Terror works

Before the twentieth century, the usual method for suppressing guerrilla war was artificial famine, state sponsored mass rape, and mass murder. During the twentieth century the communists used these methods heavily to quell not only resistance, but to quell resentment, to quell suspected politically incorrect thoughts. These methods generated curiously little resentment. Indeed, it seems that the greater the injury, the less the hostility. Certainly that is how things worked out for the communists. Consider, for example, the extraordinarily brutal measures that the USA used conquer the Philippines, yet the Filipinos love the United States. Today, nation states usually apply methods that are more civilized, more tedious and expensive, but perhaps leave something worth ruling. Yet the resentment is greater, not less. The Filipinos love the United States and Americans, despite the extraordinarily brutal measures the United States used to conquer the Phillipines, while the French hate the United States and Americans for liberating them, thereby making them feel cowardly and unmanly.

It is often argued that indiscriminate terror must be ineffective. If those who are not fighting the terrorists, even those who are collaborating with the terrorists, are in almost as much danger as those who are fighting the terrorists, surely every sensible person will fight. But this is not in fact what we see. Rather, what we saw back in the days when the United States used terror, and what we see in these days when terror is used against Americans, is quite the reverse effect. When terror is used brutally and indiscriminately, everyone feels uneasy merely hearing the terrorists spoken of unkindly, fearing that merely hearing such words spoken might attract the wrath of the terrorists. To speak unkindly of those who murder indiscriminately has become politically incorrect.

A magistrate in the northern Italian city of Bergamo ordered writer Oriana Fallaci to stand trial for vilifying Islam in her book The Force of Reason. which resulted in her exiling herself to America.

Genghis Khan set up a policy of massacring the entire city if it resisted. This produced many surrenders amongst people who would otherwise have fought. Grant’s terror policy ended Confederate resistance.

Similarly, though movie makers generally flatter, rather than condemn their audience, when it comes to Muslims and Christianity, they follow the reverse policy: In the “sum of all fears” they amended the story to avoid offending Muslims, while in “Kingdom of heaven” they rewrote history to spit on Christians, demonstrating the effectiveness and success of terrorism, and rewarding those who use terror against us.

Back when the Muslim world was having hysterics because a guard at Gitmo might have inadvertently caused a minute sacrilege against the Koran, National Public Radio told us every day for a week how sacred the Koran is. In the middle of each news period, they brought on a Muslim clergyman to give us a lengthy sermon. Did not see any Christian clergymen getting any airtime during the piss christ event, demonstrating the effectiveness and success of terrorism, and rewarding those who use terror against us.

Timothy McViegh sought to stop certain extreme government abuses, which have in fact stopped.

Muslim terrorists seek to impose a supremacy for Islam, and they are succeeding. Speech against Christians is privileged, while speech against Muslims is silenced.

Observe, for example, how since the recent escalation in Muslim terror against France and Frenchmen, France’s votes on the security council have become even more anti Israel – for example they voted against the security fence and voted to condemn Israel for killing Ahmed Yassin.

Terror works. Cannot stop it working, so have to make it expensive. If we really cannot find the terrorists, we have to hit people and things they care about. We should kill prominent muslim leaders and sacrilegiously spill their blood over prominent muslim religious monuments. We have to raise the price of terror.

Terror makes Muslims feel strong and proud, for we are in fact terrorized. Terror gives Muslims a living. Without the big handouts made to terrorists such as the PLO by non Muslims they would be even poorer. Terror gives them an alternative to having a capitalist economy where they create wealth. Instead they successfully extort wealth. Terror works for them.

Why don’t I hear people saying “Mohammed the mass murdering pedophile rapist”, the way I hear them say “pedophile priests”.

Enough people are scared that Muslims can feel strong and proud, that Muslims can make a living out of terror – a substantially better living than is otherwise possible for them.

By Arab standards the West Bank and Gaza are extremely prosperous, thanks to the jizya paid by westerners, and, until recently, paid by Jews. Terror works. They are getting laid, and getting money, you are not getting laid, and are paying them money. This is them winning and us losing.

Terror works. The terrorists get chicks and money.

What happened in Afghanistan is that we won, then would not leave well enough alone, and proceeded to shoot ourselves in the foot. The problem is that the West did “finish the job” – The west replaced the warlords, who were entirely capable of keeping the Taliban under control, and succeeded in a fine job of doing so, with a centralized state that cannot and is not. We should have paid and armed those people who are friendly to us and trustworthy, and assisted them to terrorize those people who are hostile to us and sponsor terrorist warfare against us. Instead, we arranged a government that represents 51% of the people – and 51% do not like us very much, and particularly dislike the 30% or so of Afghans who are on our side.

Strong Muslim central governments do us considerable harm, as Saddam demonstrated, as Syria and Iran continue to demonstrate. The Afghan government is weak because it is democratic, and reluctant to offend those who wish to use violence against Christians and women. Its weakness makes it a lesser evil. Better if it was weaker still, better still, hanging from the trees by their necks.

Bush should have stuck to his guns when he said “if you are not with us you are against us.” This compromise crap is getting us killed. You cannot compromise with those who intend to conquer us. You have to kill them, or at least kill enough of them that the remainder give it up. When we try to compromise with an undefeated enemy who intends to conquer us, the resulting deal is, like Munich, that we shall be a little bit conquered, which encourages them to try for a lot more conquered. This is not a situation where the politics of compromise works.

Forming a government in Afghanistan looked remarkably like selling our allies into the hands of our enemies, like Chamberlain selling Czechoslovakia to Hitler. The people who fought for us are outvoted and disarmed, which is why things are now going bad in Afghanistan. It is as if the Czechs had fought and won, and then Chamberlain sold them to Hitler.