I am wondering if people can critique this.

I think this guy makes a very powerful case about the only real way to end the evil which is the Jihadist war against the west. I would like to hear what people have to say about it and see if they have any viable alternatives.

https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2015/11/ten-steps-to-end-jihad-against-the-west/

 

Let's start with this:

Many residing in the West, people such as yourself, fail this basic test. So right off the bat, the article starts by identifying only a subset of Americans and Europeans as worthy.

As to the ten principles for fighting jihad, the first six are fine as a broad framework, though there is quite a bit to disagree with in the specifics. Points 7 through 10 are something the author explicitly repudiates in the quote. Ironic that he needs to thoroughly violate that establishing principle, but then, that's what bigoted shit stains do.

 

A counterproductive attempt to turn a practical problem into hatred of whole groups. The claims about Islam in the latter parts are simply empirically false, and the logic in the first two thirds stumbles for this reason. To pick just one repeated example: He keeps telling us that "Islamic regimes that have sponsored terrorism or attacks against the West" are our enemies. What is the logical contribution of 'Islamic' to those sentences? Why is a regime that backs attacks on the West without being Islamic not our enemy?

 

He doesn't go quite far enough. The enemy isn't Muslims, the enemy is Islam, false teachings made up by a criminal who sold his soul to Satan and worked to lead God's children into Hell by making them commit atrocities, reject God's words, and worship a pagan shrine five times a day, every day, for as long as they live.

As with Jesus, in Muhammed's hour of crisis outside Medina Satan came to him, offering him the riches of the Earth, such as gold, sex with underage female captives, the slaughter of his enemies, the ritual torture and execution of those that resisted him, vast armies of mindless warriors, and dominion over all the lands. Unlike Jesus, Muhammed, did not refuse the offer. He gladly became Satan's agent on Earth and quickly enslaved all the Arab peoples, leading them to eternal damnation and tricking them into giving their souls to Satan. All of Muhammed's teachings and actions after Medina are pure evil. He twisted Old Testament stories so that the heroes were heroic because they committed atrocities to satisfy their own personal honor.

It is left to us to put an end to Satan's reign over Muslims by shining a light on Muhammed's trickery and duplicity. Bashing women's skulls in with rocks does not please God. Brutally executing those who see the light of the true God and thus reject Satan's false prophet is likewise not something that pleases God. God abhors these things, as he abhors Islam, the religion Satan dictated to Muhammed.

 

He seems to advocated using nuclear weapons on Iran, Saudi Arabia, ISIS, and parts of Lebanon to male an example of them. That is really the only way his system seems to work and why he advocated using all available means at the west's disposal. It is certainly extreme as it would mean becoming what you say you hate.

I much prefer the idea of just not letting them in and saying you guys stay over there and we stay over here.

 

Well, my approach is to attack their weakness, which is the rigidity and certainty that is Islam. It's a very brittle belief system because it demands that every adherent believe absolutely everything contained in the Koran as absolutely true. They can debate the Hadith to a good extent because the accounts come from a variety of witnesses whose testimony has to be weighed like any witness (the one part of Islamic jurisprudence that shows logic and reason), but if any part of the Koran is false then the whole thing must be false, because God doesn't lie.

They've thrown logic out the window by arguing that even if some bizarre commandment (such as stoning women) doesn't make sense to humans, it is best for us and Allah is infinitely smarter than we are. I would venture that among all the trouble makers, there isn't a trace of doubt in the absolute perfection of the Koran, though the foot soldiers may have large areas of ignorance about certain parts.

But we in the West have a crucial advantage, our own religion of the Torah and New Testament, which we've have studied, dissected, and analyzed for centuries in the way we have to tear apart everything looking for kernals of meaning or clues as to origins, the kind of shit you learn in university religious studies departments. As you know, Muhammed reworked a whole bunch of Old and New Testament stories into the Koran as he heard them talked about by the Christians and Jews in Saudi Arabia. He had no way of knowing which stories would later be dismissed by many of those Christians and Jews as utter nonsense that was just meant to advance the plot or settle some long standing dispute. He didn't know which stories would get rejected as ridiculous crap (false teachings!) by the very experts on those stories who've studied them far longer than any Muslim.

We are in a position to correct some of their mistaken information, even under their own rule sets for the Hadith, and Islam cannot survive a single fundamental correction. Muslim reformers point this out, and it's why the laws demanding death for apostasy or heresy are still on the books 1,300 years later. Pull one thread and the whole thing unravels.

If Christians go on a rant about the Jews and their idiotic story about Noah's ark, Muslims will at first listen because it's Christians ranting about Jews. But if in that rant the Christians show that the story is idiotic nonsense because it's a failed attempt to rework an earlier ridiculous Babylonian polytheistic story about the flood into an even more ridiculous monotheistic one, a version that even God wouldn't touch because he'd be mocked and laughed at, you will have embedded a whole lot of facts in their head before they realize that Muhammed's version of Noah (Nu) must likewise be bullshit. And if the story is false, God couldn't have written it, and if God didn't write it, then Muhammed was lying.

You could do much the same with stories about Moses (even Rabbis admit that there's just no way Jews were ever Egyptian slaves), Abraham, and many others, but the point is that by "taking one for the team", we can be absolutely toxic to Islam. The thoughts we freely express can trivially be tetracycline and penicillin and completely fatal to Islamic belief - without ever once attacking Islam or Muslims. We can just be the non-fertile soil where Islamic belief goes to die, leaving an apostate standing in a devout Muslim's clothes. The apostate might ask us about Jesus, or about Buddha, or about science, but he's probably going to give up on the 72 virgins right then.

There are atheists in all Islamic countries, but what they don't have is Western ammunition, from us, the experts on the stories Muhammed worked into the Koran. Break the certainty and you end the problem - forever, while freeing the minds of about a billion and a half people.

And I will add that they really have no defense against the deployment. If you pop into a Muslim forum and start ranting about how parts of the Bible are wrong, they will welcome you with open arms. Then you can unload a toxic dose on a story that Muhammed repeated.

Christianity is extremely robust about uncertainty. Nothing hinges on how many fish Jesus really handed out, or if he did at all. Islam is not. It's a very powerful but very fragile belief system. Don't attack its strength directly, use its strength against it.

ETA: Most Americans say that Islamic beliefs are incompatible with American beliefs, and that is true. But I'm saying that if you actually mix those beliefs, the Islamic ones dies leaving the American ones unharmed. If we bring on the mixing laid out above the West will be the place Muslims go to become apostates, and since they're all connected via the Internet, their beliefs might all get wiped out at the grass roots in a couple of years, just as with any cult. Old power structures will try to hang on, re-positioning or engaging in an orgy of bloodshed to try and maintain control and adherence to the true faith, but that would just accelerate the demise. Some would look at such an outcome and think "the forces of Islam are spent, and withered" but what would really happen is "the former Muslims are unchained." No idea would have conquered them, no outside army, they'd have just shaken off a straitjacket that held their minds captive and subservient to all the societies that never fell into the same pit of mindless obedience to absolute certainty to barbaric falsehoods.

 

Several good points but lots of bad ideas

Unleashing the full military strength of the west (actually the United States) is probably a bad idea as a major part of what we call the modern world order is the assumption that the U.S. will NEVER unleash its full military strength except against a peer competitor nation or group of nations. Mostly the U.S.S.R. in the post World War Two world.

 

OK, here's my critique.

1. The only wars we are fighting are either aggressive wars on our part or 'wars' to try to undo the damage caused by our previous aggressive wars. We can stop fighting these wars any time we want to.
2. I'm happy to name the enemy - the sort of dangerous idiots who take us into wars in the middle east and then want to a) blame others for our aggression, and b) restrict our freedoms to keep fighting these insane wars and the reactions to them.
3. I can't decide whether 'In order to defend our rights and freedoms, we have to...err...take away all our rights and freedoms' or 'Congratulations fuckwit, you just justified the Paris attacks' is better.
4. See 1.
5. Either the author isn't aware of the failed campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan or he's calling for genocide; whichever it is, he's an idiot.
6. 'Hi, remember all those borders we drew for you, all those regimes we set up/toppled and all that bombing and invading we've done over the last century or so? Well we're going to impose our will on you again - please don't hate us for it'.
7. 'We are not responsible for anything we do' or perhaps 'It's your fault that I hit you', the cry of domestic abusers everywhere.
8. 'History - what's that?' I mean seriously, over a century of constant meddling and the author thinks that this time it's different.
9. These claims are empirically false.
10. '“Political correctness” is morally wrong. Moral correctness is morally right.' That about sums the level of argument in this piece.

Conclusion, Craig Biddle is a complete imbecile and would do humanity's IQ level a favour by killing himself. It's hard to believe that anyone could find such nonsense convincing, but then again one has to consider the level of people it's aimed at.

 

So you think Afghanistan is an aggressive war even though the US was attacked? I give you Iraq was an aggressive war but right now ISIS really, truly, does need to be stopped and I doubt the French see their actions as aggressive after the Paris attacks.

I would not mind seeing it done in the most brutal and effective way possible. As it is Obama has really screwed the pooch on the ISIS campaign, so micro managing and restricting targets that after a year of bombing not a single oil field or tanker truck had been hit until Russia started doing it. That just makes us look weak. This is the sort of political interference we saw in Vietnam.

 

Your post leaves out one very crucial point, which is that while the West has certainly contributed to the mess there, the regional resentment towards the West and even an increase in radicalisation of Muslims, it cannot be held as responsible for Islamism itself, nor the atrocities committed by the likes of Daesh.

I never have, and never will, subscribe to the idea that "it's all the West's fault", because quite simply it isn't.

 

The author is a simple minded loon:

Western nations in general—and the United States in particular—have extremely powerful militaries. America’s military alone could eliminate any Islamic regime or jihadist group on the planet in a matter of days (if not hours)—if the U.S. government unleashed its forces. And America’s military combined with those of other Western nations could eliminate the entire field of enemy regimes and groups in short order—if the West chose to do so.​

 

Something we agree on.

 

Like I said, he seems to be encouraging simply nuking whole countries as, after all, thst is the only way to destroy countries in seconds. That is something we could do but then how are we any better than the Islamist animals?

 

It's something almost, if not, everyone here agrees on dummy. I don't think I've read a single person here condoning or excusing the actions of Islamists. It's your added bigotry against people who aren't responsible for those crimes that you've being taken to task for.

 

His whole article is a treatise on using nuclear weapons against an entire population. This is objectivist thinking?

 

Dinner wants all Muslims dead. He just doesn't have the balls to say it.

 

It seems awfully like a prescription to bomb ourselves, given its proposals that we attack those who fund or support jihadism in any way.

 

It's too easy to confuse the goal of ending a set of beliefs with killing all the people who hold those beliefs. We ended Nazism not when the last German units surrendered, but when Germans stopped believing in the might and righteousness of the Nazi cause. The enemy is not jihadism, or terrorism, or Muslims, the enemy is their idea of Islamic supremacy, that any insult against the prophet must be avenged with blood, and that all apostates must be put to death.

Basically, the enemy is Muslim's absolute belief in Islam. You can wipe that out without harming a single Muslim. A simple first step is to quit respecting their religion. Islam cannot tolerate criticism, and since they go nuts so easily we've given them a lot of "safe space" they don't deserve. They've plugged into a Western culture that criticizes everything and shouldn't hold themselves to be immune. We could say things like "Christianity is wrong about a lot of things, but not as wrong as Islam. They're wacko!" And we could say things like that a lot. Muslims will get upset, but they're always upset. They're going to have to learn that religious doubts and criticism are okay, or they're going to have to get so violent that we handle them like a violent problem.

They'll either learn that religious tolerance means "tolerating" criticism, or they'll flee back to the land of Islam and cut their Internet connections.

 

How do you propose to kill their beliefs and ideology if you're telling them they're subhumans who can be discriminated against, profiled and banned, bombed in unjust wars like Iraq and otherwise subjected to hostile environments whether them come to us or stay where they are?

Yeah! Let's win hearts and minds by doing everything we can to keep them at arm's length and give them more reasons to radicalise!

"You're fleeing ISIS and Syria because they call you an apostate? Fuck you, you're a terrorist savage. Stay there and die". Yeah, winning those hearts and minds straight away, eh George?

 

I didn't notice anything about using nuclear weapons in the linked to article.

 

We just point out all the bullshit and lies in the Koran. We tell the truth. It's that easy. Muhammed wouldn't be allowed in Christian churches unless the repented his many evil sins. He's less holy than pretty much any Christian sitting in a pew. We say "No. Raping sex slaves is not allowed. No one who ever condoned such practice made it into Heaven - including Muhammed."

And we're not screening to let in the apostates, now are we. We're not even screening to let in Christians and Yazidis. We're not screening to let in "bad" Muslims who don't believe much at all. We're letting in Muslims who believe in apocalyptic prophesies and that Islam will conquer Europe and America - because we're too afraid to offend them.

 

No, you are a liar. I want them to not be allowed in the west because they are violent animals bent on the destruction of the west. You are a jihad enabler who makes excuses for terrorists and who enables terrorism.

 

Here's your daily Daily Mail article about British police saying Trump was right about no-go zones in Britain. Many of them said they can't wear their uniforms on the way to work because they'd risk being attacked.

 

Please posts links where I have made any "excuses for terrorists". Standing up for millions of law abiding people who you have decided to tar as "violent animals" who must be jihadists because of the actions of a minority of people who share their religion (or a version of it) is not "enabling terrorism". It's defending civil liberties for those who are not terrorists, mean you no harm, who will never break the law and pose not threat whatsoever.

Your rhetoric is identical to that of the Nazis and ISIS, who declare Jews and the West to be savage animals. You just have a different target. It stands to follow that if they are violent animals then you want them dead. I mean, you can't keep them all stuck contently abroad if they're hell bent on killing you, can you? Plus there's the two million of them already in American? How do you get rid of them? Deport two million people, mostly Americans? To where? Nah, you'll have to exterminate them. It's the only logical extension and conclusion of your rhetoric. But you don't want to say that do you, because you want to somehow pretend you're not the facist you clearly are? Laughable.

 

Nah. We can convert them. They are after all in the great Christian heartland, and we really don't give a shit about their feelings.

 

The Daily Mail is well regarded UK as a sensationalist comic book for suburban lower education idiots and bigots. It's no surprise you quote from it so much....and I've already posted the Met Police statement already when rubbishes it.

When I won a case in the House of Lords judicial committee years ago it was about recognising culturally battered women from the Indian subcontinent as refugees. When we won it the Daily Mail reported it as "gates open for foreign gays to flood into the UK" (when it had nothing to do with gay people at all). That's the sort of trash you are pretending to treat as fact. Go right ahead, but you won't find a Brit here who will treat you are credible for as long as you post that garnage, and I say that as a Tory, the target market it's meant to play to.

 

No, which is why I spoke out against it. I do think all restraints need to be removed against ISIS. Simply allowing them to live allows them to claim they are winning so we need to go WW2 on their asses and make it clear they and their followers will be exterminated. Thatears no human rights and anyone in their territory gets killed no matter what.

 

Convert them.

So you're saying you want to force your religion on them?

Hmmmmm, now where have I seen people trying to force their religion onto others before....?

Ah yes......

 

You do realize that pretty much all police regard anything said by a "police spokesman" as BS? Their job is to deny anything that might alarm the public. Heck, for years my town's police spokesmen and police chief kept saying "There are no gangs here." The cops all rolled their eyes at it. We had gangs.

 

We wouldn't be forcing them to join some particular Christian denomination, we'd be forcing them to renounce Satan and his pedophile Prophet. They can become Buddhist or Hindu for all we care.