(This posting is not about American policy per se but is a freebie for anyone interested in Indian policies.)
It boggles my mind the degree to which many Indians are tolerant of Islamic terrorism.
In an article in today's NY Times (Courthouse Bombings Strike 3 Indian Cities by Amelia Gentleman) we are told of simultaneous bombings in three different cities, apparently in retaliation for "a recent decision by lawyers in Uttar Pradesh not to offer to defend terrorist suspects". Nowhere in the article does it mention Islam, but we all know that only one so-called "religion" constantly advocates and inspires (via the promise of 72 virgins in "Paradise") their brain-dead adherents to murder innocent people in the cause of their idiotic beliefs.
The solution to this problem in India is simple. Require all Muslims to renounce their faith or else face expulsion to the Islamic nation of their choice. This way, Indians can live in peace, and not have to worry about random acts of violence by deranged religious nutjobs.
Showing posts with label terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label terrorism. Show all posts
Friday, November 23, 2007
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Giuliani's Ideas On Foreign Policy
Re Mideast Hawks Help to Develop Giuliani Policy by Michael Cooper and Marc Santora in today's NY Times:
Rudolph W. Giuliani is only half-right in his ideas on foreign policy. He is correct in recognizing the scope of the problem, but wrong in his prescriptions.
(William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, makes a logic error when he says that none of the leading Republican candidates "buy any of these fundamental criticisms that Bush took us on a radically wrong path, and we have to go to a pre-9/11 foreign policy." It was never either/or. Bush did take us on a radically wrong path, but so did Clinton "pre-9/11".)
Giuliani is correct when he speaks about the "Islamic terrorists’ war against the United States". But his prescription for an endless hot war is wrong.
We ought not play by the terrorists' rules. ("Never get into a pissing contest with a pig.") We should play where and how we are dominant. We have strategic bombers and ballistic missiles; the terrorists don't. We have overwhelming "soft" power; the terrorists don't.
We can hurt the terrorists badly wherever and whenever they build training camps, by carpet bombing them from X0,000 feet in the air.
The rest of the time, we can out-publish them on the Internet, on TV, in the movies, music, worlds of art and media. We can out-propagandize them. We can play tricks on them.
There is absolutely no need to do any nation-building.
Rudolph W. Giuliani is only half-right in his ideas on foreign policy. He is correct in recognizing the scope of the problem, but wrong in his prescriptions.
(William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, makes a logic error when he says that none of the leading Republican candidates "buy any of these fundamental criticisms that Bush took us on a radically wrong path, and we have to go to a pre-9/11 foreign policy." It was never either/or. Bush did take us on a radically wrong path, but so did Clinton "pre-9/11".)
Giuliani is correct when he speaks about the "Islamic terrorists’ war against the United States". But his prescription for an endless hot war is wrong.
We ought not play by the terrorists' rules. ("Never get into a pissing contest with a pig.") We should play where and how we are dominant. We have strategic bombers and ballistic missiles; the terrorists don't. We have overwhelming "soft" power; the terrorists don't.
We can hurt the terrorists badly wherever and whenever they build training camps, by carpet bombing them from X0,000 feet in the air.
The rest of the time, we can out-publish them on the Internet, on TV, in the movies, music, worlds of art and media. We can out-propagandize them. We can play tricks on them.
There is absolutely no need to do any nation-building.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)