Most Republicans think west and Islam are in fundamental conflict

Quote:

---

An overwhelming majority of Republican voters in the United States regard the west and Islam as being embroiled in "a fundamental conflict which only one side can win", according to new YouGov polling seen exclusively by the Guardian...

Overall, Americans rejected the view of a fundamental clash of cultures that can only have one winner – only 39% adopted this view, against 47% who believe that "it is possible for the west and Muslims to coexist in peace"...

But American opinion is beset by a sharp partisan divide. By a near three-to-one margin, of 64% to 23%, Republicans perceive a fundamental conflict. The overall picture of American tolerance emerges only because Democratic identifiers incline even more emphatically towards the hope of peaceful co-existence, by a 68%-18% margin...

The powerful picture of partisan division in the United States is also evident when YouGov asked respondents whether they felt that most Muslims backed the recent wave of anti-American violent protest that swept several countries after an anti-Islamic film made in the US became available on YouTube. The overall balance of opinion in both Britain and America was very similar, with 34% of Britons and 37% of Americans believing the violence had the support of half or more Muslims, against 55% of Britons and 53% of Americans who believed that it only had minority support.

Once again, however, when Republicans were singled out the balance changed: by 59% to 34% they believed that the violent attacks enjoyed majority backing among Muslims. Democrats take the opposite view, by a margin of 68%-18%...

---

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...-conflict-poll

they're very obedient fear swallowers.

My favortie whine of the week was some of the right wing moan machine was on Obama for not standing up for freedom of speech.... he then mentions that in his speech to the UN and now they are complaining that he continually brings up the video..:lmao

it's win-win-win proposition for the whiners..

again. they already lost the game. they had a chance to turn the election when an ambassador was killed, but then Romney opened his mouf :lmao what a pathetic fuck that guy is

they just getting their engines started for 4 more years of bitching about Obama

Anyone that doesn't think that there is a fundamental conflict between Islamic and Christian culture has no sense of history.

Anyone that thinks an online poll (Self-Selecting anyone?) is representative of anything approaching reality has no sense of polling methodology.

in the 60s we had 10000 nukes pointed straight at us and coexisted.

now these assholes making a big deal of a few thousand putrid flea infested extremists.

what a bunch of pussies

Personal experience:

Southeast Asian Muslims -- nice people, no problems
Pakistani Muslims -- nice people except for the whole seething Jew-hate thing. Often really smart.
Iranian Muslims -- nice people, no problems
Lebanese Muslims -- secular, nominal
Turkish Muslims -- secular, nominal
Arab Muslims -- every single one I've ever met was seriously fucked in the head. Might be civil at first but upon examination, admit they hate you and regard you as kufr.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Anyone that doesn't think that there is a fundamental conflict between Islamic and Christian culture has no sense of history.

---

The question is whether or not there can only be one "winner" or whether they can co-exist.

Right-wing Americans for whatever reason have this compulsive need to unite against a common external enemy as part of their national identity. Right now there's no really strong enemy, so Muslims serve as a proxy. If we could get the right-wingers to view left-wing Americans as the common enemy, we could get some real work done, but right-wingers struggle to hate English-speaking white people the way they hate powerless brown people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Anyone that doesn't think that there is a fundamental conflict between Islamic and Christian culture has no sense of history.

---

Just because there is a fundamental conflict doesn't mean the conflict needs to be resolved. The Muslim societies that produce terrorists are all pretty weak. They can offer up mosquito bites from time to time. They are too dysfunctional to offer much of an existential threat to the West unless and until the West self-destructs. The elements in the West that are working to make it self-destruct, i.e. leftists, represent the real existential threat.

The biggest problem posed by Muslim society is that it will tend to go to war with itself and destabilize a region with a lot of oil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homeland Security

Personal experience:

Southeast Asian Muslims -- nice people, no problems
Pakistani Muslims -- nice people except for the whole seething Jew-hate thing. Often really smart.
Iranian Muslims -- nice people, no problems
Lebanese Muslims -- secular, nominal
Turkish Muslims -- secular, nominal

---

Mostly non-Sunnis

Quote:

---

Arab Muslims -- every single one I've ever met was seriously fucked in the head. Might be civil at first but upon examination, admit they hate you and regard you as kufr.

---

Sunnis

now explain to me why most of the time US sides with Sunnis vs. Shiites???

my short answer: those dogs are mose easily controlled and dominated

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheguevara

Mostly non-Sunnis



Sunnis

now explain to me why most of the time US sides with Sunnis vs. Shiites???

my short answer: those dogs are mose easily controlled and dominated

---

No, the only ones among those I listed who weren't Sunnis were the Iranians. They were part of this very Westernized branch of Shi'a, I forget the name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ploto

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...-conflict-poll

---

Poll performed by Captain Obvious Consultants, LLC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Poll performed by Captain Obvious Consultants, LLC.

---

Actually, self-selecting polls are performed by Confirmation Bias Consultants, LLC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homeland Security

No, the only ones among those I listed who weren't Sunnis were the Iranians. They were part of this very Westernized branch of Shi'a, I forget the name.

---

hmmm not sufi...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homeland Security

No, the only ones among those I listed who weren't Sunnis were the Iranians. They were part of this very Westernized branch of Shi'a, I forget the name.

---

well I was talking more in the racial sense than the branch of Islam they follow.

for example I can convert to Judaism, does not mean I have Jewish blood

those Arab lands have been always at war, so the people from those lands come from a long line of fighters. at the same time, they are primitive and easily controlled by a handful of so called "kings" with the backing of West.

Nations like Iran have long moved past that stage, thus why they are the "enemies"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheguevara

well I was talking more in the racial sense than the branch of Islam they follow.

---

That doesn't make a lot of sense. If you were talking about Arabs, you could have just said "Arabs" rather than calling them "Sunnis, but in a racial sense."

I think it's more likely you just didn't know what the fuck you were talking about and now are backtracking for whatever reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheguevara

those Arab lands have been always at war, so the people from those lands come from a long line of fighters. at the same time, they are primitive and easily controlled by a handful of so called "kings" with the backing of West.

Nations like Iran have long moved past that stage, thus why they are the "enemies"

---

Except for the parts about Arab lands always being at war, the long line of fighters, the part about being easily controlled, the part about Iranians having "moved past that stage," and the part about that being the reason "nations like Iran" (which ones are "like Iran?") are the enemies, you really hit the bulls-eye. Indeed, they are primitive, and some of them are ruled by "kings."

Did you really think you can just make shit up on the fly like this and get over on me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

hmmm not sufi...

---

Found it. Ismailis.

Conflict? From my 40+ years on the planet, Islam and the West have lived in complete harmony.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homeland Security

That doesn't make a lot of sense. If you were talking about Arabs, you could have just said "Arabs" rather than calling them "Sunnis, but in a racial sense."

I think it's more likely you just didn't know what the fuck you were talking about and now are backtracking for whatever reason.

---

not really, the Sunni branch has a lot more propensity to jihadism, and holy war. Thus why Alkhaeda and most other terrorist "holy warriors" are sunnis. That trend comes directly from the bloodlines of its ancestors, the warring Arab tribes.

Quote:

---

Except for the parts about Arab lands always being at war, the long line of fighters, the part about being easily controlled, the part about Iranians having "moved past that stage," and the part about that being the reason "nations like Iran" (which ones are "like Iran?") are the enemies, you really hit the bulls-eye. Indeed, they are primitive, and some of them are ruled by "kings."

Did you really think you can just make shit up on the fly like this and get over on me?

---

it is common knowledge that nations that refuse to being controlled by the west were labeled as "evil" :rolleyes

thus why west had habit of installing puppet governments (egypt, saudi, iraq, libya) and when the puppets would rebel, (saddam/ghadafi) they were eliminated.

god forbid a nation wants their resources to be controlled by their people and for their people.

god forbid we have to tell fat americans and their fat gas guzzlers that those people probably deserve a few cents per gallon

god forbid we have to break to the military complex that there is really no need to spend so many billions there. they can take care of themselves

but oh, the times are a chaning

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheguevara

not really, the Sunni branch has a lot more propensity to jihadism, and holy war. Thus why Alkhaeda and most other terrorist "holy warriors" are sunnis. That trend comes directly from the bloodlines of its ancestors, the warring Arab tribes.

---

Hizbollah. Please, just stop digging. You don't know what you're talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheguevara

it is common knowledge that nations that refuse to being controlled by the west were labeled as "evil" :rolleyes
thus why west had habit of installing puppet governments (egypt, saudi, iraq, libya) and when the puppets would rebel, (saddam/ghadafi) they were eliminated.
god forbid a nation wants their resources to be controlled by their people and for their people.
god forbid we have to tell fat americans and their fat gas guzzlers that those people probably deserve a few cents per gallon
god forbid we have to break to the military complex that there is really no need to spend so many billions there. they can take care of themselves
but oh, the times are a chaning

---

I'm pretty sure now that your understanding of the Middle East comes from what you've read on leftist websites, and that you don't understand the region at all. I don't necessarily disagree with the conclusion that the protracted military presence all over the region does more harm than good, but I'm pretty confident that I understand the ramifications of pulling back whereas you don't having the first fucking clue.

No, the people who rule those countries probably aren't going to use their natural resources "for their people" of the nation. For themselves? Sure? Their families? Yep. Their tribe? Uh-huh. The whole "nation?" :lmao

They can "take care of themselves?" Sure, if by that you mean that a handful of the powerful states like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt escalate tensions and arms over the next several years and eventually have a huge war with one another to decide who gets to rule the caliphate this time. Maybe in the long run that's the best option since the jihadis all focus on killing other Muslims rather than killing us. Oil supplies will be really unstable for a while and whipsaw the global economy, but since a global collapse is baked in anyway, why not let the Middle East go to shit simultaneously? Do it all in one fell swoop. But make no mistake, it's certainly not going to be all "yay, happy noble brown people live together in peace now that evil America is gone."

Aside, you deserve a slow, painful death, communist swine.

"eventually they will lead us to WWIII"

:lmao the fear mongering is strong in this one. Again that is pussy thinking, we had 10000 nukes pointed straight at us and nothing happened. The US army can have presence anywhere in the world within hours. There is no need for bases, occupation, and "nation building" that is all BS to suck those fuckers dry off their oil and resource. How is the regular lybian or Iraqi better off in a "free Iraq" :lol

"only the US can save the world from armageddon"

:lmao you must believe in Santa Claus too

wake up. If there is to be a war, there will be sooner of later. The corporations and banks have the world by the balls and they decide, their puppet, the US Military and government do their bidding.

The system will ultimately feed from the people wether they are Iranian or American. That is of course until the wheels of the financial system start falling off.

wake up. there is no right or wrong, black or white. :rolleyes

Homeland, a question for you. Do you think we would cause more terrorism against us by pulling out in most areas (thereby leading to collapse and dangerous extremists likely taking over) or do we cause more terrorism through long-term settlement and expansion (thereby being a common enemy that locals can unite against?)

I'm guessing both are roughly equal, with the former being cheaper at least, at the moral cost of mass slaughter of innocents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheguevara

"eventually they will lead us to WWIII"

:lmao the fear mongering is strong in this one.

---

Fuck you, you sniveling piece of shit. Point to where I said anything about WWIII, motherfucker.

You can't argue against what people who know anything actually say, so you construct strawmen so you can stay secure in your little world where you can maintain your illusion of enlightment without ever actually having to expend the effort to learn anything.

You fucking leftists don't know shit about anything. The best thing for the world is to exterminate you. I would love to laugh in your face as I watch you slowly die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheguevara

How is the regular lybian or Iraqi better off in a "free Iraq" :lol

---

Point me to where I said anything defending the war in Iraq, fucking moron.

"only the US can save the world from armageddon"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheguevara

The system will ultimately feed from the people wether they are Iranian or American. That is of course until the wheels of the financial system start falling off.

wake up. there is no right or wrong, black or white. :rolleyes

---

Fucking idiot, you talk about black and white when all your pitiful piece of shit mind is capable of doing is pigeonholing people into two sets of opinions, red or blue. Most of the shit you're lmaoing I don't even believe in.

What I primarily believe in is a world where you and your kind suffer and die and those who remain alive celebrate your death. I don't give a fuck about the outcome of elections or any of the other shit you subhuman slime consume yourselves with. The Muslims are an ancillary bother.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Homeland, a question for you. Do you think we would cause more terrorism against us by pulling out in most areas (thereby leading to collapse and dangerous extremists likely taking over) or do we cause more terrorism through long-term settlement and expansion (thereby being a common enemy that locals can unite against?)

I'm guessing both are roughly equal, with the former being cheaper at least, at the moral cost of mass slaughter of innocents.

---

I think that if Arabs weren't standing on top of vast quantities of the cheapest, most easily extracted petroleum in the world, we'd give about as much a shit about them as we do sub-Saharan Africans. I think our presence there dating back from well before the "War on Terror" has to do with maintaining stability in the delivery of that petroleum to our European allies.

So I refute the premise that the impact on terrorism is the most germane thing to the discussion. The discussion is whether the U.S. interest in the European economy is worth the expense and bother of the everlasting military presence in the region; terrorism is part of that bother. That's what I'm not sure of.

christians & muslims cannot co-exist and only one side will survive with the other's death

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homeland Security

I think that if Arabs weren't standing on top of vast quantities of the cheapest, most easily extracted petroleum in the world, we'd give about as much a shit about them as we do sub-Saharan Africans. I think our presence there dating back from well before the "War on Terror" has to do with maintaining stability in the delivery of that petroleum to our European allies.

So I refute the premise that the impact on terrorism is the most germane thing to the discussion. The discussion is whether the U.S. interest in the European economy is worth the expense and bother of the everlasting military presence in the region; terrorism is part of that bother. That's what I'm not sure of.

---

I don't really think that "terrorism" is the reason we're there either. But which of the two (pulling out/staying forever) would cause more long term damage to US interests? (Note: For the purposes of this discussion, let's leave out the realpolitik of having to stay there to ensure access to oil.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I don't really think that "terrorism" is the reason we're there either. But which of the two (pulling out/staying forever) would cause more long term damage to US interests? (Note: For the purposes of this discussion, let's leave out the realpolitik of having to stay there to ensure access to oil.)

---

Take out the realpolitik of oil, and just deal with terrorism, and I think long-term pulling out is the better option. There's no point in nation-building. I have no idea why people think that you can shortcut a civilization through 1000 years of history by sticking your military in there for 10 years. That makes about as much sense as saying, "Carving this sculpture of David from solid rock is taking too long. I know, I'll just tie a bunch of C4 to it!"

Yes, it will embolden the Muslims, and there will be attacks in the short term to gauge how weak we really are.

Respond with massive force. On civilians. They'll get the message. That's the only way they ever get the message. Then they'll quiet down for an age until they get the urge to test us again.

Oh, "decent people" will feign outrage, but since my oft-stated plan for America involves killing 2 million people domestically, why would I give a shit about that?

iranians are fine people and they could be a better ally to us than saudi arabia who's basically a nonentity in the middle east, at least their's no fundamental conflicts between US and iran but the problem is, between iran and israel there is. most persians hate israelis like they owe them money and that's beyond me, and the US has been used by them jews as a shield. the US congress & senate have been in control of jewish majorities so it's understandable tbh

None of this matters. China will let this whole west vs islam cold war rage on while they pass everyone up, until they finally decide to destroy everyone else and claim what is rightfully theirs.

It will happen. They're smarter are most importantly many times more dedicated. Oh. and they have a population of about 1 billion and growing.

You fools are arguing like a bunch of insects on a dinner table getting ready to get squashed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I don't really think that "terrorism" is the reason we're there either. But which of the two (pulling out/staying forever) would cause more long term damage to US interests? (Note: For the purposes of this discussion, let's leave out the realpolitik of having to stay there to ensure access to oil.)

---

its a tough call imho as both have hurt US interests plentifully. israel is like a spoiled kid who bullies the neighbors everyday and always wants to start fights with them pugnaciously, and you know they'll need US to rescue their asses everytime a real fight is started.

haha

Homeland Security is awesome

dp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by symple19

haha

Homeland Security is awesome

---

Extra Stout should drop the terrible Lakerfan troll and just roll with Homeland Security full-time, tbh.....

There has been much more Muslim-Muslim conflict in the last few decades than Christian-Muslim conflict.

Libya-Egypt
Libya-Tunisia
Algeria-Morocco
Iraq-Iran
Iraq-Koweit
Pakistan-Afghanistan
Syria-Iran vs Lebanon
Saudi Arabia - Bahrain
Morocco-Western Sahara

Then add in all the Arab spring internal revolts.

Then add in all the Sunni-Shiites battles and tensions.

The "Christian" - Muslim conflicts have mostly US/UK oilcos grabbing oil in Muslim and other countries.

US/UK vs Iran (Mossadeq, Khomeini)
US/UK vs Iraq and US helping Iraq vs Iran

So the Muslim-vs-Christian religious war is mostly bullshit, inflamed by Israel and AIPAC agitators, and by US/UK oilcos propaganda screen for grabbing oil.

the religious Israel-vs-Muslim of course is there, but Israel isn't Christian :)

Boykinism is the New McCarthyism

Boykinism, in contrast, makes its impact felt abroad. Unlike McCarthyism, it doesn’t strike fear into the hearts of incumbents on the campaign trail here. Attracting General Boykin’s endorsement or provoking his ire probably won’t determine the outcome of any election. Yet in its various manifestations Boykinism provides the kindling that helps sustain anti-American sentiment in the Islamic world. It reinforces the belief among Muslims that the Global War on Terror really is a war against them.

Boykinism confirms what many Muslims are already primed to believe: that American values and Islamic values are irreconcilable. American presidents and secretaries of state stick to their talking points, praising Islam [19] as a great religious tradition and touting past US military actions (ostensibly) undertaken on behalf of Muslims. Yet with their credibility among Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis and others in the Greater Middle East about nil, they are pissing in the wind.

As long as substantial numbers of vocal Americans do not buy the ideological argument constructed to justify US intervention in the Islamic world—that their conception of freedom (including religious freedom) is ultimately compatible with ours—then neither will Muslims. In that sense, the supporters of Boykinism who reject that proposition encourage Muslims to follow suit. This ensures, by extension, that further reliance on armed force as the preferred instrument of US policy in the Islamic world will compound the errors that produced and have defined the post-9/11 era.

http://www.thenation.com/print/artic...ew-mccarthyism

Two large, powerful groups, the military and "Christians" MUST absolutely create external foes to demonize and hate, to justify their own existence, which of course always ends a call for more money for themselves. Communism down, Muslims up.

Any of you visit the YouGov site?

What a crock of shit. They only report about 75% of their questions. They are either throwing out results they don't like, or the other questions are to set a particular mindset for the answers.

That doesn't even matter. It's an online poll. It's fucking worthless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homeland Security

Fuck you, you sniveling piece of shit. Point to where I said anything about WWIII, motherfucker.

You can't argue against what people who know anything actually say, so you construct strawmen so you can stay secure in your little world where you can maintain your illusion of enlightment without ever actually having to expend the effort to learn anything.

You fucking leftists don't know shit about anything. The best thing for the world is to exterminate you. I would love to laugh in your face as I watch you slowly die.

Point me to where I said anything defending the war in Iraq, fucking moron.

"only the US can save the world from armageddon"

Fucking idiot, you talk about black and white when all your pitiful piece of shit mind is capable of doing is pigeonholing people into two sets of opinions, red or blue. Most of the shit you're lmaoing I don't even believe in.

What I primarily believe in is a world where you and your kind suffer and die and those who remain alive celebrate your death. I don't give a fuck about the outcome of elections or any of the other shit you subhuman slime consume yourselves with. The Muslims are an ancillary bother.

---

:lmao e-tantrum

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homeland Security

I'm pretty confident that I understand the ramifications of pulling back .

---

I don't think anybody really does. As smart as you are, no one can see much beyond the 2nd or 3rd order consequences.

If you want to think you do though, that is your business, I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homeland Security

Respond with massive force. On civilians. They'll get the message.

---

"we're stupid"

Ceding moral authority makes you weaker. If your solution were really workable, chechnya would be subdued by now.

Fascists don't tend to understand that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latarian Milton

iranians are fine people and they could be a better ally to us than saudi arabia who's basically a nonentity in the middle east, at least their's no fundamental conflicts between US and iran but the problem is, between iran and israel there is. most persians hate israelis like they owe them money and that's beyond me, and the US has been used by them jews as a shield. the US congress & senate have been in control of jewish majorities so it's understandable tbh

---

no fkn shit, thats why i was pissed about my leaders speech at the UN the other day....fck israel pre-emptive sugar coating bullshit words, how many more lives does the west coalition needs to sacrifice for the zeonists who are thinkn for their own personal agenda...

Their are some fundamental conflicts between western culture and middle eastern culture. We are a more secular society with a belief in things like freedom of religion, press, speech, etc, while the middle east is still ruled by religion. We can co-exist, as we have done for centuries. Ultimately, the middle east will become more like us. People forget that even the west was once dominated by religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

"we're stupid"

Ceding moral authority makes you weaker. If your solution were really workable, chechnya would be subdued by now.

Fascists don't tend to understand that.

---

The strong man creates his own moral authority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

I don't think anybody really does. As smart as you are, no one can see much beyond the 2nd or 3rd order consequences.

If you want to think you do though, that is your business, I guess.

---

Not only do I see the future, I see all possible futures.

"We can co-exist,"

bullshit. As long as US/UK keeps busting into. occupying, bombing, murdering in Muslim countries (it's why They Do Hate Us), no peaceful co-existence possible.

I agree. Not all of Islam, but the vast majority of its fundamentalist sects. They act like a bunch of animals when it comes to free speech and equal rights for women - just that simple. Their way of living is incompatible with the future of this planet. Ultimately they will be forced to change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by z0sa

I agree. Not all of Islam, but the vast majority of its fundamentalist sects. They act like a bunch of animals when it comes to free speech and equal rights for women - just that simple. Their way of living is incompatible with the future of this planet. Ultimately they will be forced to change.

---

IT'S THEIR COUNTRY.

Democracy is fucked in USA. USA has no business imposing "democracy" on THEIR COUNTRIES, nor making their countries safe for US/UK exploitation of resources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

IT'S THEIR COUNTRY.

---

Strawman. I never said it isn't.

Their lack of respect for women's rights and free speech is disgusting.

Quote:

---

Democracy is fucked in USA. USA has no business imposing "democracy" on THEIR COUNTRIES, nor making their countries safe for US/UK exploitation of resources.

---

I agree you're fucked. In the head.

"Their lack of respect for women's rights and free speech is disgusting."

IT'S THEIR COUNTRY

btw, why don't US women make the same salary for the same job as US men?

gfy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"Their lack of respect for women's rights and free speech is disgusting."

IT'S THEIR COUNTRY

---

Strawman. I never said it isn't. I haven't specified any single country, in fact.

This is why everyone including your own mother thinks you're fucked in the brain.

Quote:

---

btw, why don't US women make the same salary for the same job as US men?

gfy

---

More logic failure. Leading questions are for the positionally weak.

The real question is, why do men make more money than women in the USA? There are many answers to that question. Only those of which agree with your worldview will be valid. No one knows what this has to do with fundamental Islam shitting all over half their population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

"we're stupid"

Ceding moral authority makes you weaker. If your solution were really workable, chechnya would be subdued by now.

Fascists don't tend to understand that.

---

Meh. The world just doesn't put up with genocide anymore. When you start advocating going after civilians then that is what you are doing. Advocating killing all of them.

Turks are reviled for their treatment of Armenians --rightfully so mind you-- but does Turkey still have issues with Armenian insurrection?

Gorbachev had issues with the Baltic republics but compare and contrast with what Stalin did to solidify his power and the relative efficacy.

All your example brings up is that if you are going to go draconian then you have to go balls to the wall draconian or not at all.