| Submit your comments on this article |
| Fifth Column |
| BelmontClub: Diggers - Why we fight! (and eunicks trying to stop them) |
| 2007-04-14 |
| Posted by:3dc |
| #10 If ISAF coalition forces discover a house with two Taliban high-value targets, and four other Taliban fighters who are not on the list of ISAF approved targets, it cannot attack the house. This is not a scenario of protecting civilians but of protecting Taliban targets who are just not specifically on the list. Ummm ... no. It is a scenario of slowly committing suicide. You kill your enemy, not play duck, duck, goose with them. The question is whether the muzzies are patient enough to let their high birth rates and PC-based seperate rules to enable them to take over some western countries before they do something stupid to really arouse our anger. I have long maintained how a signal hallmark of Islam is that of overreaching itself. Note Wretchard's observations regarding when push finally comes to shove: At this point, a United States choked with corpses could still not negotiate an end to hostilities or deter further attacks. There would be no one to call on the Red Telephone, even to surrender to. In fact, there exists no competent Islamic authority, no supreme imam who could stop a jihad on behalf of the whole Muslim world. Even if the terror chiefs could somehow be contacted in this apocalyptic scenario and persuaded to bury the hatchet, the lack of command and control imposed by the cell structure would prevent them from reining in their minions. Due to the fixity of intent, attacks would continue for as long as capability remained. Under these circumstances, any American government would eventually be compelled by public desperation to finish the exchange by entering -1 x 10^9 in the final right hand column: total retaliatory extermination. [emphasis added] Due to its decentralized nature, Islam can no more make rivers run uphill than avoid having one of its splinter groups finally manage to commit an atrocity of such stupendous magnitude that total war, in the form of nuclear retaliation, will commence. The lethal combination of Islam's terrorist doctrine and how ineffective any form of deterrence is against such a universal obssession with martyrdom literally assures this. Finally, the fanatical aspects of personal jihad supercede such overall strategies as demographic displacement. Nowhere can such grand plans be imposed with sufficient compulsion so as to restrain the more individualistic and psychotic elements within Islam. We are confronted with absolute madmen who, in their pursuit of globnal jihad, would not flinch at destroying the very nations which they themselves rule. I leave you with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's speech given in 1980 at Qom: "We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah; For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world." |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-04-14 18:47 |
| #9 Shipman consider Egypt - 70 mil living off a narrow strip on a river in a desert from hell.. and a big huge glass dam up river. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2007-04-14 18:23 |
| #8 The question is whether the muzzies are patient enough to let their high birth rates and PC-based seperate rules to enable them to take over some western countries before they do something stupid to really arouse our anger. Now that's a damn fine summation. I posit they'll fuck up their birth rate somehow, yes, your muzz can even screw up screwing. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-04-14 16:29 |
| #7 In real terms, the muzzies haven't done that much to the west...yet. So a big percentage of the population does not feel threatened, at least not in the way they need to in order to fight a total war. Once there is an overt example of the danger, and by this I mean something that kills tens of thousands in one attack or multiple simultaneous attacks, then the backbone will stiffen. And if they blow off a nuke in the west then all rules are out the window. The question is whether the muzzies are patient enough to let their high birth rates and PC-based seperate rules to enable them to take over some western countries before they do something stupid to really arouse our anger. |
| Posted by: Remoteman 2007-04-14 16:04 |
| #6 Al - They started off being the "muscle" for one of the factions that thought they were smarter than the Jihadis. I agree that is the biggest threat we face. I just think that when it gets down to one on one survival, western culture with its 2000+ year old ideals, morals and spirit of cooperation is stronger than the dog eat dog culture of Islam. But in a global culture - who knows? |
| Posted by: Angaiger Tojo1904 2007-04-14 12:19 |
| #5 Jonathan, there are no guarantees we will win it. I don't know if you read the rantburg story about the killer frogs in the SF pond that were eating all of the gentle frogs, but I thought that it was a good metaphor for militant Islam. Or look at the African honey bees killing our domestic ones. Darwin favors the strong and it remains to be seen which culture is stronger. However, militant Islam makes a mistake in believing we are weak. Right now, thanks to the media and PC attitudes, it is easy for them to believe that we will just go quietly into the night. While it sometimes seems that way, when the pedal starts hitting the medal - that is not how it is going to happen. A look at history probably gives us a pretty good picture of how this sequel will end. |
| Posted by: Angaiger Tojo1904 2007-04-14 12:03 |
| #4 AT 1904, The thing we have to watch out for is that these power hungry opportunists (AKA liberals) might not wake up in time to prevent a Muslim takeover. This is how Islam conquered Persia and Spain: by playing off the internal politics of the two counties and then taking over. They started off being the "muscle" for one of the factions that thought they were smarter than the Jihadis. This is exactly what the left thinks today. Al |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2007-04-14 12:02 |
| #3 Not to be pessimistic or anything. |
| Posted by: Jonathan 2007-04-14 11:18 |
| #2 AT1904, I wish I could be so optimistic but this is just a glimmer of light in an otherwise unrelieved darkness. People in the West have tolerated so much and done so little that they are incapable of defending their civilization now. I think the best we can do is preserve the best aspects of Western civilization and prepare for a new dark ages. |
| Posted by: Jonathan 2007-04-14 11:17 |
| #1 I find this article to be an interesting summation of changing winds. The Islamists entire plan for victory requires that the western world surrender to it. However, it is a flawed battle plan because that isn't going to happen. So far, the Islamist fanatics have been able to take advantage of our own differences between conservative and liberal. Liberals (whose entire philosophy consists in identifying a problem and "resolving" it by assigning blame to conservative, white, American, Christians) were only too happy to join forces with cohorts that seemed to be on board with their goal of redemption through blame. That the Islamists also hated Jews, Chinese, Buddhists, atheists, women, gays, etc, etc. etc, ... was unfortunate, but the liberals were willing to overlook it to advance their own agenda. But despite the power grabs from Nancy Pelosi, George Galloway, Jacques Chirac and all the other power hungry suspects, the people themselves are beginning to understand the true seriousness of the threat that we are facing. And while the media has provided a shield for Islam to advance its cause almost unnoticed, the western world is beginning to understand that this is a battle of survival. As time goes on, that realization will only increase and we will continue to strip away restrictive rules of engagement until war becomes what war has always been - a battle for survival. And so what we see now is slow but steady changes in our attitudes and culture. As western society begins to get a clue, we are beginning to unite and change our attitudes slowly but surely against them. Islamists know they need bigger weapons they can use while we are still divided, but the irony is that as soon as use them, they will untie our hands in this fight. In the end, this will be a bloody battle, but the western world will unite and square off against the idea of returning to caves with no music or mirth. I find it only a shame that once again, the westerners who doth protest to much that they are for "peace" will be the ones responsible for allowing this conflict to reach a critical mass where it can no longer be solved with minimal effort - but instead will result in the slaughter of millions. In the end this will be a Darwin finish. Militant Islam is a pathology that kills its host organism. The question we don't know the answer to is western civiliation strong enough to kill it before it kills us first. |
| Posted by: Angaiger Tojo1904 2007-04-14 10:56 |