It seems like the Islamic strategy is simply to outlast their enemy no matter how hard the Islamists' asses are kicked. Short of annihilation/genocide, how do you win against that?

Given this pattern, I don't see how we succeed against Iran. Gaza was leveled, and Hamas still has regained control.

What is the most reasonable way to win against Islam?

The nature of the overall Islamic ideological shift since the Golden Age hamstrings their societies. They do not value meritocracy, innovation and economic freedom the way the western judeo-christ societies do. Their only real advantage is raw population density, and I'm skeptical the overwhelming skew that would be needed on that basis alone to be a true threat to us will occur before the suppressive pushback occurs.

You can boil a frog slowly, but not THAT slowly. As we are seeing in Europe today they are still decades away from being a true threat as a voting bloc and already we're seeing wild political shifts on the basis of immigration in societies far more left leaning than ours. I just don't see this ever being the existential threat many fear. Their societies are completely at the mercy of already teetering western tolerance.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

The nature of the overall Islamic ideological shift since the Golden Age hamstrings their societies. They do not value meritocracy, innovation and economic freedom the way the western judeo-christ societies do. Their only real advantage is raw population density, and I'm skeptical the overwhelming skew that would be needed on that basis alone to be a true threat to us will occur before the suppressive pushback occurs.

You can boil a frog slowly, but not THAT slowly. As we are seeing in Europe today they are still decades away from being a true threat as a voting bloc and already we're seeing wild political shifts on the basis of immigration in societies far more left leaning than ours. I just don't see this ever being the existential threat many fear. Their societies are completely at the mercy of already teetering western tolerance.

---

Your viewpoint is appreciated, but I was particularly asking about military success.

How do you win against people who say "actually no, even though you've decapitated our leadership, completely neutralized our ability to fight back in any meaningful capacity, and forced us into hiding, we still win!"?

The only way I can see is absolute brutality, and that isn't a Western concept.

Waffledynamics said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

The nature of the overall Islamic ideological shift since the Golden Age hamstrings their societies. They do not value meritocracy, innovation and economic freedom the way the western judeo-christ societies do. Their only real advantage is raw population density, and I'm skeptical the overwhelming skew that would be needed on that basis alone to be a true threat to us will occur before the suppressive pushback occurs.

You can boil a frog slowly, but not THAT slowly. As we are seeing in Europe today they are still decades away from being a true threat as a voting bloc and already we're seeing wild political shifts on the basis of immigration in societies far more left leaning than ours. I just don't see this ever being the existential threat many fear. Their societies are completely at the mercy of already teetering western tolerance.

---

Your viewpoint is appreciated, but I was particularly asking about military success.

How do you win against people who say "actually no, even though you've decapitated our leadership, completely neutralized our ability to fight back in any meaningful capacity, and forced us into hiding, we still win!"?

The only way I can see is absolute brutality, and that isn't a Western concept.

---

I guess my point is you don't need to "win", you just need to continue to be economically and militarily superior while not allowing them to infiltrate your society to the extent that they gain true power.

We will never "beat" Iran or any other fundamentalist Islamic state in the same way we beat the Axis powers. But that also isn't necessary or even particularly relevant. We will continue to tolerate their relatively minor nuisances and then send them economically and technologically back a few decades every time they get a little too loud.

Pigs and pork products.

Train police pigs to disrupt any Palestinian, Hamas, or pro-Islamic protests.

Subsidize putting pork, pork products, lard, etc. into as many food products as possible, and also into soap and cosmetics.

Waffledynamics said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

The nature of the overall Islamic ideological shift since the Golden Age hamstrings their societies. They do not value meritocracy, innovation and economic freedom the way the western judeo-christ societies do. Their only real advantage is raw population density, and I'm skeptical the overwhelming skew that would be needed on that basis alone to be a true threat to us will occur before the suppressive pushback occurs.

You can boil a frog slowly, but not THAT slowly. As we are seeing in Europe today they are still decades away from being a true threat as a voting bloc and already we're seeing wild political shifts on the basis of immigration in societies far more left leaning than ours. I just don't see this ever being the existential threat many fear. Their societies are completely at the mercy of already teetering western tolerance.

---

Your viewpoint is appreciated, but I was particularly asking about military success.

How do you win against people who say "actually no, even though you've decapitated our leadership, completely neutralized our ability to fight back in any meaningful capacity, and forced us into hiding, we still win!"?

The only way I can see is absolute brutality, and that isn't a Western concept.

---

Ultimately, it would seem the only answer is to change Islam. It would take a long time.

Christianity changed. It took a long time.

Until it changes, the west should isolate them.

First you stop the Dems from giving them negotiating stall tactics until they can get new talking points out and you stop Congress from betting on the market based on what negotiations they are privy to…

With regard to Iran the threat they project has to be perceived as existential such that US sentiment morphs into "we are okay with committing to a ground invasion ". That's what it took with Germany and Japan , and somewhat the same with 9/11. I don't see it happening to be honest . Otherwise it seems like the Iranian "theologians" power is simply too engrained and too internally feared for change to occur . More than I ever imagined to be honest . I had been under the impression for years that the Iranian population was poised and ready for a change but I suspect the regime killing most of the prospective leaders for change had a huge impact on those prospects.

The Iranian threat is a state sponsored subset of the overall threat from Islam imo. The overall threat to the West from Islam is broader and more insidious albeit Iran maybe is or was the tip of the spear . It's more complicated than that tho because of course there is plenty of infighting for power among the different Muslim factions across the region as well.

Iran is 2 and a half times the size of Texas, has 90 million people, and they've been burying crap in the mountains for a couple decades. 6 weeks of bombing was never going to make them cry uncle.

You can't. Not in any actual down to earth and feasible way.

That's the actual truth. It's outgrown any sort of "control" possible. It did that way before any of us were born. It's just a fact of life of now.

You go abstract and yes, changing the fundamental nature of Islam so it can't be radicalized would be the answer. However, human nature basically also contradicts this. Religion equals control and nobody is going to voluntarily give up that level of control.

Eliminatus said:

---

You can't. Not in any actual down to earth and feasible way.

That's the actual truth. It's outgrown any sort of "control" possible. It did that way before any of us were born. It's just a fact of life of now.

You go abstract and yes, changing the fundamental nature of Islam so it can't be radicalized would be the answer. However, human nature basically also contradicts this. Religion equals control and nobody is going to voluntarily give up that level of control.

---

yup.

you can't bomb thoughts out of people's heads.

That's the big issue with them. They don't value life so they don't care how many of their people die in the process of outlasting their enemies. Very difficult to defeat.
You need to get enough of the citizenry to be fed up with them that every man, woman, and child fights back in every way. Quit coddling them. Get them out of the country. They deserve nothing.

Militarily speaking, the answer is a level of brutality not seen since Hiroshima and Nagasaki and for altogether similar reasons. Not necessarily just nuclear weapons; unconventional warfare that is not abiding by any sort of rulebook.

Iran and other terrorist orgs know the US isn't culturally geared towards the required level of brutality to defeat them. This gives them an advantage and a strange sort of leniency.

(Iran is practically begging to get us into a ground offensive knowing that they can get us entangled into another messy and prolonged war...and use it to their advantage.)

In absence of this, we play a game of "containment" where one country gets it's butt kicked and there is some semblance of peace for a bit until the next one comes along.

This will bleed us dry. Even the US can't drop astonishingly expensive bombs in perpetuity. We can't do a ground invasion every 15-20 years just to mitigate and contain the issue. This will weaken the US in substantive ways. I'm sure on some level these Islamic extremists know this and are using it.

The solution isn't just military. Islamic extremism has to be starved economically and culturally. This is the "front" of the war that we are practically surrendering. For Christ's sake Mamdani is the mayor of NYC and it is the new cultural panache to wear a keffiyeh. etc, etc, etc.

This will be the harder effort because it requires us to say something, or better yet, realize something, that is forbidden: your culture is inferior to ours and we are no longer tolerating it and will seek to limits its reach.

We can easily win this conflict if we actually want to.

The cultural rot that has beseiged us makes it exceedingly difficult to see anything but a minority of people who actually want to succeed.

VaultingChemist said:

---

Pigs and pork products.

Train police pigs to disrupt any Palestinian, Hamas, or pro-Islamic protests.

Subsidize putting pork, pork products, lard, etc. into as many food products as possible, and also into soap and cosmetics.

---

releasing 10,000 meth injected wild pigs into a conflict zone would at least be interesting.

Sun Tzu moment:

Know that the IRGC is calling the shots and they are almost all diehard Twelver Shia. The moment that they thought a couple of their negotiators were about to agree on the 60% dust giveaway, they clamped down and started an internal campaign against them which led to the "no daylight between them" statements they had to make later. From the IRGC perspective, negotiations are stall tactics.
/
ChatGPT mini 5 answer to the OP question from their book.
Short answer: Muslims may delay fighting and wait until they are stronger; the Quran orders preparation, patience, and avoiding battle when disadvantaged, while permitting fighting when able. Key texts:
Quran 8:60 "And prepare against them whatever you are able of power…" (prepare strength before fighting).
quran.com
Quran 8:61 "And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also]…" (prefer peace when possible).
quran.com
Quran 47:35 "So do not weaken and call for peace while you are superior; and Allah is with you and will never deprive you of your deeds." (avoid premature peace when you are strong; by implication one may wait to regain strength before engagement).
englishtafsir.com
Quran 8:6566 explains Allah may grant victory when the believers are few and strong in resolve: "if there be twenty of you… they will overcome two hundred… But Allah is with those who are steadfast." (emphasizes relying on readiness and resolve rather than reckless confrontation).
quran.com
Prophetic practice: The Prophet's conduct at alHudaybiyyahaccepting a truce despite shortterm disadvantage and waiting for a better position latershows strategic patience and making/accepting truces when necessary. Hadiths and sira literature recount this treaty and its later advantage.
Juristic takeaway (from these sources): prepare strength (military, economic, moral), accept peace if the enemy inclines to it, and refrain from fighting when clearly disadvantaged; use truces (hudna) or await improved circumstances when that better serves protection of life, property, and religion, but honor treaties until breached.

Consider what the Islamists consider the defeat of their enemies: convert or die.

Feel that this is instructional.

Eliminatus said:

---

You can't. Not in any actual down to earth and feasible way.

That's the actual truth. It's outgrown any sort of "control" possible. It did that way before any of us were born. It's just a fact of life of now.

You go abstract and yes, changing the fundamental nature of Islam so it can't be radicalized would be the answer. However, human nature basically also contradicts this. Religion equals control and nobody is going to voluntarily give up that level of control.

---

I agree…….you can't. Unless you're essentially willing to go in and completely destroy the country without regard for civilian life.

I think, if we're being honest with ourselves, Trump just doesn't understand Iran and its leadership. Trump is a businessman who views everything in terms of dollars and cents……..and uses money as leverage against individuals, businesses, and entire countries.

Iran has been sanctioned to hell already. They don't care. It's like trying to play 5 D chess against an opponent who keeps smashing the game board off the table and giving you the finger.

As things stand Iran is going to be no better than they were before the war started, perhaps worse. Are we willing to destroy the country? No……… public opinion and world opinion is going to keep Trump from contemplating it.

So………again………..the answer is nothing. They're bat ****e crazy and you can't change that.