If you consider all Muslims fair game in this, your position should be that you would have no moral problem with hitting Muslims locally as well.
I just said that I didn't, for the second time -- that's what "in principle" means. I have no problem with the principle, or concept, of hitting local Muslims. I said it was not the thing to do because the act is unlikely to make any point to the Muslims that would stop them. I do object to pointless action (which is why I object to the "chase the individual bomber" game. It has been well demonstrated that such an approach is not an effective method.) I also object to spending more effort and treasure than is required to get a particular job done if commensurate benefits do not accrue, and in this case, there are less benefits for more effort. This raises a perfectly practical objection to doing in our well-dispersed population of local Muslims first. There are other issues similar to these and I go into them below in response to another point of yours. The bottom line, however, is that the optimum place to hit is where Muslims congregate in large numbers.
It is far from a given that this would be the actual result. We drop and drop and send millions of new martyrs straight to Heaven according to them, you galvanize Muslims the world over against you, you galvanize world opinion generally against you (so that they may drop drop drop on us us us).. Just off the top of my head.
We can field strategic bombers, J-SOWs, cruise missiles, FAEs, neutron bombs, conventional fission weapons, fusion weapons... the Muslims can field a dumb-ass wearing a semtex jockstrap, and each time, in response, we'll turn around and drop a city-buster on them. How long do you think that would be allowed to go on by the supporting Muslim rank and file? Let's suppose it does go on until they're exterminated by our million-to-one or so "out of patience" responses. That'd make them not only superstitious and annoying, but outright stupid. Personally, I have high confidence that they would stop, but it is certainly just my opinion that they can't all be that stupid. Apparently, your position is that you think even less of their intellectual abilities than I do.
Look. Right now, there is just about zero opposition being offered to them. People are out there trying to figure out who laid the bombs in London. Now, what good do you think that is going to do in the big (or even small) picture, assuming the search succeeds, which is certainly not a given? Do you think it's going to stop the next attack, or delay it, or in any way affect it? If so, why?
You're telling me in the above argument you made that you think blowing out a major concentration of Muslims won't stop the Muslim warriors, so why would catching the particular perpetrators of any one event?
As for world opinion, I am unmoved. The entire world put together has neither the will nor the equipment to attack the USA and win. We, on the other hand, have enough weaponry and the required weapons transport (subs, cruisers, missiles, bombers) to fry every country on the planet several times over and still have spares left. Also, they, like the Muslims, would know that it wouldn't take military action for us to stop, all it would take is a cessation of attacks by Muslims. The Muslims are in control; that's the whole idea, and it is an idea I got from them. When they stop attacking, we stop dropping. So the world's other groups would be far better off (in every way -- money, lives, effort spent) if they focused on the Muslims as the problem, because after all, they are the problem.
Look, even if your strategy were to actually work in the real world, it is still not acceptable given the scale of the attacks we are suffering. Your course of action would kill more thousands of babies than what we have suffered as a result of terrorism. If we think they might set off a nuke or somesuch then we might have to suck it up and do something more drastic, but right now the idea is simply barbaric.
This is a straight-forward moral argument. Good for you for actually making it in a cogent manner.
Now, consider: the Muslim warriors have no problem with killing innocents, and they are doing so, regularly and effectively. The death toll is in the many thousands already. You, based on a moral position, advocate not matching their approach, regardless of the fact that Muslim warriors continually execute unprovoked attacks without even vaguely similar moral restrictions. So there we are. Now, what appears to be needed is a strategy that meets your moral goals and solves the problem, or else the very actions you deplore will continue -- at the will (which has been amply demonstrated) of the Muslim warriors. We also know that chasing individual groups of bombers around has zero effect. So I ask you, yet again: What strategy would you suggest to stop these Muslim warriors, as you don't like mine and we know perfectly well the current one doesn't work?
...we can't even get rid of the insurgents in Iraq today
Not the same problem at all. There is no reason for us to be in Iraq. Those people are defending their home territory against invaders -- us -- who came in based upon a blatant (and irrelevant) falsehood (existence of WMDs.) They may also be exercising internal disruption of their political system in order to reform it to their preferred state. That's their internal business. We're being stupid by standing anywhere near such a intra-national disturbance, and to the extent that we caused it, we are responsible and should stop doing so immediately by getting the hell out, as in, right now. There is no moral or ethical justification for us to be there, very similar to the fact that there was no moral or ethical justification for any particular fool to enter the USA and attack the WTC. We should not be there; if we are not there, then there is no need to "get rid of insurgents."
If a SEAL team went nuts and started killing Frenchmen, would France be justified in dropping nukes on NYC? Of course not.
I agree. They wouldn't. But let's make it a fair comparison. If one SEAL team after another kept arriving and kept killing Frenchmen, year after year, if they were well supplied and using weapons that require state-level support to get, then eventually, even the French would have to say "no more" and at that point, they'd probably want to stop the problem at its source, which would be the USA with 100% certainly, with SEAL teams as the perpetrators.
Remember: We know these are Muslims, we know the Muslim creed espouses unlimited war on non-Muslims, and we know the Muslim warriors have high-level, deep monetary support. We know the pattern of attacks is ongoing, and we know there is no sign of those attacks stopping. We also know there is no particular reason to think they will stop, given the current state of affairs.
There are at least one million Muslims in the USA alone, which is 2-3 times the size of your originally suggested target of Mecca.
Yes. And if it was trivial to do them all at once, that'd be a vaguely similar action. But for one thing, it isn't trivial. It would require a huge effort by millions of people. Whereas dropping one bomb (or firing one cruise missile) over Mecca represents a trivial expense and a trivial effort. Most likely, the pushing of one button, as I'd lay money there is at least one strategic asset within range of Mecca as we converse. That makes it considerably more sensible to do, all other things being equal. But there are other factors that argue for this. First, our local Muslims are a very direct part of our economy. Secondly, they are also our citizens. Third, they're inculcated with the values of our society, and that makes them the least likely source of attacks. That is an issue because the objective is to target those who are as closely related to the Muslim warriors as possible so that those people consider it likely that they will be killed if the Muslim warrior attacks continue. Those factors make the local Muslims the last Muslims you would want to target (IE, if we've killed all the others and we're still seeing attacks, then it's time to go after them.) Otherwise, we're cutting off our nose to spite our face. If we drop on Mecca, your local convenience store operator, software engineer, taxi driver and CEO will still be around, which is a good thing for our economy and stability. This is simply a practical matter.
You are deliberately trying to dodge the point. If it's ok to drop nukes on Muslim cities, killing tons of little Abduls, you can not say you'd think it's wrong to shoot little Abdul next door, by your own logic of 'A Muslim is a Muslim'. You can't have it both ways. It's easy for you to sit and run your mouth on K5 but when push comes to shove, you crumble.
No. You wrote the question without determining what my underlying position was, so you couldn't anticipate what my answer would mean. It is not my fault if you're an ineffective at this. It's yours.
My position is that we should spend the least effort, the least money, and the least lives in making them spend the absolute most effort, money and lives. For every terrorist incident, we drop, we don't go running around like fleas on a griddle. They bomb a cafe', we destroy a city. They take months to wrap their semtex in a jockstrap, we respond as soon as we determine the attack came from them. And, when they stop, we stop. They're in control -- all they have to do is stop. If we had to kill them all, then the last group to go would be our internal collection of Muslims for the reasons stated above. But yes, they'd have to go if they were still sourcing attacks.
[ Parent ]