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.

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.

It's probably overly simplistic, but I think it's become clear at this point Iran's people are not going to raise up the way we hoped. So the answer could just be two things going forward:
1. Iran can't have a nuke. So every time we see them starting to rebuild and enrich more uranium, we hit that facility. Training nuclear scientists? They're getting bombed too. They can sign whatever deal they want to but they are liars, so we should be ready to set their program back whenever needed.
2. If Israel wants to take the lead on defending themselves then we help them in any way possible outside of troops on the ground. Any damage they do to Iran is good for the world.

And then that might just be the reality for the next decade or two. Honestly might not look that different than when we bombed them last summer. But outside of nukes, Iran murdering and torturing its citizens is obviously sad, but not our problem and not anything we can fix.

What's makes anyone think we're interested in winning this fight? 25 years ago we refused to acknowledge that radical Islam is the actual enemy. Instead we declared war on a military tactic. Government isn't in the business of solving problems and our government is exceedingly good at it.

Christianity and Islam have been at war for over 1000 years, we aren't going to end it, even if we pretend that the U.S. government has the desire to end it which we don't. We're making gobs of money selling bombs and bullets to their side so we can deploy them from our side in response. Then both sides can appear to be "doing something". In pretty much every way this war is perfect for our ruling elite. The enemy is for all intents limitless in numbers and wholly unconcerned with casualties on either side. Victory is wholly undefinable and thus unobtainable which means we can tax the middle class in perpetuity to fund a limitless war.

Trump/bibi should just order one more attack on the uranium/hesbollah/hamas and call it a victory.

No intent to derail the thread or OP question, but I can't contribute much on the military topic. Just a thought or two about islam in general.

Geopolitics is fairly gray. But the infection of islam is fairly black/white. We need to take hard stances against several things;

no sharia law
no muslim-only anything
crimes committed in the name of allah (upgrade the severity of punishment)
tolerance of radicals

On the last point, if only a tiny percentage of the muslim world are radicals, but a strong majority of muslims support radicals, this is the greatest threat to the West. Until the muslim world condemns the radicals, and takes action at a fundamental level (I don't see this happening), military action will always be in play. Keeping them out of one's country, stopping the proliferation of neighborhoods and the building of mosques, tracking ANY risky ones and deporting liberally are all necessary strategies to keep them at bay, or eventually removed.

aggiedent said:

---

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.

---

No, he doesn't. Though to be fair, none of our president's have in living memory. Hell, vanishingly few Americans do in general.

Trump's "secret" behind his deal making, is being in a position of overwhelming power from the beginning. That's it. Works for the majority of the western world because we like nice things. So what happens when you go against someone who genuinely doesn't give a **** about you or your power? We saw it with Putin when he played Trump nonstop and now Iran is doing the same by not applying western logic and laying down and giving up as our book says they should.

We look at radical Islam and ask how to they live like that. They look at us and ask why we are still alive. We aren't even playing the same game.

Well good, looks like we're starting to come to our senses.

Waffledynamics said:

---

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 error in the question is the presumption that there exists a "reasonable" response. Col Kurtz (Marlon Brando) said it clearly in the 1979 classic "Apocalypse Now":



There was an old Vietnam, SpecOps vet that lived in my neighborhood when I was growing up. I remember asking him how it was the United States, with all it's powerful weapons and training could be defeated by an army of guys with pitch forks. He corrected me. "That's the wrong question. How can you defeat an army using powerful weapons and elite training when the enemy is willing to fight you with pitch forks?". There is no way for Western societies to change an ideology. The only way is for moderates/reformers from within the Muslim world to root out evil from within their own ranks. However, based on estimates, tens of thousands of those are now dead in Iran. Those reformers must be willing to match the viciousness of their own oppressors, but when they do that, are they still moderates?

Unless you are willing to be unreasonable, any strategy exercise in futility. I will neither condone or denounce the IDFs actions in the area. However, it is clear that they have accepted the reality of the situation. They are willing to bomb a hospital if weapons and bunkers are underneath. They are willing to blow up pagers even if an innocent family is sitting at the same table. There simply no other solution against the reality of human nature.

Quote:

---

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.

---

And one of these in every neighborhood...

fixer said:

---

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.

---

"War pigs" were effective against elephants in ancient times……..

Quote:

---

"War pigs" (or incendiary pigs) were an ancient,, albeit rare, military countermeasure against war elephants, where pigs doused in flammable pitch or resin were set on fire to terrify and repel elephants. The tactic relied on the piercing shrieks of the burning animals to panic elephants, causing them to bolt and trample their own soldiers.

---

There was a town in west Texas, where a couple of men upset with the local government, devised a prank in making the locals believe that they would build a hog farm next to the town.

They even had an entry in the local homecoming parade with "Paul's Pork" featured prominently on the side of the truck.

My prediction is Islamists will eventually gain enough control of the UK to start screwing with their soccer matches and booze. Once they hit that point, there will be a civil war for the ages.

Deport them back to the sand box.
Stop future immigration from the sand box.
When they start acting up and affecting things outside the sandbox, drop the hammer so hard that it leaves no doubt what will happen the next time.

Until they have a Martin Luther type who can wage a successful reformation of that cancerous death cult of a religion, this is the only way ay to handle them.

It infuriates me that the Irian leadership (whoever they are) keeps proposing the same "peace" deal over and over and expects the US to just say ok. The Irian leadership (whoever they are) do not want a deal. They just want to buy time. How do you win when the Irian leadership (whoever they are) will not lead.

The IRGC reason to even exist is to scream death to America and Israel, take that away and they have to be for something else, that is not going to happen.

Hank the Grifter said:

---

Deport them back to the sand box.
Stop future immigration from the sand box.
When they start acting up and affecting things outside the sandbox, drop the hammer so hard that it leaves no doubt what will happen the next time.

Until they have a Martin Luther type who can wage a successful reformation of that cancerous death cult of a religion, this is the only way ay to handle them.

---

You left out "Turn the sand box into glass".

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.

---

You win by making them value the lives of their children enough to stop sending them into the meat grinder. Vietnam was a big turning point in America's history because that was the war where we stopped forcing young men to go die for a flag. We increasingly fight wars with technology, while the terrorists keep sending people, usually young people, on suicide missions

doubledog said:

---

It infuriates me that the Irian leadership (whoever they are) keeps proposing the same "peace" deal over and over and expects the US to just say ok. The Irian leadership (whoever they are) do not want a deal. They just want to buy time. How do you win when the Irian leadership (whoever they are) will not lead.

---

And everyone knows that's exactly the plan, but the Left wants Trump to take a loss because they can't separate what is good for the country from their hatred for Trump.