Saturday, February 27, 2010


Consider: if we had lost World War II, we would have been held accountable for war crimes, for vaporizing the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden down to the ground, and for taking apart Hamburg and Stuttgart, brick by brick.

Hiroshima, Japan 1945

But we won - against armies of dedicated fanatics inspired by their charismatic leaders and their ends-justifies-the-means ideology. And the way we won was by vaporizing cities, burning them down to the ground and taking them apart brick by brick.

Dresden, Germany February 1945

Now we are involved in another global conflict, that has the capability to morph into a greater threat to Western civilization than Fascism was in the thirties and the forties, if we let it. Inspired by their morally bankrupt ideology, our enemies seem willing to sacrifice themselves as human weapons systems. They strap explosives to their bodies in order to take out as many 'infidels' as possible and get access to those 72 Virgins waiting for them up in Muslim Heaven. And for every one of them we take out, ten or more seem willing to step up to take his place.

It's the ultimate game of Whack-a-Mole

How do we fight such an enemy?


Think back a minute to World War II; we faced fanatical enemies then. But consider how relieved those self-same fanatics were when the shooting stopped and they realized they'd just been given a second chance at life. Members of the Waffen SS, of the Japanese Kamikaze Corps, were so relieved when it became apparent they were no longer required to give their lives for a cause that was so obviously hopeless.

This just goes to show how truly rare a thing a true fanatic is. Nietzche wrote of an ideal that doesn't really exist in daily life.

Proof positive is the modern phenomena of the Islamist terrorist suicide bomber.

The individuals carrying out these attacks are actively recruited, heavily indoctrinated, and then drugged immediately prior to carrying out their suicide missions. Beyond the spiritual rewards in the afterlife and the guarantee of a place with God for the attacker's families, there are social, cultural and material incentives including vast celebrity, cash bonuses and/or free apartments. Saddam Hussein had a reimbursement program where the family of every Palestinian suicide bomber was paid up to $25,000 for a successful mission:

This materialistic aspect of the rewards program is very telling; this represents a chink in the armor of the Islamic terrorists' fanaticism.

Deny the enemy this aspect of their recruitment program, and watch their pool of willing volunteers dry up.

I suggest that, just as World War II evolved from a war of maneuver on the battlefield to a 'war of the cities'; we adopt a similar strategy of attrition. Basically; "You kill one of ours, we kill ten thousand of yours."

There is no reward for your family. Basically, the result of a suicide terrorist attack will be the elimination of your family or tribe three generations back, and the utter destruction of your town or village right down to the foundation stones.

Very quickly we will see our 'fanatical' enemies lose their ardor for engagement with the infidel. If we had adopted such a strategy after the taking of our embassy in Tehran in 1979, after the Beirut bombing in 1983, or after Mogadishu in 1993, we certainly wouldn't be having half the problems we're having with Islamic Fundamentalists we are having now.

A basic truism of the Philosophy of STORMBRINGER is that if you find yourself in a war, the stupidest thing to do is anything other than whatever it takes to win it. And if you're going to fight a war, you can't half-step it; that's what we did in Vietnam and we all know how far that got us.

But what about the widows and orphans we will have created? Won't they be willing to pick up the struggle, for vengeance, and out of a sense of purposelessness after having lost their complete social support structure?

We're creating them already, anyway - there must be a Civic Action program in place to assist the victims of war (which there already is) - and an effective Psychological Operation campaign spreading the correct themes that we help good Muslims - Kuwait in 1990-91, the Kurds during the same time frame, Bosnia 1995-97, Kosovo 1999, the liberation of Afghanistan 2002, the liberation of Iraq 2003, the relief programs in Indonesia and Malaysia following the tsunami of 2004, ongoing relief programs in Muslim countries around the world.

US military assistance, Banda Aceh, Indonesia, 2004

We can even point out our President has a Muslim name, that he comes from a Muslim family:

Educate them against the hatred and lies the mullahs spread in the madrassas; show them how many Muslims have perished at the hands of Islamist-inspired suicide attacks. Then show them the greatness and goodness of civilization and invite them to come to the table. A free-passage program, an excuse to abandon a futile cause.

We're talking the ultimate carrot-and-stick campaign. Come over to us, you can be a Muslim but you don't have to kill yourself and other Muslims, and you get all the good stuff. Strap bombs to yourself and your entire world comes to an end - for you, your family, for everybody.



  1. i second the motion

  2. Thank you, I have been saying this very thing since 911. You kill one of us and we kill a thousand. Two of us and we kill ten thousand. We could end this very quickly

  3. absolute brute force and no bowing or apologize

  4. Dumbstruck I am,first time I have ever read that Obama could be an asset.Great analysis & as always the hard version instead of the BS failed hugs,money and basketball courts.

  5. We'll never do it.... unless they nuke one of our cities.

  6. Even if they nuke one of our cities we won't do it. The civilian leadership has spent too much time watching movies with happy-ever-after-for-everybody endings. And they're gutless, spineless organisms - kind of evolution-in-reverse.

  7. IMHO, your analysis suffers from several flaws.

    WW2 was indeed a war of ideologies but it was also a war between states; you could also say that it was a war between state ideologies, not espoused in their entirety by the civilians. The war against Germany was not a war against "Germanism" but a war against Nazism. The losing side gradually became disillusioned with their leaders and the war finally dissuaded most but the most fanatic to stop fighting. However, I believe that the common German people were not afraid of total annihilation, either in the physical or in the culture sense.

    I do not believe that this is the same with the "war on terror". Despite what the "Westerns" are professing, for Muslims this is a war not against Ahmadinejad's Iran or Hussein's Iraq but a war against their "core" identify, aka Islam. An escalation in retaliatory strikes will not change that, especially if one takes into account that their religion already offers alternatives to non-violence.

    In any case, I find it hard to believe that the victims of retaliatory strikes will come to accept them as a necessary evil when 1) the casualties do not balance, 2) it is difficult to adapt a guilt mechanism that justifies extreme aggresion of the part of the attacker.