The Jordanian doctor who killed seven CIA employees in a suicide attack in Afghanistan said in video clips broadcast posthumously Saturday that all jihadists must attack U.S. targets to avenge the death of Pakistani Taliban chief Baitullah Mehsud.This is why Bush should have nuked Tora Bora in 2001.
Footage showed Humam Khalil Abu Mulal al-Balawi -- whom the CIA had cultivated as an asset against al-Qaida -- sitting with Mehsud's successor in an undisclosed location. It essentially confirmed the Pakistani Taliban's claim of responsibility for one of the worst attacks in CIA history, though a senior militant told The Associated Press that al-Qaida and Afghan insurgents played roles, too.
- Bush could have erased the Taliban and al Qaeda in one fell swoop and sent the best most awesome powerful message to anyone who would attack us: "Don't tread on us; we will respond without limit!"
- Saddam would've disarmed, registered as a libertarian and converted to Buddhism.
- Recognizing the existential threat, Muslim states would've seriously cracked down on the "radicals" in their midst - as Egypt mostly does.
But Bush was moderate who was unwilling to do what FDR and Truman did: fight total war, no holds barred.
As a result of Bush's half-assery, we are bogged down in a war of attrition in the lawless tribal regions of Afghanistan for the 9th year. As a result of Bush's half-assery, we have CIA agents on the border directing drone attacks in an attempt to counter-attack with pin-point pin-pricks against the Taliban leadership and al Qaeda leadership.
BUT: A nuke in November of 2001 would've ended the GWOT with a victory for the good guys then and there. We'd have ZERO troops and ZERO CIA agents in Afghanistan - or anywhere else.
Truman nuked Japan - and not only won the war, but saved about 20 million lives --- most of them Japanese.
FDR started the Manhattan Project and built our nukes ASAP in order to get them before the enemy - and to use them on the enemy before the enemy could use them on us.
FDR was right to do so.
FDR - and Truman - wanted to win at all costs.
That's the right way to fight a war.
Or, look at it this way:
Thinking you can win a war using half-measures violates a law of physics: we must be at least as violent as the enemy.
Newton's third law: law of reciprocal actions
Newton's Third Law.
Lex iii: actioni contrariam semper et æqualem esse reactionem: sive corporum duorum actiones in se mutuo semper esse æquales et in partes contrarias dirigi.
''To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions''.
If we don't use superior force to the enemy, then we either remain in a constant state of war or begin we begin to lose.
And in a war in which we have a lot to lose and very high costs for defending ourselves - and the enemy has nothing to lose and no assets to protect - the strategy to fight a half-assed war makes zero sense.
The jihadist enemy can use and has used a few hundred dollars of PETN and forces us to spend billions. Billions.
This is a losing game for us, not them.
If we want to win, then we need to fight a total war.
Now, this Jordanian MD - an intelligent and educated man who deliberately chose jihad - brings to mind a question:
- Who knows more about Islam, Bin Laden & Zawahiri or George Bush & Hillary Clinton? (just picking 4 examples; there are countless others.)
- Which is to really ask, is there any true, real factual and meaningful basis for calling Islam a religion of peace?
Obviously not. The entire history of Islam - and how it's currently practiced by its most devout members - proves it is a violent, misogynistic and genocidal martial creed.
It should be erased from the face of the earth and eradicated from the annals of humanity.
Islam should be no more tolerated than Nazism.
In fact: Islam is worse than Nazism.
Islam is the most genocidal creed of all time and has killed more people than any other ideology in all of human history.
It's long passed time it was demolished.
By whatever means necessary.
Or do what "reasonable moderates" ask: put your head up your ass and cross your fingers, and put your faith in a surge of air marshals and connecting the dots.
You want some dots to connect?
I'll give you some dots to connect:
- the koran
It's them or us.
I say we should erase them from the face of the earth.
Start with dropping a few small nukes on the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Then - if they don't get the message - a few small nukes on Yemen. Then Somalia. Then Iran and its stooges. Then Algeria and so on. I think the Muslim world will get the message after the first nuke goes off on top of the Taliban.
FDR would've done it. Truman did.
It will save lives and lead to victory.
Or we can slowly allow the West to be bankrupted and islamified.
The choice is ours: lose a war of attrition or win a total war.
If we dither until Iran has a nukes, then we've lost both.
(ADDENDUM: More on the morality of using nukes HERE and HERE and HERE.]