3SD - Conspiracy to commit murder is already illegal. We don't need to "set aside" the Constitution or adopt Nationalsozialisten ideals to combat radical Islam. To borrow from the 2nd Ammendment fight - " we already have sufficient laws; we simply lack the will to enforce them." Fighting terrorism is attacking a tactic. Defeating an ideology requires providing a clear (and vastly superior) alternative, neutralizing its core, and subverting its base. The important things are pretty simple; simple doesn't mean easy. Becoming the enemy in an attempt to defeat him is a sure route to failure - even if we win. My .02 - Peregrino

Well said.

.

It looks to me like we are at war with Islam.

Chuck[/QUOTE]

Yes, but my short note was also an oversimplification. Islam is also at war with itself.

In 1942, we abrogated the Constitutional rights of a large group of American citizens who had done nothing wrong on the suspicion that they might at some point in the future, opt to favor their ethnicity over their nationality.

Given that we now have another ethnic group that threatens the very survival of this nation, and has already killed thousands of Americans, who show that their first loyalty (by a large majority) is to their religion over their nationality, and who freely admit that killing innocent civilians (even their own) is acceptable, does anyone envision a time when we could round up all Muslims living in the US and either deport them or intern them?

If not, how many US dead would be adequate to implement such a plan? A million? Ten million?

Finally, I would submit that it is entirely possible to have this country reduced back to a Depression-era subsistence lifestyle fairly easily. In fact, it may be possible to destroy American society completely. If this is the price of liberty, do the ends ever justify the means, or are we better off being destroyed and enslaved while maintaining the moral high ground?

TR

Yes. I can certainly envision it.

However, I don't think America will respond with such draconian measures until she has been wounded very badly - probably hundreds of thousands or millions dead. I've told my sons that I expect our current war will devolve into a War of Civilizations and will cost millions of Americans their lives - primarily civilians. Ironically, IMO, in the coming decades the military will be, relatively speaking, the most secure place to be. The coming years will have the most horrible ramifications on civilians.

Unless an incredible reversal of Radical Islamic sympathy happens in the next decade or so - I can imagine 80% of Arabia's and Iran's 400 million citizens being wiped out - And, not necessarily by the United States. I would expect WMD to hit the French and/or the Brittish before it ever hits the U.S. The French leaders are already on record as responding with Nukes to any state sponsored terrorism. Mark Steyn in his book America Alone says those two societies are already in the very earliest stages of the death throes toward Islamic capitulation.

I would contend that they won't go away quietly.

To be clear, I agree with Mr. Moroney that Islam is "at war with itself" ...For every one Moslem terrorist that an American soldier manages to kill in Iraq - Moslems themselves are killing 100 Moslems (mostly civilians). The greatest enemy of the Moslem is the Moslem - The Koran incites an equal opportunity of death, destruction and terrorism upon its own citizens and adherents.

On the 80% figure I cite above - I see the overwhelming majority of those deaths in Arabia and among the Persians as coming at the hands of other Moslems.

Sadly, that 1 to a 100 stat will probably hold true. We'll get 2 million to 3 million guilty terrorists over the next 10 to 30 years and then the 400 million folks in the region will basically be turning on each other - As they will in mass if the Democrats ever succeed in getting us out of Iraq.

The only way to prevent this is via a brutal enforcement of a kind of Pax Romana - which is no longer in the West's DNA. IMO, all possible overt applications of brutal justice were wrung out of the West during the 300 years since the enlightenment. I'm not saying this as a complaint, just as an observation.


Three Soldier Dad

All the best, Chuck

I'm familiar with the term and its historical origins. However, I don't see how it applies here. Could you elaborate?

Regards,
Aric

There is an interesting proverb of Solomon's in the book of Ecclesiastes that says...

"Because of the sentence against an evil work is not executed quickly, therefore the heart of the sons of men are given fully to do evil."

Eccl. 8:11


.

Rome kept the peace for centuries because folks were afraid of Rome. They didn't obey Rome due to Rome's good-natured philanthropy and kindness... Bad guys didn't want to mess with them. - Rome was a hardcore nasty iron monster. Who is Rome in the world today? Perhaps, America - but, we're way too deeply in touch with our feminine side.

A modern version of an applied Pax Romana policy would be rapid summary executions of guilty insurgents - fast trials and public hangings. Dresden-like carpet bombing of high density terrorist areas, a significant revision or our soldiers ROE - For example - civilians become human shields for terrorists - shoot them, too...The shutting down of Al Jazeera and other enemy propoganda...If the enemy hides in a Mosque - Raze it with them inside, maybe even the explosion of a Nuke in the desert - as a warning shot...etc, etc, etc.

Basically quick and swift justice - running the risk that indeed the innocent will at times be hurt - no doubt, life is messy - But, skipping the mea culpas and switching the war bias to ensure that the guilty are NEVER returned to the general population. Wipe their silly smiles off their faces...

Here's a thought - if the media is totally against America when we don't bring justice to the guilty because we want to ensure that the innocent are not hurt - then what is the down side if we flip the equation? If they are against us either way, then let's at least apply force in such a way that inspires fear among the terrorists. We may also want to put some of the media on trial for aiding and abetting the enemy.

IMO, the Arab and Persian understand only one thing. One thing - force. Nasty force. Where they are seeing their buddies dying - lots of their brethren going to Allah.

As noted, right now the resolution in the West does not exist. Someday I think that may change - when we are fighting for our survival.

To put down a rabid dog or a pack of rabid dogs is actually a mercy killing. Mercy for the community and mercy for the dogs. As a good neighbor, the best way for me to care for the terrorist or the insurgent is to allow my military to put him down...As brutal as is necessary to get the job done.

I don't think we threaten - we simply and quietly execute. Shock and awe shouldn't just be fireworks and a lot of sound and fury. It needs to be bloody and really frightening.

We're a ways from that kind of resolve.


Three Soldier Dad...

All the best, Chuck

Radical Islam should be killed.
 

Hi Folks,

I am an Indonesian and migrate to the US. I am a catholic and chinese decent. I am a living witness of mass genocide toward indonesian chinese and christian. Over 1,000, Indonesian chinese were burnt alive, killed and raped. I saw many churches burnt down and many priests killed.

In Indonesia, it's true war between christian and islam. Indonesia is a breeding ground for jihad people. Many of the leaders are from arab and became indonesian citizen. As Indonesian Govt said they fought terrorism but I doubt that. Because 95% of Govts milliary and employees are islam. Heck, even they sent / supplied Jihad people to war with Christian people in Ambon. It was very big tragedy.

Also, All Jemaah Islamiah should be prosecuted and hang dead.

--anton
PS: Islam that I refer here is Radical Islam.

The paradox that you present, I think, represents the problem we are facing with Islam/Muslims. In part the answer could preserve our freedoms or enslave us.

It reminds me of the SCOTUS majority opinion on Plessy v. Ferguson, Even though a decission is wrong, it is a better alternative than the correct decission (allowing segregation or integrating with all the violence it would have caused at the time).

"This the rub", Shakespeare.

Lets put morality aside for a sec and look at capability first...could we intern this large number (hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people) even if we wanted to? I doubt it. And even if you could it doesn't solve your problem it just makes it worse. Refugee camps are the biggest terrorist recruting grounds and havens in the world. Its like cutting yourself open to dig out a cancer...you're more likely to just aggrevate the condition and even if you get the cancer you'll likely die from the infection.

What about mass deportation? I think thats more feasable, but even worse in terms of long term consequences. You'd eradicate whatever moderation exists in Islam and completely confirm the radical position that the US is at war with the whole of Islam. Every fence-sitting Muslim in the world would become an enemy and then you're off to the genocidal races. To say nothing of the fact that you'd be driving the most skilled and by extension dangerous Muslims in the world (those with knowledge of America, with technical training and degrees, with English language experience, etc) into the cause of jihad.

What about if we just interned or deported the recent immigrants from certain large Islamic communities (Detroit, Brooklyn, LA, etc)? I don't think that works either for the same reasons stated above (destroying the Muslim center, providing new potent recruits to the jihad), plus you'd be unlikely to get the real terrorists anyway. The 9/11 bombers lived in Palm Beach, not the Islamic neighborhoods in Brooklyn.

So, maybe I'm dodging the ethical question, but I'd oppose those policies on practical grounds. Certainly they could happen though.

I would agree with your statement on what is possible. UBL is a smart dude and his grand strategy to collapse the global economy (which is in direct symbosis with the American economy) is a good one. I'm not so sure I'd phrase it as "Depression-era subsistence" but certainly we're talking about a catastrophic drop in standard of living.

Ya know, I tell my fellow liberals all the time: jihadism can't defeat America, but it can kill liberalism. It can create such chaos and insecurity that we will recoil into a security state and it will take human civilization decades or centuries, if ever, before the beauty of a culture fundamentally based on individual freedoms ever graces the earth again. (Incidentally, Eisenhower had the same fears about a Nazi victory in WWII.) If you don't want to live in some kind of new dark ages with authoritarian/corporate feudalism tomorrow, you need to get on board with aggressive worldwide counterterrorism today because we are in a life-and-death race to stop the jihadists from getting a nuclear weapon.

I'm musing now. Probably because I've been watching too much Battlestar Galactica (great show, gets at alot of these same issues)...let me get back on point.

To sum up, I think we're going to risk things (and adjust tactics to compensate for those risks) in order to win the war and preserve American culture as we know it, but if we're not willing to take that risk then America isn't worth saving anyway. Speaking for my own person and without disrespect to anyone who thinks different (God knows these are hard questions), I'd rather fight the harder fight with honor than have my kids grow up with the moral stain of some of the more expedient solutions suggested in this thread. Maybe I'm a foolish Jeffersonian idealist, but I think its worth the risk to try and preserve the flower of our society.

Couple thoughts...

• In my opinion, the primary error of a liberal worldview is that it errs with respect to the nature of man - IMO, man is not naturally good - Man is fallen. We commence with goodwill, but the State must learn quickly from a worthy foe to prepare for violence. Islam is a society that is totally ruled by fear - If I may say so, it is the quintessential opponent of darkenss - If it is possible to fight the darkness, we are. We are even now in a fight for our lives against this ominous foe. I am voicing perhaps an old notion from the West's chivalrous past. X-Factor, you seem to express the West's 18th century enlightenment voice - Man can be reformed with enough TLC. I am more closely aligned with the 15th century - Man at times must be taught by others to recognize his own best interests - by the rod.
• Freedom is for men who can restrain themselves from evil...Our future to a large extent depends on what we decide - we need to do good in the world - What we need today is a Jonathan Edwards like character - We have a moral and spiritual issue to resolve among ourselves. We need a kind of great awakening. We need to do some deep soul searching.
• The solution that some have thrown out, including myself - has to do with looking at our situation the way it is...not the way we hope it will be.

X-Factor, I do admire your hope against hope attitude - It's very Don Quijote-like. That worked for me during my 20s and 30s - I'm getting old and perhaps dark in my views of man's nature. I see things today without the rose colored glasses. I see the innocent suffering under the increasingly dominant arm of Islam. Pacifying this force seems increasingly futile and dangerous.

As I've said several times, I hope I'm wrong. This is one argument I'd love to lose.

Three Soldier Dad...

All the best, Chuck

While an immigrant can be deported, what about local citizens that are converts? The radical salafist/jihadist ideology is the root of the problem. Even if we managed to make the United States completely free of any muslims, there is no way to completely secure the country. Our borders and vast and all it takes is one successful infiltration and violent act. Internally a few disillusioned citizens can do the same too. The ideology is out there and there is no way to shield anyone from that information.

I think we need to focus on what we do well and improve upon that. Unlike the socialist setup of Europe that has failed miserably to integrate people, we've done an admirable job. The muslim population in the world is not homogeneous racially, ethnically, linguistically, and socio-economically. While the discussions eventually zero in on Arabs and Persians, they're not even the largest muslim population in the world. South and South East Asia has the largest.

There is no shotgun approach IMHO. Plus, I do not trust government or people to the point where I would be willing to live in a police state. The more expectations and responsibilities we heap upon government, the more inefficient it gets, especially with the unrealistic expectations of absolute security. We have the economic muscle, military muscle, and resources on our side. If fear drives us to the point of virtual isolation from the world with loss of domestic civil liberties, we will not have the same reach or power in the world. There is no way to completely protect anyone and just like driving (oversimplified analogy) we need to factor in the risks of living in a free society. Should we pursue and kill/convince/isolate those who seek to hurt us? Absolutely. Not at the cost of the very identity of the United States of America, though.

Ditto.

These are good points...I hope you're right. Of course, hope is not a strategy. When I see bad things coming and someone says (1) the bad things aren't coming or (2) the bad things are coming but we can handle it.

I hope you're right.

Three Soldier Dad...

P.S. I wasn't recommending trashing the constitution or the adoption of an American version of National Socialism - This is a distortion. What made the Nazi's so evil was their penchant for (1) war at others expense, (2) racism and the (3) libeling and (4) liquidation of an innocent race. Actually, the point I endeavored to make was we may need to dramatically step up our vigor in employing every creative means possible to preclude a Trojan Horse in our midst; which - unless we do something - seems all but inevitable. We need to be absolutely vigilant and yes we need to enforce all the laws currently on the books. We may need to do all the things we've done in other times during our history to protect ourselves - and, because the threat is so great - maybe we will need to do more. I also agree that government is not good at delivering any of these things...Not very comforting.