[To Joseph Farah:] I noticed you concentrated on destruction of the "holy sites" of Islam. How about the alternative of irrecoverable desecration (without physical destruction) instead?That was written by somebody called Srinivasan Varadarajan.
Instead of sending a nuclear warhead, my suggested alternative is one where a cluster-bomb is used with each bomblet containing rancid lard that would be wide-spattered on the sites from high up, as it would be even more appalling (to Muslim mentality) than physical destruction of the same.
I particularily like the part about "irrecoverable desecration". No death, no massive destruction, no radiation.
The threat would be something like: "You attack us again and we will drop rancid lard bombs on all of your holy sites and towns. And you won't be able to stop us."
Rancid lard bombs. That would be nifty indeed.
2 comments:
Now, there's an idea I hadn't considered.
Yesterday evening I thought that the U.S. might propose to the Arab world that we would leave the Middle East for good and forcibly remove all non-Arabs from Israel on one condition. The Arabs would have to first convert one of their cities to farmland. That is, raze all of the buildings and plow and seed the land. The city would be Mecca.
Your idea is probably better.
How about just not feeding them anymore?
Turning off "the great white money spigot" and spending that jack on nukes brought the USSR down in less than a decade, and we probably could have negotiated a quicker end to the cold war, if it's leaders could have stayed alive a bit longer.
It's a lot easier to defeat an enemy when you're not constantly giving it aid and comfort.
Post a Comment