Saturday, July 30, 2005

Anarchy in the UK (and Everywhere Else)

Islam is what you would get if a bunch of anarchists decided to start a religion.

There is no global leadership and all decisions are made at the local level. In other words, there are millions of small pockets of Islam who are doing whatever they think is right. There is no main authority making policy for this religion.

That really struck home when it was crowed all over the news this week that about 130 Islamic groups had issued a "fatwah" against the terrorists. Everybody was saying, "It's about time" and "This is just what is needed."

My reaction was, "So what?" From what I understand, these are all small, local groups. Even if every one of them had 1,000 members, that's only 130,000 people. Out of about 1.5 billion Muslims. Sure, it's a step in the right direction, but it's going to take a whole lot more than that to stop these terrorists.

There is no main, global body (like the Vatican, for instance) that can issue an international fatwah, thereby allowing tens-of-thousands of Muslim groups around the world to continue to support the terrorists.

And I don't think that that number is inflated by any means. If anything it seems to be very conservative judging by recent polls from the Muslim community. Yes, support for the terrorists has dropped in the Muslim community, but a lot of the poll numbers are still hovering around 50%. That's a lot of people who still support the terrorists!

Until this religion finds a leader who will bring the vast majority of Muslims together in condemning terror and reforming their religion, we are going to have to keep killing these people. Eventually, after a massive attack on the U.S., which will happen, we are going to have to kill them in very large numbers.

Republicans roundly condemned Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) for suggesting that we nuke Muslim holy sites if the terrorists nuke us, but that was a knee-jerk, politically correct reaction. Have any of them thought about what our reaction to Muslim terrorists nuking a US city should or would be?

Think about it: what should we do when it happens? I want an answer.

And I have no doubt that it will happen, whether next week or ten years from now. If we can't stop Mexican bean-pickers from sneaking across the border, what makes anyone think that we can stop a terrorist with a nuke?

Are we going to say that this was just a lone nutcase so as not to have to retaliate? Not to have to make the hard decision to end this war decisevely and let them nuke us again and again? Have we come that far in our political correctness? Or are we going to massively retaliate against these countries who are helping and supplying these people? There really will be no middle ground there.

The Left denigrates George Bush for trying to implant democracy in the Mideast, but that really is the only middle ground before-the-fact. If we can democratize these people before they nuke us, we won't have to make those hard decisions.


  1. What an insightful site, your posts really show your intelligent reasoning and how passionate you are about the problems/issues as you view them in your country, it always impresses me how Americans are so vocal, and prepared to make their points whether it is in blogs or other mediums.

    I would like to see your comedic side in these posts too, clearly you have a fierce command of language, and it would be interesting to see what makes you laugh.

  2. How does this make Islam different from Protestant Christianity? There are little pockets of Christianity (they call then "churches", though) all over the globe, answerable only to themselves or at most to the leadership of a denomination that encompasses several widely scattered "pockets".

    So, most Christians are "anarchists", by your definition.

    So are Hindus, Jews, Buddhists and most other religious people.

    Even religions were they make a big deal about top-down organization with One Big Kahuna in charge, like the Catholics and the Mormons, have spawned schismatic sects (more "pockets") that reject the authority of the head of the church.

    In fact Mecca, and specifically the mysterious object called the Kaaba, is just about the only "center" Islam could be said to have. And you seem to think that taking that one thing away would somehow make Muslims easier to control?

    Oh, and while we're on the subject, what exactly are you anticipating as a response from Muslims to the destruction of Mecca? 1) Cowering in abject fear and never daring to respond? 2) Being inspired with an overflowing love for America? or 3) Something else, possibly similar to the way you would react if someone murdered your children?

  3. So, most Christians are "anarchists", by your definition.

    Actually, if you look at the numbers, most Christians world-wide answer to the Vatican. Of those that don't, most have some sort of similar structure.

    The Baptists are probably closest to the Muslim situation that Exile is describing.

    In fact Mecca, and specifically the mysterious object called the Kaaba, is just about the only "center" Islam could be said to have. And you seem to think that taking that one thing away would somehow make Muslims easier to control?

    What? I don't see anywhere in Exile's post where he suggests nuking either of these sites would make Muslinms easier to control. The fine sentator from Colorado suggests it as a possible retalitory strike, though I personally think we would be better off going after countries who provide sanctuary for the scumbag terrorists, and if somewhere like Mecca happens to be collateral damage, then so be it.

  4. Thanks, Stuffle for responding at least as well as I could have.

    And Stuffle was right: I didn’t recommend that we nuke Mecca. However, I certainly wouldn’t take it off the table as an option. Funny how you Lefties automatically jump to the conclusion that we here on the right are just itching to kill millions of people for no apparent reason other than “hate”. You have fallen prey to your own propagandist fairytales.

    If and, I believe, when they set off a nuke in this country they will have murdered our children first. So what should our response be to that? Why is it that you skip the first part and jump right to us killing their children?

    Also typical of the Left, you have no answer to the question that I asked, just criticism. That’s because you have even less of an idea than I do what we’d do about the possible situation because, for you, a military response isn’t even an option.

    The only way that I can see to stop the mass-murder of our people is to get these governments that harbor and help terrorists to control them. And the only way to do that may very well be to take out some of their cities. If Saudi Arabia lost Riyadh or Mecca, they may finally get serious about controlling the scum in their midst.

    If you have a better idea, let’s hear it. If not, piss off. I can get puling anywhere on the Left. If I want answers I ask the people on the Right, who are the only ones doing any actual thinking.

  5. An idea? Here's one: pursue criminals, while trying not to deliberately antagonize an entire culture.

    That, of course, would involve not thinking in ethnic and religious stereotypes.

  6. Hi, Thanks for your interesting blog. Keep up the great work! I also have a site & blog about dog wheel chair, please feel free to visit.