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.