It's Time To Wipe Out ISIS Fanatics: West Must Get Extreme

John Coulter in his weekly paper makes the case for a Western policy of extermination. Dr John Coulter is a columnist with the Irish Daily Star.

Western democracies need to waken up to the bitter reality that the only solution to the threat posed by Islamic State and other radical groups is to use chemical weapons and biological warfare.

Sounds brutal, but given the fanaticism of these radicals, conventional tactics will never defeat this type of new millennium suicide terrorist.

Next month marks the 70th anniversary of the nuclear attacks on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which ended World War 2.

The Allies had calculated that given the fanaticism of the Japanese people, it would have cost up to a million casualties to capture Japan.

Okay, so hundreds of thousands of Japanese died directly or indirectly because of the two nukes.

But how many Allied soldiers lived to enjoy their children and grand-children because they did not have to fight a bloody battle to capture Japan?

Ireland is now constantly commemorating the centenary of events and battles of World War 1.

How many Irish troops died or suffered in the trenches because of German mustard gas attacks?

Next to the Zyklon B gas used by the Nazis in their death camps, mustard gas was the most notorious chemical weapon of the 20th century.

Boots on the ground is not the solution to the global Islamic radical terror threat. The Russians and Allied forces learned nothing from the actions of the Crusaders in the Middle Ages.

All the Crusades did was unite the various sectarian-ridden muslim tribes under a single commander, Saladin.

The might of the Soviet empire could not tame those muslim tribes in Afghanistan. Eventually, with casualties mounting heavily, the Russians left with their tails between their legs.

The same has happened British and American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Gulf Wars may have stopped Saddam Hussein; they didn't stop the Taliban, Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic State, al Qaeda, or ‘Basher’ Assad in Syria.

The Allied powers must swallow the bitter medicine that the only way to protect their nations from Tunisia or Paris-style massacres is not an invasion of Syria or explosive drone strike – they must use mustard gas against ISIS.

The Allied nations must adopt the same mindset in 2015 as they did in 1945 when they realised victory could not be achieved by conventional means – atomic bombs were the only solutions.

No doubt, the do-gooders who believe passionately in the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), the arms control treaty organisation which seeks to limit chemical weapons, will be calling for my head for suggesting the use of mustard gas to eliminate ISIS.

But Ireland could lead the fight for an extermination of Islamic State.

Stormont and Dublin want to pump with little educational cash is available into the STEM subjects – Science, Technology. Engineering and Mathematics.

What an accolade it would be for Ireland if our STEM students and scientists developed the mustard gas needed to be dropped in ISIS strongholds.

Think of the number of tourists who could return to sun traps without any fear of Islamic radicals.

More importantly, think of the number of jobs which could be created in Ireland for Irish people who develop these mustard gas weapons to exterminate ISIS?

An Irish biological weapons industry would also help combat the brain drain of our best young geniuses having to leave Ireland to find work.


  1. John could do with reading Oliver Stones untold history of the United States. Quotes in that book give you an insight into the thinking behind the atom bombing of Japan. Truman and Stimson were clearly more interested in halting the Soviets than they were concerned about soldier casualties. Maybe the west could stop funding I.S which continues to this day through "non lethal aid", rather than slaughter civilians to stop a force they helped creare. On the upside people might get jobs out of Johns genocidal idea. Dick.

  2. Okay, so hundreds of thousands of Japanese died directly or indirectly because of the two nukes.

    But how many Allied soldiers lived to enjoy their children and grand-children because they did not have to fight a bloody battle to capture Japan?

    What makes allied soldiers more valuable than the hundreds of thousands of japanese that died? Also they wouldn't have needed to fight a bloody war to capture japan,
    "Even without the atomic bombing attacks," concluded the United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946, "air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. ... Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

  3. What is more telling about this piece than anything else is the fact that the author stated his position, advocates mass slaughter, will not be visited by the PSNI for it, nor will TPQ be prosecuted for having featured it. Dee Fennell ... that's another story isn't it? The rank hypocrisy of Western society on the question of violence seems pretty pronounced.

  4. Fantastical fanatical fantasy a chemical crusade nothing Nazi about this piece of lunacy.

    Manipulate history to suit your religious views. Stalin was aware of the Manhattan Project his spies had infiltrated it when Roosevelt informed him he had a new bomb that just clarified what Stalin already knew.

    The invasion of Japan with the highly inflated casualty rate sounds familiar as the expected casualty rate for Desert Storm closer to home Operation Motorman had a ridiculous over inflated casualty expectation even though the Brits knew the Provos had left town long before the invasion.

    Realistically Japan was defeated and surrounded the west was under pressure not only to get Japan to surrender but also to stop the spread of Communism. Dropping the Bomb would demonstrate to Stalin that for the time being his own ambitions would have to wait. True to form after the war, the long cold war kicked off.
    Why did they not bomb the Capital city they did not show the same restraint in Berlin.

    Mein Koultor you lack the hair and the funny mustache and fortunately, the charisma but you do have the extermination part spot on.

    You use your own religion in a way that resembles the fanatics you want wiped off Gods’ we blue marble. Religious fanatics certainly have no qualms with inciting hatred promoting mass slaughter all in the name of their god.

    You are no saner than those you wish to eradicate. One decent thing about the troubles we did not end up babysitting nuclear weapons. When you get your wee chemical munitions factories up and running make sure you stamp the shells with Jesus smiling and the logo could be, from Jesus with love.

  5. One question springs to mind.
    Why would Irish Chemists get a pat on the back for creating Mustard gas when it already exists????
    Can I invent an internet and get a noble prize for it too??
    As for chemical Weapons in Iraq.
    Didn't Bomber Harris of the Dresden bombing do that in 1922!!!
    There are lots of other questions to boot..such as indiscriminate weapon etc etc.

  6. Good point,AM. What John Coulter advocates is against international law,could qualify as advocating genocide and could be seen as hate speech. John Coulter always seems to be advocating violence and war and always seems to insist on Ireland being involved. Bizarre character.

  7. What is disturbing is that the authors of such articles presume from the beginning that they are standing on the high moral ground and therefore they can dictate and justify the use of violence even greater than that employed by their enemy. He mentions crusades......he doesn't seem to have grasped that they lost also and that they also employed a far greater brutality against the Muslim population who were to be historically correct aided by the Jews against the Christians and I use 'Christain' very lightly here.
    Advocating genocide is really disturbing. A much better option would be to disregard such notions and stop invading their countries under the pretext of establishing freedom when theft of their resources is the real reason.
    John, who do we fire our weapons at? I ask for it seems to me that with the recent agreement between Iran and the USA, yesterday's terrorist is today's freedom fighter!