Another idea on what to do about Islam

A reader named “Cogitate” writes:

Looking at the Diana West thread it occurred to me how strange it is that the idea of destroying the Kaaba is so seldom mentioned or when it is, it is made in an almost joking manner. Others then scoff at it as if the very idea is just out of the question. If Islam truly is a mortal threat to the entire Western civilization then who are we to say that anything should be off the table, out of the question?

What is the irrational thinking process that decides it is better to lose Western civilization than destroy an idol the focus of which has been center to one of the most destructive forces in the history of mankind?

This would be done in lieu of killing millions or billions of human beings as is often suggested those who advocate harsh bombing are calling for. The point of any war is to break the will of the enemy. While there would no doubt be an initial reaction to the destruction of the Kaaba in the long run it would force Muslims to question their faith. Why didn’t Allah protect their precious idol from being destroyed? Every time they face it to pray they would be reminded of what the infidels did. Maybe they would react by wanting to destroy us? They already want that. Destroying the Kaaba would be like lancing a boil. It would be the final ultimate affront from the infidels. If they attempted to rebuild the surrounding area so that they could continue their worship of the location even without the Kaaba or it rebuilt without the black stone then we would simply destroy it again the very day that it was reopened. Let this process go on repeating itself for another thousand years if necessary. And continue destroying every other so-called Islamic holy site one by one until they stop attacking or destroying any infidel sites.

Bombing cities, killing countless civilians, building democracies, all of that is unnecessary. We need to get past the bizarre respect that we continue to have for the inanimate objects of Islam and begin destroying them one by one until they collectively cry uncle. If they never cry uncle, just as in the child’s game, they continue to get punished, forever. If we are really saying that there is nothing that we could destroy which would cause them to cry uncle then that in and of itself further proves how insane Islam has made them. And if they really are that bad they do need to be destroyed rather than let them destroy us. But it is my belief that destroying all of their idols would eliminate the need to destroy all Muslims.

Islam’s idols deserve to be destroyed if for no other reason than all of the places of worship of other religions the Muslims have destroyed throughout history.

And to the extent that one understands that Islam has enslaved those who call themselves Muslim, destroying those idols begins the process of freeing them from that enslavement even if it initially leads to even greater hatred of the infidel as if that is even possible.

LA replies:

What would “crying uncle” consist of in the present context? What is the commenter demanding that Muslims say or do in order to satisfy us? No one seems to have noticed that at present we are NOT AT WAR with Islam or with Islamic states. No state of war exists. Yes, Islam is in a general ongoing state of jihad against us. But we are not at war with Islam. So if the commenter wants us to declare war on the Islamic world, and then to proceed to destroy the Kaaba, he needs to tell us what the purpose of this war is.

I have supported the idea of publicly stating that we will destroy Mecca and Medina if there is a WMD attack on America. But the idea that we should right now, boom, destroy the Kaaba, seems wildly premature. First we need to decide, what are our overall goals vis a vis Islam?

Also, as a rhetorical strategy, may I suggest that if a person has an idea to offer, and especially if it’s an original and very controversial idea such as destroying the Kaaba, it’s not good to start off by complaining that other people are not putting forth that idea and that other people consider that idea off the table. It’s better to start off by saying: “Here is what I think we need to do.”

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 22, 2007 01:27 PM | Send