jump to navigation

Nuke the Muslims? June 23, 2006

Posted by Michael in Politics.
trackback

Did anyone else notice that Ace went batshit crazy at 12:30 a.m. on Wednesday morning?

Sorry, but there's not a moderate way to describe Ace's ruminations on the nuclear extermination of Islam as a response to another terrorist attack. The comment thread was almost as bad — much sympathy for this idea, and the most vocal opponent was an anonymous commenter who adopted a kind of emotional-religious tone.

A comprehensive and well reasoned reproach, I regret to say, was offered by the Blogger Who Shall Not Be Named and who will only be linked indirectly by way of the Politburo Diktat.

Comments»

1. Bart - June 23, 2006

Or, we could take the other approach offered by the commenter, Jason. He’s willing to wait for the nuclear attack by the Islamofascists, then maybe, maybe, he’ll support responding in kind.

No thanks. Count me in for pre-eminent action.

2. Michael - June 23, 2006

Ace was talking about the extermination of the Muslim world as preemptive action, not something targeted to prevent any particular perceived threat against us (e.g., Iranian nukes).

Someone pointed out that with about 50 nukes you could take out virtually every significant city in the Muslim world. Let’s say we did that.

For starters, there is no assurance that you preempted anything. You created a surviving remnant that will be seeking vengeance for a century.

Moreover, if the attack is truly preemptive, that means that you have sanctioned genocide on the basis that we kinda sorta really think a tiny minority of them are about to do something awful based upon our always-reliable intelligence. Oh, and the rest of them deserve nuclear hell because they tend to gloat on the sidelines. I don’t think too many Americans want us to be that kind of country.

I think we are on the right track, although admittedly, it will be difficult, frustrating and at times bloody. The ultimate goal is to drag the Islamic world into the twenty-first century. In the process, their theology and their culture will change radically, as happened centuries ago in the West, and their whack-jobs will be marginalized, as our own Aryan Christian and similar Timothy-McVeigh-type whack-jobs are marginalized today.

3. Muslihoon - June 23, 2006

Nuking the Muslims is not a solution. It’s understandable why some people may, at times, feel like it is a/the solution, but it is not a/the solution. Our problem, in the end, are with the active militants. Not every Muslim is devout enough to make jihad his life.

As it is, even talking about such a reaction is quite futile. The Armed Forces are in good, safe hands.

The argument should be made, however, that the US is capable of responding in less nuanced and more drastic fashions. Too many Muslims still call the US weak. The US isn’t weak. It is restrained. (I see some parallels between the US and Israel: both are restrained and yet both are accused of overreaction.)

But to go completely on the other side doesn’t help. Ace is a good guy. I’ll let this pass as a mistake. (Notice he didn’t comment in the comments section – if he were even halfway serious, I’d expect him to defend himself.)

I agree with you, Michael, that we are on the right track and that it will not be easy. President Bush has stated the last point repeatedly (and yet some people seem to forget it instantly).

4. daveintexas - June 23, 2006

We used nuclear (atomic) weapons like we used firebombs on Dresden and Tokyo.

To break their will to fight. Not to eradicate them.

I think it worked out pretty well.

5. Muslihoon - June 23, 2006

“To break their will to fight. Not to eradicate them.”

I think that’s the key.

6. skinbad - June 23, 2006

Somebody zinged Ace pretty good, I thought. He said Ace won’t call Muslim’s “ragheads” but is willing to drop a nuke on them. I think I’m agreeing with Musli, If I’m understanding correctly. Say there are areas that consistently harbor those that are killing innocent Iraqis and targeting our troops. Maybe we need to flatten a few places like that knowing full well there will be innocent lives lost. The message has to be received that it is worse for you provide cover for the murderers than to oppose them and inform on them. A horrible option, but maybe the best one available.

I saw Casey (sp?) on the news with Rumsfeld talking about how they know Iran is behind much of this violence. We need to hurt those sons of bitches. Take out a power plant or pipeline in Iran every day until they decide to stop fighting with, training, and supplying those killing our troops. Those guys need to pay.

7. Michael - June 23, 2006

The US isn’t weak. It is restrained. (I see some parallels between the US and Israel: both are restrained and yet both are accused of overreaction.)

I think perhaps Ace’s post reflects pent-up frustration with the fact that whining about U.S. “overreaction” has become one of the enemy’s most effective strategies — a strategy which U.S. liberals eagerly embrace.

Personally, I agree that we have have gotten far too finicky about precisely identifying “military” targets in a war where our opponents are not a “military.” And we worry way too much about “collateral damage.” The solution to civilian casualties is in part the responsibility of the civilians; they should keep the bad guys at a distance.

8. Michael - June 23, 2006

To put it another way, if you knowingly dine in a restaurant frequented by Mafia hoodlums, you don’t have much to bitch about when you get caught in the cross-fire.

9. steve_in_hb - June 23, 2006

Count me as less extreme than Ace, but Michael I think you are creating too much of a separation between the enemy fighters and the general Muslim population. Muslihoon, just because someone isn’t devout enough to be a jihadi, that doesn’t mean they aren’t an enemy of the US.

Only a small percent of the Muslims have the balls to actively attack us, that doesn’t change the fact that a whole hell of a lot of them are our active enemies by supporting the fighters morally, financially, and spiritually (in terms of morale, hero worship, etc). Even many of the “moderate” Muslims do this coy thing where they talk in abstract about their opposition to jihadists, do nothing to stop them, and try to mitigate the wrongness of their actions. Whether by carrot or stick, this active and passive support must stop.

Even when two countries are in an active, formal war, typically the percentage of population under arms is single digits to low teens. That doesn’t mean the non-trigger pullers aren’t our enemies. They still contribute to their side’s war effort. The truth is that we will never kill all the trigger pullers. Each year there will be another group of young men that are willing to fight. They may not be as tough, coordinated, etc as the old timers, but they are willing to fight. We have to break the spirit of the non-trigger pullers or this will never end.

Sorry Southerners, but Sherman helped win the Civil War by destroying the Confederate population’s will to fight. Hannibal knew he could never completely destroy the Roman legions or capture Rome. To defeat the Romans he had encourage/force/bribe the non-Roman Italians to stop supporting the Roman war effort. He was not successful, and despite devastating defeats the Romans were able to stay in the fight.

The people best qualified to identify and eliminate the jihadis are their coreligionists. They must do so. If they won’t do so willingly, they must be forced/cowed in to doing so. The carrot is a fine tool, but the stick frequently makes the carrot more effective. You get more with a smile and a gun then you do with a smile.

An example of what I’m talking about is the Palestinians. They elected a terrorist organization as their government. Fine, make them live with the consequences. None of this crap about trying to funnel aid money to the population using channels outside the terrorist government. Doing this just subsidizes the terror government and encourages continued destructive behavior. I know children, elderly, etc will die. Tough crap, as a group they chose their government. Eventually they will suffer to the point where they will make legitimate attempts to settle with the Israelis. Then we can help them build a decent society.

10. steve_in_hb - June 23, 2006

Michael – Obvuiously your posts durign the time I took to write my dissertation indicate that our positions are closer than I thought.

11. BrewFan - June 23, 2006

As regards Ardolino, I realize you’re sucking up to him because somehow your life is not complete unless you can comment there but the man is morally reprehensible which invalidates any seemingly rational thoughts he may exhibit from time-to-time. He banned you because he is an asshole, Michael, not because of anything you wrote. Deal with it.

12. geoff - June 23, 2006

I steered clear of that thread. I sympathize with Ace’s frustration and outright anger, and I’m very disappointed in the Muslim world’s tepid response to the poisonous ideology in their midst. But.

13. spongeworthy - June 23, 2006

Most of the Islamic world has a different culture than we’ve dealt with in previous wars. It’s a culture of shame, retribution, blood feuds and befuddling pride. You can’t embrace a tactic that plays into that culture. Sure, you could grind them under your heel and indiscriminately murder millions of them and there’s a shot they’d get with the program. But most likely you’d never be able to remove that boot from their throat. It’s not worth it.

The alternative is pretty much what we’re doing, though I think we’d be well served by a PR blitz showing Muslims what we’re really like. Sure, we are a decadent society, but many in the West do not live decadent lives. I don’t think they quite get this, this idea of staying out of each others business. Tending to your own patch.

14. Michael - June 23, 2006

As regards Ardolino . . .

He’s actually just the only blogger to respond seriously to Ace that I’ve noticed, and I only noticed because of the Commissar’s link. Like Geoff, I stayed out of that thread, but I’m glad somebody responded. Ace was over the top with that one.

15. DaveinTexas - June 23, 2006

It’s a different enemy. You use nuclear weapons as an instrument of national defense policy against nations to subdue them, take their support for the war out of them. It won’t work in this case, unless Iran…

I will say this though. I am sick and tired of the “religion of peace” bullshit. That is crap and it diminishes our resolve.

I am tired of that shit.

16. steve_in_hb - June 23, 2006

“The alternative is pretty much what we’re doing, though I think we’d be well served by a PR blitz showing Muslims what we’re really like.”

Your talking about people who simultaneously believe that Israel/CIA/Bush brought down the towers and that al qaida are heroes for bringing down the towers.

I’m not being sarcastic, but can you give me an example from history of a bitter enemy being persuaded to give up the enmity without first having pain inflicted on them? I’m trying to think of one and I can’t. There’s probably an obvious one I’m overlooking.

17. Bart - June 23, 2006

In retrospect, should we have nuked N. Viet Nam, you know, after, say, the fifth year we were involved?

Okay, so maybe not nukes in Viet Nam. But we should have gone from one end of the country to the other and crushed anything that
looked at us cross-eyed. Instead, we had, what, 15 years, of squirmishes amounting to 58,000,000 casualties?

The point is, tip-toeing around to avoid collateral damage leads to too many U.S. deaths and a failed mission.

18. Muslihoon - June 23, 2006

Only a small percent of the Muslims have the balls to actively attack us, that doesn’t change the fact that a whole hell of a lot of them are our active enemies by supporting the fighters morally, financially, and spiritually (in terms of morale, hero worship, etc). Even many of the “moderate” Muslims do this coy thing where they talk in abstract about their opposition to jihadists, do nothing to stop them, and try to mitigate the wrongness of their actions. Whether by carrot or stick, this active and passive support must stop.

Very well said and very true. May I use this quote on my blog, Steve?

I’m very disappointed in the Muslim world’s tepid response to the poisonous ideology in their midst.

Muslims need to ask themselves why the West hates them. This is reason why. Their silence is seen as complicity, which in many cases is true. (Most Muslims believe the West hates them because they hate Islam or because they are being fed lies about Islam by Zionists, neo-cons, and Christians. In reality lies not with the West but with Muslims’ behavior.) Heck, we Westerners are harsher with critics of Islam than Muslims are with terrorists and terrorist sympathizers.

It’s a culture of shame, retribution, blood feuds and befuddling pride.

The funny thing is that Muslims are very fond of saying, “Look! Islam came and eliminated bloody blood-fueds among Arab tribes! It civilized them!” And yet, they’re just as bloodthirsty as ever.

Your talking about people who simultaneously believe that Israel/CIA/Bush brought down the towers and that al qaida are heroes for bringing down the towers.

I recommend Daniel Pipe’s The Hidden Hand: Middle East Fears of Conspiracy. Talks about conspiracy theories (what they are, which prevalent theories are circulating, how they’re contradictory) iun the Miuddle East. Shows that they cannot be reasoned with at all. Just don’t tell a Muslim you’ve read it. They hate Pipes with a passion.

19. Muslihoon - June 23, 2006

Sorry, Michael. I mean to put the first paragraph in blockquote.

20. Michael - June 23, 2006

There’s probably an obvious one I’m overlooking.

Maybe Ghandi?

21. Michael - June 23, 2006

I don’t know if a PR blitz will accomplish much. I say blanket the Middle East with wireless broadband and free PCs so that everyone there can surf the net.

I’m only half kidding. Medieval Islam, in my view, cannot survive the free exchange of ideas and information. That’s why the mullahs are so desperately anxious to isolate their people from outside influences. I suspect that in the long run the internet is a bigger threat to the current version of Islam than the U.S. military.

I have the same attitude about the PRC, by the way. The fearful attempts by the political elite in China to police internet access reveals how vulnerable they really are. Or take North Korea. How long do you think the Beloved Leader could survive if people there had unrestricted access to the internet?

22. spongeworthy - June 23, 2006

I’m not being sarcastic, but can you give me an example from history of a bitter enemy being persuaded to give up the enmity without first having pain inflicted on them?

I guess I’m not convinced Islam is a bitter enemy just yet. Certainly if it was a PR blitz would be pointless and a waste of money we could be spending on plutonium. But as has been said here, Arabs have some weird and conrtradictory ideas that could stand some counterbalance. It seems to me it would be cheap and effective–just showing how Muslims live here in the U.S. and how other devout and pious citizens cope with Shirtless Hugh Jackman and such.

23. Sobek - June 23, 2006

“How long do you think the Beloved Leader could survive if people there had unrestricted access to the internet?”

Reminds me of a book I read, The Magic Lantern (I think that’s the name) about the revolutions in Eastern Europe. In one of the countries, maybe Hungary, the government once stated they would rather lose control of the secret police than of the televisions and radios.

24. Michael - June 23, 2006

how other devout and pious citizens cope with Shirtless Hugh Jackman and such

You mean we’re not going to burn Elzbth at the stake for pulling that shit?!?

*pours gasoline back into lawn mower*

25. Dex - June 23, 2006

Islam isn’t that monolithic, as we see in Iraq and other places. So saying all Muslims are complicit is a bit like saying Skinbad contributes to Warren Jeffs’ (head of the FLDS) offenses.

Granted more than one islamic sect hates the US (al-Sadr and the iranian mullahs, as well as the Wahabis and I’m sure others), but that doesn’t necessarily reflect on all Muslims.

I agree with Dave. Going nukular should be reserved for use against nation states.

26. steve_in_hb - June 23, 2006

Muslihoon – Feel free to use my scribble.

Michael – In that pacifism essay Orwell is pretty dismissive of ghandi. I don’t know much about that period, but the truth is the British Empire was on the decline – how much was ghandi and how much was going to happen anyway. Plus the English were reasonable and put restraints on what they would do to stay in power. Not ignoring the racism, incidents of brutality, etc but you get my point.

sponge – I haven’t totally bought in to the idea that Islam and the West will have WWIII. However, I think we are overly restrained. Every action is agonized over. The brutal truth is that when wars/battles/firefights happen non-trigger pullers get killed. Either we have to accept that or resign ourselves to doing nothing.

27. Sobek - June 23, 2006

“…is a bit like saying Skinbad contributes to Warren Jeffs’ (head of the FLDS) offenses.”

I just assumed Skinny did that anyway.

28. dogLover2 - June 23, 2006

Guys — I have nothing to add to your discussion here — but just wanted to say that I appreciate reading your opinions.

29. Russ from Winterset - June 23, 2006

I read a short story by Harry Turtledove a few years ago that addressed the effectiveness of Ghandi if he’d gone up against “hard boys” like the Nazis or the Stalinists. “The Last Article” is the name of the piece, and I found it in an anthology at Half Price Books (The Best Military Science Fiction of the 20th Century). It’s about an alternative history where the Nazis have won WW2 and finally captured India. Ghandi tries his passive resistance on the German commander once, then they go all, well, NAZI (imagine that!) on his ass & give him a bullet in the head after slaughtering most of his followers.

Turtledove’s alternative histories are fascinating (What if aliens had attacked Earth in early 1943? What if white supremacists from the future had stolen a time machine & provided General Lee & the Confederate Army with a supply of AK47s and ammo?), but he’s got a couple of flaws that make me grind my teeth while reading his otherwise stellar work. He’s obviously a socialist, since most of the competent heros in his work are socialists, and he’s got this strange idea that suffering breeds respect. His “Guns of the South” (where the Rebs got assault rifles) dealt with slaves winning their freedom and grudging respect from Southerners by being willing to go into the hills as partisans & let Nathan Bedford Forrest slaughter them wholesale. That concept of “blacks would have been better off if they’d fought a bitter battle for their freedom instead of having it thrust on them” just kind of creeps me out.

Another flaw in Turtledove’s books (as previously pointed out by Mrs. Peel) is that he can’t write sex scenes for shit. His work in that area is much like a cracked out monkey co-writing a Penthouse letter with Ace on a Val-U-Rite binge.

30. Muslihoon - June 23, 2006

Not to be a stick in the mud, but it’s Gandhi. In Hindi, it is the “d” which is aspirated rather than the “g.”

One can debate how successful Jawaharlal Nehru, Mohandas Gandhi, and Muhammad Ali Jinnah were in winning independence for South Asia, but the crux of the issue is that the Brits were sick and tired of their own imperial ventures. They basically gave up and left. Civil disobedience helped annoy the Brits to the point that they just decided to basically give in to nationalists’ demands rather than leave on the Brits’ terms.

31. Muslihoon - June 23, 2006

Check out this post by another former-Muslim South Asian (Yay! I’m not the only one!) blogger on Muslims’ beliefs about 9/11: “An Ugly Mindset.”

32. Mrs. Peel - June 24, 2006

Man, I can’t believe people remember random offhand comments I made months ago.

I still say “He saluted her without using his hands” (from one of the Great War books) is the dumbest-ass line in any sex scene ever. I mean, Turtledove is so bad he can’t even get rejected by the Beeb’s bad sex in fiction contest, much less make the shortlist.

33. Russ from Winterset - June 24, 2006

Never apologize for correcting bad spelling, Muslihoon. The only words I really know of Hindi came from my freshman year roomie who taught me that “lalee” means, uhm, the male reproductive organ (another friend later told me that it really means “red”, which is kind of embarrassing, since I was calling people who acted like jerks “red” all that time), and “Bai-sahib” (buy-saab), which I believe literally means “brother-sir” (we used it as slang for “dude”).

My spelling on these two are probably screwed, since I’m doing it all phonetically. Sanjay was pretty Americanized, and he only knew a handfull of Hindi words, so I never bothered to try and learn spelling – just the way to say the words.

34. Azzurra - November 4, 2006

Buon luogo, congratulazioni, il mio amico!

35. Ray - March 4, 2007

Honestly some of you people are just plain creepy. It somehow escapes you people how hard it is to move houses. So if a criminal moves two houses down the road from you, you should be expected to sell your heavily mortgaged house within a few days too eh? Otherwise the police will come ‘flattening’ your entire street just to get rid of that criminal. Don’t forget that we’re talking about a very poor country here, those civilians even given that they knew there were terrorists among them and knew in exactly which house they lived (HIGHLY UNLIKELY) couldn’t possibly be expected to live in a tent somewhere in the desert to die of freezing cold can they? Are you willing to take out a mortgage to finance a new home for them?

Your way of thinking is EXACTLY the same as that of the terrorists. They too are thinking along the same lines, as in, if we detonate a nuke on NYC it will break the American spirit and they will do as we say. What arrogance, hubris and complete disconnect with reality.

36. Marco - June 29, 2007

My sympathy is for the children but all Muslims but be destroyed! Nuke them, kill them, wipe them out…you don’t see Jews blowing up planes, you don’t see catholics with car bombs. although I can’t stand Christians, they are all sick, hopefully they won’t be shoving their demented dogma down our throats much longer…in the USA that is. Be spiritual, not religious! Get rid of Muslims!!!

37. Marco - June 29, 2007

MUST BE DESTROYED!

38. BrewFan - June 29, 2007

Be spiritual, not religious

Your philosophy is like a marshmallow; Its big and fluffy like a marshmallow. Very sweet but mostly air. And like a marshmallow has no nutritional value, this little canard has no intellectual value.

39. Wickedpinto - June 29, 2007

“These guys weren’t al quaida” “these were individuals acting on their own” “this was a lone gunman” and blah and blah and blah.

The terror related activities of individuals without specific personal grudges against one of the victims (postal workers) generaly have one thing in common.

Oh, those people may not be al-quaeda or whatever the spelling is, and they might not have been hamas or hezbollah, so the actual number of al queida attacks and the actual number of hamas or hezbollah or egyptian islamic jihad or whatever subgroup may not have specific religious built factional affiliation, but one of the things that most of the non-targeted random destruction efforts of terrorism has in common is. . . . . .

ISLAM!

Sorry, There are a lot more muslims than their are christians, and I’m an atheist, so I’m a minority in a world of a minority, who sufferes at the hands of a global majority (in islam) and I’m not worried about christians so much, but there is something about islam that makes me think that I can’t trust it, because after 1300 years, islam hasn’t accomplished a fucking thing in fighting the brutality of their own people.

Sorry, ISLAM has to take the blame, until they take responsibility, which Islam has not.

40. Sobek - June 29, 2007

“So if a criminal moves two houses down the road from you, you should be expected to sell your heavily mortgaged house within a few days too eh?”

Heh. Yeah, that’s the real problem. All those Palestinians dancing in the streets after 9/11? It’s because of their mortgages.

41. Bart - June 29, 2007

Did I really comment in this thread a year ago?

I don’t even know what pre-eminent means.

Is that even a word?

42. WILLIAM PLATT - December 24, 2007

WE SHOULD HAVE INVADED MEXICO, SPENT LESS CLOSER TO HOME, IMPROVE THE COUNTRY SO THEY WILL WANT TO GO BACK. THE COUNTRY WILL NEVER CHANGE AS LONG AS THE POWERS THAT BE ARE THERE/ TO MUCH CORRUPTION, MAKE OUR BORDERS REALLY SAFER AGAINST TERRORIST. AND STOP THE RUN AWAY ILEGALS WHO ARE THE REAL THREAT TO OUR WAY OF LIFE.NO MONEY FOR BUSH AND HIS FAMILY AND FRIENDS THERE.CALIF, ARIZ, AND OTHER STATES THE WHITES WILL BA A MINORITY ALREADY ARE IN LA.BUTS ITS NOT THE WHITES ITS BEING NON – AMERICAN AND TH EMEXICANS I RUN INTO HERE DO NO6T CONSIDER THEMSELVES AMERICAN FIRST. THIS IS THE TRUTH THINK ABOUT IT.

43. harrison - December 25, 2007

THIS IS THE TRUTH THINK ABOUT IT.

um…

ok…

44. Muslihoon - December 25, 2007

Isn’t truth to be found, not just thought up?

45. Pontius Pilate DDS - December 25, 2007

What is Tooth?

46. l.irving - July 29, 2009

Advocating setting up extermination camps gets your comment deleted. Dumbass.

-BrewFan [Asst. to the Site Administrator]

47. Vmaximus - July 29, 2009

Heh
I re read this thread, I thought it was quite good and thoughtful until Ray’s comment, then I thought “they heavily mortgage mud huts?”

I used to respect Islam. Now I do not.
I wonder why?

48. Ramon Wong - November 17, 2009

Nuking Mecca and Medina IS the solution.
How to do it?

Best time to do it is on their accursed Ramadan where they all gather on one spot.
Free plane tickets shall be provide by most country to rid themself of this plague.
After Mecca being nuked and untold billions cleansed in nuclear fire.

YEAH DO IT.

49. Peter - May 31, 2010

We may indeed have to nuke the Muslims one day. As a Christian and a Catholic, I don’t really want to kill anyone, BUT, if it ever comes to kill or be killed, I say get rid of them. Militant Islam wants to rule and dominate the world, and I would rather there was no world than having to live in a Muslim one. I would fight to the death before bowing down to any Muslim God, and that’s the just way it is. I would kill myself first, sin or not. You see, just being meek and mild is no good with these people. They have no respect for decency, peace and boundaries of human behaviour. They do respect people who stand up for what they believe in.
So yeah, if it comes to it, nuke the medieval scum.

50. Michael - December 29, 2010

Islam a religion of peace?

To those that still live under this fantasy I would like to point out some of of the many evil fruits of this satanic creed.

Since the 7th century we have witnessed the military conquest of present day Arabia, Palistine, North Africa and parts of south-eastern Europe (the Balkans, Turkey etc). All with the sword – far different to the preaching of St Paul 600 years earlier.

When it was met with resistance to it’s brutality we saw major conflicts (Battle of Tours, Battle of Lepanto, Battle of Vienna). Europe was able to fight against this foe effectively because it was united under the same religion (Christianity governed under the Catholic Church).

Islam has ruined any area or nation it touches. It is anti-intellectual, intollerant of other creeds (it is illegal to preach Christianity in Saudi Arabia) and degrades women to a status worse than cattle.

Now for the bad news my American friends. If you continue the way you are going you are going to lose. The Muslims are smarter than you may think. Since they largely do not practice contraception and kill their children through abortion (unlike the enlightened, educated, secular west in the US and Western Europe) they will out-breed you without having to bomb you at all. This is the fatal poision of liberalism born from Voltare and the French Revolution, who’s so-called ideals your country is built upon. This is the denial of rights of God over man and the state. It is the enshrining of indifference to religion in law. The secular liberal believes that all religions are praiseworthy and should be tollerated. This is patently false – you only need to look at the fruits of each religion to see the relative merits or demerits of each. Think about it – if it were true that all religions were equally decent, then I could practice human sacrifice like the Aztecs and still be a good citizen in the eyes of others.

This is the trap you are in when you buy into the secular liberal stance. You believe it is your duty to show tollerance to all religions yet it is this indifference to religion that will destroy you. In the Catholic Church it was taught that error has no rights – you have instead enshrined error in your laws. You so-called “right to choose” denies the smallest of your citizens the right to live and in doing so you will kill yourselves in the long run. Take a look at France – it is being overrun by the Muslims who don’t give a damn about liberty, equality and fraternity. But becuase they are trapped by this liberal maddness, they cannot judge, they cannot exercise common sense. They have to include, affirm and compromise with the enemy.

There are many things in the history of the US I admire – the destruction of the evils of Nazism and the liberation of the Pacific from the Japanese are things you can be very proud of. Unfortunately your country (and mine as well) is in the grips of a moral crisis. Weather you like it or not, if you believe in God or not, the west was founded on Christian principles. The university, the hospital, the rule of law as we know it today – all of this owes it roots to Christianity, which is furiously denied by the liberal secularists, the femminists and the socialists. Like it or not – in turning your back on this heritage you are opening yourself to this terrible onslaught in the form of Islam. Predetor drones and smart bombs cannot defeat this enemy.

51. Whoopie - December 29, 2010

There’s Michael and there’s Michael-Michael.

52. BrewFan - December 29, 2010

@50, you won’t find many to argue with on this blog. My secret santa gave me The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States by Benjamin F. Morris. It is the book liberals like to pretend doesn’t exist.

53. john - August 12, 2011

I live in London and if you let enough into your country your fucked! Just beg your immigration officers to do the right thing! Nobody had heard of them 20 years ago – now they are taking over.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: