Thursday, August 28, 2014

To Nuke Or Not To Nuke: That Is The Question

There's a question that needs to be addressed in regards to how the United States should deal with international terrorism, especially given the fact that America has become the number one target for terrorist groups when it comes to committing acts of brutal violence and savagery.
That question is this: Should the U.S. consider the use of long-range nuclear weapons against nations that harbor and/or finance extremist groups as a way to curb the threat of international terrorism?

For some people, the thought of America or any other nation using any kind of nuclear weapon in order to combat terrorism may seem as drastic and as brutal as any Jihadist in the Middle East. On the other hand, imagine what kind of a message it would send to Islamic extremists in the U.S. or Europe if they were to find out that the government which had been sponsoring their plans to commit a terrorist act was blown off the map with a long-range nuclear missile. 
Can you think of a better way to tell brainwashed extremists around the world that America can be just as crazy as they are when push comes to shove? Can you also think of a better way to send a message to oil company executives that they need to come up with alternative sources for fuel than to wipe oil-rich countries like Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iraq right off the map with nukes? Hey, war is hell, like it or not.

Let's be honest with ourselves for a moment: The only reason that fundamentalist Islamic extremist groups are even in existence right now is because of Western civilization's dependency on foreign oil... That's it, in a nutshell. 
Don't believe me? Okay. Then explain why one of the first objectives that the Jihadist group known as "The Islamic State" (or I.S.I.L.) was to seize control of oil fields in Iraq. It certainly wasn't because they wanted to build more mosques in those locations. Hell no! It's because I.S.I.L. has figured out the dirty little secret regarding the West's dependency on their country's largest commodity, and now they're hoping to manipulate the West into accepting their vision of Allah in order for countries like the U.S. and Great Britain to continue remaining dependent on foreign oil rather than coming up with alternative sources for energy. 
It really has become one of those situations in which one has to wonder who's crazier: the radical Jihadist who knows that he can get away with murder and mass destruction as long as his country uses oil as a bargaining chip, or the Western politician who's willing to tolerate the radical Jihadist's demands in order to continue receiving campaign contributions from oil companies who do business with countries which also provide funding to the radical Jihadist so that he can terrorize the West by whatever means necessary.

Believe it or not, the money that consumers of foreign oil
put into their cars helps fund radical Islamic extremists in
the Middle East.

If you really want to get an idea as to just how much oil companies have the United States by the balls right now, look no further than the parents of U.S. hostages who send videotaped messages to radical Islamic leaders begging for the lives of their sons and daughters who are held in captivity. These parents are all but willing to sell their souls to Satan in order to guarantee that their kids will be returned home safely, for crying out loud! Meanwhile, companies like Exxon, Shell and Haliburton still make deals with the very people who are funding the bastards responsible for holding Americans as hostages in the Middle East(!!!)
If there was ever a legitimate reason for discovering alternative energy, it would have to be for the purpose of starving radical Islamic extremists out of existence. Until then, you can expect more Jihadist groups to keep cropping up in the Middle East and threatening to annihilate Western civilization.

One of two things will have to take place in order for the United States and other Western nations to successfully reduce the threat of Islamic extremism: Either scientists will have to receive more government and private funding for the purpose of developing alternative fuels that can replace oil, or countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and Syria are going to have to be blown off of the map with long-range nuclear missiles. There are no other alternatives or exceptions. The vicious circle that oil has created must be broken one way or the other. 


No comments: