(Untitled)

[jordan179]

There is an undercurrent in our nation right now that we should do something to prevent people from "provoking" the Muslims by engaging in behavior or speech that is critical or disrespectfal of Islam.  The argument is "It's rude anyway, I certainly wouldn't want to make a movie like The Innocence of Muslims or burn a Koran, so why should we face

Comments

[jordan179]

Is shoot lots of people and bomb them the best you've got?

Thinking about this as a general question, when some other Power or Powers are determined to enforce something unendurable upon one's own people, "shoot lots of people and bomb them" is the best that anyone has got. The only other alternative is surrender on the principle, and I think that this is a principle on which we cannot afford to surrender.

The exception would be if the other Power or Powers making the demand were stronger than us, in which case the indicated strategy would be temporary surrender, while building up to fight again another day. And yes, I'm perfectly aware that this is exactly how the Muslim Powers would view yielding to us now -- which is why I don't think in the long run we'll be able to tolerate the existence of self-governed Muslim Powers, unless they culturally advance to a superior degree of tolerance than that which they possess currently.

Such advance will not happen overnight -- in the meantime, we must deal with the Muslim Powers which we have now. And, given what they are violently demanding, violent defiance is the only method of "dealing" which seems practical.

Again, do you have a superior course of action to propose?

[zornhau]

I think you're treating my contribution as an attempt to debate with you - it's not. I am that rare creature; a hawkish liberal. I am absolutely morally fine with defending our freedom of speech in decisive and bellicose ways.

However, I'm just trying to work out how this will go in the real world.

E.g. how do we stop the zero tolerance approach handing medium term geopolitical and economic advantage to countries who prevent their populations offending the crazies.

[jordan179]

However, I'm just trying to work out how this will go in the real world.

E.g. how do we stop the zero tolerance approach handing medium term geopolitical and economic advantage to countries who prevent their populations offending the crazies.

Strike hard and decisively enough that those Powers which base, shelter, support and refuse to incarcerate -- or worse, are run by -- their crazies, are no longer of much diplomatic, economic or geopolitical importance.

A good first step with regards to the resource which makes the Mideast strategically-relevant would be to really fight "wars for oil" -- which is to say, when we win, we sequester the oil production for decades in advance for "reparations." In the case of countries without significant oil, we could impose other penalties upon their defeat. Egypt, for instance, has run the Suez Canal long enough, thank you ...

General point: we have to get serious about these wars. We have to start seeing them as the wars for survival that they are, long-term, and stop seeing them as "wars of choice." We have come close to forgetting that both 9-11 atrocities involved attacks on American soil, and the first one on soil that was American by more than mere courtesy. We can't just declare the war over and come home, because if we do it will follow us home.

The Costs of Submission

[jordan179]

You're also, I think, missing the point that submission the Muslim demands also carries costs which impose constitutional, diplomatic, economic, geopolitical and political disadvantages on countries who "prevent their populations offending the crazies."

The requirement to curb freedom of speech represents a violation of Natural Right; like all such violations, it reduces the efficiency of the society as a whole. Specifically, it makes it more difficult for such societies to have peaceful, liberal-democratic debates about how to deal with the problems posed by Muslim immigrants, increasing the likelihood that resentments on the part of non-Muslims and natives will be allowed to build unanswered to the point of what Fjordman terms an "extraconstitutional excursion" of some kind: rioting, fascistic coups or risings, or actual civil war.

Furthermore, once one has submitted to the first outrageous demand, new outrageous demands will follow, and continue either until the society has accepted dhimmitude, or until the society finally has enough and says "No more." By that time, the Muslims will have accepted the submissions as their right, and the result is likely to be very bloody internal and possibly external conflict.

Indeed, part of the reason why matters went so ill for us after the Libyan attack was that President Obama bent over backward to placate the Muslim world. That was a show of weakness: a show of weakness that signalled other Muslim crazies to riot and issue further demands.

This has now gone as far as Pakistan issuing an official demand that the United States curb its own freedom of speech: which is to say a nuclear Regional Power has publicly stated to us that it considers our following our own Constitution to be an act of war against Pakistan. This would probably not have happened had Obama stood up more firmly to the "crazies" on 09-11-2012, and refused to call The Innocence of Muslims "provocation" for the attacks.

This is, indeed, the most urgent reason why we need to ditch Obama in November 2012. Obama's public displays of weakness have reduced our reputation to the point where a mere Regional Power like Pakistan considers it safe to threaten us with war if we fail to govern the speech of our own citizens to Pakistan's liking. How much worse will things be if Obama gets four more years?

Re: The Costs of Submission

[kitten_goddess]

It does not help either that we are dependent upon Muslim crazies for much of our oil supply, either. If all our energy were produced domestically, it would be easier for us to tell them to go pound sand.

Re: The Costs of Submission

[jordan179]

The problem is Muslim aggression, not our dependence on Muslim-owned oil. Was our whole energy generation and transport system nuclear-powered, it would not have saved a single life on 9-11-2001. Were we more willing to take offense at their actions, we would take the oil and let the Muslims cry for it.

Re: The Costs of Submission

[gothelittle]

No, actually, I have to admit I think that headnoises has a point. I remember that, when the economy was first crashing with W Bush in charge, Iran started scaling back its aggressive behavior because oil prices were dropping like a stone and Iran could not afford its bread and circuses.

We may need to step up and bomb them...

...or we may simply need to drill on our own soil, withdraw from the market, seek penalties through the UN against those who buy from terrorist countries, and watch these corrupt economies collapse under their own bloated weight one by one.

At least, it would make a good start, and it would give us time to build up our own military and weaken the enemy should a direct strike become necessary.

I think it would be a good first step.