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?

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.


  • At 7:54 PM, Blogger Bringbackpolitix said…

    I'm not sure it's quite as simple as that. America has a huge deficit. It doesn't have the power to just cut off relations with such a large part of the world like that does it?

    As for deporting Arab males - are you out of your mind? This kind of thinking is more than a little insane. It's like calling for them to be rounded up and put into camps.

  • At 11:33 PM, Blogger Site Owner said…

    Welcome, bringbackpolitix. America's national debt is all on paper, of course. Just as a nation can freeze another nation's assets under certain circumstances, nothing prevents us from ignoring that portion of our debt held by foreign entities with whom we choose to sever ties. Short of military action, there is really no truly insurmountable recourse available to the debt holder.

    Yes, as I wrote in my post, the effects on the world's economies would be devastating in the short-term if America did simply cut off relations with Middle Eastern and Asian Muslim nations. It would also be much better for our own long-term viability.

    If you re-read my post regarding the deportation issue, I acknowledge that we're not about to deport young Arab Muslim males. We hold civil rights and liberty well above safety at this time. There have been times in our past when this suggestion would not have been met with revulsion, however. Shortly after 9/11, had a leader seriously pushed for this very thing, there's reason to believe it would have gotten serious consideration by nearly everyone. And, of course, during WWII, one of our most beloved Presidents (Roosevelt) issued an Executive Order (E.O. 9066) that resulted in the rounding up of over 100,000 Japanese-Americans. They were placed in camps, families were split up, and they effectively lost all rights guaranteed by our Constitution. This was, at the time (shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor), widely and strongly popular in America. To this day, Roosevelt remains among our most popular Presidents despite this act.

    In other words, ethics and principles are always situationally fungible when it comes to the constant tug-of-war between liberty and safety. Historically, enemies have come from without, which has made the sudden increase in efforts to protect our safety a lot easier to handle.

    But what to do when the enemy lives among us? Seems to me our choice is stark. Either we accept and live with the possibility that we will be struck without warning from within every so often, or we take action to remove the source of the threat, even if it means snaring the innocent in the effort to remove the guilty.

    Is there a way to mitigate the threat from Muslim terrorists already living in our midst without necessarily treading on the rights of some who are innocent? I'm not sure there is. So, while the thought of deporting an entire group of people, many of whom I know are completely innocent and undeserving of such treatment, disgusts me, I must in good faith admit that I'm open to the idea in order to be sure we've removed the real threats among the group. With a caveat, however.

    I would side with those who say it's better to endure the occasional terrorist attack to preserve our existing civil rights and open society if weapons of mass destruction were not prevalent and our borders were not essentially wide open. Since we do not control our borders and since nuclear and biological/chemical weapons are known to be functional in small packages (suitcases, backpacks, etc.), I must side with those who grudgingly avow a preference for fewer liberties in order to realize more security. The contemplation of 1 million dead in a large, densely packed city from the terrorist detonation of a nuclear device overwhelms the normally exalted status I feel civil rights and personal liberty should hold in our society.

  • At 6:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  • At 8:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    My solution is economic isolation of all Muslims and Muslim nations.

    I agree.

    Ps - I removed my earlier post because I felt it was a bit overtly unsuitable.


Post a Comment

<< Home