Was it Al Qaeda or ETA? How about, let's hold 'em both responsible.

It's way past time to take Islamofascism seriously. We have to drain the swamp where the vermin breed--nuke Mecca, Media, Riyadh, non-nuke wipeouts of all govt areas in Damascus, Teheran, Cairo, raise a foreign legion mass army, officered by Americans for a long-term reeducation in the Mideast, a no-bullshit war to the knife. Foreign muslims out of the US, without exception. Citizen muslims get a free ticket and $$ to leave, or onto reservations, with serious fences around them.

I don't usually spank readers in public, but sometimes I have to.

John Cunningham's comment represents the group I call "the nuke'em all and don't let even God sort'em out crowd."

That mindset is every bit as reprehensible as the one we're fighting in the Middle East.

I support Bush's democracy domino theory plan because I think it's the best way to avoid the Cunningham Plan. I can see that happening--I can even visualize horrible scenarios where I'd support it--and I really, really, don't want to get our souls that dirty.

The next bit of heavy lifting in the war seems to be dealing with Iran.

Is there any practical plan apart from aiding a revolution? Time is running out. Once the mullarchy is nuclear, it is a very, very different war, and a very different Middle East.

It's fine and helpful to keep harping on the need for realism about the enemy, Stephen, but it seems to me we need a moral and practical plan for the next step, and we don't have a long time to think about it. After Iran, we might have a breather.

Austin, cheers to that. Spain will rout the perpetrators and their likes. In the mean time ETA better start denouncing terrorism and proving themselves not to be threat. Hope for their sake they can do it fast enough.

I have to disagree Stephen with your characterization of Cunningham's remarks. And I find myself having to charge you with moral relativism. Looking at it objectively, what John is proposing is exactly what the Romans did after several wars with Carthage. And one is forced to admit that it worked. Carthage was never ever a threat or problem for Rome ever again. (Indeed, I don't think it has ever been a threat to anyone ever since.)

We have to also admit, and probably should proclaim loudly, that Cunningham's plan is Plan B. Either the middle east transforms itself into freedom loving and peaceful democracies. Or else it will be wiped off the face of the earth. Yes that would mean killing a lot of innocent Muslims. But then, those same innocents are not taking to task those who are blaspheming the "religion of peace". Perhaps they cannot, given their present political situation, but then again, maybe they ain't so innocent after all.

It would mean getting our "souls dirty" But if its a choice between living with a dirty soul, and being killed, well, life is preferable. Not just our lives, but the lives of our children, and their children. Children like Gnat.

They have made this a fight to the death. I am not seeing, especailly after reading your own essay that this is merely a comment of, any means other than their death, to stop it. Either we die or they do. That is the situation they have created, and desire. No matter how much we may not like or feel comfortable with the tough choices ahead, it really does boil down to who dies off first.

We do have the tools and the technology to wipe them out utterly. And it may come to that someday. I would hate to see it happen, but then I would hate to see my own kids, or yours, or Gnat, killed because we did not do enough to stop these murdering evil bastards. If it means nuking them, it sucks to be them. If we can do it through less violent means, great, all the better. But just because the task and choice sucks is no reason to duck it.

This is probably retaliation for the Spanish throwing out the Moors in 1492. Those heathens have long memories.

As word of the bombings spread, many people frantically called family and friends on cell phones.

"On many bodies, we could hear the person's mobile phones ringing as we carted them away," said Beatriz Martin, a doctor who tended to victims at El Pozo.

---
Mentally hear this sound when you vote Kerry in Novemeber....

Madrid proves that terrorists have lousy timing. The upshot of yesterday's horror - a reminder that we are all in the crosshairs of the insane (be they AQ or ETA).

Kerry is playing off meso-America's notorious short memory and obesssion with "what have you done for ME lately". Spain jerks us back 911 days for a stroll down "nightmare lane" to score validation for Bush's platform.

As for Cunningham's strategy - it cannot be ruled out (Ben does a better job at explaining than I will). Terrorists play "Western morality" as a weapon against us. We don't want "dirty souls".

Pakistan (a Muslim society) shows that only when the whole community is threatened with devastation, does the population turn out the fugitives. If Viet Nam taught us anything, it is that you play the your opponent's rules, not necessarily your own.

To publicly denounce the "final solution" is to go to a street fight with boxing gloves. The laws of Darwin have not been suspended because we have the UN and cheese in aerosol cans. MAD, highly modified, still has merit in a world of "stateless" mass destruction, in that it rekindles the sensibilities of the rational majority within which the terrorists hide - eliminating aid and comfort to the enemy.

Kurtz was right - "the horror"

Nuff said - new to this blog site. As a fellow Coloradoan, am gratified to see Steven countering the claim of my "flat land" friends that altitude impairs judgement!

If Al Qaeda or some other group of islamofascists aquire nuclear weapon(s) and set one off in Dar al Harb, how do we respond? And if they set off another, how do we respond? And another? If, at some point a line is crossed and your response becomes to make islam a religion as dead as that of the Maya than what do we save by waiting? I submit that after first use of nuclear weapons by islamofascists extinction of islam should be a real possibility because that way at least some will be saved that would be killed by them otherwise.

JS Allison

I am not even sure waiting for the nuclear card to be played. Continued attacks of Madrid level severity (or lets say Israel level of severity) and we start issuing ultimatums - either refor, live free or die. I have limited patience for them to get thier shit together. I no longer care what thier grievances are, if moderate and liberal Muslims exist, they must stomp on the extremists, if not we do it and we will not be so discriminating. Let Satan sort them out. But I am also in a bad mood today.

If I had a job which entailed guaranteeing the public safety of Vienna, I would be sleeping poorly these days. Bin Laden has previously lamented that the Ottomans failed to subjugate that city, and were defeated there.

Excellent post, Stephen.

Karl Gallagher: I agree with you exactly. Wish I could put it that well, in arguing with people who scoff at the theory.

Vodka:

Best post on this issue I've seen. I applaud you. It should be mandatory reading for each and every reporter and editor of all of our rancid national partisan-liberal media outlets.

Everyone: Regarding the "final solution" option, that, indeed, is as repugnant as the activities of our enemies. Genocide of an entire race never can be the option for us.
For what of those brave Iraqis, for example, who are fighting and trying to rebuild their once-pround country besides our brave troops? Shoot them in the head also? Kill 'em all, let God sort them out, huh?

The option for us, frankly, already is in our history and provides the path we should take if events demand; namely, the firebombings of Tokyo, Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki in WWII.

We didn't wipe out the entire German or Japanese races. Of course not. But we (and Britain, in Europe) did inflict such a mind-numbing military defeat upon them that -- 60 years later -- not only are they pacified, they are part of the civilized and industrialized world.

It's not a coincidence that Germany, for example, has not invaded any of its neighbors for past 60 years; despite having a centuries-old penchant for military conquest. So, too, it's not a coincidence that Japan has been and continues to be one of our strongest allies for the past 60 years; despite having a thousand year-old ethos of militarism.

You don't wipe out the entire Middle East. But you do, however, beat down their islamo-facist elements with such extreme prejudice that, when it's all said and done, they're not capable of continuing terrorist atrocities. And if a spate of terrorism occurs anyway, you repeat the process.

But, of course, not with subpoenas. With bullets, bombs, and blades. But not genocide.

Everyone:

Chilling has made perhaps the most relevant point of all (at least politically).

For those of you on the left who read this blog and who have convinced yourselves that it's "all about the oil," well, think again.

It's not about oil.
Or because they're "poor."
Or because America is too "materialistic."
Or because of global warming.

The Islamo-facist terrorists against whom we and many other nations are fighting WANT TO KILL EVERYONE ON THE PLANET WHO IS NOT A RADICAL MUSLIM!!!!

They don't care if you're "rich" or "poor."
They don't care what school you went to.
They don't care how "smart" or "enlightened" you are.
They don't care whether you can "sympathathize" with their "plight."

They want to kill you. And, if they could, they would sever your head and feed your guts to your children or other loved ones before slitting their respective throats.

John Kerry and the lunatic-fringe base of the Democratic Party don't feel that anything should be done against these animals preemptively. Terrorist attack? Well, that's a crime and should be treated as such. Let's find them, prosecute them, and send them to jail. And then let's debate why it is that they hate us so much. Is it our fault?

Right.

Whom do you think al-Queda is rooting for in this election? George Bush took down their enablers in Afghanistan; took down Saddam; disarmed Libya without firing a shot; and has captured or killed almost half of their leadership.

John Kerry feels like we should have permission from Kofi Annan before we act militarily against them; and that they should be treated as criminals and brought to "justice" in the federal courts.

A vote for John Kerry in November is a vote for al-Queda terrorists. Plain and simple.

JTJ when you assert no American genocide, don't forget the Plains Indian Wars. In your quest to keep American morals in perspective, you slide by a couple points that merit mention.

Democracries are capable of genocide for precisely the reason that they seldom utilize that option. A Democract will fight "tooth and nails when all else fails" and will fight dirty to protect themselves. This very tenacity and willingness to fight a total war (down to punji stakes in the herbacious borderers along the driveway) derives from the fact that folks won't fight that way unless they feel it is truly necessary.

Folks who fight for their freedom will fight harder than hell. Free folks don't, generally, fight on a whim.

Bravo:

Agreed.

But I believe the thesis of the original post was, in essence, total, preemptive genocide. That cannot be our mandate. It's not a matter of morals. Believe you me, I'm not and never have been morally relativistic. These al-Queda and affiliated vermin who attack us and others because of our respective religions need to be wiped off the face of the Earth like the rabid animals they are. For sure. But to argue for the elimination of the Arab and Persian peoples, for example, is beyond the pale in my opinion.

I wonder how our Jewish or Rwandan colleagues feel about this. They are, of course, the only races to have been subjected to genocide in the modern age. It would be interesting to hear their specific toughts about the potential genocide of the Islamic peoples, in view of the global cancer of Islamo-facist terrorism. I suspect, however, that they would be appalled at the notion.

If there's such a thing as a standing ovation for a blog post, you just got one from me, Stephen.

jtj,

I get your point now. It is one thing that actually does give me the heebie jeebies, is the mere thought that if they are sufficiently successful in racking up a body count, they might magically find themselves confronted with an enemy (us) who has as little concern for collateral damage as they do.

This has happened in the Pacific theater in WWII, in regards to treatment of prisoners. After the reports of Bataan and summary execution of American prisoners started circulating, the number of Japanese troops captured dropped precipitously.

I guess the difference is a purely semantic question of what one calls preemptively and those kinds of shades of grey. Without delving into it at depth, I would hazard a guess that our viewpoints aren't that far apart.

Giving it a fancy name like genocide does not change the issue one whit. Do you really think that because you refuse to commit genocide that these guys will stop short? No. That is EXACTLY the attitude they are playing on. That we will find the idea of genocide so terrible, so morally repugnant, that we will let ourselves and our families die first.

Do you get that jtj? They have made this a war of genocide. They are the ones that have set the limits. By playing by our own rules, we die. Our children die, our freedoms die, our ideals and our culture die.

You do what you have to, to survive, or else you don't. Don't survive at all, and then they win.

We are stuck between two really lousy options. Either we play nice, and get killed by them who will not play nice. Or we play by their own rules. And wipe them off the face of the earth. Nobody would be happier than I am that it does not come to that. But if its a choice between my family and the entire Islamic world, they end up with the short end of the stick. Sorry, that is the way it is. Pretending otherwise just gets you killed.

You are not being noble by refusing to play by their rules. YOu are only being dead.

Okay, lets look at this calmly.

The arguments for what I call "Plan B" (total annilation of the Arab world) are, "if this is what it takes to defend my family, my nation, my freedoms, then that is what it takes."

The arguments against boil down to "It won't feel good". Tough. Neither does getting blown up at work, or on the train to work, or flying on vacation. At least with Plan B, I will be alive to feel. The alternative is to not be alive to feel anything.

Morality is not about what feels good. You may have loved Old Yeller. But when he becomes rabid, in order to protect and defend yourself and your family, you have to shoot him. It may not feel good, and you may hate yourself for having such a choice thrust upon you, but the consequences of not shooting him outweigh whatever damage killing him will bring.

Personally, I see morality as this way. You can make any and all rules you want. I insiste on only one. Complete and total reciprocity. You cannot demand anything from me that I cannot demand from you. Nothing is forbidden from me, that is not forbidden from you.

If you think genocide is an "acceptable" tactic, well, then it is not forbidden from me as well. And these terrorists have shown that wanton murder is not forbidden from them, so it should not, and more importantly, CAN NOT be forbidden from us. To do so simply invites our own death and destruction at their hands. As another poster put it, its like "going into a street fight with boxing gloves."

Always gratifying to return to a post - this one has some healthy debate. How many of you could have imagined this debate, say, 20 years ago?

The fact is, for the first time in US history, we are vulnerable to a pre-emptive use of WMD against our population on our home soil. The Soviets NEVER posed this threat.

One point of clarification - Genocide is the willful and thorough extermination of another group. That is not what I am saying in support of the final solution. Pre-emptive use of nukes, Daisy cutters and fire bombing is indeed barbaric.

However, a very public policy which states that any use of WMD against the US will result in a retaliatory strike, in kind, against those countries who provide aid and comfort to our enemies. It also helps to point out that we have, at any given time, 100 times the requisite megatons floating under the earth's oceans.

This policy raises the stakes to Kim Jong Il and the Mad Mullahs, as it creates a "state on state" position. Just this threat would dry up most safe haven countries (and topple more than a few screwballs), a single use would leave no place to hide.

To those who would say that "innocent people would die", I say there are no innocents when it comes to controlling your country's leadership.

Re: Genocide

The plains indian wars and the WWII pacific theatre could do a lot to remind people of the beast that lurks in this wonderful country of ours.

Manifest Destiny was/is some bad ugly shite. But I can't argue with the results. The security and prosperity of the country that I'm fortunate to be a citizen of are a direct result of the harsh actions of our past military and political leadership.

People forget that America was/is very capable of genocide. When the muslim is perceived to be as great a threat as the american indian was, it will be too late for a lot of innocent people.

Ask why only to find out who.

Ben:

You're missing my point.

Putting aside the semantic issue of what is or is not "genocide," I'm not saying that we should not use mass destructive means IN RESPONSE to such means being used against us. Obviously, an eye for an eye. Nothing should be ruled out in advance.

And, my point is not one of morals.

I was taking issue with what was phrased in terms of PREEMPTIVE genocidal means being used against our enemies.

So, let's run through this.

Our enemies are not only located in the Middle East. Individual agents are in Britain. They are in Turkey. They are in Spain. They are in Australia. And other places.

So, do we just preemptively nuke every place on Earth besides America right now; to prevent all of our potential jihadi enemies from using genocidal means against us?

If you say "no" to that question, then you're not advocating for preemptive genocide, after all. What you're really saying is that we should be prepared to respond in kind to any means of mass killing used against us. In other words, if they use biological agents against us, we will use biological agents against them; even if the effect would be to wipe out every Muslim on Earth. Conceptually, I AGREE with that position. (Although, logistically, how could we do that without killing people we didn't want to kill and for whom we have economic self-interest in keeping them alive, e.g., Russians, Chinese, etc.?; and how could we do that without creating a risk of killing ourselves?).

Now, if, on the other hand, you say "yes" to the initial question -- e.g., PREEMPTIVE genocide RIGHT NOW; so we don't get hit with genocidal weapons in the first instance, well, then, you really need to sit down and re-evaluate, in my opinion. Using your Old Yeller analogy, what you're asserting, if this is your position, is not shooting Old Yeller after he has gone rabid to protect yourself from being bit. (Again, I agree with that approach.) To the contrary, it's shooting Old Yeller BEFORE he goes rabid to protect yourself from him becoming rabid so you do not worry about getting bit. To me, that's just beyond the pale.

Best regards,

JTJ.

I think the error being made here is in assuming that the people in these nations that some wish to "nuke" are innocents.

They may be innocent as individuals, but we must deal with nations. This is a fundamental quality of the nation state. The people in a nation are responsible for its government. They may be oppressed, but they have a moral obligation to not allow themselves to be oppressed. They have a moral obligation to ensure that their government doesn't condone, abet, or encourage melting skyscrapers or blowing up trains.

Total war is repugnant, but it is the only moral way to wage war. If one can avoid destroying populations, that is an extra perk, but if the alternative is to prolong the war and endanger more Americans or Spaniards, or other good upright people in responsible governments, then there is no way that we can justify not destroying our enemies completely.

That being said, I think we are on the right track. Iran is next, and will likely not require a military invasion before they overthrow their own theocracy. Our threat to their future if they don't do so is real and terrible.

Silver,

WE did deal with the threat of pre-emptive nuclear attack during the Cold War. We just had an easier policy for dealing with it - start a total nuclear war with the Soviets. Therefore, one nuke on our soil, and whatever political objectives you were aiming at now become academic.

Okay, so outside of 9-11 America or perenially terrorist-targeted Israel, whats keeping the rest of the world from sending in troops to effectively counter or destroy what is obviously an shared international problem - IOW, why is it ONLY America and America's GOP that has to be the one to do something, ANYTHING decisive and determinative against this supposedly international/global problem! What's wrong - the threat from cud-eating armed camels or yogurt products too great for the terror-fearing Frenchies, Germans, the Russians and Chicoms!? Leclercs and T98's versus Mad Camels - oh the horror! If the Failed Left now ANGRY LEFT is still intent on using the UNO as future model for potential Global Government, with the UNSC as the new GLOBAL CENTRAL COMMITTEE/ PRESIDIUM, THEY'RE BLOWIN' IT AGAIN, BIG TIME [AGAIN] - But then again, their ultimate objective in relation to GG-OWG was ALWAYS ANTI-SOVEREIGN, ANTI-AMERICAN GLOBAL INTEGRATION, NOT PRO-SOVEREIGN GLOBAL CONFEDERATISM as PC proclaimed, and GLOBAL CENTRALISM/COMMUNISM/SOCIALISM disguised as GLOBAL FEDERALISM, where GG affairs are secularist Communist but global or inter-canton economics is Fascist, ie De-regulated/Competitive Communist!

If Osama and the Burqua Boyz truly are in indirect but tacit support of SECULAR Spanish Socialism, as represented and inferred from the alleged post-Madrid Al-Qaeda "letters", then an argument can be formally made Osama is NOT as Radical Islamist or Islamofascist as he and his followers wnat Americans and the free world to believe! How can anyone claiming to support Radical Islamism, which by definition is FAITH-BASED and dsepotic CENTRALIST, or RIGHTIST ISLAM/ISLAMOFASCISM, which by definition is FAITH-BASED RIGHTISM BUT NOT NECESSARILY OR WHOLLY SECULAR, CENTRALIST OR TOTALITARIAN SOCIALIST, come out in support of the pro-SECULAR Spanish Socialist Party, an org that does support strong centralist and welfarist government, espec iff he proclaims to espouse the development of a hardline, intolerant Islamist theocratic state! NO, FOR DEDICATED THEOCRATIC ANTI-SECULARISTS AND EMPIRICISTS LIKE OSAMA ETAL. TO SUPPORT STATE-SPECIFIC, STATE-SOVEREIGN, NON-ISLAMIC OR ANTI-ISLAMIC, SECULARISM, something else is happening, something big, bigger or beyond that of mere radical Islamic ambitions for new or resurgent empire, and contemporary relevancy!

So what is the problem again? And why are we advocating killing more than a billion people rather than rationally thinking about this problem and solving it? Does that mean that we'll start to punish the people in the US government who let 9/11 happen, who exaggerated the threat of WMD in Iraq and now pretend it was all the fault of US intelligence, who seek profit to the point of undermining US interests in the Middle East, who seek to destroy the freedoms of the US for political and financial gain?

Here's some observations on terrorism.

• We already know how to handle terrorists and IMHO have been reasonably successful. You hunt them down and capture or kill them. Take down any governments that get in the way. It's a solved problem.
  
• Terrorism just isn't that dangerous now, and we know already how to deal with these new threats when they come. It's time to grow up people. Frankly, sooner or later someone is going to nuke Washington, DC or spread some nasty plague in downtown Manhattan. I think an appropriate response is to hunt down those responsible, knock over or eliminate any government that bears responsibility, fire or convict US government officials whose neglect aided this terrorist attack, and nuke only as a last resort. Ie, a fair and measured response that eliminates the offenders and their allies and attempts to keep the loss of innocent life low. The real response will probably also include us slitting our throats by rewarding the organizations which failed to prevent the attack with an incredible amount of power and eliminating personal freedoms. Such is life.
  
• Stop building delicate infrastructure and conducting enterprise that requires the destruction of personal freedom to maintain. Make everyone pay for terrorism insurance. If you run a business which creates ill will in other countries and have a big corporate headquarters as an inviting target, then you need to pay for that protection that you're getting.
  
• Don't penalize Joe Citizen because government is too incompetent to do its job.
  
• A couple of proactive ways to reduce the supply of recruits for terrorist organizations. Give every person a legal means to redress wrongs. Israel's current struggle with the Palestinians is a great example of what happens when you don't do this.
  
• Treat people fairly and humanely. If you deal squarely with people, then you'll reduce the threat of terrorism. The US government has made a habit of backing some pretty nasty people, and then feigning surprise when the inevitable "blowback" occurs. IMHO the CIA might not have backed Osama bin Laden directly, but we had more than enough influence with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to cut off his support long ago. My guess is that it was convenient for a while to have Osama bin Laden until he started killing US citizens.