The Morality of Slaughter

I know it seems extreme when I advocate the slaughter of all muslims. We have to consider how realistic is the only alternative given that Islam is a wide spread murder cult. The alternative we could pursue is a policy of de-Islamification like the de-Nazification of post-Hitler Germany.

There are several reasons to suspect that this won't work. First, how do we subdue the Islamic countries to attempt this? Would it not be much easier and much less costly of terms of our own soldiers if we just committed slaughter rather attempt to subue the enemy? Second, occcupation after our conquest would be make Iraq now seem a peaceful place. Third, pre-Hitler Germany had many people of diverse views about the Nazi issue. The opposition to Hitler was a firm base of support for de-Nazification. There simply is not that base of support for de-Islamification in the Islamic countries that there was in the de-Nazification of Germany. Fourth, to successfully de-Islamify we would need at least thirty years of Inquisitorial courts to make sure the effort was successful. I can't see decent societies being able to sustain such an effort, and I believe it is less of insult to human dignity to simply kill people than to create courts that rule about belief and that would probably have to resort to torture. On the other hand, after a slaughter we can just get back to normal.

Permit me to stray here slightly from my topic, but it's important here to consider "getting back to normal". Normal in the future won't be normal now, because the ease of access to technologies of mass destruction is going to continue to increase. We are going to have to think more clearly about how humanity can survive technological progress. I suspect some genetic engineering of homo sapien will be required to prevent the success of people who will release diseases deadly to our current genes. But will that be enough? Will nanotechnology be death of us all? The answer is beyond my knowledge.