My (Semi-Serious) Plan For Combating Jihad

[EmeraldCityWanderer]

Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni

What I said was meant to be tongue-in-cheek and not to be taken 100% literally.

Yeah, but you put it here so I took it semi-seriously. It's hard to get tone across in a written medium.

Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni

The only policies that I would seriously consider would be the countries in Europe should consider restricting mosques until Saudi Arabia allows freedom of religion. The Saudis are quite fond of accusing European countries of violating the religious freedom of Muslims, but you would be sentenced to death if you tried to open a church and Saudi Arabia bars Jews from entering the country.

Taking away rights is not a good plan when others take away rights. Especially when it's a single countries laws to do so when there are a number of Muslim countries. Indonesia has the highest Muslim population and does not do so. It also has publicly stopped those who tried.

If a single majority Christian country banned construction of Mosques...should other countries stop letting their own people construct churches until they do?

Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni

The other policy I would consider would be closing down mosques that are tied to terrorist groups. Because those mosques are less places of worship and more recruitment centers for extremist organizations. The gay nightclub thing is just hyperbole. It should also be noted that Islamic conquerors have a long history converting churches, synagogues, and temples into mosques. The second most famous mosque (second only to the Dome of the Rock), the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul was originally a church.

The building is not at fault for what the leadership does. Those recruiting or advocating violence should be removed, and if there are moderates left it is their right to use the same space if they paid for it. If it closes because the congregation was as radicalized then that's what happens. Just as people didn't have the right to close churches that advocated doing horrible things to homosexuals, non-believers, or others.

Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni

And the part about the free car was obviously a joke, but the point would to publicly renounce their faith in other words becoming an apostate.

Yeah, but I was hoping to get a free car by renouncing something publicly...like a non smoker giving up smoking for a gift.

Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni

And as far as a blasphemy radicalizing moderates. I would say that if someone is willing to join ISIS or the Muslim Brotherhood over a cartoon or book or movie, I wouldn't say they are very moderate.

True, but many more would if you start desecrating religious holy sites intentionally while violating a countries airspace/telecommunications. Drawing a holy figure like Jesus in a bad way is a lot different than breaching the Italian airspace and slathering the Vatican in material. Even if the material dropped is relatively benign...it's still a violation of the airspace of a country. If a plane wanted to drop booklets in the US it would be shot down as well as causing an international incident.

It is disconcerting that it only applies to Muslims (even if semi-serious). Anders Behring Breivik was to himself one of the most Christian people alive, and did his violence in the name of his wacked out version just as ISIS does their violence in the name of their wacked out beliefs. It is just the mental health services in Saudi Arabia are much poorer (if the people are poorer), as well as policing violence expression, so there are more of these wackjobs. However, if someone like Anders did something horrible we wouldn't breach the airspace and desecrate sites he considered holy as a Christian...only if the violent person was Muslim.

[Frank_Carbonni]

Originally Posted by [B

EmeraldCityWanderer[/b]]Taking away rights is not a good plan when others take away rights. Especially when it's a single countries laws to do so when there are a number of Muslim countries. Indonesia has the highest Muslim population and does not do so. It also has publicly stopped those who tried.

If a single majority Christian country banned construction of Mosques...should other countries stop letting their own people construct churches until they do?

The Saudis explicitly forbid anyone from practicing any religion other than Islam on their soil under pain of death. If someone tries to convert to another religion, declares their atheism, or even has a liberal interpretation of Islam, they will be dragged out to a public square and have their head sliced off with a sword.

However, the Saudis are extremely critical and vocal in regards to how other countries treat Islam. It's a country that complains when a local government in a country over a thousand miles away passes an ordinance restricting the volume of the call to prayer being broadcast from local mosques, but requires the coffins of non-Muslims who are buried in the country to be encased in three feet of cement to make sure that their bodies will never touch Muslim soil.

I would support that policy purely for the troll value against the Saudis. If they want to sit at the grownups table, they need to act like it.

Originally Posted by [B

EmeraldCityWanderer[/b]]The building is not at fault for what the leadership does. Those recruiting or advocating violence should be removed, and if there are moderates left it is their right to use the same space if they paid for it. If it closes because the congregation was as radicalized then that's what happens. Just as people didn't have the right to close churches that advocated doing horrible things to homosexuals, non-believers, or others.

If a mosque is used as a terrorist recruiting center, it should be seized by the government. This I'm actually pretty serious about (everything else is more of a Walter Mitty type fantasy). Property is seized all the time by the government for far dumber reasons all the time. If you use your property to grow marijuana, your house can be seized. Hell, everything you own (or suspected to own) can be seized without trial.

If that BS is allowed to stand, I don't think seizing a mosque that has been used to indoctrinate and recruit terrorists is 100% reasonable because it is less a house of worship and more like an enemy base.

Originally Posted by [B

EmeraldCityWanderer[/b]]True, but many more would if you start desecrating religious holy sites intentionally while violating a countries airspace/telecommunications. Drawing a holy figure like Jesus in a bad way is a lot different than breaching the Italian airspace and slathering the Vatican in material. Even if the material dropped is relatively benign...it's still a violation of the airspace of a country. If a plane wanted to drop booklets in the US it would be shot down as well as causing an international incident.

It is disconcerting that it only applies to Muslims (even if semi-serious). Anders Behring Breivik was to himself one of the most Christian people alive, and did his violence in the name of his wacked out version just as ISIS does their violence in the name of their wacked out beliefs. It is just the mental health services in Saudi Arabia are much poorer (if the people are poorer), as well as policing violence expression, so there are more of these wackjobs. However, if someone like Anders did something horrible we wouldn't breach the airspace and desecrate sites he considered holy as a Christian...only if the violent person was Muslim.

Meh. Jihadis attack Jews, Christians, Hindis, Sikhs, atheists, agnostics, and even other Muslims all the time and will desecrate holy sites all the time and so far none of those groups have become terribly militant towards all Muslims.

When the Jordanians held Jerusalem, do you what they did with the Wailing Wall? They built a latrine against it. They literally urinated and defecated on the Holiest site in Judaism.

Like I said, if we are dealing with people who literally get more offended by a cartoon or book or movie trailer than they do by actual violence and destruction, then let's give it to them that way. If blowing up some radical only makes him a martyr, why not use satire and blasphemy as weapons instead? Couldn't hurt at this point.

And the fact that Saudi Arabia is such an incubator for terrorists and radicals has nothing to do with the state of the mental health services in Saudi Arabia and has everything to do with the Saudi government funding and promoting an ultra-strict and ultra-violent brand of Islam both at home and abroad with billions of oil dollars.

Pakistan, Qatar, and Iran also play a role, but the Saudis are the main culprits.

You see the Saudis not only control about a quarter of the world's oil, but they also control the two holiest cities in Islam. The fact that Mecca and Medina are located in Saudi Arabia gives the Saudis a fair bit of credibility in the Muslim world and that the Saudi government spends a lot of money on training clerics (who are of course taught some of the strictest and most militant forms of Islam) and building mosques and madrasas (which are staffed by Saudi trained clerics). The Saudis have been doing this for at least 40 years and Islam as a whole has become a lot more militant because of it. The general trend is that Islam is becoming stricter and more militant. If you don't believe me; look up pictures of college students in Muslim countries. Look up pictures from the 1970s then 1980s then 1990s and now. Look to see how the female students dress from decade to decade. You will that the clothing style becomes more conservative and the hijab becomes more common from decade to decade.

The Saudis struck a deal with the extremists in their country. They would give the radicals whatever they wanted and fund their international ambitions as long as they would promote Saudi Arabia as the ideal Muslim state and not touch the Saudi Royal Family. Basically most of the terror we see nowadays can trace its roots to Saudi Arabia in one way or another.

[Ghostrider275452]

Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni

Let's face it. The West has been at war with Radical Islam since at least the 70s. Nothing we have done really seems to work. There are too many radicals spread out over too many places to effectively target militarily and pretending that nothing is wrong is only a recipe for disaster.

Not only are the radicals too hard to target, but many are actually eager to die. Killing them is good in the short term, but more radicals are being raised or converted for every extremist that gets clipped.

This is a major problem, but I think I have a solution. We have been going about this all the wrong way. We are dealing with people that value symbolism and magical thinking more than reality or their own lives. Remember, we are talking about people who literally shoved girls back into a burning building because they were trying to escape the flames without their headscarves. These people don't think like us. However, I think we can use that against them.

Here are some suggestions for screwing with the Jihadis in a way that will make them think twice:

1) European nations should refuse to allow the construction of any more mosques in their countries until Saudi Arabia allows the construction of churches and synagogues in Saudi Arabia and the repeal of apostasy being a capital offense.

2) Any mosque that has been proven to have recruited terrorists or incited religious hatred will be confiscated and turned into a gay nightclub.

3) In response to any terrorist attack on the West (mass shooting, bombing, etc.) NATO military planes will drop packages containing pornography, pork rinds, alcohol, and Bibles on Mecca and Medina.

4) A free Camaro for any Muslim male between the ages of 16-35 who publicly renounces his faith.

5) When an Islamic terrorist group holds a hostage and threatens to behead him and then has the gall to suggest that it is our fault because we didn't give into their demands, we threaten to release a video of our own. We make a whole series of gay porno films about Mohammad. Really gross gay porn too. Like have Mohammad enter a Jewish village and have him execute the men because they just didn't fist him hard enough. Well, you get the idea.

When they release their video making demands. We tell them that if they don't release the hostage(s) that we'll release ours and that it will be their fault that the Prophet has been insulted. That the real blasphemer is not *insert Western country here* but *insert terrorist group here*.

6) We use our electronic warfare capability to interrupt the signal of the various firebrand televised clerics in the Middle East and replace the broadcast with reruns of Baywatch.

The problem is not lack physical strength, but rather a lack of will. When you are dealing with people who are more offended by a cartoon (which really wasn't that offensive) than the actually killing of people (theirs or ours) than it goes to show that you can't fight them the same way you could fight the Nazis. You need to get creative. Don't threaten sanctions. Threaten a new uncensored cartoon produced by Matt Stone and Trey Parker. Let's hit them where it hurts.

Great imagination!