Islam: Three Strikes Your Out
The violence in the Islamic religion has waxed and waned over many centuries and unfortunately the fanatics are radicalizing the rest of their brethren, I believe mainly because they sense weakness in the moral fiber and will of the West. In a way, Islam is very foolish to take on the powers that annihilated the radicals in WW2 Japan and Germany. Apparently they have a very short memory of how we int eh West can fight. Since 1979 the radicals in Islam have been attacking the United States and our European allies but now it is time to take the fight to them.
You see, when a civilization straps bombs to women and children in order to blow up their enemies, destroy entire schools with hundreds of children in them (Beslan, Russia) and kill people who are attending funeral services, there is little we can do to stop them. Just killing people who want to kill us won't work much either, because they believe that when they die they will go to heaven. So how do you fight a person who wants to die?
The real problem is the way people in the West think about terrorism. Practical terrorists, with whom we have long struggled, may behave savagely, but they have tangible goals and a logical approach to achieving them. They view their own deaths as a misfortune, however necessary or noble, and not as an embrace of the divine. These sorts of terrorists are rarely suicidal and do now view death and destruction as goals unto themselves. There usually are lines the practical terrorist will not cross--some groups they wish to protect, certain tools he will not employ, some self-imposed limitations upon the scale of their actions. It is extremely unlikely that such a terrorist group would employ biological or nuclear weapons, although they might make limited use of chemical weapons. They want to rule people and the cities they live in, not wreck them. These sorts of terrorists are of lesser strength, and are always the terrorist of lesser menace. The apocalyptic terrorist, however, is lost in a nightmare.
Apocalyptical terrorists are different from their secular counterparts (the practical terrorist) in the following ways: they tend to act out of intensely personal disaffection and a sense of alienation from social norms, while the practical terrorist is more apt to feel driven by group grievances. The apocalyptical terrorist "wants out" while the practical terrorist "wants in". The practical terrorist imagines himself as a representative of his people, while the apocalyptic terrorist sees himself as chosen and apart. Practical terrorists believe that mankind can be persuaded (or forced) to regret past errors and make amends, and that reform of the masses is possible (although a certain amount of coercion may be required). But apocalyptic terrorists (such as Osama bin Laden) are merciless. Practical terrorist may see acts
of retribution as a tactical means, but apocalyptic terrorists view themselves as tools of a divine and uncompromising retribution, and they don't mind dying for their beliefs. The Islamic world's acceptance of apocalyptic terrorists as heroes is perhaps the most profound indicator of its spiritual crisis and decay, and no matter what Islamic governments may say to please us, many millions of Muslims around the world felt tremendous pride in the atrocities in New York, Washington DC, and Pennsylvania. Apocalyptic terrorists cannot tolerate any debate or dissent--all divergent opinions are a direct threat to his mental house of cards; as seen in the way Sunnis treat the mildly divergent Shias. They have convinced themselves that our way of life is satanic and that we are the enemies of their religion and their God. They do not understand the reality of our society or our daily lives, and they do not want to understand. They can live among us and they see only evil. They need to hate us, and their hatred is the most satisfying element in their lives. Death and destruction delight them. They cannot be reasoned with or appeased. No human voice can persuade the man who believes God is speaking in his other ear. Apocalyptic terrorists must be destroyed. The real problem is that they don't mind dying, so we in the West need to put something of value to Muslims in jeopardy, something more than their women and children (which they don't mind sacrificing), something tangible and real world, and I have the answer:
You see, one of the very few things that Muslims hold sacred (and important) is their holy sites. Several years ago, after the 911 attacks here in America, I came up with the idea of threatening Mecca if we are attacked with Islamic radical nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction. I am glad to see that idea begin to spread among leaders of this country (especially Tom Tancredo) because it is truly the only leverage we hold against Muslims. They are very willing to die for their faith, but their holy sites are open to threat and this deterrence is possible. During the Cold War we threatened the Soviets with nuclear annihilation if they attacked our European allies. Today, the very same principle may help the West halt any further serious Muslim attacks. With the Muslim Three Strikes Law, we can threaten radicals who want to kill us with destruction of the things they hold dear. The first site to be destroyed if America is continually attacked should be the Dome of the Rock.
DOME OF THE ROCK
A sacred place to Muslims, the Jews have been chomping at the bit for decades to remove the Dome of the Rock from their former Temple Holy Mount, and we should give them that opportunity if a nuclear device is detonated in America. We need to make clear to all Muslims that we will do exactly that. The United States military will destroy the Dome of the Rock, Islams' third most holy site, if America is attacked with weapons of mass destruction. I believe that this sort of detente will work. The Muslims know that the Jews want the Temple Mount back badly and I believe that they will stop their attacks if we make it clear to them how high the cost will be if they continue.
SHRINE OF FATIMA, QOM
The second strike should be against the Shrine of Fatima in Qom, Iran. This site is sacred to Shiite Muslims and if they refuse to police their own people then we will enforce our rule of law on them. Muslims are determined to attack civilians here in America, and the example of Beslan, Russia (where Muslim radicals attacked a school and killed hundreds of Russian children) should remind Americans just how ruthless our enemies really are. Destroying cities in America is their main goal and we should make it clear that if they try, they will suffer the consequences. Muslim radicals do not fear death so we need to make them fear something else, something important to them, and their holy sites are just the sort of thing that the US can eliminate if we are attacked again.
MECCA, SAUDI ARABIA
The third strike should be the holy site in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. We need to make it very very clear to Muslims around the world that the will of the United States is not failing, that we carpet bombed Nazi Germany and nuked Japan's cities, and we are more then capable of doing the same to their countries as well if we are attacked. Again, these attacks would only come in response to a Muslim WMD attack on the United States and would be the decision of last resort, but we mean business. We need to show the Islamic world that the West is not as decadent and weak as they think, that we are not push-overs who are ready to turn tail at the slightest hint of casualties. They must fear us because that is really the only thing that they respect; someone who will hit back. Finally, it is one of the many ironies of history that the worlds' two great religions have swapped places over the last half millenium, with Christianity breaking free of medieval intellectual and social repression, while the once effervescent world of Islam has embraced the comforts of shackles and ignorance.
"...Republican presidential hopeful Tom Tancredo says the best way he can think of to deter a nuclear terrorist attack on the US is to threaten to retaliate by bombing Islamic holy sites. The Colorado congressman on Tuesday told about 30 people at a town hall meeting in the state of Iowa that he believes such a terrorist attack could be imminent and that the US needs to hurry up and think of a way to stop it. “If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina,” Tancredo said at the Family Table restaurant.
And he is absolutely right.....