence are not being defended?

It's a simple concept, and it's been more or less entirely ignored since the end of the Cold War. It's not a political thing, either. Republican George HW Bush actually started the major draw-down of US military personnel, equipment, and munitions in the early 1990s when the Soviet Union collapsed. Clinton continued it, of course. And George W Bush surely would have continued the trend absent the attacks on 9/11/01.

When both parties' leaders do the same thing, it indicates that the majority of citizens are fine with the policy. When the Cold War was won after nearly 40 years of living with the constant fear of nuclear annihilation, it's perhaps not surprising that the nation let out its collective breath and turned its attention to less weighty issues. While that might have been the 'human' thing to do, it was also the irresponsible thing to do. We got away with taking our eye off the defense ball for about 10 years. Then our attention got snapped back to what truly matters in the span of about 2 hours one morning in September, 2001.

But the damage had been done, and inertia is very difficult to change on such a massive scale. The huge military machine we'd built during the Cold War (and, thankfully, never had to use), was finally needed, but didn't exist any longer by 2001. The nation was getting richer every year, but the military was shrinking every year (or at least, not growing to keep pace).

All of which brings us to our precarious situation today. We're bogged down in Iraq. Even sycophantic apologists for the current administration's actions have to grudgingly admit it. Bogged down = not being able to win decisively and/or not being able extricate yourself without being seen as running away. That's where we are today; no sense denying it simply because we wish it wasn't so.

As if the situation in Iraq wasn't bad enough, a confrontation with Iran is surely coming. And a good portion of the blame for Iran's leadership feeling bold enough to flex a little military muscle belongs squarely on the backs of.... us. Yes, us. We let our guard down after the Cold War ended. We gave our leaders every reason to believe we backed a military draw-down so more money could be spent on all of those secondary priorities mentioned earlier.

Meanwhile, the new threat, which is in many ways more dangerous than the USSR ever was, has grown and blossomed. The Islamo-Fascists sense American weakness. We're viewed as a 'paper tiger' superpower. Still strong, but beatable if played correctly. And they're right. No sense in sugar coating reality. We do not have the military might of, say, America circa 1985. In fact, we're woefully underequipped and undermanned for this war. And it is a war. World War III. No one should harbor any illusions about that fact.

How did we get the point where we can't even seriously contemplate full-scale war in Iraq and one other country (Iran)? During the height of the Cold War, we could easily have fought both battles and still kept the Soviets unsure of our remaining reserves. Now we can't field even 200,000 battle troops without stressing the military to its limits. Or so the world believes, and perception is 99% of what matters in this realm.

So there you have it. We are where we are today because we all took our eye off the ball when the Cold War ended. We forgot (or ignored) the most basic reason why people form nations in the first place - collective defense. It's to our eternal shame that we have squandered the trillions of dollars our economy pumps annually. That we no longer have a military machine that strikes abject fear into the hearts of any potential enemy is inexcusable, given our resources.

It's the single biggest mistake in US history. And it's our fault.