Monday, February 20, 2006


Gateway is on the story. These torchings come on the heels of 15 torched churches in Nigeria and two dozen torched churches in France during the Paris Intifada.

The churches torched in France had nothing to do with the accidental electrocution of the Muslim youths (which was used as the pretext/excuse for the Paris Intifada) - THEY WEREN'T EVEN IN PARIS! The churches in Nigeria and Pakistan had NOTHING to do with the Danish Cartoons - THEY WEREN'T EVEN LUTHERAN CHURCHES!

These attacks can ONLY be described as deliberate attacks on the faith of the West. IT'S JIHAD.

AS I'VE WRITTEN BEFORE: if non-Muslims had torched mosques then the Lefties and the MSM they control would be screaming bloody murder, calling for impeachment, and indictments in the ICC.

SO, WHAT SHOULD WE DO? These violent anti-Christian/anti-West acts MUST have consequences; we must establish a deterrence.

To that end, we should first tell the leading Muslim mullahs in each and every country that we will retaliate: an eye for an eye - and we will bomb a mosque for every church destroyed. We could show them a list of the GPS-targeting coordinates of every mosque in the world.

If this fails, we might have to offically warn the House of Saud - the protectors of Mecca and Medina: if you do not call off and clamp down on this global jihad, (shut evey madrassa and every mosque and silence every mullah that promotes jihad), then we will destroy the so called al Aksa mosque, and maybe even nuke Mecca and Medina.

Others have said this before and been met with reproach and castigation. Well, after these global inifadas I now believe that IT'S TIME THAT WE STOPPED CONSIDERING THIS METHOD OF COUNTER-ATTACKING AS "OUT-OF-BOUNDS." Letting THE ENEMY know that we will counter-attack in kind - BUT TO THE ENTH DEGREE - should be a threat that's openly on the table. That's the only way a deterrent can work.

Contrary to what Lefties and appeasers may feel, we do not "cool things down" by giving in, by surrendering our hard-won universal human rights to the threats of jihadothuggery. ON THE CONTRARY: this only encourages them to use more thuggery and threats and riots and violence.

Contrary to what Lefties and appeasers may feel, clearly setting out extremely horrific counter-measures actually LESSENS the chances of us being attacked or of there being an continued escalation of tensions.

That's why we must make a clear statement on what we will do. Lack of clarity and lack of resolve will only lead to more jihadothuggery and less freedom, to more intifadas and less peace.

Israel did not defeat the intifadas by playing nice with jihadoterrorism; they counter-attacked; they assassinated the leaders of the enemy, and they fought and fought and fought and fought back. It's time we showed the same resolve - and the same courage and the same willingness to use every means necessary and every tool in our kit.


Michael said...

While I agree with you that the burning of churches (and the murder of Christians) isn't sufficiently decried in our country, bombing mosques is not the answer, in my opinion. For one thing, the U.S. military is not responsible for protecting the people or property of foreign countries simply because those people or that property happens to be Christian. It's the U.S. military, not a Christian Defense Force. Secondly, a mosque is only a valid military target if it's being used to aid operations against our armed forces or their mission. Bombing tit-for-tat is not - and should not be - the way our military operates. This is one of the characteristics that distinguishes an legitimate military from the armed thugs perpetrating the destruction you rightly decry. Kill the killers, yes. Jail the arsonists, yes. But bomb the mosques? No way.

Thanks for your great blog, though. I read it every day.

Mike Benton said...

Any ordinary US folks out there ever READ the Koran? Out of curiosity, and a desire to know a little bit about what the debate is all about, I bought a translation via Amazon.com.

I'm about 100 pages into it and I'm can't believe what I reading such as: It's OK to beat your wife (it's offered as a one of three steps in a three step process to get her to heel.)Then comes: Live amoung the infedels (you and me), if you must, but NEVER will they be your friend. Also this: It's OK to kill them...
Religion is one thing; what these people are being taught from youth is something else, and we need to WAKE UP!!!
Bombs aren't the answer, yet, but we sure ought to learn more about them before we fool ourselves into a loosing posture. For ten bucks you can buy your own Koran and get in the game.

reliapundit said...

Michael; thanks for posting your extremely cogent argument.

i disagree.

you wrote:

"It's the U.S. military, not a Christian Defense Force. Secondly, a mosque is only a valid military target if it's being used to aid operations against our armed forces or their mission."

We are in a religious war - because the enemy has declared as much. The mission of our forces - as declared in the 2001 AUMF - is clear: efeat those who perped the 9/11 attacks and their allies and affiliates and do whatever we have to to prevent another attack.

I belive if we do NOT retaliate WE INVTE another attack. We must retaliate in an effective way. Merely killing the enemy IS NOT ENOUIGH, becuase soince they are religous fanatics, they adore the prospect of their own death (remeber they get 72 virgins!).

We muist threaten to counter-atack things they prize --- THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT A VIABLE DETERRENT.

Please think it over. I do present it as a deterrent.

Thnaks for your comment. Please comment again - whenever you think i miss something. I'm sure that happens a lot!

OH HERE'S ANOTHER ANGLE: the madrassas and mosques are EFFECTIVELY "human guided missile factories." Blowing them up is like blowing up their military infrastructure.

and it is a FACT that they use mosques to recruit terrorists and to strowe terrorist contraband.

i firmly maintain that therefore - for ALL these reasons - they are lkegitimate targets and openly threatening them would make a good deterrence.

reliapundit said...

mike benton:

thanks for shairng this. too many people believe bush when he says it's a "ROP". that is BS.

further PROOF of this is the fact that IRSHAD MANJI - a brave muslim reformer - herself a muslim - says that the JIHADOTERRORISTS AND ISLAMOFASCISTS ARE "LITERALISTS."

IOW: the genocidal rants they spew are LITERALLY supported by the Koran.

ALOS: M'humet himself proselytized by using THE SWORD. that's why the SWORD is on nearly every muslim nation's flag. m'hummed said "CONVERT OR DIE" -- which is exactly what the jihadists say today. the only reason NORTH AFRICA and the Middle East went from Christian to Muslim was because of islam's bloody wars of conversion.

this is a religious was because the enemy has declared as much - binladen and zawahiri in 1998.

and islam from the days of its prophet.

Michael said...

Yes, we'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one but the discussion is worth having so thanks again for your great blog and for your well-considered response. Mosques and madarassas that promote or suborn terror need to be rolled up anyway - regardless of whether Christian churches or people are attacked in other countries. To set one as conditional upon the other is, in my opinion, to undermine what the AUMF says.

The bottom line is we should roll up mosques that are operational in the war on terror, we don't roll them up solely because they're mosques. If all mosques are operational in the war on terror then roll them all up but don't predicate it on the destruction of Christian churches.

When I think of how that kind of deterrent would actually operate, I'm at a loss. Is a jihadist mob in Nigeria deterred by the possible destruction of a mosque somewhere *else* in the world? I think they might actually welcome it. Meanwhile, do we commit an act of war against Saudi Arabia, say, for something that happened in Nigeria? Strategically, I think that just broadens the war unnecessarily. Even if we had to eventually fight every Muslim nation in the world (and, believe me, I hope that doesn't happen) we don't want to fight them all at once right now, do we?

Lastly, this war isn't a religious war simply because the enemy says it is. We get to decide what we're fighting for, not OBL, and for me this is a war between free civilization and the Islamofascists. So I'm not interested in attacking what's important to them as a deterrent for the current crazies, I'm interested in killing them and exposing their philosophy as a fraud in order to deter future would-be followers.

You and I don't disagree on all that much (I was formerly the blogger Citizen Z and we agreed a lot back then too). Like you, I don't believe in playing nice either. I just think our current rules of engagement are better than the enemy's so I don't want to emulate them. It might take a while to work, but I believe it will. Thanks again.

reliapundit said...


i think it would indeed be a deterrent. you don't say it wouldn;t, but seem to say it wouild unnecessarily widen the war.

i disagree: the war is wide now. and assymetrical. they are eroding our freedoms. we must counter. we don;t have to bomb a mosque in sauidland; we can choose them. but a few in londoinistan should be closed - one way or another. if local govts won't close them, then we can close them with a bomb.

tese mosques and madrassas are suicide bombver factories and as such are justifiable as targets - as would be any place bombs and missiles are made or where soldiers are traioned. they are as ligetimate as the terror training camps in talibanistan.

the international cartoon intifada was orhchestrated. we need to counter-attack by puncihing those whgo would attack us. anywhere we choose. we can broaden the war this way as we choose. it's just another category of target.

need i i remind you we are NOW fighting in spain, the uk, denmark, france, italy, bosnia, chechnya, turkey, georgia, jordan, lebanon, israel, syria, iraq, afghanistan, egypt, sudan, djibouti, yemen, pakistan, thailand, and the philippines. and i probably left a few place out. there are mosques and madrassas in many of these nations that should be shur down - one way or another, and which should be OPENLY threatened before we bomb them: "if you attack us we will destroy any of these and as many of these targets as we choose. so dont attack us."

we are fighting an enemy who attacks us on religious groiunds therefore it IS a religious war. nothing can alter that fact. calling a dog's tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. failure to acknowledge the TYPE of war we are in is to lay a faulty foundation uopm which no startegy will work. we should exploit/deploy our enemy's religiousity against them.
hence we should also threaten mecca - as a retaliatory move. this would be a deterrent. deterrence tamps things down. so this would tamp things down.

can you suggest another deterrent?

reliapundit said...

michael: remember -i don't emrely adviocate a hardline military response; i also advicate cracking down on the muslim nations which perpetuate misogyny and emdogamy and polygamy.

i think these are the root causes of muslim poverty, xenophobia, violence, and racism.

(if you google these keywords at my site you'll get four or five link-filled artciles which demostarte the link.)

and earlier today i reiterated my proposal for dealing with these root causes:

I say: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. It is time we fought back: Europe should deport (as in SEND HOME) ALL Muslims who refuse to assimilate and obey the rules and norms of Europe. AND, I say: it's time the Free World HALTED ALL AID, LOANS, AND TRADE with any and all nations which do NOT prohibit polygamy, consanguinous marriage, and misogyny. We mustn't tolerate OR ENABLE IN ANY WAY those who sytematically disenfranchise people of their UNIVERSAL human rights becuase of their gender or religion - AS MUSLIMS ROUTINELY DO IN THE NATIONS THEY CONTROL.

Mike Benton said...

Try this for a two part plan: First we do an all out push to get the southern half of our hemisphere to trust our plan. Second, implement the plan, namely: complete take over of all middle east oil fields, to be put under international supervision. No private counrty owns any oil, until the Islamo's die of old age.

reliapundit said...

i think we just need to let the marketplace find alternatives to oil.

it's happening already.

and we need to isloate all nations which don;lt allow universal human rights: the arab muslim ones and china.

in the meantime: we need to be as tough as necessary and clkaroity helps this. we must make it clear to the enemy that wer can and will destory them if they mess with us.

maybe we need to launch a special nuke armed satellite in geo-stationary orbit over mecca. that might give them the right idea. and tell them two things: we will gaurnatee that no one messes with mecca, BUT... "mess with us and mecca is dust."

Michael said...

I'll just say again that the mosques and schools supporting terror need to be rolled up regardless of whether Christian churches happen to be burned in Nigeria or elsewhere and trying to make the second some kind of rhetorical "condition" for the first doesn't make any tactical sense.

Also, we probably have different ideas about what "religious war" means. To my mind, if we were engaging in an actual religous war, we'd be closing mosques in the U.S. regardless of whether or not they support terrorism. We don't choose our allies and enemies based on their religious affiliation but based on their stance as to peace and freedom. This is why I don't consider the GWOT a religious war.

reliapundit said...

you wrote:

"We don't choose our allies and enemies based on their religious affiliation but based on their stance as to peace and freedom. This is why I don't consider the GWOT a religious war."

our enemies are tyrannical totalitarianistic religious fanatics.

this is what animates their attacks, recritment, goals.

counter-attacking their delis or libraries or refineries does NOT get at the heart of their command & control, nor will it dispirit them - make them lose their resolve.

the best way to defeat them is to prove to them that their faith is VAPID, useless sham.

we can do this by wiping out their radical mosques and madrassas for a START.

jiuts becasue YOu don;t think this is a religious war doesn;t make it so. it IS a religious war becasue that's why we are being attacked.

denying this fact is harmful to our cause, and plays into the enemy's casue - and that of their fifth column the Left.

it makes perfect tactical sense to warn the enemy that if the continue their attacks on us we will attack their "factories".

there ARE many mosques here which should be shut. and muslim foundations, too.

we have been way too TIMID.

buhs has followed this policy oin the hope that "moderate muslims" wouold come to the fore.

this has failed.

we should stop with the ROP BS and fight back with everything we got.

or would you rather wait until they detonate a nuke in nyc or dc or l.a. or tel aviv or london?

the enemy is only limited by its means.
as soon as it gets the ability to attack us with WMD they will.

why wait for them to murder 100,000-one million of us!?

there is no need to wait.

they have set out their goals: reestablish the caliphate under salafist sharia.

they commit genocide to accomplish this. genocide against fellow muslims - if they are shia or if they are dark brown as in iraq and darfur, respectively.

they rape and murder their own daughters. call it honor killings.

it is time to neutralize them by destoying that which animates their hatred. start with the fanatical mosques and madrassas and mullahs.

close them, destroy them. assassinate mulahs who put fatwas on cartoonists.

and if they don't capitulate, then keep escalating until mecca.

then vaporize it. that will end islam once and for all.

Michael said...

Your comment makes good use of straw men. No one proposed attacking delis, libraries, and refineries and I certainly didn't imply that I favor "waiting" until "they detonate a nuke" or "murder 1000,000-one million of us". We're not "waiting". You said yourself that the fighting is going on in different ways using different methods all over the world.

I happen to disagree with one or two of the methods you favor. Luckily, we'll never find out if your proposals for assassination and bomb threats on Mecca will work because our government and military won't employ them. We'll win this war by being tough, yes, but not by accepting our enemy's terms and methods.

I'll let you have the last word as my position is so simple that my comments have become quite repetitive :>) Thanks again for the discussion.

reliapundit said...

we were more ruthless on the battlefield than the krauts or the nips, that's why we won. we got the nuke first and used it.

if we had fouhg them as wimpily as we are now then we would have lost.

for example: we summarily executed THOUSANDS of nazis soldiers at the end of the war.

it made occupation easier/better/more peaceful.

we ahould be doing the =same now, and not running caribbean country clubs for them in cuba or anywhere else.

let the en,my know we will demolish them with everythjing we've got and we will win sooner with less casualites.

i belive we should haver detonated a NUKE over tora bora in 2001.

we would have gotten ubl and also sent the CORRECT message: DONT FUCK WITH US!

that fear is what makes peace.

peace is achieved through strength and VICTORY. NOT by accomodating the enemy and fighting with one hand behind our backs.

all the best!