Answering the Call to Jihad

Time for more preemptive strikes...

I suggest we issue the following warning to all Muslim governments: "We will investigate each case of terrorism thoroughly to discern the native homeland that the terrorist originated. In the event we cannot determine this, we will randomly choose a city in one of your lands. After we choose the target, a tactical nuke will be detonated on top of one of your cities"

Prove this once, twice, or how ever many times is required.

Enjoy the resulting peace.

Sir, please remember what distinguishes us from the terrorists. If we start randomly targeting cities full of non-combatants, what would be the difference between us and Osama? We have developed precision bombs precisely in order to take out, as far as possible, only the opposing fighters, not anyone else. That illustrates which side is really the side of justice.

Sir,

I understand your position. I honestly wish it was true. But you are wrong.

Consider the nuclear bombing of Japan in WW2

This killed between 1/8 and 1/4 of a million people, mainly women and children, but destroyed the main and third most important war production sites, which allowed the red army to drive the 1.3 million Japanese solders in Central Asia out.

If we didn't do this, Japanese-Asian-Russian deaths in central Asia could have easily reached into the multiple millions. The cost of finishing the war if we invaded conventionally was estimated at 1-3 million (Military on both sides and Japanese civilians). Some have even estimated that without the Emperors public statement for surrender, millions of civilians would continue to fight and die.

So, by killing 250,000 million women and children, we saved millions of lives.

What we are doing now is equivalent to the non-nuclear option in WW2 and is ultimately more deadly then taking out a city or two. If we take this war to its logical end and continue conventionally, god knows how many will die. I offer this suggestion as a way to SAVE lives.

If I am mistaken in my logic, please demonstrate it. This is serious business and I have no problem reconsidering my opinions and suggestions. However, I have reached this conclusion of what has to be done by considering ethics and ultimate body counts. Again, I seek to save life not take it. I think long term, not short term.

Response?

I don't think the cases are equivalent, for numerous reasons. But I doubt we will convince each other. At this point I am absolutely against targeting non-combatants, and I believe that Osama and Co. would like nothing better than for the U.S. to nuke Mecca. If anything would cement the loyalty of their followers, that would.

Anyway, that's all I have to say about this.

Robert fair enough.
Thank you for responding fairly and rationally to what is ordinarily considered abhorrent suggestions. While I defend my positions with fervor, I do realize their controversial nature.

I will probably you teach nothing but the "Jihad is an internal struggle" is BS. The Jihad like described in the Coran is unequivocally war against non-muslims. Most haddiths mentionnning it also mean real war. Then there is a small (much smaller than the warlike haddiths) number of haddiths who define Jihad as internal struggle towrd self improvement. But non-muslim linguists and historians agree that most haddiths are apocryphal so my guess is that some Muslims became disgusted about the violence of Islam and tried to soften it a bit.

So maybe if we do to them what Hugalu Khan did to them then they will remember and leave us alone? That has posibilities.

You said:
"Could it be that violent jihad is not as marginal and discredited an idea within the Muslim world as most commentators would have us believe?"

I think you are on to something here...
Where are the dissenting voices within the Muslim world decrying violent jihad?
So quiet that it's frightening.

I may be reading too much into his comments but when Mahathir Mohammed (sp?) gave his address to the OIC it sounded to me that he implied agreement with the goals of the Jihadists but not with their methods. Specifically, with the destruction of Israel and subjugation of the West. The resoponse among the Muslim leaders of the world was a standing ovation.

This tells me that we are in an adversarial relationship with the whole of Islam whether we like it or not. Islam is honest about the situation, whereas the West is in a state of denial.

Some Muslims will join a violent Jihad but the majority will choose to oppose the West by other means and give passive consent, if not vocal encouragement, to the violent minority. This doesn't mean we nuke Mecca. But, rather, we have to acknowledge the situation for what it is and formulate a response.

Nuking Mecca is ethically unsupportable at this point. I doubt it ever will be. But my question is this: What would ordinary muslims do if Mecca were to be turned into a parking lot? How would they react? Would they get so angry they all go on jihad? Or would the destruction of the center of the Islamic world shake their faith so much that they give up Islam? I wonder because Mecca plays a role for Muslims without a real analogy for Jews and Christians. Jerusalem is of course central to the two religions, but doesnt' play the same role. Where would Muslims go for the Hajj if not Mecca? And is there anything in the Koran that said that Allah would never allow Mecca to be destroyed? I am curious about this, as at least for Christians, the destruction of Jerusalem wouldn't be a blow to the religion. Especially thanks to hints in the New Testament. I am not sure about the Jewish position, but I really would like to know how Muslims would react. Just as a morbid curiousity.

I was just curious as to what the response might be. Mecca plays such an important role, I wondered what would happen to the Islamic faith should it be destroyed. And what Muslims would feel. Especially concering Hajj and praying toward where Mecca was.

FH

Muslims would still pray to the crater but they would embrace Jihad more firmly. The Haj would be modified to celebrate the martyrdom of the city. They might even distribute Trinitite (Meccatite?) around the world as a symbol of their perpetual Jihad. Any hope of reconciliation or peaceful transformation would be tossed out the window.

Call me crazy, but maybe it's a good thing that many would-be jihadis are headed for Iraq. Why?

It will make it easier for US/UK forces to kill them. We are certainly better off losing small numbers of military personnel and capturing and killing large numbers of jihadis, than we would be not killing the jihadis and waiting for them to hit our civilian targets.

It's nice of usama to send new jihadi victims...err recruits into our sights.

Josh, there are al-queda in Nashville, TN. There are members of Al-Fuqra (a terrorist brance of the Muslims of the Americans whose leader Sheik Jilani of Pakistan was the muslim Daniel Pearl was trying to interview when he was kidnapped) in a near-by town and the public spokesperson for the Saudi mosque fits all the criteria for a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

So if many terrorists are killed in Iraq, many more are scattered in countries across the world, quietly waging another kind of jihad, jihad with the womb, jihad on our culture.

Unfortunately, the solution to this can of worms is not so simple. We must think outside the box on this one and use our creativity. We must not be afraid to call a spade a spade in public, not just in our on-line chats and with like-minded friends. We must learn more about this socio-political religion and its adherents, be willing to draw a line that defines good and evil and tell them. Remember Islam means submission so to combat its effects, those of us who are free from its doctrine must not submit to its dictates.

But if your ever want to see how many sleeping terrorist cells there are in our countries, nuking mecca would certainly shake them out.