As per usual, I cannot get Ace's page to open on my browser so I do not know in what context he thinks a nuclear strike would be a reasonable decision to take nor the scope of such an attack (though "genocidical" would seem unambiguous).

I am curious what, if any, relationship you see to our current situation and the decision to use fire-bombing and atomic warfare on the Japanese home islands. This by preference to an extended blockade or the decision at the end of the first round of the Iraq war to contain Ba'athism once its armies had been expelled from its neighbour. Were those decisions justified by their historical context? Do we "know better" now? Or, given the absence of clearly defined state-actors, are the situations not readily comparable? Or is it that we have a clearly defined state actor behind much of the violence but that given the Saudis are our nominal allies our establishments have not been able to screw up the courage to name them?

How would our current situation change given a nuclear attack on New York or Los Angeles involving the deaths of hundreds of thousands of U.S. and foreign citizens?

Flea, AoS as well as most other .MU.NU domains blank out on me all the time. Since I run my own DNS, usually deleting the cached .NU entry fixes things. If you don't run your own DNS, ask the person / company who does if they can look at it. I'm still trying to figure out how to prevent that domain from ever caching in the first place.

This "nuke-em-to-the-stone-age" reflex, to me, is just an indication of fatigue, impatience, or boredom with the day to day story. Sure it's easy to get that way but we can't give in to it.

Here is the comment I left on Ace's site:

In the past five years over 2,500 young Americans have died for the ideals that have always driven democratic armies to battle. They gave their lives so that others, here at home and in foreign lands across oceans, might live free, without fear, and in peace.

Every one of them died with dignity. A dignity that could not be taken no matter how gruesome the circumstances of their deaths. A dignity that some idiot proudly advocating genocide —against the very people they died to free no less— from the safe and lofty confines of the internet, could never hope to possess.

Thanks for the laughs ace. Hope to see you around…once you regain you mind.

Flea -

First, Ace's post is an indiscriminate call to kill majority swaths of the "muslim world" based on the wacky, conspiratorial rantings of a CAIR scholar, and the pattern of wacky, conspiratorial, racist rantings coming from a variety of voices - and actions - within the Muslim world.

Second: the nuclear attacks on Japan had several components that provide a different ethical context:

1. Clearly defined, state actor/aggressor.
2. Nuclear deterrence was a practical solution.
3. Easy math: more lives were to be lost (including Americans and Japanese civilians) with invasion than the nuclear option.
4. The world at a crucial stage of geopolitical division and crisis: with the war in Europe concluded, the Russians were grasping and entrenching to take much of it for themselves, with the relatively understood goal of Communist spread and domination. This invalidated (or at least made a strong argument against) protracted approaches like a blockade.

In short, clear aggressor in a state player and invasion, blockade, effective nuclear demonstrations and pulling up short of total victory ruled out, and the two nuclear strikes are historically justified - especially given the context of accepted strategic bombing during World War II - though one could make cases for alternate courses of action. Personally, I don't lose any sleep over it, though to a degree we do "know better" than we did when employing strategic bombing, and have technologies that give us more targeted options. But the stakes in WWII were huge, options were limited, and the players were clearly defined.

The lesson of the first Gulf War argues against containment of certain state actors: when you have the resources, political capital, consensus and casus belli to go whole hog and depose aggressive tyrants, take the opportunity. Given the shortening timeframe for establishing free societies that moderate extremists rather than foster them, and the fact that an aggressor that's invaded more than one country is prone to constantly destabilize a region, that is a nearly unambiguous lesson, in my book.

Or, given the absence of clearly defined state-actors, are the situations not readily comparable?

Correct, see above.

That said, another particularly murderous terrorist attack on US soil (and let's not quibble, these things do come in degrees that we'd simply weather on our current course and degrees that we wouldn't countenance and result in more drastic measures), the nuclear option would maintain relevance IF its use could be tied practical effect, whether that effect is directly killing those responsible or simply a terrible demonstration.

Randomly picking and destroying an entire city (cities) on the pretext of something as general as religion isn't merely immoral, it's stupid. It wouldn't work.

And what might work - I stress "might" - would rely on basically destroying a fifth of the world's land mass (including most of its industrial energy supply) to wipe out all terrorist strongholds, which is not only terrifically violent in scope, but is so unrealistic and self-destructive as to represent the aggressive problem solving of a child. A very young, semi-retarded child who has watched the 80's classic Red Dawn and Rambo II far, far too many times.

A nuclear attack on a US city rationally calls for a nuclear response, but the problem is identifying where. I would suspect that the precondition for such a response would consist of tying a state actor or state-affliated terror group (the nexus between Saudi government officials, charity groups and terrorists is an example) to the act, possibly followed by an ultimatum to other state actors to take extraordinairy measures or face their own nuclear response.

It's not that I wouldn't ethically support any use of nuclear weapons in given circumstances, it's just that those circumstances need to support deterrence and appropriately targeted vengeance. Indiscriminately throwing nukes around based simply on religious sentiment and general geography is a genocidal impulse that baits armageddon. In the literal, and not religious sense, I mean.

And those that advocate it need to answer this: if the scope of vengeance actually harms America more than the initial terrorist attack - by destroying or at least gravely disrupting energy supplies, irradiating huge portions of the Earth's surface, throwing the globe into turmoil and possibly baiting a nuclear exchange (once nukes get tossed around at that level, others may be bound to find their way back) - would it be worth it?

The concept is mostly ridiculous. It stems from a faith that we're more powerful than any nation can be, almost omnipotent.

And the active, specific call for "genocide" is reprehensible. And greatly troubles me. I mean, he loudly used the "g-word."

There are over a billion muslims, spread out over an area larger than North America, including a number of countries who are our staunch allies and have never sponsored terrorism. Ace is being silly at best.

Far be it from me to speak for Ace, but don't you think he is giving a "I'm mad as Hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" with some nuclear hyperbole thrown in to make the point?

There will be one more massive outrage from the Religion of Peace, and then things are going to go rather badly for them.

Sadly, I think he's right. Think Carthage. But I don't think he's really beating the drum for that.

It's like when I have a bad day at the office and threaten to "shoot the place up".

Actually, that was a bad example.

Actually Carthage was destroyed 60 years after the end of the Second Punic war, without provocation, and was widely considered a shameful crime, even by Romans at the time.

Far be it from me to speak for Ace, but don't you think he is giving a "I'm mad as Hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" with some nuclear hyperbole thrown in to make the point?

I found that the post was more specific than that.

Yikes! I find Ace's page to be very funny, but a post like that plays into CAIR's hands. Think about it - Ace is promoting the final solution. Heck he's even giving ammo to the koskids who call conservatives nazis.

Jason,
I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying that a weaker state that continually provokes another state, tribe, nation or empire inevitiably ends up catching Hell.

"I'm not saying it's right."

I don't even know if Ace is either. I think he is taking the "morality is beside the point" stance. You know, the one favored by genocidal maniacs for centuries.

I'm hoping to put up a post on this as well at some point. I will go ahead and note right now that I don't think comparisons to the Japanese are apt, for what I thought would have been obvious reasons. Does anybody really think this war is as bloody as WWII? That for some reason we should use far, far deadlier force against Muslims than we did the Japanese?

I've always liked ace, it really saddens me to see him completely lose the plot.

Arguably, the assault on Pearl Harbor was less "deadly" than the massacres of September 11, 2001. I am certain that if, for example, it had "only" been the Pentagon that had been targeted several years ago it would have been much more difficult to gain support in Congress for the intervention in Afghanistan despite the murder of passengers and air crew. Pearl Harbor was, after all, a military target.

So, instead of a world in which the President was looking for a clear pretext to enter the war against the Nazis - an unpopular, in fact insupportable, position in the United States prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor - imagine one in which, say, American action had been limited to expelling Japan from the Philippines. Without FDR I find that alternative world all too easy to imagine.

With this in mind do I think the conflict with islamism has been as deadly as World War II? No. But then we have yet to see the result of an islamist nuclear attack on a Western city let alone the true horror of a release of weaponized smallpox or some equivalent. In either scenario it is all too plausible to produce in weeks more American causualties than were lost in the entirety of WWII.

It is worth considering what possible response to such events is "thinkable"; assuming the military and economic capacity remaining to retaliate. I am not certain it is possible for most in liberal democracies people to currently imagine * any * context that would justify the use of nuclear weapons including the ones I have just posited. Would it then be possible to imagine conquering and indoctrinating the people of, for example, "Saudi" Arabia? For most people I doubt any scenario can imagine any context in which such an imposition would be justifiable. What then, gentlemen, are we to do in response to a nuclear or large-scale biological attack on civilization? Or are we left with crossing our fingers for the moderate and at times faltering course of action taken thus far by an administration considered by much of the world to be more extremist than the worst of the jihadis?

A nuclear attack on a US city rationally calls for a nuclear response, but the problem is identifying where. I would suspect that the precondition for such a response would con...

Isn't that the "game" the terrorist are playing? From the insurgent mixing among innocents, to OBL hiding in Pakistan or Iran? If you give up the ghost ("We can't respond in kind if New York is nuked") isn't it game over? I think Ace was blowing steam, and giving voice to the frustration of listening to some of these nutter-Islamic-blowhards. It was a middle of the night post (or, at least, the middle of the night to those of us who go to bed at a reasonable time.)

I didn't say that we "We can't respond in kind if New York is nuked," I don't know what "in kind" is.

I have specifically not ruled nuclear weapons out as a response, if applicable.

Ace wasn't referring to a nuclear terrorist attack, specifically.

Here is another post I put up on the thread at ace's:

"If they attack us again...

Then we should use all the force at our disposal."

Who is "THEY" man??? Ace is recommending "genocide" of innocent Muslims by nuking major metropolitan areas. Are women, children, and random shopkeepers struggling to get by under a repressive regime really the "THEY" that attacked us on 9/11? Not from what I've heard.

Or are THEY merely the people that, for God know what reason, deserve to be obliterated because of the insane actions of some their coreligionists?

Even say they dance in the street at the next attack...so what? That may be repulsive, but look at the shithole society they live in. The government controls their education, their access to information, it tells them when to march and what to say.

I mean here in America you have a bunch of upper-middle class white kids who hold some utterly repulsive political views as well...what's their excuse? I live in Eugene, OR. We just had a major roundup of 20 eco-terrorists planning major attacks a few months ago. If a terrorist from my town succeeds in an attack next time, do I deserve to die too? Should Eugene be nuked?

Grab control of you fucking brains people and listen to what you are saying!

Wait a minute, look at Ace's first statement:

If the majority of Muslims do in fact believe that an apocalyptic conflict with the west is inevitable, then 1, it is indeed inevitable, and 2, let the apocalypse begin. If genocide is unavoidable, I choose genocide against my enemies rather than myself.

That's not a "I want the genocide of all muslims" statement. It seems to me anyway to be "If they're going force me to pick us or them, I choose us."

Do I really think that if a nuke goes off in NYC, we should flatten every muslim country? No. But I'm not really sure how that's different from what our response would have been if Cuba had nuked Miami during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

"If they're going force me to pick us or them, I choose us."

Who is "them?" Define "them."

But I'm not really sure how that's different from what our response would have been if Cuba had nuked Miami during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

State players recognize the doctrine of extended deterrance and mutually assured destruction. Individual actors that are jihadis do not.

The more relevant point of nuclear armament isn't vengeance so much as it's security.

Jihadis don't care so much if Riyadh goes up in smoke. The only utility would consist of tying an attack back to a state player, hitting that state, and then delivering the ultimatum Bush did after 9-11 ("with us or terrorists") with nuclear teeth, thereby forcing reluctant state actors to really destroy terror networks.

But imagining the "Muslim world" as some sort of monolith that can be made to pay is as unrealistic as it is antithetical to certain sensibilities.

"Jihadis don't care so much if Riyadh goes up in smoke."

Not they WOULD care. They would be absolutely overcome with glee. They consider themselves just as much at war with the Kingdom of Saud as with the US.

"But I'm not really sure how that's different from what our response would have been if Cuba had nuked Miami during the Cuban Missile Crisis."

Please see my referece to my own home town Eugene above.

I believe Bill's point about deterrance is critical. While I imagine there were many Russians who were on board with the Soviet continuation of the old imperial story, and there were certainly millions who were complicit in the Soviet system, it is difficult to imagine how the threat to incinerate ordinary Russians - let alone Hungarians, Romanians, etc. - was justified except through the logic of deterrance.

So, yes, the use of non-state actors are certainly part of a "game" (in the technical sense) played by the governments of Iran, Syria and until recently Iraq. I believe this is is also and perhaps especially true of "Saudi" Arabia. Continuing fecklessness in addressing this fact only encourages these states to carry on as they have done since the Tehran hostages on down.

The bigger problem, it seems to me, is not how to deter state actors governed inevitably by those who want to protect their own fat asses. It is, rather, how to deter people whose religious indoctrination makes them eager to die. Or such, at least, is their claim. Remarkably sensible suggestions such as the deployment of pig fat as a spiritual WMD - used as such in the past by American forces in the Philippines - have been thus far disregarded out of a perverse "respect" for the sensibilities of the very death-cult that would kill or convert us all. If we cannot manage bacon grease I find it difficult to imagine the use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance.

For me the question is how this sort of question might be answered when Chicago or London or the Vatican are obliterated. Riyadh is certainly a poor hostage to fortune given jihadi ideology. I am not certain what value they might put on the continued existence of Mecca and Medina, however. But then to even ponder that question is still considered insane.

All good points, Flea. To be clear, my sensibilities on the matter are both practical and romantic ... but I'm always willing to let practical win, even if it involves Hormel smoked ham.

Flea, it is one thing to discuss MAD in the age of terror, or to discuss responses to a nuclear strike against the US. But that is not what ace was talking about.

I am just about ready to give my blessing to a genocidal nuclear strike on the majority of the Muslim world, and I suspect many of my countrymen are similarly itchy-fingered.

One more. One more fucking mass-murder. Go for it, boys. Give us the excuse. Some of us suspect it's inevitable and the only way to finally get it through your primative heads that we will no longer put up with being murdered by savage animals, but we need the moral pretext. We need the hot anger of fresh provocation.

And this sort of anger has been showing up with unfortunate frequency. Just in the past two days, I've seen this thread where some felt it was necessary to consider nuclear options as a result of the two servicemembers who were tortured and murdered. Then ace comes along talking about genocide, and what set him off was a TV channel.

None of this is a rational discussion of foreign policy. It is just anger and frustration, and ace can do better than that. And serious discussions of foreign policy should have a better starting point than that.

Here's what I'm having a hard time with here:

I've expressed similar sentiments as Ace does, but usually in a context of what I'm WORRIED about happening. Why I think it's so important to change the odds, to change our relationship with the various dictatorships of the Middle East, and strongly promote change as much as we can... because I very much fear that if we DO see an American city get hit with another attack of the scope of 9/11 even by other means (say, setting off a bomb that causes the Sears Tower or the Space Needle to collapse), we WILL see the kind of angry, well-night barbaric response from the American people.

Yet: we aren't there yet, and Ace in a bad mood watching one nutjob on TV is already talking that way.

One thing we should be ready for: if/when there's another significant attack, a really BIG one, we should be aware that there are going to be a lot of people, including a lot of so-called "liberals," talking exactly like Ace was here. And I'm not sure they'll be in any mood to listen to us when it happens.

Which just takes me back full circle: this is why we have to work to prevent this stuff.

"well nigh".

Grrr.

Genocide, absolutely not! Why cut off our nose to spite our face. For all the reasons listed above the "nuke em all solution" with the express purpose of eliminating Islam is just not an option.

Having said that let me point a few things out. I hate Islam and think it is an evil religion. Also, I'm none to wild about Arabs either. After fighting in Desert Storm I left that part of the world with strong feelings of contempt and loathing for all things Moslem and Arab. This probably makes me a racist along with other labels. In my mind... So what.

Among conservatives (me included)I think there is real anger about fighting a limited war in Iraq. To me it seems we are repeating the strategic and tactical mistakes of Vietnam with a splash of political correctness. What I would like to see is: The "conventional war" gloves to come off. We should give the ragheads a real beating. I'm still waiting to be shocked and awed. So, far; Bush, Chenney and Rummy have mounted an underwelming effort. Specifically we need more troops and more fire power. As Sherman said, "Leave them nothing but their eyes to weep with". Crush their will to make war. Then we can pass out candy and toothpaste once they're thoroughly defeated. Remember, War is Hell! So, why are we playing nice?

Jihadis don't care so much if Riyadh goes up in smoke.

That's not clear. For many jihadis, Riyadh is home.

Other enemy combatants like the primary financial supporters of the mujahideen and 'radical' polical Islam care very much if Riyadh goes up in smoke.

The financial and philosophical supporters of the jihadis are terrorism's weakest link. They're not tough and the definitely don't want to die - keeping their pampered asses safe is their only priority. They're the eaisest, fattest targets out there. We could easily influence their behavior, if we tried.

We never try.

Instead, we legitimize them, give them power and lots of money. We accept billions of dollars in bribes from them and we call them allies. What would happen if we turned down their bribes, if we stopped legitimizing them? Since most Republicans and Democrats love these guys like brothers and call them partners in the war against terror, we'll never know.

Ace was reacting to news about a pro-jihad TV station supported by Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, a prince who has spent billions bribing western politicians and academics. If our politicians can't even turn down Alwaleed's bribes, how can we claim to be fighting a war on terror?

What would happen if we turned down their bribes, if we stopped legitimizing them?

A much different standard of action than nuclear genocide.

A much different standard of action than nuclear genocide

Given the mindset of our current politicans/academics, the idea that they would stop accepting bribes and stop legitimizing wealthy terror supporters is the less likely scenario.

I don't agree with Ace, but that may be one reason why he's so angry.

"I don't agree with Ace, but that may be one reason why he's so angry."

Ace is angry because you don't agree with him?

Ace is angry because you don't agree with him?

No, Ace might be angry because terror supporters are getting away with murder. But I might be projecting.

If we were fighting a genuine war against terrorism, Al-Waleed bin Talal would be in Guantanamo. (Talal probably has more ties and influence over to al Qaeda than most Gitmo inmates do) But that's never going to happen.

Instead, we'll probably continue to love and cherish our local wealthy terror supporters until, at one point, one of their paramilitaries blows up another American city. Then, all hell will break loose and the only people who will probably survive with their swiss bank accounts intact will be people like Talal.

There is a sense that the Islamists just keep coming and no solution is obvious.

Now, of course, they don't swarm like cockroaches. That's not the issue. The issue is somewhat more amorphous. It's that the non-radicals seem to think the radicals are just fine. When the Canadian terrorists were arrested, what was the response from Muslim leaders there? Other examples are nearly innumerable. It's not that they are swarming, it's that there doesn't seem to be anything that can be done with the Muslim community to stop this. Hate speech and teaching in the mosques and madrassas in this country seems like a bad idea, to us. To them, business as usual. Be nice to them? Can't be nicer than Canada.
What makes anybody think the Canadian situation isn't going to generate a dozen would-be bombers a year? What caused these morons to go jihad? Whatever it is, what's changed? Anybody? Step right up. Jump in there.
The first Bali bombing was done in response to Australia's taking the lead in ending the Muslims' cozy little slow-motion genocide in East Timor, also the first point of blame for blowing up the UN mission in Baghdad. The senior UN guy there had also interfered in the East Timor situation.
It is hard to understand the world view, harder to figure out a way to engage it.
I know a teacher who had the nicest Muslim kid in class. If the kid were any more assimilated, she'd change her name to Tiffany and join the pom squad. But she didn't want to do a piece on el Cid because it demeaned her religion. Her view of her faith includes the Muslims fighting in Spain a thousand years ago. If my name were Godwin, I could object to doing a piece on William The Conqueror because he killed my ancestor--whose descendants, by the way, are the rightful kings of England on behalf of whom I blew up that daycare recently. This, I submit, is no sillier than having a problem with el Cid.

Our own institutions seem to be messed up, as well. Hate crimes against Jews far outstrip those against Muslims--even if you allow in bogus reports of dirty looks--but only the Muslims get to insist on special privileges, which academia, law enforcement, and the media are happy to both provide and enforce, in their various ways.

We've had fatal riots over fake Koran-desecration stories and the Motoons. But nobody seemed to mind when the Intifadawackos defiled the Church of The Nativity. Among other things, it sure as hell wasn't a surprise.

Talk about American exceptionalism....

People talk about this being a war within Islam for Islam. It may be true. It may be wishful thinking. If true, the wrong side may win.

I don't see the justice of using nukes at this point, not genocidally, anyway. I do see a growing frustration at the lack of solutions.

I think you have not made a good against the threat or actuality of total and permanent destruction of single or multiple enemy targets, in order to induce rogue cultures to stand down from their permanent wars against our us, or simply as a means of crippling such cultures and terminating what otherwise might prove an endless and debilitating conflict.

My use of the word "cultures" in place of "countries" is purposeful. I am neither a racist nor an internationalist, and I think the conduct of societies is a derivative of the culture or cultures predominant in any such society.

The western cultures of north America and Europe are in a long-term struggle with the cultures of Islam and of the arab, iranian, pakistani and indonesian nations who comprise the main groups of devotees of Islam. That religious and multinational cultural group actually has been at war with the rest of the population of the world for 14 centuries, but only lately has its reality become more apparent to Islam's intended victims.

Our present military, political and diplomatic efforts in Mesopotamia and elsewhere amid the islamic civilizations may in fact bring relative peace and stability, although the certainty of this intended outcome remains in question. But the present clash of civilizations between Islam and the West, as professor Huntington accurately described the phenomenom which I describe, is all but certain to continue.

In war, strategic necessity frequently makes it advisable to select a specific target or an identifiable group of targets, whose destruction, if carried out, could debilitate the enemy and hasten the enemy's military or societal collapse.

In the present clash of civilizations, it can well be argued that the enemy is the islamic culture itself. In the very roots of that culture and in its 14 centuries of developmental history, I see no evidence that it shall ever make true peace with the non-islamic world. I see only permanent conflict, and I see this tendency toward conflict on the part of Islam's adherents growing as they become bolder after having successfully planted islamic colonies in most parts of the rest of the world.

Therefore, I think that as this conflict continues, one or more of Islam's victim cultures and even the governments of these cultures, will consider the advisability of effectuating the absolute and permanent destruction of one or more key targets in the islamic world, in line with the strategic concept I have outlined above.

In the islamic world, there is one such target whose absolute and permanent destruction offers likelihood of changing the future course of all the islamic cultures, and especially the arab islamic cultures that gave birth to Islam. That target is Mecca.

The destruction of the city of Mecca and of all the shrines in and around that city would reduce the islamic cultures all to the unique status of a permanent set of diasporas living on their own lands but never again being physically able to assemble for what is arguably the most significant individual tenet of their belief, the hajj. Or at least not within the vast ages of the half-life of the permanent residue of the thermonuclear weaponry that almost assuredly would be used for this purpose.

Would there be human casualties? Indeed. But these would be limited to anyone living or visiting within a relatively short distance of target zero.

Would it be necessary to carry out such a dreadful military action? Not necessarily. The threat alone, as it seeped into the consciousness of Muslims everywhere, and especially among the salafist backers of islamic terrorism who are hardwired into the upper strata of saudi arabian society, would have the best of possible reasons to take immediate steps to reform Islam away from its permanent confrontation with the rest of the world, and its use of shari'a as a means of enslavement of the masses of the populations of most islamic societies.

Christianity has largely been de-fanged and civilized in order to cope with the problems and potentials of a changing world.

It is high time for Islam similarly to render itself harmless. In the end, people who have studied such issues might look forward to witnessing Islam morph into a peaceful, loving and cooperative faith such as Baha'i, which itself is a modern offshoot of shi'a Islam.

The threat or actuality of the most violent of all possible shocks frequently has been needed to change cultures from outright menace to benignity. The total destruction of the Germany of Hitler's NSDAP in 1945 brought was the sole reason that modern Germany has re-evolved into perhaps the leading state and culture of all Europe. The similar destruction of the japanese empire that same year brought about an almost identical result in their part of the world.

Therefore, the unthinkable must be put onto the table as thinkable, in regard to the present intercivilizational conflict.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

"(M)odern Germany has re-evolved into perhaps the leading state and culture of all Europe."

Hang on a moment; let's not talk crazy.

bill,

you must not have lost anyone of your family members to a mushlim terrorist attack. or you would feel differently. i lost family members who used to work for United as flight attendant.

so try looking at the jihad as it truely is. immagine your mother being driven into the side of a skyscraper in the name of allassh

they = all mushlims.

i am not religious.

when a couple of guys tried to high jack my car i ran one of the fools over. there is no difference here. you want to take me out? I am going to put as many holes in you as quickly as i can. i do not care who you are.

when you threaten my family, you unlease my wrath.

if you want blood you got it.

I am tired of americans sitting on their ass, just as they did durring world war 2, until it is too late.

everyone in my family has served in the military. we where taught to protect family and country. now we have a bunch of wimps running the country who can not even protect our economy much less us.

you to see allassh? i say let's send them on their way with a big bang.

crom! you don't get this at all, do you? this isn't about the clash of civilizations, or the "west" vs. islam, this about the demons versus the humans.
there are demons on both sides, and until we acknowledge that our situation is hopeless.

There's ALWAYS demons on both sides. The question is, on which side are they rampant?

I see this as Muslims' problem just as much as our own, though. If they don't take care of business internally, someone else is going to have to, and they are the ones who will suffer the most.

Some seem to want peace but not enough, yet, I'm afraid.

You left out this part

If the majority of Muslims do in fact believe that an apocalyptic conflict with the west is inevitable, then 1, it is indeed inevitable, and 2, let the apocalypse begin.

If genocide is unavoidable, I choose genocide against my enemies rather than myself.

If the majority of Muslims Do in fact believe an apocalyptic conflict with West is inevitable then in truth it IS inevitable.

So you advocate what exactly?
Pretending it is not happening if and when it rears its ugly head?

For myself, I don't think things have or will go that for but if they do?

If genocide is unavoidable, I choose genocide against my enemies rather than myself.

What would your choice be?

For you and yours to die still pure?

Dan -

Read the umpteen comments above before asking me questions that present false choices, contradictions and exaggerated representations of my argument. W/o, your comment is fairly irrelevant.

And I don't buy the characterization that Ace's post was a rational if-then.

The point of many dissenting comments here seems to be - bin Laden and his ilk have declared war against America, they promise to murder millions of American children;

..the people who actually have the power to do something about this, our politicians, take money from and kiss the asses of bin Laden's financiers and supporters;

..'human-rights' activists tell us we MUST respect and love Islam (while giving us no good reason to do so); our press asks 'why do they hate us?', a pathetic question that is the equivalent of hanging a big 'kick me' sign on the back of every American..

..and we're supposed to be mad at Ace?

mary -

That comment is silly: look how you equate "bin laden" to "all Muslims."

I don't give a crap why Islamic terrorists hate us, so much as I want them dead.

This is almost at odds with us murdering every man, woman and child that practices Islam in their bed.

For the record, you don't need to be "mad" at Ace, but here's a concept that you might try: you can be "mad" at many different things at once, say, like, Islamic terror AND the idea of indiscriminately killing Muslim children.

That comment is silly: look how you equate "bin laden" to "all Muslims."

I am not equating bin Laden to all Muslims.

you can be "mad" at many different things at once, say, like, Islamic terror AND the idea of indiscriminately killing Muslim children

I tend to save my anger for the people who can actually do some real, physical damage. For instance, the politicians who could actually take action against a terror supporter like bin Talal, but who instead have accepted millions of dollars from him. When those same politicians assure us that he and other wealthy sauds like him have nothing to do with terrorism, and when they tell us that wealthy Sauds like Talal are our friends and allies, I can't help but make the connection between the money and our 'alliance'. For some reason, this seems more worthy of anger than Ace ineffectively blowing off steam.

Our tolerance and support of wealthy terror financiers leads to more terrorism, which may eventually lead to the kind of total war that everyone wants to avoid. Dean knows that this is likely to happen too. I'm sure you also do. Our politicians and our terror-tolerant press are causing very real damage. So are our Islamist allies. They're the ones whose actions are likely to lead to the indiscriminate killing of Muslim children. They're the ones who deserve recieve, at the very least, intense and focused criticism.

Ace's ideas and our feelings and love (or lack of it) towards the religion of Islam are, in the long run, just chatter, a way to pass time.

..and, (hopefully) to circumvent the inevitable 'you hate Islam' response, when I talk about "our Islamist allies", I mean the political and economic leaders of nations like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and the UAE; Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hizb ut Tahrir - not 1 billion Muslims.

I am not equating bin Laden to all Muslims.

Skipping a paragraph in your original comment:

The point of many dissenting comments here seems to be - bin Laden and his ilk have declared war against America, they promise to murder millions of American children;

To

'human-rights' activists tell us we MUST respect and love Islam (while giving us no good reason to do so); our press asks 'why do they hate us?', a pathetic question that is the equivalent of hanging a big 'kick me' sign on the back of every American..

Gave me the (incorrect) implication that you equate the two.

For the record, I've never heard a human-rights activist (surrounded by quotes or not) tell anyone that they must "love" Islam, so I think that you may be arguing against a slight exaggeration.

I agree, there is an outsized moral equivalence in our press and among the left that assigns TOO MUCH uncritical respect for foreign religions and cultures, to be sure.

But here's the thing: the appropriate reaction is to be careful and not take a 180 degree, opposite opinion, or we're essentially duplicating the flaw of leftist moral equivalence in reverse.

As for the Islamists, I don't think that there is any disagreement that govt affiliated charity arms of terrorist orgainizations, terrorists, etc. are something that should be targeted.

I agree, there is an outsized moral equivalence in our press and among the left that assigns TOO MUCH uncritical respect for foreign religions and cultures, to be sure.

Well, that's the problem. The left isn't the only group doing that. When Republicans were arguing in favor of the ports deal with the UAE, they usually fell into the leftist trap of calling all dissenters racist. Moral equivalence arguments are used by both sides when there are no facts to back up the argument.

Right wing presidents give some cultures more respect than our own. Just like Democrats do. It might help if we got into the habit of criticizing the politicians who are on our side. They might be more likely to listen to us.

Bill, in my judgement, and upon great reflection, what is most unthinkable about this entire question is that western civilization in general, and the United States as the current leading or at least most powerful culture within that civilization, has allowd the islamic civilization to threaten us and encroach against us to the extent that we have, and for long as we have.

Some elements of the islamic civilization are relatively benign to the rest of us. Some may not be so benign, but lack any power to inflict harm on us. And no doubt, as could have been said for many or perhaps most Germans and Japanese in World War II, we could live with and enjoy the company of a substantial number of individual Moslems, at least if we could sit down with them as individuals and get through the systematized and institutionalized hatred that mars our inter-civilizational dealings.

But as a collective mass of people, we can only deal with them through their elites. And to the extent that these elites are part of the fabric of control of their societies through shari'a, and that shari'a is based on a religion that always has been contemptuous of all other forms of belief, and as such has been at least intermittently engaged in armed hostilities with all other forms of belief for some 14 centuries, then we have no options in dealing with then except surrender to their demands to destroy our own civilization, or defend ourselves against them. At least until they show some evidence of development of benignity to the point where they no longer threaten us.

Again, I say that what is unthinkable is for the West in general and the United States in particular to simply the plain fact that worldwide Islam is at war with us. No, certainly not all of Islam.

But the salafist/jihadist cutting edge of Islam that has a strangle hold over much of the rest of that faith, certainly is at war with us. And they are the ones who found a means of commendeering four civil airliners on the most successful suicide and mass murder mission in history.

People such as that are religiously-conditioned zombies, not subject to control by ordinary threats. It is for that very reason that consideration must be given as to whether a threat against the very geographic focal point of the religion that is so precious to them, would be sufficient to cause them to direct their religious devotions to something as peace as, say, the devotions of the Baha'i, a faith that sprang directly from shi'a Islam.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

viagra .

buy viagra .

good site
muskan
manoj kumar mahilange
http://www.childplanet.u

good site

my name is manoj kumar mahilange
http://www.dating-online.co.in

good site
muskan
http://www.swimsuit.net.

Hello, Hi
How Do You Say For

Hello, Hi
How Good Are

Hello, Hi
Horoszkop

Hello, Hi
How To Do Time

Hello, Hi
How To Be A Whore

Hello, Hi
How To Be A Whore

Hello, Hi
Hoteldiscounts

eikmjxsw xzpsftuab snxel mnjg odycle natkwxl sedawpimc