Gullible Jones wrote:... So, what exactly is the point of squashing the extremists if you have to become as unrelentingly nasty as them? Would you want to live in a country that deliberately murdered children en masse? What makes you think they might not pick your family next, for speaking out against the Fearless Leader or some such shit?
I love how all you got out of my post was "let's slaughter all the children en mass"
I didn't say slaughter all the children en mass. Just the ones too old to de-program.
As for the tyranny you are describing you are essentially assuming something like Lenin or Hitler. I am not advocating that type of tyranny at all. I am advocating a tyranny more like that of the Romans at the height of their regime. While it was ruthless it was also fair. I am proposing a system that essentially says "if you avoid adopting a religion of hate and intolerance AND you obey our laws reasonably well you will live a reasonably happy life. And your people will prosper."
The reason I proposed the methods I did were simple. We could go in and fight a long nasty brutal war. One where eventually practically all of the population would hate our guts. After 20 years or so we would pretty much have to commit genocide to win. Or we could go in and kill every male over the age of five. After 20 years of occupation and marrying the occupiers the issue would pretty much be settled.
OR we could go in and use the iron fist approach. Every Imam that preaches hate is put to death. Every follower of an Imam who preaches hate who refuses to renounce him is put to death. But, again you are going down the long drawn out war. One that would leave lots of survivors with long memories. Who would also pass on those memories to their children's children.
There are other ways. They are less ruthless. They take more time and resources. And they more closely mirror what Zee is talking about. You go for the little wins first and you build on them. But, again you are talking about a 50 to 100 year approach to create lasting change.
You may automatically assume that because we do that in Iraq we would do it in our own country. Probably not. Look at how Britain ran their colony empire. The rules in the colonies were always different for the natives than they were for the real citizens of the empire. Back home in Britain the average citizen enjoyed a high level of security and safety from being dragged from their homes and summarily executed. They even enjoyed a high level of personal liberties. Meanwhile in the colonies those natives who actively collaborated and adopted the empires ways were richly rewarded, lead reasonably happy lives, and prospered. And they were reasonably safe. They enjoyed many of the same rights as an ordinary citizen. Over time as the colonies became responsible enough they were allowed to join the empire as full partners and they had full citizenship. Look at Canada. Or Australia... they didn't do to badly for being a penal colony.
So, in my long winded way I am saying that we would not be as "unrelentingly nasty" as ISIS or other radical Islamic groups. If we truly wanted to change the culture we would have to adopt methods that work and then stick to them.
