On Brussels, or Kill Them All

My apologies for not commenting on this sooner, but I wanted more data to work with.

Terrorists should die.

All of them.

The Geneva Convention says so.

Didn't know that, did you?

In the great old tradition of the, well, Traditional Rules of Warfare, anyone who wasn't in a uniform, but acting on behalf of an opposing enemy, caught in your territory? Those were spies. You shot them. No trial, no rules, you just shot them in the head, or the chest, or in the gut if you're feeling vindictive.

The role of spies and keeping them alive is a relatively new concept, brought to you by the Cold War. Everyone wanted to get their spies back. Spies became political chess pieces. They became useful beyond spying.

Before that? Spies could have had anything done to them, and no one would have blinked.

A lot of the Geneva Convention seems to be, at least superficially, a codification of the traditional rules of warfare.  Only the language that they use is "illegal combatants" -- does that term sound familiar? It should. That's what almost every terrorist is. If one is not clearly labeled as one side or another -- or if clearly and deliberately mislabeled for purposes of shenanigans -- then that person is toast. Because Illegal combatants HAVE NO RIGHTS under the Geneva convention. Sadly, Saddam's army would have had better luck if they kept their uniforms on ... well, those who weren't in hiding because a war crimes tribunal would have strung them up.

Let's be clear here, shall we? The Islamofascists want us to die. They won't be happy until either we die, or they do. I'd rather it be them.

That's pretty much it. Now I don't generally advocate the standard "kill them all" approach, but I do prefer that we climb the tree. It worked for Osama bin Laden. We got a high ranking commander, we got a courier, poured water down their nose while hanging them upside down, terrified the crap out of them, and climbed the ranks.

My only suggestion would be find a terrorist, find the next step up the chain of command, confiscate as much of their cash as possible (because money buys all sorts of explosives), kill that level of the chain, move up to the next round. Or kill them later, either way.

If you want the really short version, read Tom Kratman's Desert Called Peace and Carnifex, which are two solid books on the nature of this enemy and how they should be fought. And killed.

As for other countries, well, I won't say "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists," but if you're gonna be neutral, be ACTIVELY neutral. Swiss-level neutral. And the Swiss do NOT like people screwing with their neutrality. Act on behalf of some other country while in Switzerland, they will throw you in jail as fast as they can get their hands on you.

So too should "neutral" countries if they want to be truly neutral. "Hey, France, you've got jihadis in your suburbs? Throw them out. You don't even need to arrest them, just don't harbor the little bastards. Okay? Thanks."

But there are no de facto neutral countries, not realistically, and definitely not in the long run. Think about it, the standard Islamofascist has two categories: themselves, and everyone else. You're either with the terrorists, or on their target list. Hell, even ISIS and al-Qaeda hate each other. If they can't coexist to kill non-Islamofascists, what makes anyone else think that they won't be next?

Realistically, no one can be neutral in a war against Islamofascism. Either these guys die, or they kill you. Normally, there would be a third option for forced conversion or being taxed into poverty UNTIL you convert, but ISIS doesn't seem to have that on the agenda. They just seem to be in raping and beheading. (Most Islamofascists don't seem to be interested in anything that might benefit them. When Israel left the West Bank and Gaza, the locals trashed everything of value left behind. Because "It's Israeli." No one thought to use anything for their own benefit, because they'd rather die than use Israeli technology or shops. Because they hate Israel and the West more than they like themselves. They would sooner buy weapons than food.)

And for the record, I know that Islam considers an infidel becoming a Muslim a "reversion," as they believe everyone is really a Muslim to start with, but no. I'm Catholic. Always been Catholic. Will probably always be Catholic. If you have a problem with this, feel free to come visit me at 938 West 35th street, Manhattan, New York. Otherwise, take it up with someone who cares.

No one who takes the enemy at its word can be logically neutral. But the amount of people who had dismissed Islamofascism for most of the 20th century are legion.

Or, to paraphrase the immortal words of John Adams: "Islamofascists have declared us in a state of open and total war. Why the bloody hell can't we?"  This is not The Mouse that Roared, where a country the size of the Vatican declares war on us and then fights with bows and arrows. These people strap bombs to their women, their children, their brothers and their sisters, and gleefully send them to their deaths.The Islamofascist is one who believes in dying more than they believe in living, and all I suggest is that we accommodate them. Is that so much to ask?

With Brussels, Europe is once more reminded that they're not neutral. And no, don't blame the refugee crisis, this goes back so much further than Syria and ISIS. Two of the bombers were born in Brussels. This was a seed planted long ago.

But, unlike the Swiss, Europe generally treats neutrality as something that happens because they say so. Switzerland has only been able to stay neutral because everyone banks there, and the entire country is a natural walled off location (their walls are called "The alps") and everybody in the country has a freaking NATO automatic rifle. Screw with the Swiss, and they just go into the mountains and snipe at you until you run out of either money or blood.

The rest of Europe? They don't have that defense.

The first thing Europe should do is establish border control and create Ellis Island. Yes, I said Ellis Island. Remember, Ellis was created to quarantine folks coming into the country, screen them for diseases, and to find out if the people coming in were the people they wanted to come in. Step 1 would be to do that for the Syrian "refugees." Yes, I put that in quotes. The UN says that they're mostly women and children. The individual countries say that they're mostly fighting-age men.  In the event that the individual countries are right, they should really screen the refugees carefully. Once it has been decided that the individual in question is A) really a refugee and B) not someone who will blow the place up, then and only then should they make the decision to let them back into the country. And all the interrogators should be women. Let's face it, if the men object to the women interrogating them, and get violent over that, send them back to deal with ISIS. If they can't put up with the "discomfort" of a female authority figure to escape the ISIS rampage, they can go back and deal with ISIS on their own.

Step two is to start actual investigations of organizations suspected of supporting terrorism, or tracing funds of same. This isn't rocket science, people. It really isn't.


After that, Europe should have a conversation that goes "Who are our friends and who are our allies in the Middle East?" Because let's face it, if a country has training camps, and, winking, let them run free, they are not your friend or your ally. An ally would go, "Hey, we have these people in our boarders. We can't be seen killing them, but could you do a bombing run? We'll pretend to act all pissy, but we'd be ever so grateful."

To the ones who would be Europe's allies, they start handing over or killing or imprisoning their own psychos. To those who would be neutral, they start trying really hard to be Switzerland.

Because, right now, the one thing that prevents me from saying "Nuke Medina. Then Mecca" is that I'm a good Catholic who knows that mass murder is wrong.

But the only real solution is twofold: take their money, take their lives. In either order. New ones pop up? Kill them too. Any Islamofascist should die, period -- if only because in order to join their ranks, you have to be a specific kind of monster, that would drop walls on gays, stone rape victims, and create mass graves. Those people don't seem interested in redemption, and while as a Catholic, I believe in redemption for all men, no matter how evil, we are not sending missionaries in combat armor to settle things. We are sending 19-year-olds with body armor, automatic weapons, and attitude problems.

The real problem right now is something I've mentioned a while ago. There are countries in Europe that have dealt with troublesome minorities before. Their solution was concentration camps.

As has been noticed, Europe became pacifist not because they're weak. Europe became pacifist because it is very good when it comes to genocide, and wholesale slaughter. They can either deal with the problem the right way, or wait until their neo-Nazi element takes over and institute their version of how this ends.

Europe can do this the right way now, or the wrong way later. Now would probably have a more moderate response.

Right now, it is imperative that Europe joins the fight to avoid that sort of final solution to their "Muslim question." Fighting Islamofascism on the battlefield, with human intelligence and finding the men with guns and their money is the better solution. Because it is better for the soul of Europe that they wage war against warmongers than erecting barbed wire and gas chambers.