Proposed New Rules for the War on Terror

I have a proposal for a new way to fight the "War on Terror". We should go back to battle field wars and simply face off against each other. Maybe trench warfare, even, only with equal weapons on either side.

Its an idea I got from Al Qaeda and those self-proclaimed Muslim fundamentalist terrorists.
Muslim, not Islamic. Why?

As Atiq Ebady put it quite well in a recent article "Islâmic Values vs. Muslim Values":

"Islamic values are those that are set out in the Qur'ân and the practice of the noble Messenger, Muhammad (S). Muslim values are those that are created as part of the culture of the Muslim communities. These include the day-to-day interaction between the Muslims and their outlook on Islam's rules and regulations."

Rather than killing enemy soldiers (and please note that I said Soldiers(!), NOT innocent bystanders expunged from life on earth by indiscriminate bombs), combatants on the OTHER side rather, would have to kill themselves.

See? That's the beauty of this method of war. The international Law would then be that no one kills ANY one else, no one, not at all. That's the one singular insular difference, you see. No one would any longer have the right (and please mark that they certainly do NOT now have the "right") to kill any other person.

Of course, we would also then have to legalize suicide. Which brings up a whole can of worms about assisted or rather, non-assisted suicide.

These Muslim terrorists simply do not think the same as we do, the same as intelligent, rational, educated, well adjusted, "normal" people, living in the modern world do. Personally I don't think they think at all but that is simply too judgmental, don't you think? After all, what they really want is to eliminate our way of life so that their way ancient ways will persevere; even if it's not for themselves (consider the term, "suicide bomber" for a moment), but more so, for their kind.

And we don't really think that way. Do we. We simply don't have the same logic. Funny, don't you think? Perhaps, ironic is a better term, but what is funny about that is that while they are thinking that way, they are also killing off their own believers. Which is what got me to thinking.

The ones being left are the western capitalist types, who fall easy prey to western style marketing and media and who are the ones that are philosophically and religiously weaker according to these Muslim terrorists. These who remain are the ones who like to party, wear "cool" clothing and act more "westernized". Something that you NEVER hear about in the media because it is not only a sign of hope, it is a mark against the military industrial complex regarding the making of more money, because it indicates a shift in thought, a paradigm change and even an eventual end to the conflict and foolishness being in sight.

So using this kind of paradigm to win this kind of war, its still being a kind of battle of attrition after all, works for two reasons:

First, the enemy are already motivated to killing their own and killing themselves. Suicide bombers are a natural for this. Also, their cult like mentality and mind sets work into this scenario perfectly as they're already on the right road.

Secondly, and on our side, we simply won't kill ourselves. Unless of course, someone happens to feel so motivated, as there is always an exception to the rule. It would be after all, legal to commit suicide and have actually full authority over your own life, unlike how it is today. We could also send over those we have failed to help and who are going to kill themselves anyway. That eliminates our facing another failure as well as removing society's chaff to a more useful arena. Besides, those who want to join the other side, would not only be supported and allowed to cross over, but they would receive benefits for the families they leave behind, meaning they would have more money to stimulate the economy and buy more western goods. One has to wonder of all the terrorists, of those suicide bombers, how many of their friends and family are spending money on western goods after they have literally exploded upon the scene?

So, in the end, the side that has the highest death rate, who have killed the most of its own, would technically win the battle. In point of fact, your side could claim a virtual "slaughter" by everyone in the field committing suicide at the same time. Fundamentally speaking, the side that loses the most, although they would be CONSIDERED the "winners", well, they would simply have no soldiers left and would therefore, functionally lose the war.

This plays right into the kind of mentality you hear over there too. Consider how Saddam (remember "SadMan Insane") Hussein claimed to have "won" the war against We, "the Great Satan" during the 80's rescue of Kuwait and even years before that in Iraq's war against Iran.

Thus, I rest my case; and I think we have a new agenda to discuss at our next presidential election debate.