A Theoretical Future Decision: The Extermination fo Islam.

I believe I wrote a post about this a while back to see the reactions of people. I believe the post was called 'Iran Dug their own hule, Nuke them'. The post was a devils advocate stance (which i take often) to help me and the people around me establish a balanced opinion/ojective for worldwide peace.

I will agree that Islam is a highly extremist religion that in my opinion doesnt do much good for the rest of the world (let alone its own people). Genocide on the other hand, although it is perceived as an easy solution, would be difficult to build support for. How could any government ethically justify genocide especially after what we learned from history (i.e WW2)?

Noone can play god and decide, 'Well these people are the first step to solving our problems, so kill them all. ' There was a time where I didnt understand this, and now I do.

There was a time in my past where my heart was blackened by hatred towards islam. Although i never appreciated any religion I looked upon jihadists and islamafascists with the greatest contempt because of their blanketing threats and generalizations of the west.

In all sadness many of our western generalizations of the east are just as general and unfounded.
There is no easy solution to this problem, and it will probably result in a huge holy war. Whatever the outcome, I know that I dont support any form of nuclear holocaust.

Lets just hope that war doesnt escalate into a fear that a bomb could fall on our heads at any moment. The second muslims raid the shores of maryland and try to take over my way of living you wont see me getting militant and raged..

I just wish people could grow up and stop using religion as a means of destruction.

On that note, lets just nuke religion.

Originally posted by nephyx
I will agree that Islam is a highly extremist religion that in my opinion doesnt do much good for the rest of the world (let alone its own people).

My only response is to ask that you heed your own words...

In all sadness many of our western generalizations of the east are just as general and unfounded.

You seem to be forgetting that there are over a billion Muslims in the world, most of which live their lives as peacefully as any other human being.

[edit on 18-9-2006 by Jamuhn]

There is about a zero percent chance of islam conquering the world.
Also, what the heck would it matter, in your calculation, if islam did
infact conquer the world?

I never said I thought Islam was going to conquer the world,
nor was it a part of my scenario.

I mean, unless you are saying that christianity is the one and
only religion, what would it really matter if christianity was
wiped out?

Ha! Christianity is hardly the "true religion" it's so espoused to be.
There are more christians in the world than Muslims four fold,
if you wiped out Christianity and it's believers, that'd be about half
the world population, Islma only makes up about 1/7th.

Heck, in the most 'dispassionate' analysis, if muslims represent that
much of a threat to non-muslims, then, rather that killing billions of
people (to...prevent the killings of billions of other people??), everyone
could just convert.

That sir, is not an option.


I really must enforce that this is a hypothetical scenario,
I'm not saying we should do it now, nor am I saying any
of the information I used is true, some of it is in much
smaller percents, but I'm not saying my numbers were true,
they are hypothetical.

Originally posted by iori_komei
There are more christians in the world than Muslims four fold,
if you wiped out Christianity and it's believers, that'd be about half
the world population, Islma only makes up about 1/7th.

Not true. There are 2.1 billion Christians in the world and 1.3 billion Muslims in the world. Christianity is not even twice the size of Islam.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by nephyx
I will agree that Islam is a highly extremist religion that in my opinion doesnt do much good for the rest of the world (let alone its own people).

There is absolutely no basis for such a statement. Islam is a religion that not only says that nonbeleivers get to heaven, but that mandates a moderate system of social justice, and that includes within its precepts guidelines to having peaceable interactions with other religions. Islam, in general, is not an extremist religion, though Islam, today is dominated by violent extremists. Islam today is like Christianity in the dark ages, in the past, Islam was like christianity is today.

Genocide on the other hand, although it is perceived as an easy solution, would be difficult to build support for.

THe few times its been proposed, its been accepted by the public quickly. When the turks decided to wipe out the armenians, there wasn't any resistance. When they wanted to do the same to the greeks, there wasn't anyone internally putting up a fight against it. When the nazis said 'lets kill the jews', people cheered, and when the serbs wanted to exterpiate the muslims in their cities, there wasn't any opposition.

Originally posted by iori_komei
I never said I thought Islam was going to conquer the world,
nor was it a part of my scenario.

If islam is not a threat then why destroy muslims?

Ha! Christianity is hardly the "true religion" it's so espoused to be.

Point being, if we're looking at it rationally, and we're talking about commiting genocide in order to prevent highly destructive wars liek would occur in a real clash of civilizations, why annihilate islam? Why not annihilate christendom, the two are more or less equally valid options. After all, christendom was at the head of the empires and industries that wreacked havoc through the middle east, and resulted in extreme islam, and extremists in non-islamic africa, etc etc. People talk about islam having 'bloody borders', but the christian west pretty much ruled the world, directly, for a while, and left blood and antagonism everywhere. If we wipe out all the christians, and the west, then there wouldnt' be any 'world wars'. Wipe out islam and hte middle east, and how long before we're facing an 'african crisis' or some other organization that resents the west and is being abused by it?

That[conversion]sir, is not an option.

Why? If we are talking about being reasonable and 'hard', which was the rationale for advocating genocide (because muslims, for whatever the reason, are agitated and not likely to stop), why not rather convert? Conversion would be the most peaceful situation, and you are arguing that genocide is necessary for a greater peace.

I really must enforce that this is a hypothetical scenario,

You do realize that thats how genocide starts right? When the germans started, they didn't say 'we must kill the jews now', they were talking in hypoteticals, 'imagine what a purer german culture and science would be like, if the inferior judaistic tendencies would utterly removed from it', etc etc.

but I'm not saying my numbers were true, they are hypothetical.

So, what are you saying, islam aint' a problem, but we should fantasize about killing muslims en mass???

If islam is not a threat then why destroy muslims?

You don't destroy something unless it's a major threat, and the other options are exhausted.

In the scenario it is passed the point of having other options.

However, it's far from that in real life.

Why? If we are talking about being reasonable and 'hard', which was the rationale for advocating genocide (because muslims, for whatever the reason, are agitated and not likely to stop), why not rather convert? Conversion would be the most peaceful situation, and you are arguing that genocide is necessary for a greater peace.

Because Islam is not a religion of freedoms.
And I'd rather see a billion or so people die before I'd see
bilions forced to convert and live un-free lives.

You do realize that thats how genocide starts right? When the germans started, they didn't say 'we must kill the jews now', they were talking in hypoteticals, 'imagine what a purer german culture and science would be like, if the inferior judaistic tendencies would utterly removed from it', etc etc

And there are quite a few differences between my scenario and the
Germans of old.

1. I'm not racist/religionist (not a word, I know), and neither are
most of the members here.
2. This is purely a scenario based on things that are not currently
present.
3. Extremeist Islam is already a threat, and has the capacity to
grow even worse, the jewish people were'nt.

So, what are you saying, islam aint' a problem, but we should fantasize about killing muslims en mass???

No, radical/extremeist Islam is a problem and has the ability to
get worse.
And no we should'nt fantasize about genocide, but we should
explore hypothetical scenarios just in case we ever have to resort
to such an action, that way if we had to, we would know how to go
about it with the least non-enemy casualties, and I know that's
contradictory considering it's suppose to be genocide.

If the nation of Islam are so seperate from their Jihadist brethrin why dont they stand up and declare themselves seperate? How come you never see any of these islamic figureheads denouncing the actions of jihad?`

Everyone always seperates and gives Islam the benefit of the doubt but when are THEY going to draw the line and condemn these acts of terrorism?

Originally posted by iori_komei
In my opinion the logical thing to do would be to destroy Islam,
or in more commmon words, a genocide of Islam.

Hey What do you know!

It's our own Private Hitler!

I bet he was saying the same thing for those pesky Jews in the WW2, when he decided to systematicly exterminate an entire Religious Group of people in numerous Death Camps.

So, how would you "Do it" mister Smarty Pants?

I haven't seen a threat this Ignorant since Doctor Horacio!

Originally posted by nephyx
If the nation of Islam are so seperate from their Jihadist brethrin why dont they stand up and declare themselves seperate? How come you never see any of these islamic figureheads denouncing the actions of jihad?

Because the media is all spectacle.

www.freemuslims.org...
www.islam-democracy.org...
www.islamfortoday.com...
www.peaceworkmagazine.org...

How many more examples is good enough for you?

Websites wont do enough. Im talking about Muslims speaking out in protests that capture the attention of the world. So sorry, those examples arent going to cut it.

This isnt for me.. this is to quell the contempt of the western world for islamic extremism.

If muslims are all about peace and love lets see them take control of their own people. Not gonna happen.

Originally posted by nephyx
Websites wont do enough. Im talking about Muslims speaking out in protests that capture the attention of the world. So sorry, those examples arent going to cut it.

I can tell you didn't even read the websites, because you would have seen that the websites are either press releases or telling of public events in which Muslims were denouncing terrorism.

"Liars"

FMC's commercial message, exposing the Islamic Extremists lies about Islam.

...

FMC's Kamal Nawash on the O'Reilly Factor!
Kamal Nawash on O'Reilly President of The Free Muslims Coalition, Kamal Nawash, talked to Laura Ingraham, to discuss the Israel/Hezbollah conflict in Lebanon.

www.freemuslims.org...

PRESS INFORMATION
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

American Muslims and Scholars denounce Terrorism

Washington, DC (September 9, 2002) — Several prominent American Muslims, organizations, and scholars issued the following statement denouncing violence and terrorism, especially in the name of Islam, a religion of peace and justice.

The statement was issued on the eve of the first anniversary of the tragedy of Sept. 11, and has been signed by 199 prominent American Muslims, and scholars of Islam from all over the world.

www.islam-democracy.org...

Prominent American Muslims denounce terror committed in the name of Islam
Transcript of CBS's 60 Minutes interview on Sept 30, 2001 between Ed Bradley and
Shaykh Hamza Yusuf of California
Imam Siraj Wahaj of Brooklyn
Dr. Farid Esack, Visiting Professor in Religious Studies at the University of Hamburg
Imam Faisal Abdur Rauf of Lower Manhattan
Dr. Vali Nasir, Professor of Political Science at the University of San Diego

www.islamfortoday.com...

British Muslim Scholars Denounce Terrorism

Issued by the British Muslim Forum with the approval of over 500 clerics, scholars and Imams throughout the United Kingdom, July 19, 2005. British Muslim Forum, Eaton Hall, Retford, Nottinghamshire, DN22 0PR (UK), Tel: 01777/706-441.

www.peaceworkmagazine.org...


[edit on 19-9-2006 by Jamuhn]

Hey What do you know!

It's our own Private Hitler!

I am nothing like Hitler, I don't condone the extermination of a group
just because you personally don't like them, or your religion clashes
with theres.

I bet he was saying the same thing for those pesky Jews in the WW2, when he decided to systematicly exterminate an entire Religious Group of people in numerous Death Camps.

There's a big difference between what Hitler did and my Hypothetical
Scenario.

Hitler killed people because they did'nt fit his perfect race archotype,
and he had something against jews.

My scenrio deals with a group that, within the scenario has become a
threat in general, and are willing to kill people just because they don't
believe like them, or are different from them.

So, how would you "Do it" mister Smarty Pants?

If you must know, I think the only real way to commit such an act is
to use a fast spreading, lethal biological agent over the area that has
a half-life of three days, and after the fifth generaton it would no
longer be able to replicate.



Really, are people actually reading my post(s) in there entirety?

Because if they were, they'd know I have simply created a
hypothetical scenario using variables that exist, but are still
nowhere near high enough to even warrant serious conside-
ration of such an act.

Originally posted by iori_komei
You knwo I probably should have mentioned this, but when I
said genocide, I did'nt mean every last muslim on Earth,
I meant the key Islamic states, I.E. most of the middle-East,
nuclear weapons would most likely have to be deployed.

Given that:

If a militant group of Chinese, Canadians, French or whatever, attacked us with a goal of destroying us and replacing our way of life with their own flavor, what would be a logical response?

To defend ourselves and to continue eradicating them until they surrendered would be the appropriate response. The fact that it is a religion and not a nation attacking us is irrelevant, imo.

Jamuhn I was thinking more along the lines of Iraqi's Iranians and Syrian Muslims speaking out against extremism. After all, American muslims arent the people we are about to go to war with.

Originally posted by iori_komei
I am nothing like Hitler, I don't condone the extermination of a group
just because you personally don't like them, or your religion clashes
with theres.

When somebody is advertising GENOCIDE (as you did), they can be easily compared to Hitler and his SS for what they did to the Jewish People.

There's a big difference between what Hitler did and my Hypothetical
Scenario.

Hitler killed people because they did'nt fit his perfect race archotype,
and he had something against jews.

My scenrio deals with a group that, within the scenario has become a
threat in general, and are willing to kill people just because they don't
believe like them, or are different from them.

So where is the Difference?

What Group is that?

MUSLIMS in General?

I didn't know this is a War on Muslims - I thought it was a War on Terror. And if you belive that the majority of Muslims will KILL you just becase you are not sharing their views, then you are mistaken my Friend. And if you REALLY think that, then you also have Something against Muslims.

If you must know, I think the only real way to commit such an act is
to use a fast spreading, lethal biological agent over the area that has
a half-life of three days, and after the fifth generaton it would no
longer be able to replicate.

Wow, you already got Plans, ey?

Systematical Elimination huh?

That's a Good Hitler!

Good Boy!


I am surpised this thread is not inna di Trash Bin yet - if I would write a kind of THEORETICAL decision: The Extermination of Judaism, I would be definetly declared a Islamo-Nazi or something. But when Muslims are mentioned - hey, just fire away the Insults!

[edit on 20/9/06 by Souljah]

an absolutely absurd idea. any society that actually considered such an action (muchless acted on it) would be far worse than the people they would propose to eliminate and would be no better than the NAZIS or the Khemer Rouge or the Stalinists. Such an act would, regardless of the motivation, be profoundly evil.

When are people going to understand that trying to advocate the eradication of an entire section of society makes them just as bad as the people they claim to be "saving the world" from?

Originally posted by iori_komei
My scenrio deals with a group that, within the scenario has become a
threat in general, and are willing to kill people just because they don't
believe like them, or are different from them.

And your theory advocates the removal of a section of society because they don't believe like you, or are different from you.

In other words, you are no different than they are.

THINK.

When somebody is advertising GENOCIDE (as you did), they can be easily compared to Hitler and his SS for what they did to the Jewish People.

I'm not advertising it, nor am I suggesting it be done.

I didn't know this is a War on Muslims - I thought it was a War on Terror. And if you belive that the majority of Muslims will KILL you just becase you are not sharing their views, then you are mistaken my Friend. And if you REALLY think that, then you also have Something against Muslims.

It's not a war on Muslims, it's an illegal war IMO, but that's a topic for
a different thread.

Wow, you already got Plans, ey?

No, I don't already have plans, but you did ask,
so I came up with an answer.

Systematicat Elimination huh?
That's a Good Hitler!
Good Boy!

And your just a bleeding heart Liberal who's probably so politicaly
correct it's sickening, and would rather die, and have some barbaric
perverted version of a religion take your place.

And your theory advocates the removal of a section of society because they don't believe like you, or are different from you.

It's not a thoery, it's a Hypothetical situation, there is a big difference.

No, it's not about that they believe different than me, it's about that
they want to kill me, and everyone else who does'nt believe like them.

In other words, you are no different than they are.

I am far different from them.

I am surpised this thread is not inna di Trash Bin yet - if I would write a kind of THEORETICAL decision: The Extermination of Judaism, I would be definetly declared a Islamo-Nazi or something. But when Muslims are mentioned - hey, just fire away the Insults!

It's bloody hypothetical, not theoretical, there is a big difference.
A theory is based on facts, a hypothesis is based on possibilities,
and possible facts.

Yeah well, hown often does Judaeism talk about killing anyone
different from them, and taking away freedoms, atleast openly
anyways.

[edit on 9/20/2006 by iori_komei]