Muslims have neither a Christ nor a Talmud. Therefore war between Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb is inevitable and necessary. It is a permanent condition.
I've tried to stay out of this, because I find your reasoning so annoying. You repeatedly say that there's only one or two ways things can go and then you talk about what's inevitable.
I have fourteen hundred years of evidence on my side. We have always been at war with Dar al Islam, except when we were actually doing the dreadful things to them that they accuse us of doing, as for example during the colonial period 1830-1960. Muslims have only ever been quelled by horrifying means.
You talk about taking drastic action with all these krystal certainties and it scares me. Once the USA uses its overwhelming force -- its permanent overwhelming force, that must inevitably prevail
We have used force far more overwhelming repeatedly in the last thousand years or so, and have not prevailed. Short of the methods of the Spanish inquisition, there will never be peace, and never be victory. We always win, then we always try to cash in our victory to make peace, and they just will not make peace, and eventually we get tired, and make concessions, land for peace, which results only in further attacks - what the Jews are now doing, has been done by the Christians over and over and over again, and will no doubt be done again and again.
Pretty soon the Jews will lose patience, and do something truly horrifying, and I suppose that sooner or later, probably later, we will lose patience and do something truly horrifying, but all of this has happened before.
we'll never know what might have happened if we hadn't done it. We do our experiments with no control group.
We have a control group. Over the last thousand years we have tried concessions and tried mass murder and tried everything in between, with much the same results as the Israelis have been getting. There has never been peace, there never will be peace, just varying degrees of low level war, occasionally interrupted by high level war.
As for muslims doing bad things to each other in their own lands, I say let them. It isn't our place to conquer everybody we disapprove of and force them to behave the way we want. That's -- difficult.
And for muslims treating minorities in their lands in ways we don't like? OK, we treat minorities in our own lands in ways that muslims don't like.
The rules you suggest are the rules of the Peace of Westphalia.
Is Thailand, seven percent Muslim, Muslim lands? Are the Philippines? Muslims think so. Muslims demand supremacy wherever they are. Islam never accepted the peace of Westphalia, and refuses to be contained within political boundaries.
The peace of Westphalia never included Islam, and is today even in the rest of the world stone dead and cannot be resurrected. Attempting to solve our problems by appeal to the principles of the peace of Westphalia is like appealing to the principles of divine right monarchy.
I mean, just suppose we manage to set up an AnCap society where people mostly agree about how to behave. And we get a minority of statists who come in and do statist-type things, and when we ask them about it they say "I was only following orders". How much tolerance could we have for that? But we wouldn't want to build a big army and go ino the statist lands and defeat the statist armies and occupy them to prevent them from setting up a government whether they want to or not.
Quite so. But how will an anarchist society deal with groups that are at war with the anarchist society collectively - whether because the anarchist society lacks the approved form of government, or the anarchist society lacks the approved religion?
Such outsiders will have to be dealt with by permanent military activity, operated at a profit - anarcho piratism, which differs from anarcho capitalism in its lack of respect for property, human rights, and human lives.
Charles the Hammer limited the ability of the Caliph to attack Christendom by destroying the Caliph's ability to govern Muslims in the lands adjacent to Christendom, without exposing himself to counter attack in unfavorable territory by himself attempting to govern those lands. This operation was one of fairly regular raping, looting, and pillaging.
Similarly Charles the Great who only visited the Moorish Marches to loot and burn those cities overly loyal to the Caliph, and made no attempt to extend his rule to Saracen lands, instead fostering division, factionalism, and rebellion among the Saracens.
Until 1830, no state of Christendom ever attempted state building in Islamic majority lands, and when, during the colonial period, states of Christendom did attempt state building in Islamic lands, they did so only against enemies that had been thoroughly defeated and subdued. The crusader state building was in territories with a large Christian population - often, as in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, they attained a Christian majority by wholesale slaughter of the preceding Muslim majority and vigorously soliciting Christian migrants.
The first Islamic city to be utterly destroyed by Christians was Arles - which had been the marshaling grounds for two Islamic invasions of Europe. Charles the Hammer could not afford the troops to occupy it indefinitely, so he destroyed it so very thoroughly that it was unlikely to rise again for a long time.
Do you think the militia of a mostly atheist anarcho-capitalist country would react to the kind of stuff we have seen in France the same way the French have been reacting to it?
Monopolies underproduce and overcharge. A government is a monopoly of legitimate violence. Therefore, governments will underproduce legitimate violence and overcharge for it.
In a situation where we have an alarmingly great need for disturbingly large amounts of legitimate violence, private production of violence is likely to produce rather more violence than governments do.
In a situation where attempts to create an islamic government creates a substantial demand by non Muslim private citizens for legitimate violence, militias would produce more legitimate violence than governments - some of which might well look disturbingly similar to pogroms - to illegitimate violence.
The historical experience has been that in the holy war between Dar al Islam and Christendom, Islamic violence tended to go retail - applying widely distributed violence, that governments had difficulty meeting effectively. Governments, both Muslim and Christian, that attempted to maintain their strict monopoly of force tended to lose - the most successful strategy being for government to seek to be the leading element of loose cartel or franchise of force, as Al Qaeda aims to be the leading element of a franchise, despite its rhetoric about a Caliphate.
Charles the Great was successful in his strategy of issuing the land going equivalent of letters of Marque and Reprisal, legalizing a Wild West social order in vicinity of Dar al Islam. The frontier was pretty popular, both victorious over Islam, and attracting immigrants, so it seems to have worked well enough, but we do not have much information.
If they're misguided enough to want a government in their own land we'd better let them.
And what are "their lands"? Anarcho capitalism is as unlikely to have well defined boundaries as Islam is.
Similarly if they want a Muslim nation or a catholic nation or whatever. If we can't live our own lives without forcing everybody else everywhere to do it our way, what good is it?
Seven percent of the population of Thailand want Thailand to be part of a Muslim nation, and to get their way, they are killing Buddhists by crucifixion.