[mikado]

(01-07-2015 01:12 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 08:28 AM)mikado Wrote:  

I think moderates muslims should effectively stand up and display their support and rallying with France and the victims.

No it needs to be more extreme than that. Would it have been sufficient for the US if Japanese civilians displayed support and sympathy for the victims at Pearl Harbor? Obviously not. Would it have been sufficient if they revolted and overthrew their government? Yes.

To this extent, if Muslims genuinely do not support the expansionary desires of their extremists, it is their responsibility to attack the extremists themselves. Not "don't blame us", but "these people are tarnishing our name, let's smash them".

(01-07-2015 09:44 AM)mikado Wrote:  

My question is:
how would you conduct that war?

You first identify the enemy. In WW2, it was "militant Japan". In this case it is "militant Islam". Then the goal is to "demoralize their desire to fight", which can only be assured by "total defeat" (being smashed).

It was only through suffering the pain of fighting and being totally defeated, and having their society forcefully reorganised, that the Japanese didn't simply rebuild and resume the conflict.

If I was commander-in-chief, the first question I would answer would be: "who is supporting who". Who is providing the ideological fuel? Who is providing the resources? I suspect it would trace back to the states of Iran and Saudi Arabia, as well as many other minor institutions in North Africa, and the Near and Middle East.

Then I would deliver an simultaneous ultimatum to those institutions as a group:
"You are to cease advocating attacks against the West;
You are to cease advocating the use of violence to further the power of your religion;
You are to cease providing support to other groups who support or engage in such violence;
You are to publicly preach your support for these measures, including in your sermons in your places of worship;
You are to publicly renounce using violence to solve the Israel-Palestine question;
You are to publicly preach your acceptance of criticism of your religion.
If you are not complying with these measures within 90 days, you will be attacked."

If they didn't comply (which I expect they wouldn't), I'd invade accordingly, totally defeat them, dismantle all of the institutions that were fueling militancy, rewrite their constitutions at gun-point Japan-style, and put their leaders through the military tribunals.

(01-07-2015 09:23 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

Here are some scary statistics and sources:

Yep, the sooner the West wises up, the less bloodshed their children are going to have to go through. Does anyone actually think this all just goes away by itself?

(01-07-2015 09:07 AM)UroboricForms Wrote:  

This is so fucked up. As much as I think free speech is important its exactly this kind of "I'll say/do what I want" attitude that is the problem. Evidence? It just got 12 people filled with bullets. Like someone said, what do you expect when you poke fun at the most aggressive culture in the world right now?

That sentiment is disgraceful.

The problem is that most of the Muslims in the West have zero relations with terrorists in the Middle East. Heck, they sometimes have to go 3-4 generations up their genealogic tree to find relatives from there.

What do you expect them to do, outside condemning these attacks? It's not like they have any influence over what happens in the Middle East.

In the case of Pearl Harbor, they were in their country, they could potentially have went against their government and overthrown it.

In France, they can't do shit in Iraq, Syria etc etc.