Tuesday, September 6

What should the West do in response to repeated attacks by deranged (?) Muslims?

Someone noted that just in the past week attacks by Muslims have killed 1,700 non-Muslims around the world.  Sounds about right.

Which brings us to the point:  After an initial success in deposing the thoroughly ghastly regime of Saddam Hussein and sons in Iraq--men who, for all their bloodthirsty cruelty were no friends of militant Islam--the West has been playing defense.  And one thing that should be obvious to everyone is that as long as you're only playing defense, attackers have little to fear.

When group X starts attacking and killing civilian members of group Y, what kinds of outcomes exist?  Well, it's always possible for group X to simply lose interest in attacking Y.  I'm not aware of this ever happening in human history but it's certainly possible.

Second possible outcome:  Some outside threat or group attacks group X, forcing it to focus all its energy on the new threat instead of on attacking group Y.  Unlikely but possible.

Third possible outcome:  Y gets tired of having its citizens killed, and proceeds to kill so many members of X that X surrenders and aggressively ensures that its own members don't carry out any more attacks on Y.

The elites of Western nations--being tolerant of screwy religions and other odd viewpoints--have decided that since Islam claims to be a religion, their nations must accept it.  By itself that's no problem.  Unfortunately militant Islam has used this tolerance to launch attack after attack on unarmed civilians.

So what should we do?  Continuing to avoid taking the fight to the people attacking the west seems unlikely to make them stop attacking us. 

Wait, how about if the emperor apologizes to ISIS and Al-Qaeda and all the other terrorist organizations?  Yeah, that sounds like it might actually work.  Um...sarc.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home