patrick.net

So genocide only for Muslims? Where did I hear something like that? Oh yeah, some guy in the 1930s was saying the same thing about the Jews.

The problems with selective genocides are...
1. They are evil.
2. They cause retaliation.
3. They never stay selective.
4. Even when they are selective, the criteria is apt to change at the drop of a hat.

Dan8267 says

2. They cause retaliation.

If there are no Muslims left, this won't be a problem.

zzyzzx says

If there are no Muslims left, this won't be a problem.

The IF part is the bad assumption. Even ignoring the ethics of your plan, you simply cannot kill all Muslims simultaneously. They are spread out throughout the world and will retaliate. You cannot prevent that. And since they have nothing to lose, they have no reason not to take the world down with them.

Take away the incentivizing virgin option.
Castrate the beast. ( all in captivity )

Dan8267 says

The problem isn't killing all the terrorists. It's not killing those who aren't terrorists.

Not killing terrorists will lead to only one outcome.......Innocent people killed, and we still have terrorists.
The common sense approach....Quickly kill as many terrorists as possible in order to minimize the death of innocents.

BlueSardine says

Take away the incentivizing virgin option.

Castrate the beast. ( all in captivity )

Or.....Just fuck the virgins.

Where is Pope Urban II when we need him the most? Resurrect that suckah and give him some nukes and chemical weapons!

Being forced to kill a direct threat is already a sign you have lost that fight. Yes, you must do it, but the real trick is winning the ideology war.

Radicals are made not born.

Rew says

Being forced to kill a direct threat is already a sign you have lost that fight. Yes, you must do it, but the real trick is winning the ideology war.

Radicals are made not born.

Shoot the hate preachers.

Strategist says

Shoot the hate preachers.

And now they are martyrs more powerful beyond the grave than ever they were in real life. Whoops!

The game is to kill those that are attempting to do real physical harm now, or in the immediate future, while offering a compelling case for why these radicalized a-holes are crazy and you shouldn't become one.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2017/PPP_Release_National_61217.pdf

Poll: 42% of Trump voters say it's appropriate to bodyslam a reporter, 45% no. Clinton voters: 6% yes, 89% no.

Just reframe that as who is most accepting of violence to be used against an opposing point of view ... you know ... like terrorism. ;)

Rew says

Being forced to kill a direct threat is already a sign you have lost that fight. Yes, you must do it, but the real trick is winning the ideology war.

Alas, we have a self-defeating strategy on the ideological front. By empowering and financing so-called "moderate" Islam (the ones who say they don't yet want to kill us), and spreading Islamic migration, we surrender the beachhead to hijrah.

The key to winning the ideology war is to recognize the enemy. The west defeated communism and fascism by confronting and denouncing and opposing them, not by spreading communism and empowering "moderate Nazis". Islam is a totalitarian doctrine that commands everyone must submit to a particular religion, along with submitting to Sharia, on pain of death. The fact this particular totalitarian doctrine includes a religion does not make it less totalitarian, nor less violent. These "radicals" you speak of are merely doing what Islam says, like "radical" Nazis in the Nazi/Muslim SS, as distinct from "moderate" Nazis in the Bundestag. Americans have become so deeply polarized and misled by AntiFa and MSM that even Americans protesting Sharia are called "racists." Islam commands believers to impose Sharia, and in most countries that have Muslim majorities, most Muslims demand Sharia. It's what Islam says. You can't win the ideological war by conceding the premise and then trying to argue against the conclusion. If you are too afraid to confront and denounce Mohamed, if instead you surrender to wishful thinking and appeasement, then you can't possibly win the ideology war.

Why would democrats want to body slam other democrats?

castrate the mullahs.
castrate the bodies of the dead terrorists.
If they are crazy enough to think the virgins are waiting for them, they are crazy enough to think they will need their junk intact.
No terrorist left uncastrated.
Let loose the Bobbitts!

Strategist says

Dan8267 says

The problem isn't killing all the terrorists. It's not killing those who aren't terrorists.

Not killing terrorists will lead to only one outcome.......Innocent people killed

So you're saying that you'd be OK with the government killing your family just to be on the safe side?

Dan8267 says

The problems with selective genocides are...

Two people disliked opposing genocide. Says a lot about them.

curious2 says

The key to winning the ideology war is to recognize the enemy.

Ok. Who is the enemy?

Rew says

Ok. Who is the enemy?

The dead charlatan Mohamed. His hateful fraud of Islam should have died with him.

We should demand Pakistan and KSA and the other participants in the "Muslim world plan" against blasphemy renounce it and embrace freedom of speech, or else not a penny from us to them until they do. We should demand Pakistan free Asia Bibi and stop spreading Islamic terror, though since Pakistan is a terrorist state we should simply stop supporting it at all.

The GDP of every Muslim country combined adds up to less than Germany. Islam is a self-defeating ideology. Afghans did better with Buddhism, Persians did better with Zoroastrianism. Their own history would tell them so, which is why Muslims (Taliban, Islamic State) destroy their history, creating terra nova, executing blasphemers and apostates.

Afghanistan and Iraq have Islamic constitutions because the religious W administration gave them those, along with empowering KSA. American policy empowering KSA and Islam has enriched the MIC while oppressing a billion people.

We should reverse course. We should spread Charlie Hebdo cartoons, Danish cartoons, Bill Maher and Sam Harris, not Islam.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

Dan8267 says

The problem isn't killing all the terrorists. It's not killing those who aren't terrorists.

Not killing terrorists will lead to only one outcome.......Innocent people killed

So you're saying that you'd be OK with the government killing your family just to be on the safe side?

Very bad question. I would say the government does not want to kill me, and we would start going back and forth into a black hole.
Your real question is....Strats, would you risk becoming collateral damage when the government starts going after terrorists?
My answer is.....Yes, because it gives me a far better chance of survival than not going after terrorists.

curious2 says

The GDP of every Muslim country combined adds up to less than Germany.

And that's because of oil and foreign aid. Without that the GDP of the whole Muslim world would be that of a city state like Singapore.
What do they produce that takes brains? It'a always the fucking religion. As Allah wills. Read the fucking Koran, all the knowledge is in there. Kill the infidels. Jihad jihad and more jihad.

curious2 says

The dead charlatan Mohamed. His hateful fraud of Islam should have died with him.

curious2 says

We should reverse course. We should spread Charlie Hebdo cartoons, Danish cartoons, Bill Maher and Sam Harris, not Islam.

Are you telling me you classify "the enemy" as every Muslim person on Earth today?

Rew says

curious2 says

The dead charlatan Mohamed. His hateful fraud of Islam should have died with him.

curious2 says

We should reverse course. We should spread Charlie Hebdo cartoons, Danish cartoons, Bill Maher and Sam Harris, not Islam.

Are you telling me you classify "the enemy" as every Muslim person on Earth today?

Islam is the enemy. Muslims are just the suckers and victims.
Thousands of religions have come and gone in this world. We need Islam to be the next religion to go. The descendants of Muslims will thank us forever.

Strategist says

Islam is the enemy. Muslims are just the suckers and victims.

Thousands of religions have come and gone in this world. We need Islam to be the next religion to go. The descendants of Muslims will thank us forever.

This.

Rew seems to imagine that the "moderate Nazis", who didn't personally murder people in camps, were not the enemy. He seems not to understand how much better off Europeans are with more freedom and less fascism. In fairness to him, most west Europeans have forgotten the value of freedom too, as they are now demanding to import Islam. East Europeans remember.

Strategist says

Very bad question. I would say the government does not want to kill me, and we would start going back and forth into a black hole.

It's a perfectly valid question.

The government doesn't want anything. The government is an imaginary construct we all share. It's not a decision making entity, nonetheless one with desires. There is no decision ever made by "the government". Decisions are made by individual human beings, and yes, some of them would have no problem willing your entire family as collateral damage in the fight for terror. So a few million innocent people including your family die in the war on terror. With over seven billion people on Earth, that's not even a rounding error. Yes, this is the calculus those people working for the government do every day. Only a fool thinks his white skin or English name protects him.

More whites killed by police, but blacks 2.5 times more likely to be killed
TLDR: You're white skin makes it less likely you'll be killed, but it does damn little to protect you. And yes, this applies to the police, but in our society the police and the military are no longer separate. They've been thoroughly blurred.

The United States government has throughout it's history deliberately killed what it knew to be innocent American citizens. Yet magically, that history no longer applies because, because, because JESUS!

So my question stands. Would you be willing to let your entire family be innocent casualties of the war on terror? If the answer is anything less than a resounding yes, then it's hypocritical for you to be completely accepting of other innocent families being collateral damage or, even worse, deliberately targeted as the OP and zzyzzx would have.

And if the moral argument means nothing to you, there's the practical argument. All you do by killing innocents is feeding into terrorist propaganda and motivating non-terrorists into becoming terrorists. You cannot kill ideas by slaughtering innocents.

Dan8267 says

So my question stands. Would you be willing to let your entire family be innocent casualties of the war on terror? If the answer is anything less than a resounding yes, then it's hypocritical for you to be completely accepting of other innocent families being collateral damage or, even worse, deliberately targeted as the OP and zzyzzx would have.

And if the moral argument means nothing to you, there's the practical argument. All you do by killing innocents is feeding into terrorist propaganda and motivating non-terrorists into becoming terrorists. You cannot kill ideas by slaughtering innocents.

So your solution is to just leave the terrorists alone and let them kill us. Now why didn't I thunk that?

Strategist says

So your solution is to just leave the terrorists alone and let them kill us.

Not at all. I've stated many times that one of your greatest problems is your inability to see the world in terms of anything but dichotomies. Do you really think the only two choices are commit genocide or do nothing? Seriously, are they the only two options in your mind?

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

So your solution is to just leave the terrorists alone and let them kill us.

Not at all. I've stated many times that one of your greatest problems is your inability to see the world in terms of anything but dichotomies. Do you really think the only two choices are commit genocide or do nothing? Seriously, are they the only two options in your mind?

So what's your option besides sending them a Valentines card?

Strategist says

So what's your option besides sending them a Valentines card?

Irrelevant. This isn't about me.

Are you incapable of admitting that there is a hell of lot of land between do nothing and outright genocide?

Strategist says

So what's your option besides sending them a Valentines card?

You really can't think this through? Go after the money. It takes a lot of money to run all the wahabbi based radical mosques and madras schools around the world that are in reality terrorist recruiting and training camps. It takes lots of money to run terrorist organizations once they are recruited. No money no terrorism.

That means standing up to the saudis. Not going to happen. Far too many influential people in the US and Europe have their hand in the saudi cookie jar . Neither is muslim genocide going to happen. That's just small dick syndrome talking. So things are going to stumble along exactly like they are now for a long, long time no matter how much you and the other mouth breathers flap your jaw.

APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE says

bob2356 says

Go after the money.

Exactly. If ever there was a cause screaming for its own NGO, it's counter-wahabbanist research and advocacy and that would largely be a forensic accounting exercise.

Exposing children to assertions that the universe was created as a venue for them to be obligated to spend their life murdering people is child abuse and should be treated as a disease.

Every dollar dedicated to its promotion should be considered a criminal act.

Problem solved. Next

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

So what's your option besides sending them a Valentines card?

Irrelevant. This isn't about me.

Ha ha ha ha. So you have no other option. I was hoping for some BS i could pee on.

bob2356 says

Strategist says

So what's your option besides sending them a Valentines card?

You really can't think this through? Go after the money. It takes a lot of money to run all the wahabbi based radical mosques and madras schools around the world that are in reality terrorist recruiting and training camps. It takes lots of money to run terrorist organizations once they are recruited. No money no terrorism.

How can i disagree? The Wahabi's are the mother of all terrorism.

bob2356 says

That means standing up to the saudis. Not going to happen. Far too many influential people in the US and Europe have their hand in the saudi cookie jar . Neither is muslim genocide going to happen. That's just small dick syndrome talking. So things are going to stumble along exactly like they are now for a long, long time no matter how much you and the other mouth breathers flap your jaw.

You have a good point. That is why we need to elect people like Trump and make Muslims fight Muslims. :)

curious2 says

This.

Rew seems to imagine that the "moderate Nazis", who didn't personally murder people in camps, were not the enemy.

But there are Nazi movements and fascist movements still all over the world today. Are you telling me these people also fall within your camp of "the enemy"?

What is your solution for that remaining fringe and the non-fringe of over 2 billion Muslims?

Rew says

the non-fringe of over 2 billion Muslims?

I'll skip over your rhetorical questions and merely point out your math, in addition to referring you to my earlier comments. No point going back and forth on this topic with people who remain determined to promote Hijrah despite the lethal costs and other problems it will cause to their fellow citizens and even their own families when more people do what Islam says. Non-Muslim Nazis are nowhere near power anywhere, but in most countries that have Muslim majorities, most Muslims demand Sharia. You can't even muster the courage to denounce Sharia, let alone Islam, so nothing is gained by wasting time on pointless back and forth. Tell your Muslim "friends" to free Asia Bibi from death row, if you dare, but be warned: Islam says to execute her, and to kill you if you disagree with that.

curious2 says

You can't even muster the courage to denounce Sharia, let alone Islam, so nothing is gained by wasting time on pointless back and forth.

So, no solution then. We just label groups of people "the enemy" and that's it?

Very interesting you can compare Sharia/Islam to the Nazi movement, but not advocate doing anything about it. Might you have some secret tolerance and harbor there for Islam yourself than? Odd.

Rew says

that's it?

You and I have disagreed repeatedly about this topic, and my comments remain plain to see. You know perfectly well the specific proposals I have listed, including something like the Muslim ban that President Trump campaigned on, as well as other specific proposals in this very thread. Unlike some, I do not rush to call anyone a liar, but I want you now to explain how you could possibly believe what you wrote.

Also, CAN YOU SAY THE WORDS, "Free Asia Bibi, Sharia is wrong, she should be free?" If you can't say those words, if you lack the courage to stand up for even the most basic freedom of speech in our Constitution, then you're not worth the time wasted on you.

Rew says

curious2 says

You can't even muster the courage to denounce Sharia, let alone Islam, so nothing is gained by wasting time on pointless back and forth.

So, no solution then. We just label groups of people "the enemy" and that's it?

Very interesting you can compare Sharia/Islam to the Nazi movement, but not advocate doing anything about it. Might you have some secret tolerance and harbor there for Islam yourself than? Odd.

Shame on you Rew. You really need to read the posts by Curious before making such claims.

curious2 says

Unlike some, I do not rush to call anyone a liar, but I want you now to explain how you could possibly believe what you wrote.

What are you referring to? Your accusation that I'm some weird Nazi sympathizer? I have no clue what you think the solution to Radical Islamic Terrorism is other than your repeated claims that all of Islam is bad and apparently now all Muslims are "the enemy".

Strategist says

Shame on you Rew. You really need to read the posts by Curious before making such claims.

What did I miss? Sorry.

curious2 says

"Free Asia Bibi, Sharia is wrong, she should be free?" If you can't say those words, if you lack the courage to stand up for even the most basic freedom of speech in our Constitution, then you're not worth the time wasted on you.

Definitely seems like she should be free based on what I've read.