The Arab world often accuses the US of carrying out a ‘war on Islam’, which is absurd on its face, but I’m wondering – suppose the West becomes convinced that Islam is evil and should be eliminated from the world. Say after a couple of successful suitcase nuke attacks take out a few million Americans, and it’s apparent that massive suicide attacks will continue indefinitely. Would we just go after the religious schools (madrassas?), that preach death to infidels, or should we adopt the al Qaeda mindset and methods, and go after as much carnage and destruction as possible.
If we go the death and destruction route, I’m thinking that the best way to go about it would be to take a page out of the terrorist handbook and gear up for an all out smallpox germ attack on predominantly Muslim fundamentalist countries, after widespread inoculation of our allies. Ironically, that puts Israel in the position of participating in a genocide/holocaust. Down through history, it was not uncommon for conquerors to wipe out defeated populations - I don’t think human nature has progressed too much farther yet, and it is something that everyone can understand. The few that slip through the crack would certainly be hell bent on revenge, though.
Is this is the beginning of the end for civilization?
I can’t answer your OP, but I bet you’ll be attacked for even posting your question. I know I was when I asked a few weeks ago about the idea of detonating a nuke in the middle of nowhere just as a catalyst to get Islamic people motivated to overthrow their goverments, but people here couldn’t get past the use of a nuke for any reason. I admitted the idea had faults, but there wasn’t much debate - just one-sided name calling.
There can never be a ‘war on Islam’. Collounsbury and Tamerlane will be able to enlighten you in far more detail as to why some of your premises are factually incorrect, but here’s a couple of my own thoughts.
Islam is not a country. Therefore, you could not destroy it with weapons short of killing every individual Islamic believer in the world. This would include Islamic Americans, Islamic Canadians, Islamic Britons [and so on]. Good luck trying to achieve that.
Assuming it was even remotely morally justifiable and practical, the mass slaughter of believers in a particular religion would alienate every ally and most inhabitants of your own country.
If it could be established that Islam was directly responsible for the atrocities and that such atrocities were likely to continue, then I think something would have to be done, but let me tread out a well-worn analogy; should we wage war on Christianity because anti-abortionists have murdered doctors?
Why don’t you guys just go and find yourselves a noticeboard for KKK-esque Muslim-haters where you can fantasise all you like about how to most effectively nuke and force hundreds of millions of people into submission, and leave the rest of us to more worthwhile debate? I think even discussing “how we might wage war against Islam” is tanatamount to race/religion-hate.
I would go on, but I’ve wasted enough of my time just bothering to reply to your thread at all.
Just a nitpick: Communism wasn’t a country either, but that didn’t stop the West from fighting it for over 40 years. Not that I’m saying that Islam is analogous to communism - I’m just saying that sometimes wars are a bit more nebulous than we’d like.
And Istara, unfortunately, I can easily foresee a conflict between America and, if not the entire Arab world, than at least an alliance of a few key states, before the end of the decade. I hope this won’t happen… but I can’t guarantee it.
Alessan: the Cold War could equally be said to have been fought by NATO and the Warsaw Pact member states, who happened to share particular political ideologies. I’m no expert in world religions, so I’m not sure if ‘Islamic countries’ could be identified as clearly as ‘Warsaw Pact countries.’
Still, I take your point about the problem of making such black-and-white statements.
I’m not sure that there will be any state-level conflicts in the near future. No other country has the conventional might to withstand the US military, so state-sponsored terrorism offers a way to attack with fewer repercussions (if only because allies will be less willing to donate money and troops to fight a war against a country suspected of terrorism than one openly using weapons).
I’ve certainly seen Muslim fundies on TV accusing the US of a war on Islam - as I said, that is preposterous. The media has peen known to parade the outrageous and provacative. Our friends at Al Jazera seem to play up the ‘war on Islam’ angle as well.
And maybe I did inappropriately lump Arabs with Muslims, but that wasn’t the main point. What happens when a superpower is pushed to brink, facing death by a thousand cuts? (pretty good tie-in with old Beduin torture, eh). I do think that if the Muslim equivalant of Jimmy Swaggart was to obtain the remnants of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, he would jump at the chance to incinerate the earth, achieving martyrhood for all true believers. And vigins for everyone !!!
And what about Vietnam? Cuba? Afganistan? Sub-Saharan Africa?
I agree, the Arab world lacks a monolithic entity like the Soviet Union. Still, the U.S. Cold Warriors thought they were fighting a philosophy, not any specific nation, and that’s where the analogy is valid.
Please don’t say ‘the West’ as if you expect e.g. us Brits to support your bloodthirsty nutty ideas.
Perhaps your first sentence should read the Fundamentalist American mindset and methods…
Still at least your germ warfare will kill all those pesky Muslim children, so they can’t be indoctrinated with unthinking violent reactions… :rolleyes:
Was it one of your ancestors who passed those cholera-inected blankets to the Native Americans?
I think you mean some people haven’t progressed. Some of us civilised humans have learnt the lessons of the last two World Wars.
But surely they would understand that you are the ‘superior beings’ and they have no right to survival?
It certainly is if your policies get adopted. :smack:
You were attacked for a proposition of such stunning drooling idiocy as to be surpising that anyone of something approaching an ordinary level of intelligence who took a moment to reflect would have gone ahead with it as opposed to have shamefully deleted the text before posting.
As for dragline - why don’t reserve comment for some subject which you have some glimmer of understanding of. I presume, from the content and inanity of the commentary that you do not actually understand or watch al-Jazeerah?
Alessan: again, I see your point, but I still think there was a greater degree of uniformity in the state ideology of the communist countries in the Cold War than there is in ‘Islamic states’ today. Still, we’re arguing over degrees of the same thing here.
A good question might be, I we are nuked, do you think the U.S. might resort to nukes themselves in retaliation? What if we thought they might have another nuke aimed at us?
We dropped two nukes on Japan to save a half million people. What would we do to save the people in NYC from being nuked themselves? I’m guessing that if a nuke (full nuke, not just a dirty nuke bomb) exploded in NYC, far more than a half million would die.
glee Have a sip of tea and calm down. I don’t support any of this, I’m just wondering how it would play out. Human nature being what it is, I’m sure we haven’t seen the end of attempts to wipe out one group or another. The cholera blanket is one very good shameful example, mostly of how people can justify anything if they think god is whispering in their ear.
The Mus/rabs or somebody wishes us harm, even with some justification, I would go so far as to say. But I don’t see sitting still and taking it. Hell, I really don’t like our support of Israel, but now we’re stuck with it.
I’ll bet GB would react strongly, maybe irrationally to a suitcase nuke in downtown London. What I meant by ‘everyone can understand’ is that everyone understands "You kill one of mine, I kill 500 of yours.
The problem is that you’re not saying “we’ll kill 500 terrorists if you kill one civilian”. Nuclear weapons, or even massed conventional weapons don’t achieve that kind of precision. You’d effectively be saying “we’ll kill 500 people in your country, some of whom may possibly be terrorists but some of whom will inevitable be innocent, if you kill one civilian.”
How is that remotely morally acceptable? How would it end terrorism rather than encouraging more martyrs? There is no way you can perform any kind of utilitarian calculation on it (“One nuke there will save thousands of lives in NYC”) because you can’t predict the outcome.
One can not deter those willing to kill themselves.
Intelligence and preventive work are the proper methods to address, including cooperation with countries in the region - e.g. Morocco and the arrest of the al-Qaeda people last week in re Gibralter attacks.
Obviously blindly nuking people for the accidental coincidence of religion will do nothing to increase cooperation. To put this mildly.
BTW, there is no such word as Musrabs or any other such idiotic construction.
glee, after swiftly establishing your British superiority to our crude American ways, you actually posted this?
The only documentation we have of biological warfare from that period is an exchange of letters between two British officers (neither of whom became Americans) to use smallpox-infected blankets in the Ohio valley.
I do not agree with the premises of the OP.
I do not suggest moral superiority or even parity between folks from the U.S. or elsewhere.
The irony in your post, however, is simply irresistible.
Okay, no nukes. I never brought that up anyway, at least as a response to terrorism. But don’t you think Osama would put one somewhere if he got the chance?
I still would like to know **HOW WOULD THE US CONDUCT AN AL QAEDA STYLE WAR ON ISLAM. ** This assumes that the US was pushed over the edge mentally enough to do it. [sarcasm on] Smallpox, if you look at it from a sufficiently warped viewpoint, could be construed as one of god’s little gifts, to be used by his holy grace, with all its biblical implications. [sarcasm off]
(My construction, Mus/rabs, was a lame attempt to create a new word… sorry.)
