Tuesday, September 5, 2006

The (Murder-)Suicide of the West

Last July, while Israel was reducing much of Lebanon's infrastructure to rubble and bombing Christian neighborhoods into blood puddling during its most recent invasion, New York Post columnist John Podhoretz – the unsightly spawn of Trotskyite loins – opined that Israel's problem was that it is simply “Too Nice to Win.”

Too many in the “liberal” West, insisted Podhoretz (an obese, soft-handed child of privilege whose ever-broadening brow has never known the sweat of honest labor) have succumbed to the “universalist idea” that “all people are created equal,” and thus believe that “a war against a country has nothing to do with the people but only with that country's leaders....”

Poddy thus anticipated Alan Dershowitz's axiom that once a country has been targeted by Israel, its entire population should be considered fair game. Like Dershowitz the Dehumanizer, Poddy was willing to apply the same principle to populations targeted by Washington in wars of “liberation”: To resist Washington's humanitarian aggression is to mark one's self as a terrorist worthy of summary liquidation.

“What if the tactical mistake we made in Iraq was that we didn't kill enough Sunnis in the early going to intimidate them and make them so afraid of us they would go along with anything?” muses Podhortez, a talentless, gelatinous mass of arrogance who, but for the fortunate circumstances surrounding his birth, would be selling knishes from a push-cart rather than prescribing genocidal policies in the Post's op-ed section. “Wasn't the survival of Sunni men between the ages of 15 and 35 the reason there was an insurgency and the basic cause of the sectarian violence now?”

Americans, laments Podhoretz – the type of sheltered, insular pseudo-intellectual who looks westward from Lower Manhattan with fear and loathing – are simply too nice to commit mass murder on the scale necessary to win “World War IV.” And if America can't kill so promiscuously and pitilessly, “can Israel? Could Israel – even hardy, strong, universally conscripted Israel – possibly stomach the bloodshed that would accompany the total destruction of Hezbollah?”

The problem is that America and its allies have scruples about perpetrating wholesale slaughter.

This wasn't always the case, Podhoretz wistfully reflects.

“Could World War II have been won by Britain and the United States if the two countries did not have it in them to firebomb Dresden and nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki?” Podhoretz asks rhetorically. “Didn't the willingness of their leaders to inflict mass casualties on civilians indicate a cold-eyed singleness of purpose that helped break the will and the back of their enemies? Didn't that singleness of purpose extend down to the populations in those countries in those days, who would have and did support almost any action at any time that would lead to the deaths of Germans and Japanese?”

Podhoretz is utterly typical of the personality type dominating Bush-era, FOX-ified “conservatism”: He's either performing cadenzas of alarm over “Islamo-Fascism,” or haranguing the public about the supposed necessity of submitting to a variety of Fascism more to their liking. He and his ilk insist that Americans must set aside whatever freedoms and moral scruples the State regards as dispensable, in order to display the “singleness of purpose” necessary to exterminate all who resist the Glorious Global Democratic Revolution.

Oh, and any nation seen as a possible threat to Israel and impediment to its regional ambitions.

As lucky hap would have it, those two groups are, for all purposes, essentially identical.

Podhoretz is too timid to call candidly for the nuclear annihilation of the Revolution's enemies. Michael Coren, a neo-Trotskyite slogan-spewer in Canada, is less inhibited. If “we are to preserve world peace,” fulminates Coren in the pages of the Toronto Sun, the only safe alternative is nuclear war.

“Put boldly and simply, we have to drop a nuclear bomb on Iran,” Coren insists. “Not, of course,, the unleashing of full-scale thermo-nuclear war on the Persian people, but a limited and tactical use of nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's military facilities and its potential nuclear arsenal. It is, sadly, the only response that this repugnant and acutely dangerous political entity will understand.”

This is because “Diplomacy, kindness, and compromise have all failed and the Iranian leadership is still obsessed with all-out war against anybody it considers an enemy. Its motives are beyond question, its capability equally so.... Comparisons to the Nazis in the 1930s are unfair – to the Nazis. Hitler had the French army, the largest in Europe, on his border and millions of Soviet infantry just a few hours march away. Iran has no aggressive enemies in the region.”

The foregoing may be the only example I have found of a neo- “conservative” (the appropriate designation, as used above, is “neo-Trotskyite”) referring, however allusively, to French martial prowess, and it comes as part of an exercise in rhetorical card-stacking intended to make the evil but largely inconsequential regime in Iran appear to be a world-historic menace.

The assertion that Iran has “no aggressive enemies in the region” makes sense only if one assumes that Israel, which has both a nuclear arsenal and a willingness to employ it, can never be accused of aggressive behavior, no matter how many of its neighbors it invades or how often those invasions occur. Coren's assertion implies much the same about the United States, which has 140,000 troops in Iraq and clear designs on military action against Syria and Iran.

By way of contrast, Iran – which is ruled, once again, by one of the most loathsome governments on the face of a globe disfigured by dozens of loathsome regimes -- doesn't occupy so much as a meter of territory outside its borders. It is making unremarkable progress in the direction of acquiring a single nuclear weapon.
Tehran does fund and materially support Hezbollah and other terrorist groups, but the claim that it is the world's leading paymaster of terrorism is risible in light of the hundreds of billions of dollars doled out by Washington – much of it used to underwrite the acquisition of terrifying weapons and police-state hardware – to Israel, Egypt, and other governments in the region. And the Pentagon's budget alone is something on the order of twenty times the size of Iran's entire Gross Domestic Product.

Nonetheless, concludes Coren – who fancies himself a Roman Catholic historian of some sort -- a nuclear strike on Iran is a moral imperative: “Better limited pain now than universal suffering in five years. The usual suspects will complain. The post-Christian churches, the Marxists, the fellow travelers and fifth columnists. But then, the same sort of people moaned and condemned in 1938.”

Actually, the apposite historical parallel is to 1945, when American Christians and Patriots condemned the gratuitous atomic bombing of Imperial Japan by the FDR/Truman regime – the most conspicuous act of state terrorism in recorded history. This act of barbarism was condemned by General MacArthur (not noted for being a “fifth columnist” or pantywaist of any sort) and conservative statesmen such as the estimable Ambassador J. Reuben Clark.

“It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan,” concluded Admiral William Leahy (an aide to General MacArthur) in a 1950 memoir. The Japanese were already beaten and ready to surrender.... It was my reaction that the scientists and others wanted to make the test because of the vast sums that had been spent on the project .... My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.”

James Forrestal, Secretary of the Navy during WWII, “had originated a plan to end the war with Japan five and a half months” prior to V-J Day on August 14, 1945, records Cornell Simpson in his book The Death of James Forrestal. Had that plan been implemented, the bombs would not have been dropped, hundreds of thousands of lives would have been spared, and the Soviets would have been kept out of the Pacific War.
“The last point, of course, is why the fellow travellers hurriedly persuaded FDR to reject Forrestal's plan, and why they saw to it that the American people heard nothing about this chance to save untold numbers of American lives,” concluded Simpson, “In May, another move to end the Pacific war was similarly scuttled. The very same month that Germany surrendered, Truman approved a peace ultimatum to Japan, subject to endorsement by the military. But on May 29, General Marshall rejected it as `premature.'”

In what sense would ending the war in May 1945 have been “premature,” when the Japanese leadership had been sending out peace feelers for nearly a year – following the unimaginable horrors of the Battle of Saipan?

In January 1945, the Japanese had quietly provided MacArthur with surrender terms that were, for all practical purposes, identical to those accepted after the terror bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Had those terms “been accepted when first offered, there would have been no heavy loss of life on Iwo Jima (over 26,033 Americans killed or wounded, approximately 21,000 Japanese killed) and Okinawa (over 39,000 U.S. dead and wounded, 109,000 Japanese dead), no fire bombing of Japanese cities by B-29 bombers (it is estimated that the dropping of 1,700 tons of incendiary explosives on Japanese cities during March 9th-10th alone killed over 80,000 civilians and destroyed 260,000 buildings), and no use of the atomic bomb,” writes my friend and colleague John F. McManus.
Tens of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Japanese (most of the latter civilians) were killed during the six months tacked on to the Pacific War by the Soviet-aligned clique running FDR's White House. These people were killed to prolong the war until the atom bomb was ready to make its debut.

Hundreds of thousands were killed, in other words, so that the State could have an opportunity to kill hundreds of thousands more.

Once the myth of military necessity is disposed of, it becomes clear that the atomic bombing of Japan was unalloyed state terrorism. This is particularly true of the attack on Nagasaki, the site of a monument to 26 Christian martyrs crucified by a 16th century Shogun.

In fractions of a second, the Pagan regime ruling the WWII-era United States incinerated scores of thousands of people, among them most of Japan's embattled Christian population.

In that act – as well as the needless slaughter of tens of thousands of American Christians on Pacific battlefields prior to the bombing -- can be seen a suitable symbolic expression of the true priorities of the “neo-Conservatives.” When forced to choose between preserving the lives of Christians – or, for that matter, innocent people of any variety – and building the power of the State through total war, the neo-cons will choose the latter every time.

More importantly, although they are indifferent regarding the physical survival of Christians, neo-Trots are actively hostile to the preservation of Christian principles (among them the Just War doctrine) that make our society worth preserving. Horrible as it would be to live under Sharia Law, the kind of society the neo-Trots are building would be even worse – assuming, of course, that their deranged drive for total power doesn't prove to be a case of murder-suicide on a global scale.


rick said...

"peace be among you",

will and others. i think you all got it wrong with this piece (sarcasm sarcasm). the best and brightest are protecting us from those vile vermin that seem to make more after-death appearances than 'snowball' did in "animal farm". just today one of my peers relayed to me how on labor day week-end, at the airport, she had her gummy bears confiscated from her. "it was a gelatin," she was told.

i can see it all too clearly now...one of the greatest threats to airline security comes in the form of gummy bears. is it because of its german origins? who knows? i was recently contemplating how watches will be banned next. after all, they are "a major bomb making component". i could take my watch, hook it up to my gummy bears, and i could have a bomb in no time. can you imagine what a high velocity gummy bear could do to an airplane? let me tell you..

1) kids would get out of their seats and wander in the isles for something they know to be tastier than the 1000 calorie meal they forced themselves to eat. this would lead to air marshals telling people to get back into their seats. kids, being kids, would disobey them. so they air marshalls, will shoot the kids and claim that every last one of them was running down the isle yelling "bomb, bomb, bomb". when the parents protest, they will get shot too. when the remaining group of parents, ticked off at this, and wanting to kill the murderous non-thinking scumbuckets, will pull together, say, "let's roll", and then try to subdue the air marshals, who will say that they were, "only doing their jobs".

2) the cabin will be coated in a rainbow of colors. some kids will remark, "yellow and blue make green!" to this, air marshals will arrest these children for revealing US classifed information--how our terrorist threat level system really works.

3) most passengers, having had their snacks and treats confiscated by the TSA, will pick the residue off of the cabin interior to supplement the barely 1000-calorie meal they recieved. to which the air marshals will protest because "it's against the rules to eat more than the airplane crew serves". when asked why, they will reply, "it's classified information". the truth being told...the skimpy meal is designed to keep passengers tired and non-energetic so marshal will have more strength to repel an attack.

4) one gummy bear will reach such a velocity, that it will tear down the curtain hiding our HS director playing his organ. then all will be revealed. he'll pick up the gummy bear, eat it, then get out his own bag of gummy bears, and mockingly eat them in the presence of angry snarls and steaming heads.

truly, in this nation the wicked are running the show. i thought wicked people were supposed to be smart?

(nice piece by the way. i see that the force is strong in you!) my spider sense is tingling. and glad to see that you too appreciate the film "real genious". a film that is a classic in it's own right and perhaps val kilmer's greatest performance.


[SIZE=4]Male Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor Doctrine (DNA Nulcear Doctrine) Kalki Gaur[/SIZE][COLOR=darkred][/COLOR]

Author: Kalki Gaur: American Nuclear Weapon Doctrine © 2006 Copyrights
Male Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor Doctrine (DNA Nulcear Doctrine) Kalki Gaur
(1) DNA Doctrine
EXECUTION OF ENTIRE MALE POPULATION: Doctrine of Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor has an acronym DNA Doctrine. This doctrine promotes nuclear peace by postulating that any First Use of Nuclear Weapons would result in the total occupation of the Aggressor Nation and the mandatory execution of its entire male population.

Doctrine of Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor states as follows. Whenever a Nuclear Weapon Nation launches preemptive nuclear strikes against other Nation B, then the Victim Nation B will militarily retaliate to defeat the Nuclear Aggressor Nation A. The Nuclear Victim Nation B, will then execute the entire adult male population of the Nation A. In doing so the Nation B will not be violating any current Laws of War. The Nuclear Victim Nation B could also take over all the women, lands and assets of that Aggressor Nation A, without violating the Laws of War. If any Nuclear Power (A) attacks Nation (B), whether a nuclear or non-nuclear power, then once the hostilities are over, the world organization and world powers would arrange that the entire male population of the Nuclear Aggressor Nation A would be hanged and executed. The entire lands and resources of the Nuclear Aggressor Nation (A) would become the property of the Nuclear Victim Nation (B). The enforcing World Organizations would recoup their total cost of enforcing the DNA Doctrine, out of the national resources of the Aggressor Nation (A).

PREEMPTIVE NUCLEAR STRIKE IS A WAR CRIME: The United Nations should pass a treaty declaring that any first use of Nuclear weapons would be a Crime against Humanity and a War Crime. The United Nations should declare that it would supervise the mandatory execution of the entire male population of any Nuclear Aggressor Nation that used nuclear weapons in the preemptive nuclear strike against other Nation.

DNA DOCTRINE VERSUS M.A.D. DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor, DNA Doctrine is more humane and results in more effective nuclear deterrent, than the Doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction, M.A.D. Doctrine. The M.A.D. doctrine is more destructive as it leads to a nuclear Armageddon. The Victim Nuclear Power would destroy the whole planet in case of preemptive nuclear attack and the resulting Second retaliatory strikes.

Doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction is credible as a nuclear Deterrent and promotes world peace. M.A.D. Doctrine threatens the potential Nuclear Aggressor that the Nuclear Victim of the preemptive nuclear attack would launch the retaliatory strikes against the Aggressor Nation annihilating it. Sufficient nuclear weapons of the Victim Nation would survive the preemptive strikes, enabling the Victim Nuclear Power to launch the retaliatory strike against the Aggressor Nation, annihilating the Aggressor.

FANATICS & TERRORISTS ARE NOT RATIONAL: Leaders of the fanatic and terrorist Nations are not reasonable and logical. The fanatic Muslim Mojahideen believing in the ideal of Religious War Jihad and could sacrifice their own lives and even their lands, driven by their fury to convert Kefirs. MAD Doctrine will not deter fanatic Terrorist Islamic Nuclear Powers from launching the preemptive nuclear strikes against non-Muslim nations. Thus, the Doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) would fail to provide an effective Deterrent against a fanatic Islamic Nuclear States. Since Islam preaches fanaticism, so even a normal nation like Pakistan under the influence of religious frenzy could become irrational enough to launch preemptive nuclear strikes against Muslim States like Israel and India disregarding the consequences of the Retaliation.

INDIA-ISRAEL DETERRENT FOR PAKISTANI BOMB: India and Israel should jointly develop a credible Doctrine of Nuclear Deterrent against Islamic Nuclear Weapon Powers. India and Israel should promote the Doctrine of Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor. We should amend the Laws of War to include the provision of the mass execution of the entire male population of the nuclear aggressors. The problem is how to prevent any future Pakistani and other MAD Muslim leader from making preemptive nuclear strikes. How to stop Pakistan and other Muslim nuclear weapon powers from using nuclear weapons against India and Israel? When the Muslim nuclear nations realize that it could lose its entire male population, if it ever launches a nuclear strike against India, then it would never launch the nuclear weapons.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN THE BLACK MARKETS: Mad Muslim terrorists and fanatic Islamic nations could easily buy nuclear components to assemble a nuclear arsenal. Maniacs are irrational and not deterred by any future threat of Second Strike by the victim. Since any Second Strike retaliation would also destroy a large part of the world, the mad leaders argue that the Victim State would lack the Will for launching the retaliatory second nuclear strikes, as it could destroy the World. Because the M.A.D. Doctrine envisages a gruesome holocaust, so mad Nuclear States could launch an unprovoked nuclear attack. Mad nuclear State could argue that because the retaliatory Second strike results into a holocaust, the Victim of the nuclear attack would refrain from pushing the Nuclear Button. Thus logic of an Armageddon promoted by Mutual Assured Destruction Doctrine would become counter productive and fail to deter a nuclear attack by Pakistan and other Mad fanatic terrorist Nuclear Muslim Regimes.

THE ARMAGEDDON PROMOTES NUCLEAR STRIKE: A mad leader of the Islamic Nuclear nation would argue that the sensible non-Muslim leaders would not respond with a counter nuclear attack as it would destroy a large part of the world. While Armageddon being the only credible nuclear option, it would fail to deter the mad, fanatic, terrorist nuclear nations. The Doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction would fail to provide nuclear deterrent, against Pakistani nuclear weapons. Doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction would fail to deter Pakistani Islamic Nuclear weapon powers from launching preemptive nuclear strikes.

SEMITES MASSACRED BROWN EGYPTIANS: Pakistan could drop Atom Bombs on Israel or India, either incited by Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or blinded by Jihad spirit to convert Hindus into Islam. Desert Arabs could use nuclear weapons against agricultural societies, arguing that Arabs would survive the nuclear war in desert oases. Arabs attacked Iran, destroyed Zoroastrian Civilization, and forcibly converted Iranian Zoroastrians into Islam. Semite Arab had been a slave in the ancient Egypt Civilization of Brown Pharaohs. Semite Jews and Arab Muslims attacked Egypt to massacre the entire dominant Brown Race of the ancient Egypt. Fair skinned Semite Arab Muslims occupied Egypt and North Africa. Throughout history, whenever Muslims had military superiority they destroyed non-Muslim societies. Before the Islamic conquest Libya and Algeria was the granary of the Roman Empire. Conquest by the nomadic Arabs destroyed the agricultural economy.

ONLY MALE DEPOPULATION IS THE SOLUTION: The problem as How to deter any future mad Muslim Nuclear Power from using nuclear weapons against Christians, Jews or Hindus, who could be under the influence of the religious Jihad spirit! As explained above, the Doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction would fail to provide credible nuclear deterrent.

DNA DOCTRINES DETERS FANATICS: What could be the Solution? Even the most rabid fanatic, terrorist leader of a Muslim nuclear weapon State, would be deterred from using nuclear weapons against any other adversary, if it knew that the retaliation would be according to DNA Doctrine. Muslim Nations should unequivocally understand the following. The result of any Muslim nuclear attack on India, will be the mandatory execution of the entire Muslim male population of that Muslim nation. Besides it will also result in the confiscation of the entire Muslim Women, Lands and Resources by India. Then no Muslim nation would dare undertake a nuclear strike against India.

RETALIATE AGAINST ENTIRE ISLAMIC WORLD: Only the Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor Doctrine would deter nuclear attack from a fanatic Islamic terrorist nuclear nation. DNA Doctrine would convince the Islamic World that the result of any Islamic nuclear preemptive attack would be the mandatory execution of entire Islamic male population. Besides all of its Women, Lands and Resources, would become the property of the nuclear Victim Nation.

PROBLEM OF PROXY INVASION: What should be the response if any small or Micro Islamic State with small population, decide to commit suicide in the name of Islam, launches the nuclear weapons against a very populous Nation? What should be the response, if the Organization of Islamic States, (OIC) or OPEC finances an Islamic State to develop nuclear weapons and use against other non-Islamic State say Israel, Vatican or Mediterranean Europe? Whether the Victim State or its allies could punish only the front nation, who physically dropped the Bomb or the retaliation could be against all conspiring Islamic allies? Should the retaliations be limited to the Proxy enemy the Front Nation, Mini State whose leadership they have bribed to drop the Atom Bomb, or could it be against the entire coalition? Any Arab state that finances Pakistani Nuclear Weapon Program will be considered a joint-aggressor, in case of Pakistani nuclear attack against India. India could retaliate at nuclear level against that particular Arab State.

RETALIATE AGAINST CO-CONSPIRATORS: In Common Law if Organized Crime issues a contract to make the hit, the entire crime organization is considered guilty of crime and is punished. Indian Nuclear Doctrine should unequivocally declare that any nuclear attack by any Islamic State would result in massive nuclear retaliation against the entire hostile Islamic Coalition, specially such Islamic Nations as aided, abetted and financed the Aggressor.

PROBLEM OF ATTACK BY A MICRO STATE: What should be the retaliation in case Islamic nations conspire to sacrifice one Islamic State to wage a nuclear attack on Hinduism and Judaism? What would the retaliation if the Micro State of Palestine (PLO) led by a terrorist, were to drop nuclear bombs on Europe, America, Israel or India, aided and funded by other richer Islamic States? Should the retaliation be limited to PLO? Islamic Nations could select a smaller State having a smaller population, to launch a nuclear attack on a nation of 900 million by proxy. They may argue that even if the nation-state with the population of only five millions, gets destroyed by the retaliatory strikes, it should be considered an acceptable loss, as it helps eliminate an enemy state. What should India’s response be?

REGIONAL RETALIATION: Indian Nuclear doctrine unequivocally declares that India will not restrict the populous nation’s retaliatory strikes to the smaller Nation that acted as the front in this Proxy War. Indian will retaliate by using neutron bombs, against all members of the enemy coalition attacked.

HINDUISM IS ONE NATION STATE: No Islamic nation has large populations, while Hinduism and Judaism are one-country Religions. The populous nation justifies the retaliatory nuclear strikes against the entire coalition of hostile nations, whose total population equals to that of the populous nation. Indian Nuclear Doctrine should declare that if Islam were to declare a Religious War on Hindu India, a nation of 950 millions, then Indian retaliation would target the entire Islamic Bloc having combined population of 900 millions. If Islamic World incites Pakistan to launch nuclear strikes against India, then India would make targets retaliatory nuclear strikes against all Islamic States.

RETALIATE AGAINST ENTIRE COALITION: Indian Nuclear Doctrine will declare that the populous Victim of a preemptive nuclear strike has a legal right of counter-strikes against the entire Coalition of hostile Nations. It can retaliate against all conspiring nations, whose combined populations equal the populous Victim.

Doctrine of Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor unequivocally declares as follows. In case of any Islamic Nuclear strike by any Islamic Nation, against any non-Islamic Nation, the retaliation would target the entire Islamic World. The right of nuclear retaliation would justify India to use nuclear weapons against the Islamic World.
Author: Kalki Gaur: American Nuclear Weapon Doctrine © 2006 Copyrights

[SIZE=4]Male Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor Doctrine (DNA Doctrine) Deters Nuclear Attacks[/SIZE][COLOR=darkred][/COLOR]

Author: Kalki Gaur: American Nuclear Weapon Doctrine © 2006 Copyrights

DEPOPULATION WOULD DETER PAKISTAN: What should be Indian retaliation if Pakistan attacked India with an Atom bomb? Why should India declare unequivocally its response to any nuclear strike by Pakistan? Pakistan is trying to scare the world that it would use nuclear weapons, to settle the Kashmir issue with India. The United States is pressurizing India to internationalize Kashmir as it might lead to Indo-Pakistan nuclear confrontation. The problem of Indian doctrine is to convince the Nuclear Five (P-5) Nations that Pakistan will not dare to attack India with nuclear weapons. Pakistan can not attack India, because then India will depopulate Pakistan, both by using neutron bombs and conventional weapons. India also threatens to annex Pakistan into India.

AVOID CONTAMINATION OF LANDS: The problem is how should India make a retaliatory nuclear strike against Pakistan, in case of Pakistani nuclear attack on India? Any Pakistani nuclear attack on India would contaminate agricultural lands in India. Therefore, India would only use either neutron bombs or non-nuclear weapons to occupy Pakistani lands, because the use of Atom Bombs will contaminate Pakistani lands, that India will needed to resettle Indian people. Any Indian nuclear attack on Pakistan would contaminate Pakistani rivers, lands, and animals required for feeding Indians displaced by the nuclear attack. Therefore, India could not possibly contaminate Pakistanis agricultural lands, by retaliating with nuclear weapons on Pakistan, even if Pakistan launched nuclear weapons against India.

RETALIATION BY CONVENTIONAL ARMS: Indian Nuclear Doctrine should declare that in the aftermath of Pakistani nuclear attack on India, the Indian Army would invade Pakistan and occupy Pakistan without using nuclear weapons. Once India occupies Pakistan, after Pakistani nuclear attacks, than India will hang Pakistan’s entire male population, and take over entire lands and the resources of Pakistan. India will use these resources to feed those Indians displaced due to the destruction caused by Pakistani nuclear strikes.

RETALIATE AGAINST PAKISTAN’S ALLIES: Indian Nuclear doctrine should declare that Indian response will make retaliatory nuclear strikes against the capitals of nations provided aid and abetted, incited and supported Pakistan’s nuclear attacks on India. If any Nation provides financial support to Pakistan’s nuclear program, then in retaliation to Pakistani nuclear attack on India, India would also target nuclear weapons against all allies of Pakistan. India would then depopulate and occupy the lands of Pakistan’s allies. Nevertheless, India would not launch nuclear strikes against Pakistan, as any nuclear attack could contaminate the River System in the Subcontinent.

RETALIATE FOR PROXY ATTACK: Indian Nuclear doctrine should declare that, If China and North Korea used Pakistan to attack India in a Proxy War, then Indian retaliation would target major Chinese and Korean cities. Indian Nuclear Weapons Doctrine declares that Western Nations transferred Nuclear Weapons and Missiles to Pakistan to keep Pagan India under check. India will also retaliate against the West, if Pakistan uses the West supplied nuclear weapons against India.

BE BLUNT ABOUT RETALIATION: Indian Nuclear Doctrine should propagate Doctrine of Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor. DNA Doctrine would provide credible nuclear deterrent against any Pakistani nuclear strike. We should occasionally remind citizens of Pakistan that we could hang the entire male population of Pakistan in case of any Pakistani nuclear strikes against India. Then no Government of Pakistan would risk a nuclear attack against India. India and Israel should be blunt with potential Islamic Nuclear State.

OFFER NO FIRST USE PACT: India should offer a No-First use of Nuclear Weapons Pact to Pakistan. India should not intervene if Pakistan used its nuclear bombs against any other country other than India. India should not oppose Pakistan’s nuclear programs, but declare in advance the consequence of any Pakistani nuclear attack against India.

INDO-PAKISTAN CONFEDERATION: The world would be safer with six (6) nuclear powers than with seven (7) nuclear powers. Christian powers would soon realize soon that the only way to eliminate the threat of the Islamic Bomb would be the Confederation of India and Pakistan. West should force Nuclear Pakistan to confederate with India. Both Pakistan and India could be Permanent Members of the UN Security Council. Nuclear India and Nuclear Pakistan should merge armies, to eliminate the possibility of Indo-Pakistan nuclear war. Pakistani peoples of Sindh, Karachi, Baluchistan, Pakhtoonistan has always dreamed of rejoining India. It is inevitable that Nuclear India and Nuclear Pakistan and Bangladesh would form a Federation before 2,005 AD. It is likely that the Aryan nations of India, Pakistan, Iran and Kazakhstan, South Asia and Central Asia would confederate to form Union of Aryan States, (UAS).
Author: Kalki Gaur: American Nuclear Weapon Doctrine © 2006 Copyrights

[SIZE=4]Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor Vs MAD Doctrine[/SIZE][COLOR=darkred][/COLOR]

Author: Kalki Gaur: American Nuclear Weapon Doctrine © 2006 Copyrights
Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor Vs MAD Doctrine

LOSS OF WOMEN & LANDS DETERS FANATICS: M.A.D. Doctrine fails to deter mad leaders, fanatics, terrorists, and Muslim Mojahideen. Under these circumstances, the DNA Doctrine is more credible than the MAD Doctrine is. Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor Doctrine of Nuclear Deterrent is more logical, more effective, more humane, and more civilized than the Doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). A mad leader can only understand the severity of the nuclear retaliation, if we declare it in the simple language. DNA describes the retaliation of any Islamic nuclear adventure in terms of the loss of Islamic Women, Lands and Animals and Male lives. Bedouins rule Arab states, who just 30 years back lived in desert oases in tents on simple diet of dates and camel milk. Crude terminology of the DNA Doctrine lays emphasis on Male Depopulation and loss of Lands and Women that Arab men can understand instinctively.

PAKISTAN IS AN TERRORIST ISLAMIC NATION: Even civilized Pakistan eulogizes Bedouin ideals, as is evident in their anti-women laws that punishes a female victim of rape for adultery, by stoning her to death, while the rapist roams free. Recently Pakistan sentenced to death a Christian for blasphemy, while Muslims blaspheme Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism. We cannot treat Pakistan differently from Islamic fanatics, just because Pakistan is not an Arab but an Aryan. Indian Nuclear Strategy should treat Islam as a category to define the strategic nuclear retaliatory response. Pakistan believes Religion is the basis of the State. Judaic and Hindu Nuclear doctrine should treat Nuclear Pakistan as a terrorist, fanatic and an expansionist Islamic Nuclear Weapon Power.

M.A.D. DOCTRINE WOULD CAUSE GLOBAL HUNGER: Doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction threatens the death of millions in retaliation for any preemptive nuclear attack. Depopulation of the Nuclear Aggressor Doctrine provides more credible nuclear deterrent, than the Doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction. The M.A.D. Doctrine would cause the contamination of the lands, essential for the food supply of the world. We could procreate human beings, but we cannot create new lands on this earth. The M.A.D. Doctrine would cause deaths by hunger, by a planet-wide contamination. Contamination of lands would be very high on the agenda of the terrorist nuclear Islamic leaders.

DEPOPULATION THREAT DETERS: The DNA Doctrine, the Mandatory Male Depopulation of the Nuclear Aggressor Nation would deter even the most rabid fanatic terrorist nation from engaging in any form of nuclear terrorism. The genetic make up or the DNA code of a fanatic nation is different. Christian-Judaic logic of the MAD Doctrine fails to deter fanatic Muslim nuclear powers. Only DNA Doctrine incorporates the genetic differences, the DNA code of the Islamic Civilization, to develop a credible strategy of Nuclear Deterrent. The DNA Doctrine emphasizes the depopulation of the entire adult male population of the nuclear Aggressor.

THREAT PLAYS A POLITICAL ROLE. We should not forget that the fundamental purpose of any Nuclear Doctrine is to make a political use of nuclear weapons. The Nuclear doctrine deters the potential Aggressor, by educating its leaders that any nuclear strike would result in retaliatory nuclear strikes causing overwhelming losses and the mandatory execution of its entire Male population.

DNA DOCTRINE IS NOT A RACIST DOCTRINE: DNA Doctrine explains to the mad, illiterate, fanatic Muslim nuclear powers what these retaliations would be in the idioms of their Culture and Scripture. The Indian Nuclear Strategy should convince Pakistan that India would not mind Pakistan’s Atom Bombs, so long as they do not threaten India. The Doctrine will not suggest that Pakistan be racially, genetically or culturally inferior to India, as both nations belong to Aryan Race and have the same food, language, and habits.

PAK CONQUEST OF ISLAMIC WORLD: Pakistan could use its nuclear weapons to conquer the Islamic world and India might support Pakistan. India should not object to any westward expansion of Pakistan. Perhaps Indians would prefer to work in Pakistan ruled Arab World, as then language of Islamic Empire would be Urdu which is very similar to Hindi the national language of Hindu India.

ISLAMIC ATTACK MEANS END OF ISLAMIC WORLD. Indian nuclear strategy would convince Arabs by DNA Doctrine. The Doctrine states that any attempt by any Arab country to finance and incite Pakistani nuclear attack on India could mean the end of Arab Civilization on this planet earth and the total loss of Arab lands and Arab men. Indian Nuclear Doctrine should declare that any Islamic nuclear attack jeopardizes the very existence of Islamic Civilization on this Planet. India should declare in unequivocal terms that it would forcefully carry out the Doctrine of Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor. India would retaliate not only against the Islamic nation that would drop the Bomb, but also against its Allies, who had financed and supported its nuclear weapon’s program.

PEACEFUL NUCLEAR EXPLOSION DOCTRINE: India under Indira Gandhi’s Government, exploded Atom Bomb in 1974 but called it a Peaceful Nuclear Explosion (PNE). India glorified this myopic policy with the aura of a Doctrine. Doctrine of PNE, as India named it, made India a vulnerable target of preemptive nuclear strikes without gaining any diplomatic, political, economic or strategic advantages for India.

PAKISTAN HAD PLANNED NUCLEAR STRIKES: Recently Pakistan had planned preemptive nuclear strikes against India at the time of its Nuclear Tests. Pakistan boasted about creating an Islamic India to become the Mohammad Ghouri of 21st Century, by means of preemptive nuclear strikes against India. India needs to induct in its Military Manuals a gruesome Doctrine of retaliation against any nuclear strikes against India. Indian Military Manuals should provide details at the tactics level, the procedure for the mandatory execution of the entire male population of the nuclear aggressor. Military Manuals would describe the role of officers to avoid the culpability for any violation of Laws of War.

DEPOPULATION OF NUCLEAR AGGRESSOR: India should unequivocally propagate the Nuclear Doctrine that mandates the execution of the entire male population of the nuclear aggressor that would launch preemptive nuclear strikes against India. This doctrine is against nuclear strikes against Indian targets only. India should widely propagate this Doctrine and pass necessary legislation so that its carrying out should overrule any conflicting Laws of War. The mandatory execution of the entire male population, as per the Doctrine of Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor, would violate neither the Laws of War, nor a Crime against Humanity, or the Crime of Genocide. The implementation of the mandatory execution of the entire male population of the nuclear aggressor, by the armed forces of the victim nation and its allies, would constitute neither a War Crime nor the violation of any Laws of War.

NON-NUCLEAR ARMAGEDDON: There cannot be any nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan as they belong to a common civilization. No nation will use nuclear weapons against the nation belonging to the common civilization. Use Nuclear weapons to deter the inter-Civilizational wars. Conventional clashes of civilizations because of sibling rivalries would never conflagrant to nuclear exchange. Pakistan is over-populated, so India gains fewer lands even if it occupies Pakistan. Nuclear India and nuclear Pakistan could join forces and undertake military operations against other civilizations to share territorial gains. Indian doctrine of depopulation of nuclear aggressor is to remind the policy makers that any preemptive nuclear strike would result in an Armageddon by non-nuclear conventional weapons. It is morally repulsive for brothers to threaten nuclear retaliation. Depopulation by conventional weapons would be acceptable as lesser evil. Neither India nor Pakistan can use nuclear weapons against each other in the Age of Civilizational Wars, as both belong to a common civilization. Indian doctrine of depopulation of nuclear aggressor is a threat by elder brother to the arrogant younger brother, to behave properly otherwise he would lose his leg, wife, and lands. But nuclear India would protect Pakistan even by deploying nuclear deterrent, if ever United States and NATO invade Pakistan to de-nuke Pakistan as a follow-up of their counter-proliferation policy. India would come to the defense of Pakistan whenever the United States and NATO invade Pakistan to destroy its weapons of mass destruction. The goal of doctrine of depopulation of nuclear aggressor is to discipline Pakistan.
Author: Kalki Gaur: American Nuclear Weapon Doctrine © 2006 Copyrights

dixiedog said...

Again, the panoramic that's so seemingly elusive to the po' commoner...sigh.

The notion that your safety and security is ensured by government is an oxymoron. Oh yeah, sorry, we've heard that one before.

Truth be told, the only act with which government is the most efficient historically is killin' its own folk, forget foreign folk. I like the term democide coined by R.J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii. Naturally, being of a typical college professor mindset, he otherwise has a wrongheaded view of government, thinking democracy is the least likely form of government to kill its citizens. He's never pointed out the fact, however, that democracy, once established, never remains the status quo form of government, but is a mere transient toward the finale, the total state. But the term itself, nevertheless IMO, is apropos. I view it as a sort of "societal homicide" with no regard to gender, race, or ethnicity as genocide.

However, I do now think that today the total state could actually operate (even in America), and does operate in some locales, without resorting to democide or genocide to various degrees, IF it can so mold the minds of the society it controls to simply OBEY unquestionably and live by it's amoral and arbitrary dictates.

The folk in Islamic total states live as such and abide in the state, as well as the folk in the EU. IOW, they have been thoroughly convinced (brainwashed) of the total state's oft proclaimed benevolence in societal matters and the "fixer" of wrongs and to trust unbendingly its enforcement agents (police, law enforcement organs). As Brave New World illustrates clearly, the folk won't have to be coerced, forced to follow a predetermined, state-approved way of life, they'll do it willingly!

Is this kind of thing not what we are beginning to witness in America also? I mean I know why you finally had to toss the boob tube into the landfill as you intimated some years ago, IIRC. I long ago, probably 15 years now, quit watching the standard mindless fare of sitcoms, movies, etc. on the tube, but still retained one or more of the beasts for the documentaries on THC, TDC, CTV and A&E. But now I'm increasingly witnessing the same sort of "broken record" Goebbelisms in the documentaries nowadays.

On A&E, there's Dallas SWAT, soon to be Kansas City SWAT, and Detroit SWAT about their wild (but benevolent!) exploits!

On CourtTV (CTV), there's COPS, COPS, and still more COPS! To keep the message of the State fresh in the commoner mind, there's always the World's Scariest Police Chases, Hot Pursuits, etc., ad nauseam! If you view any of these controlled documentaries of LAW enforcement in action, the police are blatantly shown in many instances to be violating folks' constitutional rights, but with only the police doing the talking and narrating, only the State's position is given any moment, and thus credibility.

The History Channel (THC) is hopelessly hooked on blathering on about UFOs, aliens, Jesus Christ (a la Da Vinci Code). The Founding Fathers are sometimes showcased but their lives in toto are watered down to "harmonize" with us modernists. The WWII documentaries are at least interesting, even if the overall message was to celebrate the righteousness of OUR State in the war. But even those are becoming a less showcase on the channel. The military battles of the past were interesting, but those are rare now also.

This crap is all nicely and conveniently packaged, naturally, and endlessly vomited onto the hapless masses as entertainment! But it's "entertainment" with a clear, not to mention stern, message. The State, especially its enforcement tentacles, is the ultimate arbitrator and authority in ALL matters private or public.

This all makes it so monkey simple clear to me how the populace will eventually and inevitably be willing doormats for the State in any situation. If you think about it, only Americans are the most recalcitrant, compared to the rest of the world's commoners, that is, about gun control, eco-nazism, regulation, etc., etc.

Even the most vile dictators shun liquidating their most obedient serfs. So it'll be for America eventually as it has become for most of the rest of the world.

Anonymous said...

George Bush, 9/20/2001:
“Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make.
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.)
From this day forward,
any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism
will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime“
On whose side is Pakistan on? Which way will the Islamic bomb drop?See how: http://diggindianews.com/IndiaNewsPolitics/united_suckers_of_america_-_ldquome_no_big_chiefhellip/

CheramieIII said...

great blog. We invite you too http://freedomfightersofamerica.blogspot.com thanks for all you do