We Need to Start Fighting Islamic Terrorists

  • by Gitabushi

The views expressed in this post are mine and mine alone, and do not necessarily reflect on the views of PC Bushi or Kaiju Bushi.

20170522_zaf_l94_098-680c6ad3-ee37-4383-9738-e9e774684eea
Credit: Joel Goodman/London News Pictures/Zuma

“You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”

The Western World may not want a war with Islamic Extremists, but Islamic Extremists have taken away that choice.

Western leaders are gaslighting us on Islamic Terror.  Elites will repeat that your chance of being killed by an Islamic Terrorist is less than that of being struck by lightning, or some other bullshit statistic.  They will repeat that Islam is a religion of peace. They will repeat that moderate Muslims aren’t attacking us, that we shouldn’t punish moderate Muslims for the actions of a few, etc., etc., etc

1) Your chances of being killed by a Terrorist are vanishingly small

Who cares?

“Millions for defense, not one cent for tribute.”

This is the spirit of the United States. We are a free people. A death from an Islamic Terrorist is an act of war, a deliberate murder, a violation of our Right to Life. Getting struck by lightning is not. There is a qualitative difference, and it is the most base deception to compare those two.

The responsibility of our leaders is to take reasonable precautions to seek our best interests. It is not in our best interests to be killed by terrorists any more than it is to be struck by lightning.  However, people can be deterred from becoming terrorists, and terrorists can be stopped by reasonable actions (discussed later in this piece). Lightning cannot. Lightning deaths are not within the responsibility of our leaders. Stopping terrorist deaths is. Why do they give excuses to gaslight us into accepting a few deaths every few months?

2) Islam is a religion of peace

Who cares?

We won’t kill someone just for believing in Islam. We should kill people who embrace terrorism. Non sequitur.

3) Moderate Muslims aren’t attacking us, we shouldn’t punish them by refusing to allow them to emigrate to the West.

More gaslighting.

What is a moderate Muslim? To what extent do moderate Muslims facilitate terror by funding via donations to radical mosques, by providing rhetorical cover for extremists, by providing numbers for the terrorists to hide among?

I’m not saying we need to start killing Muslims en masse, of course, but a government, any government, owes its first responsibility to its current citizens.  Any government is also supposed to moderate/resolve problems between existing citizens. So in the first case, we are under no obligation to permit another Muslim to enter our nation until they work harder to root out and eliminate terrorists. In the second case, Muslims who are already citizens should follow the US Constitution as their primary law. Sharia should never be allowed to supplant US Law at any level. Honor killing, FGM, donations to radical mosques, etc., should be prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.

Some will  point to the current/recent attacks as evidence (or even proof) that the War on Terror is a failure. After all, we started back in 2001 and they are still conducting successful attacks 16 years later.

This is an incorrect interpretation.

First, we have never fully prosecuted the war on Islamic Extremism. George W Bush said that if you supported terrorists, we would treat you like a terrorist, but he never really followed through. We invaded Afghanistan and toppled their terrorist regime. We toppled Saddam Hussein’s terrorist regime. But even with Iran surrounded, we never threatened to end their terrorist regime. We did nothing as Erdogan used terror tactics against the Kurds. We just fought terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But even with those mild measures, we were winning. From 2006 to 2009, terrorist attacks were down worldwide.  The flypaper strategy of attracting terrorists to Iraq and Afghanistan was working.

What changed?

The United States elected a President that didn’t want to defeat Islamic Terrorism and thought that a powerful, confident United States was bad for the world, and he prioritized his vision for worldwide interests over United States’ national interests.

Due to his views, he had us pull out of Iraq while before their commitment to democracy and liberty were able to take root. He imposed rules of engagement in Afghanistan that made it more difficult to effectively combat terrorism. He loosened restrictions that prevented terrorists from entering the US. He toppled Qaddafi, who had stopped engaging in terror, allowing al Qaida and other Islamic terrorist groups to have unrestricted access to weaponry. He did nothing to deter or stop the rise of ISIS and of Islamic Terror organizations in Africa. He released dozens of terrorists from Gitmo. He changed policy so that we no longer captured terrorists, but killed them, resulting in the loss of additional first-hand information on terror plans from interrogating captured terrorists. He turned the focus of the Intelligence Community away from combating terror toward spying on his political enemies.  And he gaslight us again and again and again, by refusing to call Islamic terror by its name, by claiming obviously-coordinate attacks were unpredictable “Lone Wolf” efforts, by blaming terror attacks on guns, or workplace violence, or something else.

George W Bush didn’t go all-out to combat terrorism, but we were still winning. Obama could not have done a better job cultivating Islamic Terror than if his actions were a deliberate attempt to do so.

We need to return to an active posture in combating terrorism. We need to do what George W Bush did, but more so.

We need to change their calculus.  We need to make them believe that becoming a terrorist (or in their minds, a Holy Warrior) will mean their futile death. We need to deny them successes, and we do that by fighting and killing them overseas, in their land. We need to deny terrorists easy access to the United States. That means no more refugees, and that means significant efforts to combat radical ideology targeting US citizens, and ending terrorist funding via Islamic charities.

Some innocent people will be wrongfully impacted by these actions, yes.

But as I quoted, “Millions for defense, not one cent for tribute.”

There is a principle at stake. There are always false positives and false negatives. Western leaders have prioritized the interests of the innocent Muslims at the expense of innocent non-Muslims.  However, it is a subset of Islam that is actively attacking and killing innocent non-Muslims.  If innocent Muslims are harmed by a renewed War on Radical Islam, it is the fault of the subset of Muslims, in the same way that a person robbing a home is charged with murder if the homeowner kills his accomplice.

If the Islamic Terrorists were not attacking the West, the West would not respond by killing Islamic Terrorists.

The question of the extent that moderate Muslims support extreme Muslim terrorists is undetermined.  But the fact that it is uncertain means there is a possibility moderate Muslims are not innocent.

But the teens that attended the Ariana Grande concert are purely innocent in any religious war. Islamic Terrorists targeted them, and killed many. This removes the benefit of the doubt for moderate Muslims.  We should not target them. We should not intentionally harm them or damage their interests. But we can no longer afford to consider their interests when Islamic Terrorists are using them to launch deadly attacks on the unquestionably innocent.

The point of war is to eliminate the enemy’s will to fight. We never really tried to do that before. We must fully eliminate Islam’s Will to Kill Westerners. Whatever it takes.

It is time to go to war.

 

 

Advertisements

44 thoughts on “We Need to Start Fighting Islamic Terrorists

  1. I think part of the problem is that this isn’t like any traditional war. It’s a war on a cowardly ideology that takes root but does not exist solely in sponsor states. It’s a generational war and a culture war. It’s not something that can likely be won in our lifetimes; especially with most of the Left surrendering and denying that there is such a war.

    Also too, it is difficult for democracies to maintain protracted wars. War weariness leads to presidents like Carter II. And successes mean fewer attacks, which means a less galvanized people. You can see it in how right after 9/11 there was a swell of support for anti-terror measures…followed years later by the swing of the pendulum, where every spy film became about the evils of Big Brother violating liberty in the name of security.

    I think this conflict needs to be reframed somehow. I don’t have the answer, though.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I do. Remove all Muslims from western soil. Moderate Muslims can be Moderate in Muslim countries. Also, liberal use of Hydrogen Bombs in the Middle East should be a priority. Our motto should become “five thousand to one”.

    For every one casualty the western world receives we must inflict five thousand on them. This program should not cease until Byzantium is fully restored and Islam is an abject historical warning that some things should be crushed utterly.

    Like

    1. I mean, in a hypothetical situation where that’s politically and realistically viable, maybe?

      But then I don’t see that as a very Christian solution, either. I’m all for taking the war to them. And if they’re going to hide behind women and children and set up rocket silos in schools and hospitals…well, as much as I hate to say it, that’s on them. But all out and unreserved nuking of civilians (Muslim or not) to get at the pockets of militants…I don’t think I could get on board with that.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I think the ideology presents a clear and unavoidable danger to Christendom, and humanity in general. The total destruction of the followers and lands of them should be performed quickly and decidedly. I would sanction Hydrogen Bombs against Saudi Arabia as the home of the vast amount of this nonsense. I would then systematically annihilate every Islamic country on earth.

        The reconquista of Spain took hundreds of years. When America was being founded the Spaniards were still battling Muslims.

        This is the best option of not drawing the fight out, but decisively concluding a war waged against US for 1400 years.

        Japan, China, Poland, and up until very recently Ireland did not have a Muslim problem. Because they are not there. If the only thing that prevents the sanctioned murder of children is to entirely remove the heresy from this earth so be it.

        I’m especially wounded by the deliberate attack on children, at an exit by an object meant to rend flesh. I’m over moral quandaries and speculation. The Middle East needs to be turned to glass and Mecca should be so radioactive that for a thousand years no one could survive its presence.

        Like

      2. I think nuclear weapons should only be last resort. We can/should aim the guns at the radical terrorists, and it is up to the moderate Muslims to move out of the way.
        That’s as far as I’d go, and I think that’s as far as we need to go.

        Indonesia and Malaysia has as few problems with Islamic violence as Japan and Poland, again, until just recently.
        That’s because they were converted by economics, I think, and not by conquest.
        But the violent ideology took root.
        We need to tear up that root, but we do it by going after the extremists, specifically and explicitly.
        If we start nuking, we just start a war with 1 billion Muslims, some of whom have nukes of their own (Pakistan and Iran, surely…maybe Saudi Arabia has some hidden).
        All we need to do is prove, beyond any doubt, that terrorists will die in futility. That will cause them to stop using terror.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Meh.
        There’s room for disagreement on just how forceful we should get, and against which Muslims.
        We should spend our energy now on ensuring we gather and maintain the will to take the fight to Islamic extremists. We’ve lacked that the last 8 years.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. Agreed. I can draw from history that only extremely violent war ever curbed Islam. I.E. Ghengis Khan and the Mongols in general. I’m basing my opinions on that context.

        I’m also incapable of mercy to people who deliberately harm children. I would see all of them dead to prevent one child from the rest of the world from dying.

        Like

      5. Yanno, I think I did just take a step closer to your way of thinking since my last comment.
        This happened when I realized that the Islamic Extremists relationship to Moderate Muslims and their Women and Children could be seen as similar to the relationship between the Japanese Imperial Army and their civilians, women, and children.
        Sure, the children didn’t support Japan’s plans to rule over the rest of Asia as slaves. But they were being raised to accept that as the correct way to think.
        When it became necessary to bomb the Japanese mainland to finally defeat Japan’s will to fight, we did it.

        I’d still like to try just taking out Islamic combatants first, though.

        Like

      6. I’m not balanced when it comes to defending children, so take my words with salt. But I agree, utter destruction can rearrange a society for the better.

        Like

      7. I was wondering when Japan would come up. I’m not a big believer in condemning the leaders who decided to nuke Japan or in apologizing for all eternity…but as you can see, I think it was an evil.

        Like

      8. I don’t. The two bombs saved more lives than would have been lost invading Japan to force a surrender, and probably saved more civilian lives (from conventional bombing to prep fro an invasion) than they took.

        Like

      9. I could have used Germany as easily. We bombed cities and factories. Firebombed Dresden.
        The point is that Islamic non-combatants are as liable for the actions of the extremists as German and Japanese civilians were in WWII.

        I’m convinced most moderate Muslims pray for the victory of Islam over the West. Most want Islamic Caliphate installed worldwide. Plurality agree that terror tactics against the West are justifiable. They raise their children to believe dominance over non-believers is correct. Etc, etc.

        Liked by 1 person

      10. We, too, then, would be deliberately killing women and children. Sure, many of the women are supporters of the death cult. And the children are recruits. But it would still be the intentional destruction of the innocent along with the guilty.

        This is the same reason I think dropping the nukes on Japan was an evil (though I don’t believe in villainizing those who had to make that decision or in continually apologizing for mistakes of the past).

        Like

      11. Right.
        We need to fight. The US military is the best in the world, by far. We can fight and kill with minimal risk, especially with assistance from the still very capable militaries of UK, Canada, Australia, maybe Japan.

        Like

      12. Let me try again. Concru Japan does not equal Islam.
        But I’m becoming convinced that it is a mistake to separate Islamic Terrorists from so-called moderate Muslims, anymore than you’d separate an army from the populace that supports that army.
        Sure, you fight the army in the field, not civilians.
        But when we encountered societies that were completely mobilized and motivated for war, we found it necessary to attack the society itself to finally end their will to fight.

        Not ideal, and I’d like to try everything else first, but I can no longer grant them plausible deniability for terror support. The Terrorists are the Army for their socio-political goals. They allow terrorists to use guerrilla tactics (not fielding normal combatants), allow them to blend into civilian populations to more effectively kill western military *and* western civilians.
        We can no longer allow that to continue unchallenged.

        Liked by 1 person

      13. It’s funny that Sherman is considered a monster by some for applying that kind of logic to his campaign in the South. And he wasn’t even executing women and children.

        Like

      14. As for Japan, I know that is a popular argument. And it may be right. But killing one innocent person so that others may live is still an evil. “The greater good” can easily become very utilitarian. Having visited Hiroshima and seen what those nukes did to children…I can’t help but see that as evil.

        That’s not to say I wouldn’t make the same decision if it were between my family and a stranger’s. But that wouldn’t make me moral or righteous. Ultimately it’s between us and God, I suppose. I just know there are some lines I don’t want to cross.

        Like

      15. I have argument with any of this.
        It’s easier to explain after the fact, after we haven’t used it since, then it would be to have to make the decision to use it or not.

        FWIW, I don’t think pure utilitatarian arguments should trump all others. But it does have to be in the mix somewhere. The human cost of decisions must be considered, and the cost of not acting counts, too.
        I guess for me, a little of it comes down to: who started it, and what are they doing/will they keep doing if not stopped?

        Meaning, if you invade a country due to purely national security concerns, you should stick to basic warfare or face consequences.
        If you are invading a country that is engaged in genocide and will continue doing so, the blame for any harmed innocents should be on the nation engaged in genocide: they forced other nations to get involved, and refused to stop with less than brutal force.
        And yet more lax standards should be imposed on a country that was attacked by a genocidal, murderous nation.

        That’s why I don’t feel too bad, say, about the civilians in Germany who died from Allied bombing. Those people died because Hitler attacked, at least tacitly supported atrocities, and those atrocities would have continued if we hadn’t gone quite far in destroying Germany’s will to fight, including bombing runs on industrial centers in which civilians were killed.

        Still, that’s not the same as *targeting* civilians, which I think is very, very wrong. But it would probably be fairly easy for someone to concoct some possible scenarios that could justify targeting civilians.

        So….

        Like

  3. What’s the counter ideology, the faith, the name in which you will strike them down?

    Islam works because it’s just such an ideology, a faith, a name. It’s inspiring. We westerners can wag our finger all we want, but the majority of us should rather be in horrified awe of it. I mean, this man walked into a crowd and blew himself up, taking down 19 of his enemy’s children with him, harming untold others, and striking fear throughout the western world. Set aside your own rightly ordered hatred for just a second – be in awe of the kind of devotion that engenders.

    Now, I’m not saying we should act in kind (or even go to Oghma’s extent, though the Catholic Crusader in me sympathizes more than I care to admit). However, we have to recognize that this is happening because we don’t have a counter-ideology (or more specifically, a faith) which has anywhere near the sort of inspirational quality of Islam.

    Well, actually, we started dismantling the faith that could counter it around 1517 in Germany, rebelled against it in the 17th century, attempted to murder it around 1789 in France, started ignoring it in the 20th century, and today call it heresy in the face of it’s denial of modernity. But that’s none of my business.

    Yes, we know our enemy. Now in who’s name will you strike him down? If that name isn’t strong enough, well, stick your head between your legs and kiss your butt good bye.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. For me, Liberty is enough.
      I put boots on the ground in support of OEF and boots on the ground in Iraq in support of OIF for it.
      But I think the Deus Vult is simply proving to them their god does not support their efforts by vigorously prosecuting a war on them and killing all their combatants.
      “Convert or Die” is one way to eliminate an enemy’s will to fight, but it isn’t the only way.
      We actually had Islamic Terrorism on the decline from 2006 to about 2009. Iraq was mostly peaceful, we were killing so many in Iraq that they switched to AF to engage us, and lost badly there, too.
      Then we pissed it away for temporary domestic political purposes, instead of pushing on into Iran (the main source of remaining instability in AF and Iraq at the time).

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I am the punishment of God…If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a man like me to punish you -Ghengis Khan

        Liked by 1 person

  4. The promise of a carnal pleasure filled paradise of sexual desire ingrained into them from birth as they may only typically have sexual relations with first cousins or captured rape slaves.

    That’s not devotion, it’s depravity. I too have seen Hiroshima. Inazo Nitobe’s “Bushido” sums my thoughts up well on this.

    “War should be won with iron, not salt.” A war of pushing sums and supplies is only a gain for the grave. Quick, decisive, unrelenting force unleashed in such a way that ‘moderates’ will take up arms to kill extremists to prevent retaliation is my direct train of reasoning.

    Like

    1. The most humane way to wage war is to make it so painful your enemy just wants to stop immediately.
      Which is evil if you’re a conqueror, but mitigated by being a liberator or a defender.

      I know it is fiction, but I think Man in the High Castle shows what the world would be like if it hadn’t been the US to drop the first atomic bomb.
      We did it so we could stop the war and establish a free, peaceful Japan. Japan or Germany would have done it to enslave and slaughter those they considered their inferiors. Surely that counts for *something*.

      (Yes, Japan is not that nation now. But it was then)

      Liked by 1 person

      1. One of the problems with nukes is that they’re not just ball of destruction, and this is especially important if you’re going to be bombing cities or targets where women and children are going to be caught in the blast zones. You’re salting the earth and inflicting horrible, enduring pain and pestilence. The pitiful withering deaths suffered by victims of nuclear fallout (including children) in the days, months, and years following the bombs…I don’t even want to think about it.

        Like

    2. Although I want us to overwhelmingly destroy Islamofascist capability to fight, and am caring less about collateral damage among the civilians that enable and facilitate the Islamofascist foot soldiers, I still don’t want to use nukes unless there truly is no other choices.
      Because it *is* one thing to to try to make the enemy despair of having any success, so they lose the will to fight.
      But if you threaten them with an existential threat, then they have nothing to lose by going to an all-out war. We don’t want that, either.
      And a nuclear attack, or otherwise targeting civilians indiscriminately, does constitute an existential threat.

      Dunno. My views aren’t fully set on this issue yet.

      My overall point, however, is to accomplish the mission with the least amount of death possible. And the mission is to convince Muslims that trying to kill non-Muslims is futile.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I would not advocate civilian targets. I would also add that for each terror attack and extraordinary retaliation would occur. If moderates begin dismantling the system that fuels the tooth of the beast because they fear what a reprisal would do, I believe they would choose self policing.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I would also again point out historical references to what the Mongols did after Muslims killed merchants of theirs. The retaliation was so overwhelming brutal it set Arabic countries back hundreds of years. They did not to my knowledge bother Mongolians again.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Well I RESPECT UR VIEWS ALOT, DEAR AUTHOR….BUT TELL ME DO U THINK EXTREMISTS ARE CONSIDERES AS MUSLIMS???ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE WHICH DENIES TERRORISM, DO U KNOW THESE EXTREMISTS ARE NOT TRUE MUSLIMS, SO PLZ DONT DISRESPECT THE ENTIRE MUSLIM COMMUNITY BY ADDING THE WORD MUSLIMS BEFORE EXTREMISTS, HPE U UNDERSTAND

    Liked by 1 person

  6. An excellent article. I used to be more more on the left-leaning and liberal end of the scale. Although I have been moved by recent events in my former homes of Australia and the UK to realising that there needs to be concrete action made- either kick people with fundamentalist views out of Western countries, or put them into prisons. Although in saying all of that any wars waged in the name of gods are ridiculous -After all, nobody has ever waged a war in the name of atheism – and I’m sticking to that because it’s not coloured by externally dictated norms and ideas. If only the world worked from a place of atheism and with a rational understanding of how to treat others instead of placing religion at the centre of it. The main stream media also turned me away from the left- the gaslighting as you said – the whitewashing and playing down of the horrible nature of what’s going on. Suddenly when a terrorist attack happens in London it’s called an ‘Incident’ and not an ‘attack’. Politicians jump around and huff and puff and Theresa May says ‘enough is enough’ but there’s no post-script or actionable process that anybody puts in place in order to actually practically do anything to stop this from happening. It’s easy really – remove people’s citizenships or visas who have any sort of terrorist connections, kick them out of the country and never allow them back in again- as soon as they come onto intelligence/Mi5/ ASIO/CIA’s radar job done and problem solved.

    Like

  7. Reblogged this on Content Catnip and commented:
    An excellent article. I used to be more more on the left-leaning and liberal end of the scale. Although I have been moved by recent events in my former homes of Australia and the UK to realising that there needs to be concrete action made- either kick people with fundamentalist views out of Western countries, or put them into prisons. Although in saying all of that any wars waged in the name of gods are ridiculous -After all, nobody has ever waged a war in the name of atheism – and I’m sticking to that because it’s not coloured by externally dictated norms and ideas. It’s about the gathering of knowledge and your own capacity of how to behave towards others and how to care for people. If only the world worked from a place of atheism and with a rational understanding of how to treat others instead of placing religion at the centre of every justification of bloody and disgusting clashes. The main stream media also turned me away from the left in recent times. The gaslighting, the whitewashing and playing down of the horrible nature of what’s going on. Suddenly when a terrorist attack happens in London it’s called an ‘Incident’ and not an ‘attack’. Politicians jump around and huff and puff and Theresa May says ‘enough is enough’ but there’s no post-script or actions that the government puts in place in order to practically change anything to stop this from happening. It’s easy really – remove people’s citizenships or visas who have any sort of terrorist connections, kick them out of the country and never allow them back in again- as soon as they come onto the radar of intelligence agencies – job done and problem solved. Sorry – this is the end of my rant and normal fluffy, inspiring transmission will resume shortly.

    Like

  8. There are at least 3 million Muslims in America and over half of them were born there. Many came over with the African slaves by force , later many came to improve their living standards and enjoy democracy. America allowed them freedom of religious practice they even waived the secular rules to accommodate these Muslims. Mind you they had little choice as they already did the same for many Christians. The vast majority of Christians and Muslims are nominal in other words they are far more concerned with their lifestyles than their religious beliefs.
    If I go to live in Saudi Arabia I must learn to live an alcohol free life they are the rules. Likewise in secular democracies we must insist on no sharia but on our own countries rules. Unfortunately we westerners have been too lenient and our mistakes are coming home to roost.
    We have invaded Muslim countries to enforce our way of life and our democratic beliefs , removing dictators and setting up our own institutions.

    Like

  9. MUSLIMS ARE NOT TERRORISTS.
    EXTREMISTS ARE PRESENT EVERYWHERE EVEN IN MUSLIM STATES.
    MUSLIMS PROMOTE LOVE AND PEACE NOT TERRORISM.
    THOSE ARE JUST BOGUS NEWS TO GIVE A BAD NAME TO MUSLIMS.
    TERRORISTS FOLLOW NO RELIGION.

    Like

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s