Guy DeWhitney: Heret - 17:09, 14/10/2015

Guy DeWhitney: Heretic Crusader:And to Zenster, unless " MORE TROUBLE TO LIVE WITH MUSLIMS THAN TO LIVE WITHOUT THEM" is your way of sainyg "Being actively, openly and unrelentingly made war upon by them" I have to say that you are probably as much of a potential evil in our culture as the Islamists.Perhaps quoting a seminal piece regarding the tipping point might help. It is "" by Belmont Club's, Wretchard. His second conjecture closes with:The most startling result of this analysis is that a catastrophic outcome for Islam is guaranteed whether America retaliates or not. Even if the President decided to let all Americans die to expiate their historical guilt, why would Islamic terrorists stop after that? They would move on to Europe and Asia until finally China, Russia, Japan, India or Israel, none of them squeamish, wrote -1 x 10^9 in the final right hand column ...Even if Islam killed every non-Muslim on earth they would almost certainly continue to kill each other with their new-found weaponry ... Long before 3,000 New Yorkers died on September 11, Iraq and Iran killed 500,000 Muslims between them. The greatest threat to Muslims is radical Islam; and the greatest threat of all is a radical Islam armed with weapons of mass destruction. [emphasis added]In its headlong rush towards global ascendancy, Islam is determined to push things to the tipping point. Regardless of whether it is America, Europe, Russia, China, India, Israel or even Japan, there is a non-zero probability that one of those nuclear-capable nations simply will not tolerate Muslim predation and conclude that it is simpler to live without Muslims.While the USA may be overly humane in its treatment of Islam's threat, there is no basis to assume that other nations will ever be willing to invest the human and financial capital required to fight in a similar fashion. Especially so when nuclear weapons, enhanced radiation weapons in particular, will eliminate all further threat in such a decisive manner.Let's face it, many other nations simply do not have anywhere near the scrupulous or fastidious approach to warfare that the United States so endearingly exhibits.All of the above facts comprise the reason why I continue to predict a Muslim holocaust. Most pathetic of all is how the assassination of some 1,000 to 10,000 top Islamic politicians, financiers, scholars and clerics could, literally, stop jihad dead (so to speak), in its tracks and avert this looming holocaust.Islam has always marched forth over the corpses of countless Muslims and clearly intends to do the same today in its new phase of global jihad. Guided by its own doctrinal lights, Islam has no other choice but to push things to the tipping point, come what may.Incidentally, I personally advocate there "Being actively, openly and unrelentingly made war upon by them" with respect to fighting Islam. I still oppose first-use of nuclear weapons in that cause, even though my position is being steadily eroded by Islam's seemingly limitless barbarity.Can you tell me what other people of history you feel would have been less trouble if exterminated so that we might better understand your position?I refer you to the foregoing. I DO NOT advocate genocide, I PREDICT IT. My prediction derives from Islam's own predilection for genocide and its terrorist asymmetrical warfare. As Muslims seek to impose shari'a savagery upon the entire world, somewhere there is a nuclear-armed nation that will not "submit" and, as Yorkshire Miner observed, opt for an expedient and cost-effective way of ridding themselves of Islam's threat.I'll close with this:IF ISLAM HAD ALL THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND THE WEST DID NOT, WOULD WE EVEN BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW?