Is it possible to turn the world into Islam?

Andrew Atkin's picture
Submitted by Andrew Atkin on Sun, 2016-08-28 23:37

I'm very interested to see what other people think about this?

I remember asking myself a question a while back. What would be the most efficient way to defeat ISIS in battle?

An answer I thought of was lasers. Imagine shooting a small laser into the eyes of an enemy in battle, instantly and permanently blinding them. What can a blind soldier do to you? Pretty much nothing.

You could mount a laser of this type on a small lawnmower sized remote-controlled robotic car. The result being a super cheap, ultra stealth, and ultra precise weapon that works with no collateral damage. Without going into detail, a single laser could be almost totally automated (including targeting) and, presumably, take out a hundred enemy soldiers in less than say a minute.

It doesn't take much energy to fry an eyeball. A formidable weapon.

So why don't we do it? Well, I remember reading that it's against international law to use weapons that permanently blind people. So there goes that great idea! But here is my point...

Why isn't ISIS developing and using such elegant weaponry? They've certainly got the cash flow and I can't believe they wouldn't have thought of it, and yeah right they care about international law. And why aren't they using chemical and biological weapons, and even electromagnetic pulse bombs, etc? All these kinds of brutal weapons are available now, and as technology advances further they will be available even more.

One possibility is simply that terrorist organisations know what the reaction would be if they went down this road. If they present themselves as a truly scary threat, the Western world would presumably stop pussy-footing and in turn do what it takes to annihilate ISIS (and their chums) and fast. And there may in turn be no more mosques that aren't loaded with surveillance, for if they were even allowed to exist at all.

And so, it would probably be game-over for the terrorist's long-range ambitions should they push it too far, and scare us too much. Terrorist organisations might be emotionally disturbed (yes they are) but I presume they will not be completely stupid.

If Islamic extremists want to convert the Western world into Islam, then they must know that they could only do it first by infiltration, and expansion. And never scaring us too much, at least not until they can unleash a hell that the Western world can't contain.

So that is my argument. Watch out for the fundamentalists who take jihad seriously. Study them. Make sure we know who they are and what they're doing. It's not Islamophobia - it's taking due caution. Because in this world of highly accessible technology, even a lone wolf terrorist can do incredible damage. And again this problem can only advance as our technology continues to advance.

And again, if these people are serious about global Islamification, then they would surely be biding their time because there's just no other way they could realistically succeed. The relative power of the West is just too overwhelming, right now.

We need to be sure that we're not breeding a monster. This is a sensible position to take considering Islamic fundamentalists have already infiltrated some non-Muslim nations, and violently converted them to Islam. Correct me if this is wrong, but I'm actually preaching history, and recent history, as much as a concerning potential future.

Operation Remove the

Andrew Atkin's picture

Operation Remove the Threat.

Thanks, Mr Trump

We invite them in,

Richard Wiig's picture

We invite them in, celebrating that it strengthens us through diversity, and then blame ourselves if they don't integrate. It's obvious.

Just another thought.

Andrew Atkin's picture

Once upon a time a massive army of barbarians amassed at the gates of Rome, holding up signs saying "Death to all of Rome!". The Roman lookout saw what was happening and so ran to the emperor to inform him.

The emperor did not really listen. He had a tired and bored look on his face. He said to the lookout "I know the statistics. There's 20x more chance of dying in the bathtub than dying by a barbarian sword".

The emperor then sent the lookout on his way, describing him as a paranoid bigot.


My point is fundamentalist Muslims want us converted or dead, and are demonstrably serious about it. We know that as fact. So what do we do? Do we wait for them to amass their armies because the statistics tell us we should? Or do we not let them eventually redefine the statistics, and instead quickly and certainly neutralise the threat?

They are infiltrating and

Richard Wiig's picture

They are infiltrating and expanding. Soldiers go away to fight IS, while Islam continues to grow and gain ground in their hometowns. It's perverse.

Alex Jones Agianst Hillary

Neil Parille's picture


Andrew Atkin's picture

To me, international borders are ultimately geopolitical abstractions. They should be respected but only up to a point. When basic human rights are being violated (like killed people for apostasy or female circumcision, etc) then I feel we have a right (not duty) to intervene if we wish.

With this thinking, I imagine myself in the position of someone who is truly powerless being utterly oppressed and violated by some stone age culture, and I want out...I would say to the West:

"These people do not represent me - they represent themselves. They are not my personal culture as I never chose them and I don't want to be a part of them. They are my slave masters. So please feel free to come over and give me a hand!".

Hence I see people as individuals before anything, and as collectives second (if not a very distant second).

There is also the issue of external threat in an age where 'external' sort of doesn't exist...

How about making a drone with a 3d printer that travels at about 200km/h 10 meters above the ocean, super efficiently, and carries a rocket-powered missile (holding god knows what) on its back. It would be totally invisible to radar. And cheap.

Maybe we need to do something about Islam for defensive purposes alone? Again the technology factor makes things a growing concern.

Vox Day and Stefan Talk The Alt Right

Neil Parille's picture

Moderate Islam?

Neil Parille's picture

Doug made the point that, "while there may be such a thing as moderate Muslims, there is no such thing as moderate Islam." And as he or I pointed out, "moderate Islam" (if there were such a thing) would be an incubator for Jihadism just as much as consistent Islam.

This is where I disagree with Amy Peikoff and Brook. They believe you could screen Muslims and allow in only the moderate, law abiding ones. Even if this were true (which it isn't) if you allow large numbers of Muslims of any kind into a country all the bad elements of Islam will reassert itself over time. We have seen this in France where the 1st generation came to work but the 2nd and 3rd generation has been the source of much Jihadism.

And ARI types will hardly ever comment on the secular crime committed by Muslims, such as Rotherham and Cologne.  As I pointed out, at least 50% of inmates in France's prisons are Muslims.  Half of Germany's inmates are foreign born.

One thing that would advance the discussion is for the OrgIsts to point to examples in history when large numbers of Muslims have every been successfuly integreated into a non-Muslim society.  Lebanon was a Western oriented country and look what happened when (thanks in part to immigration) it became Islamic.  Take Brook, he thinks things will turn out badly for Israel even if only "moderate" Muslims are allowed in.  Why does he think the situation would be different for the US and Europe?


Olivia's picture

Insofar as that's right, the Islamic faith should not be seen as a religion in the 'innocent' meaning of the word, but as a tyranny; a machine with fear literally as its lifeblood, with those caught in the Islamic world primary victims as much facilitators.

That's the very essence of theocratic facism. Submission and perpetual war (as Doug rightly said here recently before he savaged Amy).

Maybe the West could help out by supporting people to leave the Islamic faith (convert to Christianity, or other) by giving them protection.

No, I don't agree with that. It is their own problem to solve. Anyway, the West has given them those options in spades through immigration etc, not to mention a regime change in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many within the regimes don't want medieval Sharia law, but not enough of them to successfully overthrow their tyrannical oppressors, aside from the Kurds (who may get swallowed up by Iranian & Turkish hegemony). Look at Turkey at the moment... as soon as resistance in their ranks rears its head, their leaders crack down brutally to quell it. This evil has been created by Muslims and it must be solved by Muslims. The best and noblest thing the West can do is apply itself wholly to protecting itself. They are not doing that very well.

Thanks Olivia, I will look at

Andrew Atkin's picture

Thanks Olivia, I will look at that article a bit later...

One thought I had about Islam is that it's set up, as I understand, to be extremely difficult to leave - or even deadly.

I ponder if it was easy for people to leave the Islamic faith (that is, the faith in its ugly form) then maybe it wouldn't even exist today? Insofar as that's right, the Islamic faith should not be seen as a religion in the 'innocent' meaning of the word, but as a tyranny; a machine with fear literally as its lifeblood, with those caught in the Islamic world primary victims as much facilitators.

Maybe the West could help out by supporting people to leave the Islamic faith (convert to Christianity, or other) by giving them protection.

Empower people to leave the madness, and maybe they will do so?

Hi Andrew...

Olivia's picture

It is possible, but I hope not probable. One thing I know for sure though, is that the Jihadists sure are going to try - and they will do a lot of harm to Western civilization, as they have done, and are doing. This is why a Trump presidency is so important because it is a fight over essentials. If Merkel rules over Europe and Hillary rules over America, with the Iran/Syria/Russia/North Korea axis (& god knows what with Turkey) in play, then we're all fucked. Personally I think the Islamic world is dying, but it is the West's idiocy toward it which ironically keeps it on life support as it seeks to take us down in its death throes. A nuclear Iran & North Korea (even though NK is not Islamic) could certainly do that.

You might find this article of interest from a secular Arab perspective:

I was 17 years old then, but I remember distinctly the collective pain and humiliation we felt, when tiny Israel in the span of six days routed three Arab armies to occupy Egypt’s Sinai peninsula, Syria’s Golan Heights and what was left of mandated Palestine, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. How most Arabs sought refuge in denial, claiming the defeat was only a ‘setback’, and that Israel would not have won the war without Western machinations, since in the view of many Arab nationalists, leftists and Islamists Israel was an extension of Western Imperialism in the region. Little did we know then, that the enormity of the ‘setback’ more than four decades later, would pale in comparison with the disintegration of the state system in Syria and Iraq and beyond that in Libya and Yemen, the marginalization of Egypt, and Lebanon and the attendant meltdown of most of these societies into fractured, infighting sects, ethnicities, tribes and regions.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.