Sunday, March 01, 2015

A strategy to Defeat Islamic Conquest

Resposnse to McCarthy Jim Campbell blogged an excellent essay by Andrew McCarthy in which McCarthy swerved dangerously close to the truth but stopped a few millimeters short of the goal. This is my response to Jim's commentary and McCarthy's essay.
  • To affect the Muslim and Islamic Jihadist mind, they must all be blown asunder.
    • Vaporizing them obliterates their minds. Positive mental attitude correction can only be made while they are alive, by forcing them to abandon belief in Allah, his imperatives, threat and promise.
  • The Atomic bomb was an excellent mood changer when dropped on the Japanese during WW II. 
    • It did not change the attitude of those it vaporized. It terrorized and demoralized the survivors. That can not happen with Muslims unless they cease believing in Allah. Please review "The Quranic Concept Of War", page 60.
  • There is a path to victory in the fight against radical Islam, and our next president should embrace it.
    • Drop the fact bomb. Where that is insufficient, drop nukes. Totally eradicate Islam from the face of the earth: make Islam extinct feces. Anything less guarantees continued terrorist imperialism.
  • What should be the national-defense strategy of the United States against radical Islam, the most immediate and thoroughgoing security and cultural threat we face today? 
    • Total extinction :  a world absolutely free of believers in Islamic supremacism. No living Muslims.
  • What should we hope to hear from Republicans who want to be the party’s standard-bearer?
    • "Islam is the enemy; my strategy is to eradicate it."
  • Those are all pretexts for aggression. Our enemies are driven by an ideology, Islamic supremacism, that is rooted in a classical interpretation of sharia — Islamic law.
    • Only Allah has the right to be worshiped. Only Allah has the right to legislate. Only Allah has the right to rule and govern. Infidelity must be eliminated by death or Islam. Allah commands conquest. Allah commands striking terror. Allah promises victory. Go to Jihad or go to Hell. Go to Jihad and go to Paradise.
  • In the “you are with us or you are with the terrorists” view of national security, any Muslim nation, organization, or individual that adheres to Islamic supremacism is on the wrong side.
    • Every person who believes in Allah, his imperatives, threat & Promise is one of the enemy: all Muslims. No exceptions.
  • A candidate who cannot tell liberty’s friends from liberty’s enemies is not fit to be commander-in-chief.
    • A candidate who will not curse & condemn Islam is not fit for nomination.
    At least three screen plays based on Ibn Ishaq's Sira sit on the shelf because nobody has the SISU to produce and distribute them. Get it done. Follow up with detailed docudramas demonstrating how Moe issued situational scripture, prayed to Satan for prey & plunder, raped captive women and lusted after children. That would be a good start.

    Remind Muslims of Allah's promises of "near victory" & irreversible conquest.  Rub their snouts in the reconquests of Bulgaria, Greece, Israel & Romania.  Rub their snouts in four successive defeats by Israel.

    Islam is not peaceful. It is intrinsically violent because its founder got his living by extortion and plunder; he created Islam to perpetuate war under a false mantle of religion. Islam is the nearest thing to vampirism. It can not be respected or tolerated, it must be exterminated. Muslims will not cease attacking because their eternal destination depends on it. While they believe they can not be defeated short of extinction.

Crucial quotes from the Qur'anic Concept of war

    Brig. S.K. Malik wrote The Qur'anic Concept of War as a training manual for the army of Pakistan.  His analysis will help you to comprehend their strategy. Terror is both a means and an end.  This paragraph comes from the bottom of page 59. [Emphasis added.]

Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only
a means, it is the end in itself. Once a condition of terror into
the opponent's heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be
achieved. It is the point where the means and the end meet
and merge. Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon
the enemy; it is me decision we wish to impose upon him.

    There is one necessary prerequisite for instilling terror: the destruction of our faith. Islam's strong faith shields Muslims from being terrorized. This paragraph comes from page 60. [Emphasis added.]

Terror cannot be struck into the hearts of an army by merely
 cutting its lines of communication or depriving it of its routes
of withdrawal. It is basically related to the strength or weakness
of the human soul. It can be instilled only if the opponent's
Faith is destroyed. Psychological dislocation is temporary;
spiritual dislocation is permanent. Psychological dislocation can be
produced by a physical act but this does not hold good of the
spiritual dislocation. To instill terror into the hearts of the enemy, 
it is essential. in the ultimate analysis, to dislocate his Faith. An
invincible Faith is immune to terror. A weak Faith offers inroads
to terror. The Faith conferred upon us by the Holy Qur'an has
the inherent strength to ward off terror from us and to enable
us to strike terror into the enemy. Whatever the form or type of
strategy directed against the enemy, it must, in order to be effective,
be capable of striking terror into the hearts of the enemy. A strategy
that fails to attain this condition suffers from inherent drawbacks
and weaknesses; and should be reviewed and modified. This rule
is fully applicable to nuclear as well as conventional wars. It is
equally true of the strategy of nuclear deterrence in fashion
today. To be credible and effective, the strategy of deterrence
must be capable of striking terror into the hearts of the enemy.


UncleVladdi said...

As usual, (and I've emailed him directly about this) I take issue with McCarthy's assertions about "Radical" islam, and about how "Sharia" is behind it all!

Muhammad himself was an arch-criminal, who wrote a crime-manual book of alibis and excuses that basically proclaim that, since he got away with committing his crimes (he tried them all, many times, and in stead of ever expressing any regret for having committed them, or any remorse, told everyone else how much fun they'd been to commit, and advised everyone else join him in the fun in committing them, too!) then "god" must have wanted him to get away with committing them!

Islam's Qur'an is the the rationalized set of victim-blaming excuses Muhammad the bandit-king made up for his own criminal behaviour. The hadiths are later embellishments on the Qur'an's (often incomplete, and basically backwards and irrational) excuses. Sharia crime ("law") is a set of criminal rules further based on the Qur'an and hadiths.

"Sharia" is just the (criminal, us-versus-them and group-might-makes-right) principles culled from the Qur'an, and codified and enshrined in a (criminal) "legal" system.

Sharia crime ("law") only tries to rationalize all of Muhammad's crimes, and make them into some sort of a "legal" system (impossible, of course)! It basically tries to explain, justify, and legitimate the subjective double-standard opinions of us-versus-them and group-might-makes-right (i.e: crime) which of course are totally opposed to all real objective universal human rights principles! (That rights only come with consensual responsibilities)!

Criminals believe in idolatrous group-might-made-rights (which is of course only what all criminals pretend to believe in - if they can take your stuff by force, then they have a 'right' to it) which automatically deprives all real human citizen individuals of theirs!

So lying (fraud) is also their favorite tactic, because it's the most basic form of theft (it's the theft of the Truth) and theft IS crime! Of course, their first lie is to them selves: "I have a right to your stuff, because I have the ability to take it without asking you!"

This is the #1 official basis for sharia crime ("law")!

Allowing foreign (sharia "law") courts to exist in your country is to enable those foreign governments to govern in your country; it’s obviously TREASON.

Islam's Sharia is either compatable with our Western, morality-based law (in which case it is superfluous) or it is not (in which case it is illegal).

There is only one universally accepted version of sharia crime (‘law’) and that is the original, Haneefite version as recorded in The Hedaya and used by the Ottoman Empire to rule all of islam for centuries; all moslems in all their countries are very aware of its simple might-makes-right and us-versus-them tenets and strictures.

There is really only one Qur’an, one islam, and one sharia.

And islam is inherently against ALL sovereign national countries (which it regards as only temporary man-made false idols, to be eventually destroyed and replaced by the global muslim Ummah, ruled by their theocratic Caliphate government) because since the Qur'an and subsequent sharia elaborations embody "god's" perfect laws which are to apply to all mankind everywhere, why would anyone ever need any merely human legislators (even 'democratically elected' ones)?!

So, since islam is a subversive anti-national and anti-legal entity, why on earth are any of its "muslim" members ever afforded any legal standing to promote their criminal treasonous sedition, before any of our courts of law?!

Dajjal said...

I campaign against prefixing adjectives to Islam. It is what it is, by design and immutably.

Admitting Muslims was a fatal error which the powers that be now view as irreversible.

UncleVladdi said...

They still don't consider it an "error" at all!

Idolatrous Proglodytes PREFER the "noble savage" ideal (because tribal collectivists are less greedy, to them, since they don't value private personal property, and also don't believe in national borders or personal boundaries, which progs pretend "caused" all past wars!

And the banksters prefer them because they seem to be the perfect slaves; muslims have been known to work for food.