How to Actually Fight Terrorism—In Six Simple Steps

“Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.”
—General George S. Patton

Foiling terrorism at the planning or execution level via counter intelligence is well worth continuing, but that does not eliminate the root causes of terrorism. A long-term plan to attack the roots of terrorism is needed such that, at the operational level, fewer crises result. Here is a six-step plan:

1. First Step—Name the Enemy

A “war on terror” is a meaningless phrase. The word ‘terror’ is used in conjunction with intense fear or anxiety, or with a period of violence or bloodshed (as in the reign of terror). A war cannot be declared on an emotion or on a capsule of time.

Human beings, particularly in the beleaguered Middle East, deserve the chance to become free.

Righteous wars must have an identified enemy, and for an identified purpose.

Virtually all acts of terrorism are committed in the name of Islam. The name of the enemy is Islamic Fundamentalism.

2. Restore Open Discourse in the West

Let vast numbers of people question their creed. Let them leave their creed for another, or, even better, for a bastion that salutes Reason and Reason alone.

The second step is to fearlessly investigate what in Islam causes acts of suicidal mass murders, and how best to stop them. And this inquiry must be done in a very public way, broadcast on free-to-air television and radio, with ample opportunity for attack and defense, but with absolute contempt for self-flagellant terms like Islamophobia.

Numerous scholars and activists, including Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris, have laid heinous charges at this creed. Not one of these writers (or any other writers railing against Islam, for that matter) seem to have faced defamation charges in a civilized court of law for defaming Islam. There are complaints, to be sure, but no one can prove these writers wrong in what they take to be facts. Islam, in effect, either accepts the charges, or is at least unable to, or not confident of being able to, prove them wrong in a proper judicial proceeding.

Foremost among the charges made at Islam’s canon are that it cannot reconcile itself to a scientific method and discourages critical thinking, encourages violence against those who don’t believe that Allah is the only god, encourages hatred against modernity and reason, facilitates violence and hatred against women and gays, is incompatible with the ideal of the separation of state and religion, is incompatible with free speech, is committed to the destruction of Israel, is intolerant of atheism, secularism, and all other religions, and, worst of all, cannot be amended in any way to rid itself of these problems.

There will be Islamic scholars that oppose every one of these allegations. They must be heard, too. And both the accusers and the defenders must have ample opportunity to fiercely interrogate each other.

Exposing the New Left (the neo-Marxist Academics)

Traditional Marxists focused solely on economic relations. Neo-Marxism was designed to attack Western Civilization by destroying its cultural bedrock—everything is under attack—from biologically instinctual gender identity to alpha masculinity to uplifting inspirational art. Everything is seen from the prism of oppression. Every minority is assumed to be oppressed, unless they are successful minorities, like Jews or Asians in the United States.

For further exposition on this, refer “Political Correctness is part of a neo-Marxist Culture War.”

Religion, notwithstanding its unscientific metaphysics, and the dressing up of the creed in rituals and a controlling god idea, must offer a moral philosophy for all human beings qua human beings to qualify as religion.

Brainwashed and guided by the neo-Marxists, our mainstream media hosts and major politicians spout platitudes about something being a great religion, use ambiguous terms like “a war on terror,” and then offer to make “radicalization and extremism” the enemy.

In late 2010, the neo-Marxist intellectuals sold the Western media a story—a story that a democracy without a constitution is a value worth fighting for, that even if the democratic mob rule of a majority leads to a totalitarian theocracy, it somehow is better than the secular economic freedom individuals may have enjoyed under a military dictatorship.

Meanwhile, theocratic powers instigated civil revolts against monarchs and dictators in many Arab states to procure “democracy.” These dictators used to keep the Ayatollahs under control. But the brainwashed Western media and its New Left-influenced politicians bought the story hook, line, and sinker. They called it the Arab Spring—as if these revolts were aimed at achieving classical liberal values of secularism and freedom of speech.

Neo-Marxism represents the gravest threat to free speech in the West. Many of the citizenry are well aware of this. The threat creeps up on us like a poisonous serpent—with ever new regulations, laws, prosecutions, threats, and social ostracizing of dissenters. The head of this serpent has to be severed—the implications are far beyond the toleration of terrorist creeds.

It is absurdist to stop questioning Islam on the basis of religious defamation laws—Raymond Ibrahim asserts that Islam itself would be banned if such laws were passed, for the Quran assaults other religions—“… if such laws would ban movies and cartoons that defame Islam, they would also, by logical extension, have to ban the religion of Islam itself—the only religion whose core texts actively defame other religions.”

3. Challenge the Legitimacy of Islam as a Religion

You don’t need a degree in philosophy to realize that genocide, plunder, plus owning, using and trading in sex-slaves, cannot be part of a moral ideal. That part of the allegation about the founder is either all correct, partially right, or all wrong. Nothing short of a complete absolution can save the creed, for Islam’s canon revolves around the idea of using the founder as the moral ideal.

A Cult versus a Legitimate Religion

According to Islam scholar Peter Townsend, one of the founder’s early “revelations” was that Muslim men could have up to four wives. But later Muhammad wanted more. So, says Townsend, “Allah sent down a revelation that stated that the limit of four is only for ordinary Muslims.” The no-limit privilege, it was revealed was “for you [Muhammad] only, not for the rest of the believers.”

Let them become human in the most quintessential sense of the word—skeptical, scientific, and independent.

Another sudden revelation exempted the founder from having to treat all his wives equally. Later, when he found himself lusting after his son’s wife, Townsend says “Muhammad received a special dispensation allowing him to marry the wife of his adopted son.” Townsend also writes that “Muhammad had sex with a slave (Mary the Copt) whom he had not married yet” but this did not stop him from prescribing a stoning to death punishment for adultery. The “Eternal Qur’an” says Townsend, is “filled with verses clearly aimed at smoothing things over for just one single person.”

And then of course there are passages that require the killing of the unbelievers. History suggests that fanatical genocide on a gigantic scale, exactly as commanded by the canon, did occur in Spain against Christians, in Arabia against Persians and Zoroastrians, in India and Afghanistan against Hindus—the last in fact is the largest genocide ever recorded in human history. This history should not be pushed under the carpet or revised to offer a neo-Marxist (politically correct, or appeasing) alternative.

To an atheist, all religions are false. It helps, nevertheless, to note some of the characteristics of a religious cult that distinguish it from a religion, being:

• From Huffington Post, “The [in]ability to question dogmatic tenets without being shunned.”
• From The American Family Foundation, “The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which causes conflict with the wider society”, “the group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify means that members would have considered unethical before joining.”
• From The Cult Information Center, “Its founder leader is self-appointed, dogmatic, messianic, not accountable …”
• From, The Guardian, “a living leader, who has no meaningful accountability and becomes the single most defining element of the group and its source of power and authority.”

But the key distinguishing characteristic should be that, religion, notwithstanding its unscientific metaphysics, and the dressing up of the creed in rituals and a controlling god idea, must offer a moral philosophy for all human beings qua human beings to qualify as religion—many religions in fact do incorporate the Golden Rule (Do unto others as they would do unto you).

We need not agree with a morality—but, one rule for the followers, another rule for the leader, and yet another rule for non-followers? That, right there, is a living embodiment of a religious cult, not a religion.

The defenders should have ample opportunity to defend the charges. This, too, should be part of a very public inquiry.

A delegitimized Islam is much easier to constrain—security concerns can influence a range of policies, including immigration policy—without running afoul of laws that constrain discrimination on the basis of religion.

And, with the cult vis-à-vis religion principles laid down, Islam’s defenders should also have every right to question of legitimacy of any and every religion.

This exercise will almost certainly antagonize several peaceful members of the Islamic community. Virtually all, according to Richardson (Reference List #3), have no knowledge of Arabic and thus no first-hand knowledge of the canon; they simply believe what their mullahs tell them.

Well, it’s time at least those who reside in the West do find out. Let them then make a new, conscious decision. Where do they belong?

The idea that all religion contains fault lines and that good people simply cherry-pick what suits them has been around for too long.

Let vast numbers of people question their creed. Let them leave their creed for another, or, even better, for a bastion that salutes Reason and Reason alone. Let them become activists, modifying the ethic to make it acceptable. Let them become human in the most quintessential sense of the word—skeptical, scientific, and independent. It’s a good thing.

4. Engineer Coups to Overthrow the Theocracies

It is entirely possible that hundreds of millions have signed up to a creed either without knowing what it really is, or, having been born into it, are prevented by decapitation nightmares from leaving it. This is particularly true of societies that are theocracies.

Not only is the punishment of apostasy death, it is carried out with the State’s blessing. And atheism, secularism, and other religions are prevented from fostering.

A necessary condition of engineered coups, and normally this would be via a military strongman overthrowing the theocrats (or a constitutional monarchy), is that there exists afterward an open, non-coercive, and free contest in religions—with atheism as an alternative, i.e. the theocracy is removed.

Islam is already a shrinking religion, see here, here, here, and here.

Through the Cold War, the U.S. never understood that Islam was more totalitarian than Communism. Its policy in Afghanistan and Iran in the late Seventies and early Eighties was tragically woven around the adage—the enemy of my enemy is my friend, with disastrous long-term consequences. An immoral foreign policy bruises a nation’s conscience no less than a heinous act bruises a human’s.

[U.S.] policy in Afghanistan and Iran in the late Seventies and early Eighties was tragically woven around the adage—the enemy of my enemy is my friend, with disastrous long-term consequences. An immoral foreign policy bruises a nation’s conscience no less than a heinous act bruises a human’s.

Unfortunately, even recently, well into the post-Cold War era, President Obama actually tried to make friends with the Ayatollahs—Wall Street Journal’s Jay Solomon wrote this of the 2009 revolt in Iran—“Obama ordered the CIA to sever contacts it had with the green movement’s supporters. ‘The Agency has contingency plans for supporting democratic uprisings anywhere in the world. This includes providing dissidents with communications, money, and in extreme cases even arms,’ Solomon writes. ‘But in this case the White House ordered it to stand down.’” What did I tell you about the neo-Marxists?

5. Encourage Mass Apostasy

There is nothing wrong in encouraging apostasy, as long the tool is persuasion by rational argument and not a gun pointed at your head.

Here is a detour which speaks to the strength of global resolve; this detour’s parallelism, when clearer, will furiously aggravate the neo-Marxists:

Late in the 20^th Century, smallpox became the first disease, and so far the only infectious disease of humans, to be eradicated by deliberate intervention.

Coordinated efforts to globally eradicate the incidence of polio are underway. Following the development of a vaccine in the 1950s, there was a dramatic reduction of the incidence of polio in industrialized countries. In 1960, Czechoslovakia became the first country certified to have eliminated polio.

A similar goal would be to reduce the incidence of Islam, such that no country on earth is an Islamic theocracy or even remotely majority Islamic by the year 2050. Unless, of course, against all odds its defenders can defend it against all charges, and morph it into a freedom-protecting creed that facilitates and rejoices in human potential.

The neo-Marxists are foaming at the mouth now, but we actually care for the humanity among humans.

This is a difficult target to achieve, given the history, geo-politics, and fragile state of the Middle East. It will be impossible if the New Left is allowed to undermine it from within the West. But those are insufficient reasons to make an open attempt.

And I hear the foaming-at-the-mouth neo-Marxists shouting—“It has nothing to do with religion. It’s poverty, stupid. They are the disenchanted youth. They are seized upon.” The unsaid part is—wouldn’t happen in a “fairer” society. But people bear a lot more poverty in South-East Asia and South America without blowing themselves up.

Actually, a lot less would happen in a prosperous, free, capitalistic society. One which the Middle East lacks.

Human beings, particularly in the beleaguered Middle East, deserve the chance to become free. In an open, safe, and secure contest, few would willingly choose a creed with a genocidal past, a problematic canon, and a current form that is unable to evolve from its anti-scientific roots and intolerance toward non-members.

What if they do, and preach misogyny, homophobia, and violence—Answer them, loudly.

And if they resort to violence?

We can’t continue to preach non-violence to a man who has pulled a gun on us. His disarmament or extinction is an immediate necessity. The dialogue with the rest can recommence shortly thereafter.

6. Revive the Neutron Bomb and its Ilk

Protection of its citizens from violence initiated by others is the proper function of a government. The threat of random violence would be reduced substantially if there are no organized sponsors of terrorism.

But there are those who are already lost to humanity. Those who have committed grave crimes, are continuing to do so, all with express announcements to the effect, including the funding and training of the so-called lone wolves. Humanity is left with no choice but to eliminate those who represent a continuing existential threat to all that is humane and wonderful about life on earth.

It is indeed America’s great shame—a brilliant man of science had found a way to selectively target an enemy with minimal civilian casualties and no property damage for returning civilians—a device that could have been used to incinerate ISIS—was abandoned so that the U.S. is deliberately forced to choose between nuclear explosions that could destroy civilizations and have enormous inter-generational health and environmental effects, or commit to ground wars that cost numerous Allied soldiers life and limb.

Fortunately the genius of mankind in the form of one Samuel Cohen, devised possibly the most humane and effective weapon ever invented—the Neutron Bomb.

The Neutron Bomb is a specialized type of small thermonuclear weapon that “delivers blast and heat effects that are confined to an area of only a few hundred yards in radius. But within a somewhat larger area it throws off a massive wave of neutron and gamma radiation, which can penetrate armor or several feet of earth. This radiation is extremely destructive to living tissue. Because of its short-range destructiveness and the absence of long-range effect, the neutron bomb would be highly effective against tank and infantry formations on the battlefield but would not endanger cities or other population centers only a few miles away.”

The Neutron Bomb development had the strong support of James Schlesinger, President Richard Nixon’s Secretary of Defense—because—”… if deterrence were to fail…the use of nuclear weapons would not result in [an] orgy of destruction.”

The leftists who advised President Carter, hated what they called the Capitalist bomb—it killed people without destroying property. Carter suspended the program. But Reagan, excited by its potential, tried to revive it— “… it is the dreamed of death ray weapon of science fiction. It kills enemy soldiers but doesn’t blow up the surrounding countryside or destroy villages, towns and cities,” said Reagan.

Eventually, however, the New Left killed it. Oh, what did I tell you about the neo-Marxists?

Samuel Cohen, however, was alive and kicking when 9/11 happened. Bereft of a neutron bomb, he urged GW Bush to use a low-kiloton device—what we need, Cohen said, is “a quick, highly visible strike to begin that war – one that Americans can see now.” It was an opportunity to blow up the Taliban training camps. The low-kiloton device would destroy property, too, but within the radius of a square mile—with limited radioactive fallout.

But GW Bush did not heed Cohen’s sage advice. He committed America to a ground war that ended up costing 3,500 Allied soldier casualties, 21,000 civilian deaths, and a financial cost of around $500 billion.

Samuel T. Cohen died on November 28, 2010, but not before he penned F*** You, Mr. President—it was later made available under the title—Shame: Confessions of the Father of the Neutron Bomb.

It is indeed America’s great shame—a brilliant man of science had found a way to selectively target an enemy with minimal civilian casualties and no property damage for returning civilians—a device that could have been used to incinerate ISIS—was abandoned so that the U.S. is deliberately forced to choose between nuclear explosions that could destroy civilizations and have enormous inter-generational health and environmental effects, or commit to ground wars that cost numerous Allied soldiers life and limb.

This is why destroying the New Left and reviving the labs that deliver appropriate weaponry for modern warfare, which would include furthering the development of a well contained (in affected blast area as well as longer-term effects) semi-nuclear weapon, is precisely the most humane thing to do.

The arguments are done and dusted. Now the question that remains is whether the West will elect to political office men and women of courage and resolve, or lay down and surrender—you’ve heard that phrase before—“Terrorism is always going to be with us”—the unsaid part is—so get used to it—that’s life on earth—any day, any moment, any one of us can just get blown up.

Well, some of us don’t think so. We think more like Dean Koontz.

“In self-defense and in defense of the innocent, cowardice is the only sin.”
— Dean Koontz

This essay benefited from comments made by Walter Donway and Kurt Keefner on an earlier draft.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Reference List (the URLs are hyperlinked to the name of the work):

1. Raymond Ibrahim (How Religious Defamation Laws would Ban Islam)
2. Peter Townsend (Questioning Islam: Tough Questions & Honest Answers About the Muslim Religion)
3. Harry Richardson (The Story of Mohammed: Islam Unveiled)
4. Wafa Sultan (A God Who Hates)
5. Robert Spencer and David Horowitz (Islamophobia)
6. Ali Sina (Why Can’t Islam be Reformed?)
7. Bill Warner (Why We Are Afraid, A 1400 Year Secret, and Political Islam)
8. Robert Jeffress (Muhammad Was A Bloodthirsty Warlord)
9. Christopher Hitchens (The Sexual Abuse of Children in Islam)
10. Richard Dawkins (Islam is One Of The Great Evils in the World)
11. Sam Harris (The Example of Mohammad)
12. Stephen M. Kirby (The Fantasy Islam of Reza Aslan)
13. Eli Lake (Why Obama Let Iran’s Green Revolution Fail)
14. Nuclear Files.org (The Neutron Bomb)
15. Samuel T. Cohen (Shame: Confessions of the Father of the Neutron Bomb)

Related Posts:

1. Application of Jaynesian Theory to Therapy and the Origin of Religion
2. Orthodox Religion vs. The Enlightenment
3. Dissenting Academic? How Universities Can Expel You

   

About the Author: Vinay Kolhatkar

Vinay Kolhatkar is a freelance journalist, novelist, screenwriter, and finance professional. He is the Chief Editor of The Savvy Street. Vinay has authored a TV pilot screenplay Undercover: The Story of Jamila, and two literary thrillers A Sharia London and The Frankenstein Candidate.. He is also the co-author of Media Wars: The Battle to Shape Our Minds. More about Vinay is at the Founder page.