THE NEW WAR
lead story in times today points up the truth that wwiv is with islam, that it is wrongly characterized as a "war" on al queda, a radical fringe. public opinion is generally supportive of president bush's handling of the post-sept. 11 world. why, i don't know.
eight months now and we still don't even have bin laden or the taliban leader, much less have we won the war and ended any threat. instead, islam now plans a new attack that will make the wtc attacks pale in comparison.
why has this been allowed to happen. first and foremost, it it a consequence of misconceptualilzing the war as with al queda. the fact is islam is nazism by another name. it is a philosophy that is fascistic, anti-west, anti-woman, anti-semitic and anti-tolerant. that is the case not in some warped al queda conception of islam but in islam itself. that is the case in iraq, iran, lybia, syria, as well as "friendly" islamic states like pakistan and saudi arabia.
second, it has happened because of a misconceptualization of the islamic strategy in the war. a guerilla war beguiles america into thinking that we are fighting a rag-tag band of extremists, with no state behind it, sanctioning it or directing it. the truth is that throughout islamic history the preferred mode of military engagement is through just such guerilla warfare. the western concept of melodramatic state "declarations" of war is much less familiar in islam. combine america's ignorance of the nature of the islamic threat with the capablilties of a well-financed, disciplined group like al queda and a "defeat" of america is indeed plausible.
islam will never occupy the united states--that's the western conceptualization of losing a war that lulls us--but it can defeat america on it's own battlefield, the battlefield of culture. an attack like that alluded to in the times article today, say with a "dirty" a-bomb detonated near manhattan, would plunge the u.s. and the west into economic depression. and that would dramatically lessen the influence of our culture worldwide. that manhattan would be rendered radioactive for decades is incidental.
so the nature of the war and it's perceived lack of state sponsorship leads everyone from the president to the man in the street to think that we can defeat the enemy with surgical strikes, that such a war must be waged with a "coalition" of western nations and "good" islamic states.
in fact, this war makes the western concept of war as outdated as the the tactic of the british in wearing bright red coats against the colonists in the revolutionary war.
we must realize the dire threat to our way of life presented here and the identity of the enemy. this is indeed a "clash of civilizations" and must be fought as such. we do value life more than islam does, and we should never destroy it casually, but we must be prepared to use the force necessary to win this clash. i do not know all of the high-tech options we have in our arsenal and we should attempt to get the job done with the least loss of life, but if we are to err, it should be on the side of making sure that we prevail and that our enemy is defeated rather than wounding, but not killing the enemy, and letting it live another day to attack us.
my prescription today is the same as it was on sept 12. we should simultaneously destroy the cities of the terror crescent, from damascus to tripoli to baghdad to tehran. that destruction should be effectuated with the most efficient means that we have, including nuclear weapons. the american conscience, my conscience, recoils at the thought of women and children and non-combatant men being slaughtered. it should not. a majority of islamic followers worldwide supports osama bin laden. like japan did during ww ii with the use of kamikaze bombers, islam ruthlessly uses it's civilians in suicide missions against american civilians.
of course,in addition to the above we must find bin laden and kill him. if we have good cause to believe that he is in the "lawless" area in pakistan bordering afghanistan then we should absolutely use nuclear weapons on that region. he must be destroyed. now.
i have no illusions about what would happen next. islamabad would erupt and it also should be destroyed. the nazis of saudi arabia will erupt too, and they should be destroyed. we should then hunt down active islamic nazis whereever they exist, in france, germany, the philippines, and we should bomb those areas where they live.
madness. utter madness. no. we dropped atomic bombs on two civilian centers of japan after an attack on pearl harbor less deadly than that on new york on sept. 11. this is ww iv. it should be prosecuted as such.
-benjamin harris
lead story in times today points up the truth that wwiv is with islam, that it is wrongly characterized as a "war" on al queda, a radical fringe. public opinion is generally supportive of president bush's handling of the post-sept. 11 world. why, i don't know.
eight months now and we still don't even have bin laden or the taliban leader, much less have we won the war and ended any threat. instead, islam now plans a new attack that will make the wtc attacks pale in comparison.
why has this been allowed to happen. first and foremost, it it a consequence of misconceptualilzing the war as with al queda. the fact is islam is nazism by another name. it is a philosophy that is fascistic, anti-west, anti-woman, anti-semitic and anti-tolerant. that is the case not in some warped al queda conception of islam but in islam itself. that is the case in iraq, iran, lybia, syria, as well as "friendly" islamic states like pakistan and saudi arabia.
second, it has happened because of a misconceptualization of the islamic strategy in the war. a guerilla war beguiles america into thinking that we are fighting a rag-tag band of extremists, with no state behind it, sanctioning it or directing it. the truth is that throughout islamic history the preferred mode of military engagement is through just such guerilla warfare. the western concept of melodramatic state "declarations" of war is much less familiar in islam. combine america's ignorance of the nature of the islamic threat with the capablilties of a well-financed, disciplined group like al queda and a "defeat" of america is indeed plausible.
islam will never occupy the united states--that's the western conceptualization of losing a war that lulls us--but it can defeat america on it's own battlefield, the battlefield of culture. an attack like that alluded to in the times article today, say with a "dirty" a-bomb detonated near manhattan, would plunge the u.s. and the west into economic depression. and that would dramatically lessen the influence of our culture worldwide. that manhattan would be rendered radioactive for decades is incidental.
so the nature of the war and it's perceived lack of state sponsorship leads everyone from the president to the man in the street to think that we can defeat the enemy with surgical strikes, that such a war must be waged with a "coalition" of western nations and "good" islamic states.
in fact, this war makes the western concept of war as outdated as the the tactic of the british in wearing bright red coats against the colonists in the revolutionary war.
we must realize the dire threat to our way of life presented here and the identity of the enemy. this is indeed a "clash of civilizations" and must be fought as such. we do value life more than islam does, and we should never destroy it casually, but we must be prepared to use the force necessary to win this clash. i do not know all of the high-tech options we have in our arsenal and we should attempt to get the job done with the least loss of life, but if we are to err, it should be on the side of making sure that we prevail and that our enemy is defeated rather than wounding, but not killing the enemy, and letting it live another day to attack us.
my prescription today is the same as it was on sept 12. we should simultaneously destroy the cities of the terror crescent, from damascus to tripoli to baghdad to tehran. that destruction should be effectuated with the most efficient means that we have, including nuclear weapons. the american conscience, my conscience, recoils at the thought of women and children and non-combatant men being slaughtered. it should not. a majority of islamic followers worldwide supports osama bin laden. like japan did during ww ii with the use of kamikaze bombers, islam ruthlessly uses it's civilians in suicide missions against american civilians.
of course,in addition to the above we must find bin laden and kill him. if we have good cause to believe that he is in the "lawless" area in pakistan bordering afghanistan then we should absolutely use nuclear weapons on that region. he must be destroyed. now.
i have no illusions about what would happen next. islamabad would erupt and it also should be destroyed. the nazis of saudi arabia will erupt too, and they should be destroyed. we should then hunt down active islamic nazis whereever they exist, in france, germany, the philippines, and we should bomb those areas where they live.
madness. utter madness. no. we dropped atomic bombs on two civilian centers of japan after an attack on pearl harbor less deadly than that on new york on sept. 11. this is ww iv. it should be prosecuted as such.
-benjamin harris
