Exactly. I reluctantly have to agree.

The people of Afghanistan etc are backward tribalists whose penchant for cousin marriage has knocked at least ten points off their IQs.

Waiting for a Jefferson or Franklin to magically emerge is foolish.

I supported the war because I hated the anti-war crowd, having been one of them earlier in life.

But I supported a war in which we would nuke Bora Bora, not build schoolhouses for people who have never valued education.

The Japanese and Germans were High Civilizations that went temporarily insane. With many of the insane safely dead, we were right in helping them out.

AFTER we crushed them.

We are doing too much building and not enough crushing.

A hundred Afghan people aren't worth one Canadian soldier.

We should blast the place to bits then come home.

It is like the 1920-30's all over again. The rise of a new order, one that considers themselves superior and this justified in imposing their beliefs.

If there is a bright light of hope this time it is the Islamists don't have the Wehrmacht at their disposal and the armies they do have suck.

What is scary is they are using immigration and our own internal liberal organizations to take over from the inside. Creeping ahead, slowly, steadily.

'exterminate the brutes"

and humbug to the notion of 'emissaries of light ,pity and science"...

Either pick up a gun and stand the line, Kathy, or shut your goddamn mouth and stop pissing on the graves of my friends and coworkers. Rhetoric like your could only come from a self-centered coward looking for undeserved attention. Until you're ready to put your own ass on the line, you've got no right to place a value on any life other than your own.

Gee Kathy, quit waffling, wouldya; say what you really think!! Seriously, we should harden our outlook on this. David Warren said it well, "....we think it's wrong to kill people if they believe differently than we do, Islamists think it's wrong NOT to." While we could whup them with force, we're hampering ourselves with some kind of misguided leftwing sensitivity. No, maybe I should say paralysis.

This is a long-term struggle that, in the end, I don't see us winning unless we lay down the law now. There are Madras' in operation right now in the US that masquarade as "private" schools and are completely tolerated by education officials.

What I mean by "lay down the law" is we must come down hard on the abuses that are inherent with the following of the Koran and Sharia law. If Muslims come to North America and break any of our laws in the name of Allah - well, so long pal, your ass is on its way back to where it came from and you're going with it.

You have western countries like England that want to appease Muslims by allowing them to use Sharia law in civil disputes. That is what you call letting the toothpaste out the tube. There is no way to get it back in.

Guess what? They are going to want more toothpaste. Once it starts you are not going to stop it.

I fear for my grandchildren in so many ways. I can't believe how progressives are fugging up our society and conservatives can't seem to get their sh-t together to stop it.

That is essential reading and it should be taught at schools right now!!! The part for civilians to take note of is where it explains how terrorism is but just one tool in their arsenal- there is a cultural war going on for the hearts and minds of all of our next generation- in popular music , clothing, and general pro-islamicist thought. Popular bands wear the palestinian headscarf as a quasi poitical fashion statement (as I've seen on NBC's Saturday Night Live). The media and western governments are complicit in spreading this, as the author states, under the guise of political correctness when in fact it is a direct attack on western culture and should be taken more seriously. Look how they are using our laws to attemp to extradite Omar Khadr- our own war criminal family from Toronto.
The jihad blasts at us from many,many fronts.

I agree with the outline of Islamism, which I refer to as Islamic fascism, but I don't agree with the outline of the degree of support, i.e., 'immense'. I don't think it is as immense as the author suggests and instead, I suggest that a deep 'trauma' within the Middle East states is at play.

This trauma is the cusp of a transformation from a tribal structure to a modern state structure. The modern state structure, found in large populations with an industrial economy, enables and promotes a vibrant free middle class. This class is in political and economic control.

The tribal structure has no middle class; it operates within a smaller population and sets up a no-change elitism of a governing elite against the peasantry lower class. This mode has been the norm in the Middle East. Oil enriched the elite and enabled them to set up totalitarian regimes to prevent the emergence of a middle class.

Islamism is the 19th c. ideology that developed as the population grew beyond the constraints of a tribal system and as the tribal elite tried to prevent change and retain power. Islamism, which is a rigid elitist dogma, prevents a middle class and keeps a population enslaved. Again, Islamism is a political ideology - presented as a religious mantra. Similar to all totalitarian movements such as communism - whether of Lenin or Mao.

I consider Islamism a political movement based on, not an ideological, but a political agenda. The agenda is - power. The power to control the states of the Middle East. Who wants this power? A tribal elite who reject that this power could be handled by the democratic will of the people. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Pakistan...are all about tribalism, where one elite 'set' controls the political and economic resources of the nation against the mass of the population. We saw this in Iraq, which was freed by the US, and moved itself into a constitutional democracy.

Kathy - there is no such thing as a 'national IQ' and your comment on the Afghan people is therefore scientifically false. Helping to free them from tribal power agendas is the right thing to do - and education empowers and enables a middle class to emerge.

Frightening but unfortunately true. The West has become a victim of its own liberalism and freedoms, which are slowly being used as a stepping stone to power by 'political refugees'. The last 500 years belonged to Europe and its influence but I fear it looks like the next 500 may belong to Islam.

Its disappointing to see left wing circles IGNORE the threat Islamic Fascism presents to us.Now we will forced to entrench our ideals and freedoms and not give an inch ideologically to them.Their faith needs to change not us.We already know how to live in peace with one another.They do not.More Muslims have killed by their bretheren than the entire military forces of the Western world.
NATO has a new enemy in addition to some old ones it seems.

Alex,
I don't understand your comment, Kathy is on your side! She doesn't have to "pick up a gun" to fight, she does it with a pen, with much more effect.

Thank you Kate. It's a great post with a brutally honest article about the most important issue of our times.

"The State Department’s new “democratic” constitutions for Afghanistan and Iraq are a disgrace: establishing Islam as the state religion and elevating sharia as fundamental law. That is not exporting our values; it is appeasing Islamism. It is putting on display our lack of will to fight for our principles...We’re not building a democratic culture."

It's exactly what I believe. In order for Afghanistan to emerge as a real democracy, Afghans must embrace individual Liberty and reject the societal control of Islamism. That won't happen in our generation. It will take much time and new spirits to emerge, like the growing influence of the youth in Iran, before real change happens for individuals. This fight belongs to the citizens of Afghanistan but they have to want it bad enough to die for it. That's the price to defeat the control of Islamism and the West can't do it for them. But most people in Afghanistan are too damaged and brainwashed to fight for their right to a higher existence. Their concern is to secure food and warm shelter for themselves. Human rights and breaking the shackles of Sharia are a concern for another day and someone else who cares enough.

Once the West gets Osama and finishes off Al Qaeda in the border mountains - it will be time to leave. A new Afghanistan will eventually emerge but it won't be overnight. It will be after our time.

Our concern is to stop the spread of Islam's poison into our own Western societies. We need to take a Stand for ourselves.

I agree with McCarthy- the degree of support is immense- just try going into Dearborn, Michigan and bringing up a discussion about some of these topics. Do you remember the pro-Hamas billboard in Windsor, Ontario?
Thaqt article was brilliant- finally someone has a clear mind and has put the picture of what is going on, down on paper for all to digest- you should read it twice if necessary.

Precisely, great article.

I see Alex say's Kathy has "no right", and demands silence.

I agree whole heartedly with Kathy and Andrew C. McCarthy and think all the little Alexatollahs should be sent back to their dung hut villages in Koranimalville with their "friends and coworkers" .
THEN , we blast them to bits.

Skytrail: "The West has become a victim of its own liberalism and freedoms ... The last 500 years belonged to Europe and its influence ...

And, a question to everyone, why would that be? How have we so easily become surrender monkeys?

Joshua: "Its disappointing to see left wing circles IGNORE the threat Islamic Fascism presents to us."

And, why would that be? How did we get so many left wing cirlces? Who was it for hundreds of years that not only perceived the threat of Islamists but defended Europe from their onslaught? Who has been told to shut up in the West and told to butt out of the public square and get out of our schools?

'Little wonder we in the West have buckled so easily.

"Islamism is the 19th c. ideology that developed as the population grew beyond the constraints of a tribal system and as the tribal elite tried to prevent change and retain power. Islamism, which is a rigid elitist dogma, prevents a middle class and keeps a population enslaved. Again, Islamism is a political ideology - presented as a religious mantra. Similar to all totalitarian movements such as communism - whether of Lenin or Mao." posted by ET.

Having lived in an East African country for the past year or so, I would have to disagree. While Islamism may be a political ideology - it is strongly based in the religion of Islam. The ideology CANNOT be separated from the religion. the one feeds the other - and vice versa.

In a agreement with 'ET'.

'Kathy' you lost me on some of your statements;

We are doing too much building and not enough crushing.

A hundred Afghan people aren't worth one Canadian soldier.

We should blast the place to bits then come
home.

batb:"And, a question to everyone, why would that be? How have we so easily become surrender monkeys?"

Because in order to utter "Give me Liberty or Give me Death" to the enemy you have to believe in something greater than yourself. We've become too selfish and self-centered to care or believe anymore. Thus, backsliding is unavoidable.

Alex, as someone else has pointed out, you are well intentioned but your reading comprehension skills need some work.

ET, yeah, there is actually. I know you refuse to believe it on account of your delicate sensibilities but you are simply wrong:

The IQ data is from IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen.

p. 73-80, Table 6.5: National IQ based on arithmetic means calculated by Lynn and Vanhanen (2002), in parentheses PISA scores of "mathematical competence" (Prenzel, Manfred et al. (eds).: PISA 2003. Münster: Waxmann 2004, p. 70, Table 2.9; or: PISA 2003: A Profile of Student Performance in Mathematics) , transformed into IQ (PISA scores, mean 500, SD 100, have to be transformed into IQ values, mean 100, SD 15, by adding or subtracting the deviation from the mean in the relationship 100 : 15 = 6,67, that means PISA 433 corresponds to IQ 90, PISA 500 to IQ 100, PISA 567 to IQ 110):

Afghanistan IQ 83
Albania IQ 90 (78)
Algeria IQ 84
Angola IQ 69
Antigua and Barbuda IQ 75
Argentina IQ 96 (82)
Armenia IQ 93
Australia IQ 98 (104)
Austria IQ 102 (101)
etc

http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm

You may very well consider Islamism this or that. BUT THEY, AND I, DON'T CARE for your carefully thought out reasoning.

Afgans/Islamists are too stupid to even read your words, and I am too impatient to care.

Our enemies need killing. These people are our enemies. They will never change. Unlike the Japanese or the Germans, they have no High Culture to go back to. They are backwards savages who want us dead. We have to kill them first.

We have spent billions giving these people everything they could ever want, and more. Yet they continue to hate us and to kill us.

This should sound fairly familiar to anyone acquainted with the history of the United States for the last 50 years, but that's another post.

Merle, if you can't understand simple English that isn't my problem. These statements are self explanitory. If you don't AGREE with them, or they offend your delicate sensibilites, that is another thing entirely.

But please don't imitate someone's vapourous Great Aunt and play "you lost me". You know exactly what I am saying. My meaning is clear. It is your moral exhibitionism that is opaque.

Bingo, Martin B.: "you have to believe in something greater than yourself. We've become too selfish and self-centered to care or believe anymore."

And what was that "something greater than [our]selves" which sustained Europeans for hundreds of years, which strengthened and steeled their resolve to rout the threat of militant Islam?

It was the Christian Church, which we in the West have happily trashed. Until Westerners come to terms with this tragedy, which has morally, ethically, and spiritually, cut us off at the knees and encouraged blatant self-centredness and greed as our default position, we're going to continue to be open to -- and defeated by -- the Islamist threat.

All it takes for evil to triumph is for good wo/men to [say and] do nothing.

Being "good, however, isn't good enough. We have to, as you state, "believe in something greater than [ourselves]," otherwise we have nothing which we believe is worth fighting for. That's pretty much where we're at now -- and with our sentries falling off the watchtowers like drunken sailors, our defences are almost non-existent.

DH - I didn't say that the political ideology is separated from the religion. I said that the political agenda of Islamic fascism uses the religion as dogma, to provide ideological support for that political system.

However, it IS possible for a new political system to develop and this will cast off the 19th c version of Islam, and modernize it away from its tribal origins.

Martin B - I agree with much of what you say, but I disagree with your 'disgraceful' attributes to the Iraq and Afghanistan constitutions. You cannot easily move from one structure to another. it took a revolution in the US - and its new structure retained much of the British legal and religious system and got rid of the hereditary structure of authority. Iraq and Afghanistan can't ditch Islam overnight but must move it into a position where it is no longer viewed as dogma but as open to interpretive change. As you say, this has to be done by these people.

And yes, we have to reject the cultural relativism in our societies that claims that all lifestyles are equivalent. They aren't and a tribal mindset belongs in the 7th c, not in a modern industrial economy.

As for Kathy's view to 'blast them all', I consider this no different than that of the Islamists, who equally consider that anyone who is not of their kind, ought to be 'blasted to bits'. Just as the Islamist agenda of killing everyone who rejects their way of life won't work, neither will Kathy's similar suggestion.

The way to deal with it is to enable the Middle East Tribal states to move out of tribalism and into democracy. Bush started this agenda, and, it has to be continued. This means supporting the democratic force of the citizens.

Just as an aside, Obama is doing the opposite; rather than supporting the Iranian people's open and public desire for democracy, he's supporting the repressive dictatorship of Ahmandinejad. And rather than supporting the Honduran people's adherence to their constitution to prevent the emergence of a Zelaya dictatorship, Obama is supporting the would-be dictator.

As for Islamism in the West, we have to reject any cultural relativism, any attempt to replace our laws with Sharia law, and any attempt to reject our own history and culture.

or, as once upon a time(in a world long gone)a British trade unionist explained to me(in a different context but i'm confident you will get the point)

"it's US against THEM, stupid"

batb, as inferred by the title to Kate's post, if the West is to survive, we must get back to our roots and make a Stand. Here. We must believe again or the fruits of our faith will be taken from us.

ET, you contradict yourself:

You write:

And yes, we have to reject the cultural relativism in our societies that claims that all lifestyles are equivalent. They aren't and a tribal mindset belongs in the 7th c, not in a modern industrial economy.

As for Kathy's view to 'blast them all', I consider this no different than that of the Islamists, who equally consider that anyone who is not of their kind, ought to be 'blasted to bits'. Just as the Islamist agenda of killing everyone who rejects their way of life won't work, neither will Kathy's similar suggestion.

***
Yes, it is different because as you said in your previous sentence, all belief systems are not alike.

Ours is right. There's is wrong. They believe they are superior to everyone, when it is patently obvious that they are backwards.

We in the West believe the exact opposite: that all people are created equal, and yet we are obviously superior to many others.

So as you can see, those beliefs are completely different not completely the same.

Like the Japanese -- including, sadly, children -- in WW2, these people are in the hopeless grip of a pseudo-religious death cult of racial superiority.

In the case of the Japanese, one could even make the high brow, drawing room intellectual case that in many respects Japanese society WAS superior to the West's.

However, that case, even if factual, WOULD HAVE BEEN STUPID and self defeating because, at that moment in history, the Japs wanted us dead!!!

And the ONLY way for us to survive was to destroy them utterly.

You are thinking yourself into an early grave. Please don't insist upon taking the rest of us with you.

You say with a straight face that blasting people to smithereens "won't work"

Tell that to the 3000 dead on 9/11. Last I checked, they were well and truly smithereened! That "worked" did it not?

Please present some evidence that your desperate assertion that "XYZ won't work" is true, other than your insistance that you are correct and say that it is so!

I'm sure people, if given the chance to ask, would have said nuking Japan wouldn't have "worked" either. "Oh it will just make them mad at us! They'll take revenge and be our enemies forever and ever. The US will lose its moral authority and no one will ever do business with us again"

Etc.

Do I really need to complete my thought?

ET, thanks for the props. I agree with much of what you say (and pretty much always have). But any Constitution that embraces Sharia is a joke of the first order. Worse than useless.

The best Constitution is the one where the common person matters most. Let the people that fight for their freedom write their own defining document.

Until then, our responsibility is to oppose open tyranny in the World and fight to protect the ideals of freedom and Liberty for those that desire enough to have it themselves someday.

But any Constitution that embraces Sharia is a joke of the first order. Worse than useless.

Sharia/Constitution is almost oxymoronic. A better word would be manifesto.

Great article though, and excellent discussion here no matter what position one takes.

"It is not that these Muslims fail to comprehend our principles; they reject them. They have an entirely different conception of the good life. They believe freedom is not individual liberty but individual submission to Allah’s law. Their very conception of freedom is the opposite of ours. When we talk to them about “freedom,” we are ships passing in the night."

This is the best comment in an excellent article. I despaired at George Bush's "crying out for democracy" remark, as just more wishful thinking.

Our liberal mindset has progressed so far, most of us CANNOT see that it is truly, "us versus them", and we dither about how to proceed while they go about their business unchecked, right in our midst.

Radicalized mosques in Western Countries should be closed and all the leaders deported, whether they're citizens or not. There has to be severe punishment for preaching hate against us,not some milquetoast idea of "dialogue"with the Islamists.

In the end, Kathy Shaidle may very well have the best idea,retaliate with all the brutality the Islamists would inflict on us if they had the technology.

But we're still caught in the academic's debating society paradigm,while failing to recognize you can't argue logic with the insane or the religious zealot.

Sometimes nice guys DO finish last. If we do this time, the game's over permananently.

No, Kathy, your claim that 'ours is right, theirs is wrong' is exactly the same belief and verbiage as that used by the Islamists. Your agenda to 'blast them all' is exactly the same agenda as that of the Islamists.

The fact that we in the West believe that 'all are created equal' has no relevance when we are discussing political and religious systems - and the fact is that both sides, the West and the Islamist, believe and adamantly assert that their political system is 'the best'.

What has to be focused on, is not out belief systems, for both sides claim superiority, but the practical results of these systems. Which ones will work..and where..and when?

No, blasting people to smithereens doesn't work, and the 9/11 attack didn't work; it didn't make the US change to Islamism. Instead, it encouraged the US and its allies to move into Iraq, and take out its dictatorship and enable the democratic infrastructure to take root in the tribal Middle East. Same with Afghanistan.

After all, the agenda of Islamist 'blasting to smithereens' isn't to simply kill the people but to gain political and economic power. It did not succeed.

What you don't understand is the difference between a tribal political system and a modern democratic system. The Japanese system, by the way, was tribal. The tribal political system is a no-growth, no-change system that works very well in a non-industrial, agricultural economy with a middle size population. But, when the population increases beyond the carrying capacity of a non-industrial agriculturalism and must move into industrialism...then, this rigid, hierarchical political system of tribalism must end. It must enable a flexible, entrepreneurial middle class - and this class must hold the power. That means it must move to a democratic political system.

You don't seem to understand or be aware of, the different political systems, the different economic systems..and their close relationships. A non-industrial economy will have a tribal political system - it ensures stability and continuity; an industrial economy must have a democratic political system - it enables change and progressive new technology. The problem in the Middle East is that oil has enabled the tribal control to remain in place - and this has led to Islamic fascism.

As for Japan, it too was tribal and would most certainly have refused to surrender and would have continued the war in, if such were even possible, more brutal fashion than the already unbelievable brutality of the WWII Japanese. Therefore, Truman's use of the A-bomb to prevent this continuation of the war for many many years, was, I think, the right decision.

The notion of the Japanese society being 'superior' at the time is irrelevant, for its tribal hierarchies were becoming unable to meet the needs of a burgeoning population that had to move out of the rigid constraints (no matter how superior in their elegantce) of tribalism and into the flexible and messy competitions of an industrial middle class economic base.

But, I don't think that a nuclear attack would have been the right decision in, for example, Iraq. Bush was able to topple Hussein and enable a democracy without that. And, I think the same can be said for Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be a long campaign, but the movement towards democracy exists in both regions and can't be stopped.

The world is very different from the WWII era, which saw industrialism move into areas previously isolated in tribal agriculturalism. Now, it is the Middle East, i.e., the Islamic states, entrenched in tribalism (and Islam is a tribal ideology) that must move into industrialism. Their tribal powers are trying to prevent this change..but, it's inevitable. The way to deal with it is by the current method of non-nuclear taking out of the tribal powermen and at the same time, educating and enabling a middle class economy to take root in the area.

AND- in the West, to adamantly refuse to allow Sharia Law and cultural behaviour.

Never surrender our culture, never bend to their demands of Islamic Supremacy like the US and Europe have. Say no to reasonable accomadation, if they can't pay for or build it themselves then they won't have said items. Never surrender to their medieval backward culture, 1400 years of failure and barbarity are more than enough for us in the West. If they want to live in Canada they shall do so as equals not as our Islamic Superiors as edicted by the Koran. Stop allowoing foreign born Imams into Canada, train them here in Canada to ensure the Wahhabi Salafist mindset is considered repulsive to the West and not acceptable.

martin b - of course, a constitution that embraces Sharia Law is problematic, but you hav to explore what is meant by this 'embrace' or you will become trapped in the generalities of the remark.

For example, there is no bonded embrace in the Iraqi constitution, which accepts Islam as the official religion and declares that no law that contradicts Islam is permitted, also says that 'no law contradicting the basic principles of democracy' can be e s tablished, (these are both in the same Article 2), and that all Iraqis are equal before the law 'without discrimination based on gender, race, ethnicity, origin, color, religion, creed, belief or opinion, or economic and social status" (Article 14)..and that the law is sovereign (Article 5)..and that the people are its source, i.e., not the Islamic texts.

Now, it is up to the people of Iraq to refine, debate and interpret exactly what they want from this co-habitation of Sharia habits and modern freedoms. Just as the US went through a tortuous debate over its constitution and its meanings and amendments and Supreme Court interpretations of proposed new laws...

Actually we don't have to re-invent the wheel...appeasement of Islamism is impossible...
Kemal Attaturk laid out the blueprint/template to democratize/modernize an islamic country/society and did it with his constitution which he and his cadre of military officers IMPOSED.
Turkey rose from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire because it imposed secular democracy----clerics were silenced----hijabs were outlawed---
Attaturk realized Islam was an impediment and acted accordingly....and brutally.
It may come that we must nuke Tehran---many innocents will perish---so be it---we had 911.
Rule # 1---don't die...
Rule # 2---Rule has priority...
Rule # 3---there are only 2 rules.

dmorris, I appreciate your perspective.

ET presents us a case for soft power, and Kathy presents us with a case for hard power.

Our problem is that the egomaniacs that make up our governments are probably incapable of either.

While Bush was president, we had some kind of intention and compass marking in respect to what we wanted to try to accomplish in the Middle East. Now that the Black Zero has managed his electoral coup we really can have no confidence about what direction we are going in.

I'm sure that some of you have noticed that watching government work is NOT like watching the Olympics. In the Olympics you watch the very best at their respective sports operate as perfectly as possible.

In government you watch essentially mediocre egomaniacs operate at a C level of accomplishment. You know, many have suggested that we should kick all the radical Islamic leaders out of North America. This, of course, is a great idea. How many times have you seen us do that?

And Scotland just gave a mass murderer sick parole.

So anyway, Kathy's idea would probably work. ET's idea might work. But it's not likely that we'll do either.

I guess the real question comes down to whether we'll muddle through.

(Oh, incidentially, if we managed to get a lot of conservatives elected in our mid-term elections what we'll have is gridlock until the end of the Black Zero's term.)

(Parenthesis #2: Down here we believe that our liberty is an endowment from a Creator, and so the idea of a Creator is not foreign to the US political system. It's just that the Creator is an exponent and proponent of freedom.)

Your off the wall with your statements 'Kathy'. If you, blast the place to bits then come home'. Would you not only have killed a small part of extremest and leaving the majority out there to keep on building.

Shaidle said:We should blast the place to bits then come home.

Shaidle, you are a bigot who shoots from the lip. You are actually proposing genocide.

You just insulted the memory of every single soldier who died in Afghanistan, and you insulted the values they hold because they perished while believing in what they were doing. Please ... oh please ... stay away from their funerals and their memorials ... don't dirty their memory with your grubby attitude.

Virtually every single soldier serving there comes back believing strongly in the mission and it's goals to bring Afghans into this century ... which is, after all, a Western value. What most are concerned about is public apathy, not whether or not they can do the job. They virtually all believe in giving the children and women in Afghanistan a chance to begin transforming their society, especially through education and security.

My son serves there right now, and I can assure you that he and his mates would find your attitude repulsive. They understand the difference between the thugs and kids and civilians who simply want peace. They understand that it take decades to transform a religion ... not slaughter of the innocent. (How long did it take your beloved Catholics to stop butchering people?)

Great and true heroes, like Wafa Sultan, (who actually risk something, unlike you), would also find your comments repugnant. The army of many Muslims around the world struggling to transform their faith, would be crushed by your words.

Shaidle, it's people like you who turn back the cause of conservatives decades every time they open their pie-hole. What a pathetic bigoted and small-minded embarrassment you are ... or is that you are so filled with Catholic arrogance you just can't help yourself. You are to conservatives, what Van Jones is to liberals.

As for Japan, it too was tribal and would most certainly have refused to surrender and would have continued the war in, if such were even possible, more brutal fashion than the already unbelievable brutality of the WWII Japanese. Therefore, Truman's use of the A-bomb to prevent this continuation of the war for many many years, was, I think, the right decision.

Yes he smithereened them and that changed everything. That was the moment that the world learned that the USA was meanest son of a bitch in the valley and we enjoyed a long period of peace because of it.

Humanity has always had waring factions and the rule that has worked is kill them before they kill us. ET's incremental method of turning the Islamists into Westerners is silly.

We need to hit them so hard that we actually scare the shit out of them and drive them back into their mud huts and caves.

If they pop up again like the mole in the whack a mole game .. just do a drive by carpet-bombing to remind them that they have to lifi their leg up a lot higher if they want to piss with the big dogs.

I am with Kathy.

As for Japan, it too was tribal and would most certainly have refused to surrender and would have continued the war in, if such were even possible, more brutal fashion than the already unbelievable brutality of the WWII Japanese. Therefore, Truman's use of the A-bomb to prevent this continuation of the war for many many years, was, I think, the right decision.

Yes he smithereened them and that changed everything. That was the moment that the world learned that the USA was meanest son of a bitch in the valley and we enjoyed a long period of peace because of it.

Humanity has always had waring factions and the rule that has worked is kill them before they kill us. ET's incremental method of turning the Islamists into Westerners is silly.

We need to hit them so hard that we actually scare the shit out of them and drive them back into their mud huts and caves.

If they pop up again like the mole in the whack a mole game .. just do a drive by carpet-bombing to remind them that they have to lift their leg up a lot higher if they want to piss with the big dogs.

I am with Kathy.

Greg in Dallas, you are probably correct in suggesting that our governments will pursue neither Kathy or Et's solution. The wafflers and hope for the besters rule today. That generation has been conditioned by the moral relevance believers. If they do not wake up before it is too late, we are lost.

You also correctly touch on posts made by batb and Martin B that discuss the vacuum in our collective moral, ethical and spiritual lives. The pseudo-god Marx is a false god.

HEY you guy's should reead the hamas charter ..that will answer alot of your questions ...it is like our charter of right's and freedoms ...kinda ..but not really ...anyway i agree with kate pull every western soul outta there including the dead if possible ...then start dropping hydrogen bomb's ...there is no fallout from them at all ....and they will obliterate the workso f them until they completley submit and wave a white flag ..but i suspect they are to stupid to give up ...witch i kinda admire to ..just to bad that it is for a fake false deatch cult i don't even call it a religion anymorei t is not worthy ...we need to pull all civilians and diplomat's alike outta eevry one of those countries including saudi as they are the biggest funder of all of these terroist grops ...get everone out ...and then a few day's of complete silence ..then send in about 50 b2 bombers loaded with hydrogen bombs ....and finish this ....and what evevr is left we can go in and properly take our war booty ....bring our troops home !! this is tirsome now and needless blood shed and why is obama giving 900 million dollars of american tax dollars to rebuild the gaza strip and hezbollah ? WTF?

PAUL

as well i agree fully with kathie as usual.

By the way, thank you ET for injecting some sanity, as usual.

kathy

you are proof that ignorance, and it's twin stupidiy, are not restricked to just one idealogical domain

you are butt a lefty trying to wear the right pair of pants

even if the IQ data is correct, one needs to ask if it is relivent in this case

as to "NUKE" em, I'v always thought tactical nukes up front was the way to go, but 'up front" was yesterday, we are now in for the long haul

The Islamists laugh at our weakness. Take the case of the Lockerbie bomber sent home to a heroes welcome by Gaddafi. I believe it was done with the view of his just quietly going home to die with his family. The British should have said any celebrations will result in a missile taking out both Gaddafi and Meghrabi. And then they should have done it.

"Understand this: It is not just terrorists but millions of Muslims who believe Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan should be killed even if they believe they are risking their lives so that Muslims can have a better life."

"I said that the political agenda of Islamic fascism uses the religion as dogma, to provide ideological support for that political system."

"But we're still caught in the academic's debating society paradigm,while failing to recognize you can't argue logic with the insane or the religious zealot."

-----------------

Tell me, just what is it about society, any society, that allows for the zealots and nut cases to take over the agenda ?? From Jihad to environmentalism to religion to politics to classroom to community clubs.

I know a few people, really good people, from far away countries which are a mess. And very good people who are involved with wako organizations. And solid citizens who are religious fanatics.

So what gives ? IMO, it is simply a case of bad information infiltrating good minds. Minds that are, in many cases, better than my own. A person's knowledge and actions and thoughts are usually of the same caliber as their information sources.

And the world's biggest(but diminishing) information source is? You guessed it - the frigging media.

One example: Amongst the smoldering ruins of a airliner crash, the journalist seeks out the only survivor and gets the sound bite 'thank god that he saved me'. A media induced mind-set that 'He' saves ... but intentionally fails to mention the other 127 that were not. Nice.

Kathy, Ronald Reagan, Winston Churchill and Joan of Arc = Hard Power

ET, Lloyd Axeworthy, Pierre Trudeau, Jimmy Carter = Soft Power

Who would you choose to lead in the war for our very survival?

We are at war with mindless, religious automatons.

Reason means nothing to them. ET and other pacifists are ALWAYS wrong.

Gigantic destructive flashes that turn sand into glass is what we need to do to win. The Jihadis will truly understand that move. If you think they wouldn't do it to us, I have stuff to sell you.

Ripley in the movie 'Aliens' said it best ... "nuke em from space, it's the only way to be sure"

I'm with Ripley Shaidle.

Too much social work, not enough bombing.

Leaders of the West are weenies and our enemies laugh and laugh and plot and plot.

The UK and France are lost to Islam and the West is building a bigger welcome mat.

The middle east countries are still in the seventh century by design and this design they wish on us.

Shaidle: One more aside ... it's interesting that you claim that "they" don't even want our schools. Tell that to the little girls who attend school by the tens of thousands in Afghanistan ... who attend at their own peril ... who attend, defiantly, even after having acid tossed in their faces and their lives threatened.

... so Shaidle ... which one of these little girls, learning to read in a school protected by Canadian soldiers, do you want to off first? After all, she's wearing a hijab.

http://www.mediaright.ca/pics/girlreading.jpg

.

Ontario is loaded with these jihadists and their ilk (sympathizers, people that fund them thru so called charities)...
Look at this from today's paper : http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1964265
Our good ol' Toronto boys are headed to Yemen now- guess the other places have become less popular. Guess where these boys get their early training???
Madrassas- starting in ECS.

You know what- I take that comment back- why blame the madrassas- it more likely starts at home- before they hit ECS at the madrassas.

I am siding with Kathy Shaidle on this issue. In order to win people have to know they are beaten. The UK press which I tend to follow are now moving toward the "Afghanistan is unwinnable" line. The usual guff about how the British failed to keep the peace in the North West Frontier blah, blah, blah ad nauseum. Frankly I think British, Canadian and American blood is too precious to waste on seventh century barbarians.

However if you set out to do something you should finish the job and if that means treating them the way we treated Germany and Japan then so be it. In the long run I can see the West turning to what would be considerd barbarism in order to defend itself against radical islam.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211414/Anti-fascists-clash-right-wing-protesters-Birmingham.html

The beginning of a clash of civilisations.

Tranio, the British sent the man home with a view to making oil deals, not out of some altruistic concern for the man's health..

momar - what an irrational comment. I didn't say I was a pacifist. I strongly supported Bush's war to remove Saddam Hussein and free the Iraqi people, and I strongly support the Afghanistan-Pakistan war.

What I don't support is the 'nuke em all' approach, for this assumes that All Muslims are Islamists, and All Muslims are unable and unwilling to move out of tribalism and into democracy. I don't support that approach for I consider it as generalizing and therefore invalid and as immoral as the Islamist view that All Infidels must be killed'. The two beliefs are identicial: the Western Nuke-Em and the Islamist 'Kill them all'.

I agree with what CJunk has written, and it is beholden on us to enable the men, women and children in these tribal areas to move out of the control of power-tribes and into democracy. That means enabling those Afghan children to go to school, and enabling Afghan women to insist on equality and give them the legal power to stand up to the Old Patriarchal Way.

I disagree with your and Kathy's Big Butch mode of killing all and everyone. That certainly won't help the situation. No, the bombing of Japan didn't set up a period of peace-by-fear of the US. It ended the Pacific WWII and enabled Japan to move out of its tribalism and its death-mode where it had trapped itself. There are other ways to move out of tribalism than killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.

And, particularly in these modern times, with the rise of the Internet and communication processes that can't be easily controlled by a dictator, the incremental approach, which includes a military component, plus education and economic infrastructural aid..is far superior to the 'nuke em' tactic. This doesn't accomplish anything constoructive, but instead, leaves a population (because you can't kill them all) insanely enraged, motivated by revenge and immune to progress.

Momar- your nuke-em of Japan, which you claim established the US as supreme did nothing to deal with the rise of communism..another type of collectivism, just as tribalism is also a collectivist social format..and did nothing to deal with the morass left by colonial France in Indonesia..and nothing to deal with the rise of Islamic fascism in the Middle East.

I agree with CJunk's outline, and give due credit and admiration for the work that our military, and that of others, are doing in that part of the world, to ease them out of tribalism and enable those people there, who want democracy, to have it...and don't assume that the Islamists are the majority..it's the 'regular people' who are the majority. We have to help them gain power.

"No, Kathy, your claim that 'ours is right, theirs is wrong' is exactly the same belief and verbiage as that used by the Islamists. Your agenda to 'blast them all' is exactly the same agenda as that of the Islamists."

ET your moral relativism is showing...
We didn't start out trying to kill them. We didn't start out trying to force them to change. That's without examining the finer points of Sharia...honour killings and genital mutilation!

I don't give a damn about trying to change their outlook, I give a damn about making them stop trying to change MINE! I give a damn about making them stop trying to kill ME! If them blown to smithereens is the only way to achieve that, then so be it. Kathy is right.

Agree with Cjunk and ET.

While I am in agreement with destroying the enemy cult ie: Bin Laden and his followers without mercy, the destruction of children and ignorant or innocent tribal folk is maddness and no different from genocide.

Shaidle I am ashamed of you.

I have little faith that our efforts in Afstan will come to much fruition - there is little political will for it and it is likely to be extremely expensive and kill a lot of worthy soldiers. I am still 100% supportive of our soldiers who have done the real work to try and rebuild the place.

As for our laws - no state and religious integration and that goes for Sharia.

Kathy Shaidle - I am trying to understand your frustration with the Muslim masses and the atrocities they commit each and every day on non-Muslims as well as on their own kind. I feel like hating the whole lot of them too at times, but then thankfully reason takes over and stops me from doing that.
You are wrong about Afghanistan. Our soldiers and NATO are doing a great job and the media does not tell us even 1% of the improvements that have happened in Afghan society since NATO's presence there.
Schools, hospitals, clinics, cinema houses, malls and small businesses are thriving all over Kabul and finding inroads in other parts of the country. Check YouTube to see a big mall that can rival any of ours here in Canada.
You know that the media only covers death and destruction and to show that we have made a headway in Afghanistan is not in the Left's interest.
Please change your views about ordinary Muslims. If they do not speak out against the fundamentalist nutjobs amongst them, it is out of fear for themselves and their families and not because they condone the killings.

An excellent article, and I linked to it in an post of my own.

No shame in acknowledging that trying to defeat the Taliban without making fundamentalist, literalist Islam illegal at the same time is futile. After all, when pretty much 100% of the population is staunchly Islamic, then bringing Western values to the country will be impossible, because the tyrannical majority (state and its supporting population of literalists) there will crush any semblance of belief therein.

Unless we're going to colonize and Westernize (ie. ban Islam) in Iraq and Afghanistan, then we're best advised to pull out. Any complaints that we're "abandoning the Afghan People" will be unrealistic, because we've already abandoned them by letting the likes of Karzai tyrannize them while we're sinking billions into that bottomless pit of darkness. Islam is the problem. Banning anything other than a New, Reformed, non-intolerant, non-supremacist, non-imperialist, egalitarian Islam, is the solution.

But as we're allowing Islamization to take place right here in the Western World, it's obvious that we're not going to do anything much, soon, about fundamentalist, Barbarian-Ages Islam anywhere on Earth.

Hey, Russia and China get away with crushing Islam as well as other modes of worship... why can't the West do the same? Why does the Left and the Western Big Media let those butcherous nations do whatever they want to Islamists and Islam, but we must allow ourselves to be Islamized here? WTF?

Besides, the Islamic/Arab World crushed anything and everyone non-Islamic, so who the feck are they to complain if we say, "No fundamentalist Islam will be practiced here, any more than white supremacism and neo-Nazism will be tolerated"?

After all, fundamentalist, literalist, ancient-in-the-contemporary-world Islam is very much like white supremacism, neo-Nazism, Communism and every bit as cruel, evil, torturous and murderous as those ideologies. It's correct and righteous to discourage it with a firm hand, just as it is to discourage any other ideology based on hatred and murder.

The Islamic World isn't Germany, nor is it Japan. It's a barbaric geopolitical region which has progressed scientifically, technologically and diplomatically while remaining as barbaric and evil as ever. It's no better than any other hateful extremist group in suits with mild, pleasant, diplomatic manners. They know they can't look and act like barbarians if they want to fool us into thinking they're just like us, only a little different. But they're not just like us, unless they're the slowly-growing minority of revolutionarily reformist Muslims.

Don't be fooled by the suits and pleasant demeanors of the likes of Mahmoud Abbas and Hamid Karzai, any more than you should be fooled by the same on the part of Putin/Medvedev, Hu Jintao, Hugo Chavez, Barack Obama, Michael Ignatieff...

Somewhere along the line "Islam", the political structure, got confused with "Muslims", the humans. It's like saying that communism is nasty, so lets nuke all people living under communist rule. My family sacrificed blood and treasure to rid Czechoslovakia of the commies ... but never considered the hard power only solution.

Why? Because it's barbaric.

Edward Teach, your last sentence 2:50 is my view and the crux of the matter. Queen Isabella (I believe)finally stopped them in Spain and the Viennese also stopped them at the gates of Vienna. If ET's method doesn't work after an honest effort, then before it is too late, we have to use Kathy's method. To our detriment, I do not see the current crop of politicians having that resolve and our leftist educational system is stealing our backbone in the name "can't we just all get along". In their own way the leftists think they will convert the Islamists, but they are mistaken. The Islamists want power on their terms, not some accomodation.

Afghanistan will never (or at least in the next 10 years) become anything like a liberal democracy, so we might as well forget about trying.

On the other hand, what is absolutely essential is to defend the liberal democracy tradition of the West, against the attacks of Islamism and its the multi-culti collaborators. The West can lose, but only if we allow it to, inside our civilization. I.e., Islamism is not an external threat to the West, it is an internal threat.

Nevertheless, since Western values are intrinsically superior, I am convinced they will win, in the West, as well as in the rest of the developed, and developing, world. (See e.g. the slow but steady progress in Asia.)

Fight or flight - it is always a fine line decision and not so wide a chasm as appears in this thread.

Excellent article, thanks Kate.

More of this would help us to say 'let them sort it out themselves'.

Unless we're going to colonize and Westernize (ie. ban Islam) in Iraq and Afghanistan, then we're best advised to pull out
- Canadian Sentinel

I agree with every syllable in your post, CS. This has been my problem all along: the pussy-footing, multi-culti, hearts and minds, outreach bullshit. While Kathy Shaidle expresses herself in a deliberately over-the-top provocative manner -- which is not my personal style, and which may undermine the conservative position -- I agree with her essential premise: half measures are worse than no measures at all. I have concluded that the western elites are engaged in an elaborate game of moral posturing, do not understand the centrality of Islam in this, are not up to the task at hand and on top of all this, continue to appease Islam at home. Therefore, it's best to pull the plug. It does fallen soldiers no honour to persist in pointlessly adding to the body count. You don't "piss on soldiers' graves" by facing the reality of the futility of the project.

Go back to the beginning. Did the US use overwhelming force to exterminate the Taliban? That should have been its sole and just reaction to 9/11 followed by a hasty exit leavng a unequivocal message: don't feck with the US.

This is not a nation-building age. It's a poseur age. Nation building is r-a-c-i-s-t!

The problem with Kathy's 'solution', apart from its unsaleability, is that it'd stir up an absolute shitstorm of revenge around the globe. We simply don't have any way of defending Western interests against terrorism on the scale that would ensue.
Fer crissake, we're still being pilloried for nuking Japan, 60+ years later!
The other point is that what exactly would Kathy suggest nuking? Some Godforsaken mountain village of a couple hundred people?!
Even in that hotbed of terrorist enclaves, the Swat Valley, the locals have welcomed the eradication of the Taliban, so yes, there is progress and some hope...http://www.ptinews.com/news/259095_Over-100-Taliban-militants-surrender-in-Swat-valley
One small victory at a time.

The root of all this problem is the indoctrination in our media and schools that western colonialism/imperialism is evil and these barbaric societies are somehow enlightened.
Nuking these barbarians is not evil unless you style God as evil----the Great Flood (Noah and all that), and then more recent Sodom and Gomorrah, and more yet more recent still Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
To win first the enemy must be defeated----convinced....and nothing is more convincing than nukes----which is why Kim and the Norks, Iran and Ahmsuchasmuck are seeking to develop them....to use on us....not as conversation pieces.

Edward Teach - I am not in the least morally relativistic. Because I am saying that the two opposing sides are saying exactly the same thing, which they are, doesn't make ME morally relativistic. It makes me an objective observer. It's a fact; both sides are saying the same thing - 'Kill all the Others'.

No, we didn't start out trying to kill them but that's not the point. The real problem and the cause of Islamism, or Islamic fascism, is that these states are trapped within a tribal 7th century political mode which has become dysfunctional in the 20th c. The old tribal hierarchy are trying to retain power rather than moving to enable and empower a middle class.

So, they are using a repressive Islamism to achieve this repression of the people, and also, diverting the focus of their unempowered youth from their lack of internal economic and political power by the 'Blame the West' strategy.

The way to stop them from attacking us is to enable them to move out of tribalism and into a democracy that will empower a free middle class.

Cjunk - exactly, Islamism, the fundamentalist power structure is not identical with Muslims, a people. And I agree with you - generalizing All Muslims as to be also All Islamists is a barbaric action on our part.

Ken - the 14th c Islamic military and economic wars are not the same as fascist Islamism. That was a period of mercantile expansion - non-industrial expansion - of nations that were primarily ALL tribal politically. This modern era is different.

You now have a massive population repressed within a tribal hierarchy, unable to take control of their own governance and economy, kept rigidly contained within this repressive regime - and yet, living within an industrial economy.

This economy is only able to operate by virtue of oil, not by the business enterprises of its citizens. This is a fake-industrialism, a PONZI scheme industrialism...and ready to collapse like a deck of cards without that constant oil money input. I repeat - you've got a PONZI economy in the Middle East, and, the people have no power to break out of it. It's kept stable by rigid religious-law repression..and it can't last.

The Old Guard are trying to retain tribal power and authority, but, repression takes a lot of energy ..eg what's happening in Iran. It can't last, because a one-product economy (oil)operating as a PONZI economy is unstable. They have to enable a middle class..and we have to help them.

Remember, that Japan was occupied after the war, and a great deal of time and work was spent on moving them into democracy and out of tribalism. So, the 'bomb' didn't accomplish this; the years of Occupation did.

Cjunk said "Somewhere along the line "Islam", the political structure, got confused with "Muslims", the humans. It's like saying that communism is nasty, so lets nuke all people living under communist rule."

I think it's more like saying Communism is evil so lets nuke the Marxists, Trotskites, Lenonists, etc. You don't get to say I'm not a Communist I'm a Marxist and get off the hook. Which is what Muslims seem to be doing.

Being a Muslim is just a variation of being an Islamist. The end game is the same.

I'm with Kathy Shaidle.

No, Gord, you are quite wrong - being Muslim is not the same as an Islamist.

You are confusing the terms of 'Islamic' and 'Islamist'. The latter term has come to mean Islamic fascism. Some who is an Islam or Muslim is not necessarily also an Islamic fascist or Islamist.

For example, Salim Mansur, who writes very intelligent articles for the Toronto Sun, is a Muslim. He is most definitely not an Islamist. The same with Tarek Fatah, who is Muslim and extremely critical of Islamists/Islamic fascists. And Irshad Manji, the lesbian writer who is a Muslim but not an Islamist. There are a lot of others in the Muslim world who are Muslim but not Islamist.

me no dhimmi - you don't exterminate' the Taliban. That rests on an assumption that there are only x-number of Taliban, and once you kill them all, that's it. But that's not reality. The Taliban militant is replacable; kill one, and two more pop up. Therefore, you have to focus on the 'soil' in which they 'pop up'..not on the simplistic act of killing that one representative.

Excellent article which makes clear the choices that have to be made. There are certain questions that cannot be settled by debate and can only be settled by violence; the dispute between the western legacy of reason with individual freedom and islamism is one of them. The only solution is to kill any islamist that threatens our way of life. This should be done reflexively with the same swiftness that one handles a cockroach infestation in ones home.

How best to do this is not settled but the current process of appeasment is wrong. The first step is to prohibit islamists immigrating to this country. Only individuals who agree to renounce islam should be allowed to come here and I've known many secular Afghanis and Iranians who have absolutely no interest in islam and have fully accepted the western weltanschauung. The penalty for lying about renouncing islam should be immediate deportation back to whence they came from.

The other thing to consider is that for a large number of people the freedom represented by the western way of life seems overly chaotic and frightening and they take refuge in religions that make all of their decisions for them. There are a lot of people like this in the world and I don't have a solution for dealing with them. I think that the people who frequent SDA are so individualistic, self assured and comfortable in their freedom that they don't consider this large chunk of humanity that needs some external source of order. The islamists have been very successful in providing this sense of order to these people and we don't have anything concrete to replace it with. Freedom is a great concept but not everyone can handle it.

Oops, posted too fast. The corrected sentences in my post should read:
Only individuals who agree to renounce islamism should be allowed to come here . .
and
The penalty for lying about renouncing islamism should be immediate deporation back to whence they came from.

loki - what an interesting perspective - to kill any and all Islamists 'who threaten our way of life'. As I've noted, this is exactly the same point of view of the Islamist - to kill any and all non-Islamists, who are equally viewed, just by being non-Muslim, as threatening their way of life. Again, don't mix up the terms: A Muslim is not also a fascist (Islamist).

You don't, however, say how this will be done. If the individual is preaching against our way of life, do you..ahh..take him to court..or simply shoot him? What if he's a Canadian citizen - how do you deport him? Do you kill only the non-Canadians?

As for people feeling more secure within a framework that reduces the number of individual decisions, this is actually indicative of a large number of all populations. Some accept the decisions of religion, usually the more orthodox religious groups, within Judaism, Christianity, Islam. Some move into political ideologies such as communism. Some move into cults. But most of us don't want to live, every day all day, making decisions. That's why we also have the Rule of Law.

McCarthy's conclusion largely hinges on the - undeniable - fact that Islam is globally manifest and immutable, and cannot be defeated. But defeating Islam was never the goal, so the existence of Islam as a global force isn't an argument against the mission, just as the fact that military force will never vanquish the religious views of the Taliban is no argument for allowing the enclaves of (relative) peace that have been established through force, in a country strategically situated between Pakistan and Iran, to revert back to them. We will never decisively defeat "crime" here on our own soil, but that's not an argument for not taking action; when the police move against pimps and drug dealers in certain neighborhoods, they're not attempting to eliminate crime once and for all, they're doing it for the benefit of society, and so that those who live in the area can feel safe letting their kids walk to school, etc.

I'd like to point out - preemptively, I hope - that I'm *not* attempting to draw an equivalence between a foreign mission and domestic law enforcement; I'm merely pointing out that the fact that we are unable to eradicate something -- "crime" or "Islamism" or "disease" -- doesn't mean taking action is unwarranted.

ET (10:05) wrote "I don't think (the degree of support for the Islamic Fascism) is as immense as (McCarthy) suggests." In the specific case of Afghanistan, I strongly agree. Criminals in the west -- gangs, say, -- may control certain areas through fear of violence, but that doesn't mean people in the area support them. Similarly, the polling which consistently shows that a substantial majority of Afghans in the NATO-patrolled areas want the troops to stay pretty much proves that most locals don't see the mission as part of a war against Islam. Put differently, they don't see the Taliban as the representatives of Islam, even as those who support McCarthy's argument are arguably doing just that.

McCarthy, in effect, is suggesting that we abandon the best and brightest and most forward-thinking of the Afghan people, in order to do something that *sounds* good but is far more nebulous: "Instead of worrying about democracy in Afghanistan, we need to worry about democracy in America." If only his (our) "worry" about American democracy could translate into the sort of tangible (for the locals, not for the "mission" or the politics of it) results seen in Afghanistan.

He's right in the sense that whenever the ideals of "democracy" are extrapolated onto foreign cultures, the political angle at home is freighted with unachievable goals and political fist fights. But I'd suggest that the basic idea underlying nascent democracy -- in this case, a realization that if the majority, in their private views, want the Taliban to stop controlling everyone's lives, then it can happen -- IS a very powerful starting point for the mergence of a middle class, and a more modern and safe society. Those who have been to Afghanistan (albeit in the safer areas that are made possible by the work going on in the unsafe combat zones) see huge progress; analysts, and/or those who are looking long term, and strategically, and politically, and trying to guess future levels of political support at home for the mission down the road, are less hopeful. Since the possibility of stability and advancement in Afghanistan is almost entirely predicated on the degree of, er, if not hope, non-pessimism about the mission in the west, it's best to look at the positives -- and there are lots of positives. If one views the mission as being about the defeat of Islamism itself, then the mission is doomed, of course.

Btw, I suggest that Kathy would steadfastly support the worthwhileness of the mission, and in the strongest and most inflammatory terms, if the Taliban were black-hearted Prots and not Islamists.

/:>*>

et said "For example, Salim Mansur, who writes very intelligent articles for the Toronto Sun, is a Muslim"

All of the Muslims you mention are very intelligent people and I have the utmost respect for them as individuals. But, they're Muslims. To me it's like saying someone is a "good biker" or "good gangster" or "good Nazi". A lot of Klansmen were nice guys, same with Black Panthers etc. But they also bought into a package that makes them think as a group instead of as an individual. Plus the aims of these groups aren't altruistic but basically evil.

My nickel is with Kathy. The best solution is to eliminate the problem.

ET I appreciate your analysis and believe it correct, but the weakness is that it ignores the on-going surrender to Islamist demands by the West and the UN. I know you do not support this type of surrender but it is still happening which changes the situation in my opinion. The suggestion "to nuke them" is not realistic, since we are dealing with an ideology/mind-set rather than a clear target. However I believe that the on-going, piece by piece, surrender to Islamism/Sharia, will sooner or later force us into the situation of us versus them, like it or not.

At the same time I can understand why Muslim countries reject what we call democracy, because they see it linked to what Western culture has become with all its warts and uglyness. This also provides fodder for recruiting Islamists among the Muslim population and explains why so many young Muslims born and raised in the West are attracted to Islamism.

In light of this and the general inaction of Western governments in recognising the problem, I am not optimistic concerning the survival of Western civilisation.

I apologize for being off topic here, but I just cam accross the following healdine which I had to change due to proafanity:

Glenn Beck news show listed on cablevision DVR as_________.

http://www.breitbart.tv/cablevision-dvr-listing-for-fox-news-beck-show-listed-as-glenifck/

"While the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are God-given (as the Founders believed and asserted in the Declaration of Independence), we are not obliged to promote or defend those rights everywhere in the world to the detriment (if not destruction) of our own society."

As our own SCC pondered whether captured Taliban fighters were covered by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And the MSM and liberal politicians cry out for the safe return of permanently 14 year old "little Omar Khadr".

We are too "civilized" for our own good.

ET, you know I respect your opinion, but how do you suggest we move Islamic/Islamist Countries out of tribalism to democracy, a process that took us several centuries, in only a few years?

Are we condemned to keeping "peacekeepers" in every tribal Country in the world while we try to educate the masses, or enough of the masses to allow THEM to take over government of their Country?

Afghanistan and Iraq are only two of many Nations that present the problem of Islamist influence on their youth, and the resultant jihad, against US.

Next stop,where? Sudan,Iran, Turkey,Libya,Indonesia,Kazakhstan,Uzbekistan, Tajikstan,Chechnya, the Phillipines?

While I laud the work of our personnel in trying to bring some semblance of democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq, it seems like they're trying to patch a sieve,one hole at a time.

Arm our boys to the teeth, put a General Patton in charge.

ET, you make good points though I would hardly paint the Japanese as "tribal". Though savage, they possessed a kind of sophistication that truly tribal cultures possess. Just a quibble.
Islam and its adherents would have to change from the ground up. Theologically, it would have to transform into something else entirely. For countries like Afghanistan to truly enter the twenty-first century, they cannot accept Islam as their defining code. It just can't work. I'm not seeing how.
Also, the cultures in question have to change on their own. Perhaps we can make it possible by not accepting the tribalism and the ugliness it involves and helping true reformers.
Just my thoughts.

We have a real conundrum here in the west as our basic freedoms and rights are used against us by this tide of muslims pouring into our countries. For every Hirshi Ali and Salim Mansur who sees the dangers of this theocracy and warns against it we have our laws that allow islamism the right to countenance the overthrow of our society in our own heartland.

As Ali has written the muslims coming to our shores now are coming for our welfare payments and social structures like our stupid multiculturalism to enable them to live in isolated communities. These people have no respect or interest in our "values" as McCarthy has stated they reject our democratic ideals and demand Sharia law.

Yesterday here in WASP Leaside I saw a woman in my library in full burka and veil. It seemed a little strange to see a woman wearing the garb of this backward culture in a country with laws that defend her right not to be forced to wear such garb that is required in her male dominated culture. IMHO women who wear this are making a political statement. The young woman across the street is a teacher and told me the muslims in her class have told her we are ALL muslims in Canada. The boys have zero respect for women including their mothers, only their fathers have a discipline influence on them.

Kathy, you can't nuke all muslims but we can, if we have the courage but with Iggy and bin Layton I'm not encouraged to stop all further immigration of muslims to Canada as the ones coming here now are a real danger to Canada whereas the earlier ones that I have spoken to many times came to get away from islamic fundamentalism and their goal of returning to the 7th century.

Time is not on our side with our demographics but ET's way is the only long term solution. The Pakistan military finally realized the direct threat the taliban is to them and have acted accordingly in the interest of self-preservation. Keep the muslims in their current countries must be the West's mantra and if they become democratic with a vibrant middle class great but if not keep them contained so they continue killing each other.

"..the weakness is that it ignores the on-going surrender to Islamist demands by the West and the UN"

This is the problem, not Islamism in itself.

As stated earlier, "what is absolutely essential is to defend the liberal democracy tradition of the West, against the attacks of Islamism and its the multi-culti collaborators. The West can lose, but only if we allow it to, inside our civilization. I.e., Islamism is not an external threat to the West, it is an internal threat."

You would have to ask for clarification ET so I'll try to provide it. I think that the best example of what the bedrock principles of western civilization are can be found in the US constitution. The US is one of the few countries that has been as explicit in doing so but, to varying degrees, all free western nations can agree with these principles.

While the authors of the US constitution were incredibly prescient in coming up with a document which has stood up for the last 200+ years, they probably didn't envision a stealthy islamic invasion of the US. Demographically, if current trends continue, muslims will make up a substantial minority of the US population if they persist in "breeding like mosquito's" (to use the phrase of one of their European clerics).

Islamism is diametrically opposed to western values and has explicitly stated its aims to outbreed non-islamic populations to take over countries by sheer force of numbers at a future time which may be 50-100 years in the future. One thing religions are good at is operating on time scales of hundreds and even thousands of years and this is what makes them dangerous.

To me it is perfectly clear that when someone makes a threat of this nature that it needs to be countered. This only requires altering ones right to freedom of religion slightly. I've always been uncomfortable with the freedom of religion as one can pass off anything as a "religion". All that is necessary to do is to outlaw any religions that have as their aim the overthrow of western values. This would allow for execution of their most extreme advocates and the large scale deportation of individuals who are attempting to create a demographic islamist time-bomb in western countries. Islamism should be treated the same way in N. America as Christian missionaries are treated in Saudi Arabia.

The secular nature of the state should be made very clear and any religion that attempts to usurp powers of the state should feel the wrath of state power. In this case what the state is mandating is individual freedom and freedom from religious authority of all individuals. Thus, any individuals that take part in any way in an honor killing should be executed. Parents that attempt to prevent their daughters from being educated should have their children taken away from them as the last thing this society needs is more uneducated people. Islamic schools should be abolished as they serve merely as indoctrination centers. Would be immigrants should be made clearly aware of what type of society they are coming into and if they aren't prepared to change then stay home.

What surprises me is that the ZPG advocates who rant on about excess population growth in N. America havent zeroed in on muslim populations that are growing far faster than any group. This is the same type of offence that a cancer has in the body and the solution is simple; cut it out.

Unfortunately I don't have much hope of rational policies like this ever being enacted as most people will like be totally oblivious of the threat until it is too late.

If Islam wins and takes over the world. Even if in some arrangement with China and India. Although with nuclear weapons, I suspect they might attempt a global move and nuke all who resist. Sort of if they can't have the entire planet, then no one gets it.

Consider that Islamic culture does not particularly show any environmentalist concerns whatsoever. Over-population seems fine with them considering their birth rates. And ... Islam is the antithesis of PETA.

I do not believe that they could be trusted to safeguard the billions of tons of chemical waste, radio active materials, toxins and poisons that are bring warehoused in perpetuity by a responsible West. Even Russia has lost track of a lot of it's contaminants and who is going to do anything about it?

Does anyone think the Muslim world will suddenly stop killing any and all infidels or each other for that matter .... EVER?

Theirs is a bizarre way of life and it's bred in the bone. They are the Yang to our Yin. It will come down to the biggest monkey rules just like it has aways been. Who most wants to win!

Imagine what this world would be like if there was no Islam? Really ... imagine ...

Somewhere in a dusty old tome I read long ago are these words. "For lack of vision the people perish".

So it is with Islam as it is with post Christian western thought (aka socialism).

Democracy stems from two seemingly dispirit yet vital views of mankind.

1)Mankind must be seen as a fallen creature.
2)All mankind must be seen as equal.

The first, fallen nature, allows us to put up the checks and balances needed to keep evil people from imposing evil on society as a whole. In other words when Bob Rae tells a blatant falsehood on the radio he is called on it and his comments are not allowed to stand.
Second, equality of mankind, allows everyone to have an opinion and the society as a whole pick the opinion that most closely allies with what is seen as best practice. These two in combination allow things to change as time goes on. Thus programs that yesterday seemed sacrosanct now seem oppressive and are thereupon discarded.

Islam contains neither of these and thus is bound to produce autocratic dictatorships and petty tyrannies just as does modern socialism.

In that same dusty old tome I referenced earlier it tells us to chose the ones we would believe (aka vision) and now, for the west, is that time to choose.

in order to change the overall mindset of the average islamist you're going to have to eradicate as many of the troublemakers as possible......AND their mentors....which means the lead pill obviously

showing success in a sociopoliticaleconomic sense in iraq and afgan won't hurt either....

so carry on as before...except more so....and put more pressure on the domestic brand of these assholes...all these shit disturber fifth columnists in eyroop and nord america need a lot more pressure brought to bear....more prosecutions for domestic troublemakers and many many deportations is a good start...

"hard pounding this...let us see who can pound the longest."

I see this thread is still going on, so I'll add another 2 cents.

The other day I saw the European replacement rate, and regrettably I've forgotten the specific figures, but Islamic birth rates were at least 2 or 3 times higher than the other citizens of Europe.

Soon Europe will be Islamic, irrespective of how our foreign policy and military plans go. If the US depended on the Detroit area to define our politics, we would be an Islamic nation already.

All you have to do is get enough of an adult population voting for Islamic principles, and you're toast anyway.

One of the reasons that people like Kathy argue so ferociously for aggression toward Islam is that our politicans don't do it.

The fact is that Western policies vary from country to country. Policies toward the Middle East often float on political expediency and the aspirations of mediocre people who wish to hold office.

In the US we have a great Constitution and Declaration of Independence, but so far that has not stopped Marxist-leaning politicians from getting elected. They are more concerned about imposing leftist agendas on health care, education, and businesses than they are about dealing substantially with the Middle East.

There is no carefully thought out and enduring policy in respect to our relations with Afghanistan or Iraq. In fact the policies change with the elections. There is no universal game plan.

And now with the Black Zero in command with his inordinate sympathies and perhaps even marginal affiliations with Islam, I doubt if we will be seeing a policy about which we can have much agreement.

It sort of depends on who outlasts the other. Our politicians will not restrict Islamic immigration. They continue to reproduce and spread out in our cultures. Will we still be standing when 60% of Europe is Islamic? Will we still have strong Western countries fighting to preserve our vision of the way life should be? Or are we just fighting holding actions until they have voting superiority.

Osumashi - you misunderstand the academic meaning of 'tribal'.

It doesn't mean, as you imply, a primitive savage; it means a particular mode of societal organization based around the concept of Kinship. People are organized within kinship networks, these are hereditary networks, and in large tribal societies, there is a hierarchy of tribes or kin networks, with one or more functioning as hereditary leaders.

This type of societal organization is extremely stable (because it's hereditary) - but - it works only in a no-growth agricultural society. It has no capacity to provide innovative adaptation..which requires a set of people who DISSENT and do things differently.

This 'dissenting' group is the middle class, and it develops in a multimillion size population that requires a flexible mindset, capable of developing new technology.

loki - I certainly agree with you about the US Declaration and its Constitution. Both are remarkable documents that attest the highest capability of human reason and morality.

Dave - I agree with you about the woman in full burka - it's a clear statement that asserts "I don't want to integrate with you'. But, the same can be said about other parts of Toronto, where, for example, the Jewish Hassidic community clearly, by dress and behaviour, 'say' the same thing. The Chinese community doesn't have a religion but they are deeply superstitious, and all behaviour has to follow these rules (moving day must be on a 'lucky day'; phone numbers must include the number '8'..remember, the Beijing Olympics were deliberately in 2008)...etc. Same thing.

Australia has it right - every visa entrant and immigrant MUST read and sign a legal document that states that they agree to abide by the laws of Australia, and its basic cultural values of equality of gender, rule of law, and..the use of English. Canada ought to do the same. We must demand basic integration - basic not complete - but basic integration.

Islamism, as a political infrastructure of tribal hierarchies, with its rejection of individualism, democracy (i.e., a middle class); the use of reason, science etc..is unable to function as an industrial nation.

Therefore, the Middle East nations that are WITHOUT oil (and remember, this oil has to be extracted and processed by the West because the ME hasn't a clue about the technology to do so).....either remain operating in a non-industrial peasant agriculturalism..which cannot support their burgeoning populations..or..they move into the modern industrial economy.

To function in a modern industrial economy, without the back-up of oil, the people MUST be middle class. That is, these people must have the economic and political clout to set up small and medium size businesses, set up local and international trade etc...This means that they must be democracies..for the definition of a democracy is that its political base ..are a free people.

That also means that Islam, as an ideology, will have to modernize. It will have to move out of gender inequality..and after all, at one time in the West, gender inequality was the norm; it will have to move out of an economy based around the kin group (tribe) and insteaad, move into an economy based around the individual and the nuclear family. No more kin-network politics and economic Big Families. These nations will have to modernize. They have no choice. At the moment, the Old Tribes are trying to retain power, but, it can't last.

As for the West - the 1960's idiocy of cultural relativism must end, multiculturalism must end, and countries must expect immigrants to integrate and obey the rule of law in the country.

Islam - not just islamism or islamofascism, but Islam itself - is completely incompatible with democracy. As everyone knows, Turkey became democratic to the degree that it became de-islamized. If there is a single serious exception I'm missing, please tell me what it is.

Individual Moslems can be citizens in a democratic country of course but only, I believe, to the extent that they aren't really serious Moslems (you know, the way Catholics who support abortion may go to church for the social life and so forth but aren't really serious Catholics). Islam is explicitly political and totalitarian; its bedrock principles make any seperation of Mosque and State impossible, and Sharia makes the idea of a parliament blasphemous.

I hoped that Iraq could become a functioning democracy; I think a lot of people believed that the Iraqis were a well educated and civilized people by Middle Eastern standards, and that a lot of them might, you know, not really mean it all that much. Not much more than a few weeks ago I had some (faint) hopes for Iran on the same grounds. The Ayatollahs don't represent the people, who are very young and I think relatively secular. I also suspect it's possible that the Shi'ia are not quite as nuts as the Sunni.

But Afghanistan? It's astonishingly backward hill-tribe pre-medieval bandit country. Regarding their treatment of women, they might as well be from another planet. They won't become civilized without being colonized for at least a couple of centuries, which would be the best thing if it were possible, but the West doesn't do that anymore (America never did, and if you say "the Philippines" I say "bite me").

And no, we can't nuke 'em, because we don't do that either (If you say "Hiroshima..."). I get that it's tempting; but it's also pretty evil.

Meanwhile, a mosque is going up two blocks from my place, defacing one of Halifax's very few genuinely interesting historical buildings. I'm thrilled, because I'm assuming it'll be "Little Mosque by the Harbour", and... no, wait, who the hell wants to be in a CBC sitcom? I'm not thrilled.

You don't have to kill all of them. That's inhumane, and counter-productive. Just track down and kill all Al Qaeda, all Muslim Brotherhood, all Salafists, all the millenialist Shiites in Iran, and every goddamn Imam, Cadi, Mullah and satrap that is part of the scheme. And if new ones pop up, whack them, too.

If you want to destroy an evil ideology, destroy those who preach it, and those who profit by it.

ET said "As for the West - the 1960's idiocy of cultural relativism must end, multiculturalism must end, and countries must expect immigrants to integrate and obey the rule of law in the country."

Bang on ET. We seem to have people coming here as refugees and trying to turn this country into the country they just left. There's a reason why Canada and the USA are so great. We're not them and we shouldn't become them.

Seriously beginning to think ET went to the Chamberlain School Of Peace. He wanted Nazism,she wants to debate while Islam and its peadophile jerkoff try to take over western civilization.There are scared people,there are cowards,and then there are those who would debate while Western Civilization is burning. Agree 100% with Kathy. You do not get rid of a sick viral infection by feeding it candy.As someone here stated,this is NOT a case where the nice guys will finish first. I don't know who came up with that saying,but I am willing to bet they where either a chicken shite,a lefturd,a nutcase,a diplomat,a debator, or all 5.

Perhaps North America should just surrender to China. They already have most of the money in the world, and, if they had a dog in this fight, they would not take any shit from the Islamists. We get our money back and the other problem gets solved as well.

Shaidle's not even original: just repeating Coulter's "invade them all, kill their leaders, convert em to Christianity". She's a failed wannabe Coulter, retailing racism for the likes of Greg "The black zero" in Dallas.

ET: Thank you ... perfectly said.

The West won the Cold War, a far more daunting task than defending against Islam. It was a multiple decades struggle, with a fifth column within the West attempting at all costs to trip us up. But in the end, we won through incredible perseverance and because our values were superior.

Islam does not, in any way shape or form, pose the same level of threat that did communism. It poses a minuscule threat to our lives at this time; and militarily poses virtually no threat at all.

If it encroaches on our institutions and way of life, it is our own fault. What good is the barbaric Shaidle solution, if we allow Sharia into our economic system, our legal code, and cultural institutions. What is there to gain, by killing thousands of completely innocent civilians to get at one Taliban thug or one Mullah, if we allow large enclaves to exist in our midst. We'll lose anyway.

This is a complex, multifaceted cold war, that involves economics, occasional violence, expeditionary forces, occupations, domestic political solution, and even global geological realities, and most important of all; a war against ignorance. That’s why ISAF has put such a premium on schools.

The Nuke'em attitude is born of ignorance as well, and is a form of sadism ... since the vast majority of Muslims pose no direct threat to the West that can't easily be solved through the legislative process. Counselling to kill great quantities of innocent civilians, at this time, is inhumane ... and devoid of the very principles that have made our modern Western civilization superior. Only during times of total war have we done so, and only when facing contemporary forces.

The Cold War took decades to win ... this "war" is a cake walk comparatively if we have the will to see it through. The Shaidle solution is the "Putin" solution ... the "Saddam" solution ... the William Calley solution. It is every bit as barbaric as anything the "other side" might come up with. In fact, I’d call it the My Lai mindset. “Oh look ... there’s fire coming from that school ... call in a B-52 strike and kill each and every women and child to get the four thugs who are forcibly keeping the civilians there.”

I’m amazed at how little we’ve learned from the thousands of US soldiers who fought in Iraq and whose stories are told again and again on websites. The Yon picture of the soldier holding the dying little girl is us ... the West ... and it is why we have created such a successful civilization. Virtually no soldiers come home suggesting Shaidle-type barbarism ... and this from soldiers who have slaughtered Muslim combatants by the ship load. From Yon to Petreaus, they all understand that Muslim civilians are the prime victims of Islam, but that they have no or little recourse. To suggest that our soldiers are wasting their lives insults them ... insults what they believe in ... and makes a mockery of the incredible ambassadors of Western enlightenment that they are. If you want to insult a soldier, treat him like a felon or a victim. In this conflict, they are neither.

We are killing incredible numbers of enemy combatants right now, each night. We are using hard power on a scale few understand ... the body-counts are huge. Taliban are perishing in Afghanistan in numbers that would make one cringe ... yet at the same time, hardly ever do we harm civilians, and then only by accident. It’s what makes us better ... what makes us post-modern ... and why we win. It’s why terrorist attacks seldom take place in Kandahar City ... because the people are on our side. It’s why the Taliban must skulk around Kabul ... because the people are on our side. It’s why the Taliban must behead and terrorize ... because it’s the only way they can control the tribes.

And finally, the Shaidle solution would guarantee only one thing; that terrorism would thrive and grow like we’ve never seen ... we’d lose cities, malls, and tens of thousands of civilians. It’s precisely the “lack” of support for terrorism among Muslims, that makes for so few attacks at this time. Because, as you know, any boob could take out the Mall down the street. It’s easier than bombing an Afghan village.

In ET's rosy view of things: "That also means that Islam, as an ideology, will have to modernize"

ET, there is absolutely no reason for islam to modernize as it has over 1000 years of success being its hostile unchanging self. It is a malignant meme that that is hostile to individual freedom. The only way deal with it is to destroy it. This just happens to be one of those situations where the only options are to fight or surrender and the time to fight is now when we have the technologic superiority to crush islam.

There have been some derivatives of islam that are not as close-minded as the current wahabist strain which is in most need of elimination; I was quite surprised to find that sufism had islamic roots.

Afghanistan is one place where it will be possible to see if it is possible to turn peoples thinking around if our troops stay there long enough. It will take at least one generation of occupation to make a difference and this means teaching western ideas in the schools and making sure that all girls go to school as it's much harder to suppress educated women brought up on ideals of personal freedom. Perhaps the female curriculum could include liberal doses of martial arts training as well as small arms instruction.

bleet - While I certainly disagree with some of what Shailde posted earlier on this thread, the woman is brilliant, fearless, honest, original and hilarious, a supremely talented blogger. YOU are a Ulianov wannabe. So shut up.

Afghanistan is one place where it will be possible to see if it is possible to turn peoples thinking around if our troops stay there long enough.

We're trying to turn people's thinking around in Afghanistan? Who knew?

And for another stunning success story on changing attitudes through building schools please turn to Africa.

Sorry if I sound snotty loki but education for the sake of education has no relevance until the base belief is modified.

An old carpenter friend of mine once told me that he gave more attention to building the foundation of a house than he did to building the rest of the house. As he explained, "If the foundation of the house is not true the rest of the house will also be untrue".

If there remains any doubt about that old carpenter's wisdom and its application to this topic simply look at the real Islamic terrorists and find out how much education they have. To my mind they are a bunch of nut bars but I must admit they are well educated nut bars nonetheless.

Well, I do agree with Shaidle on at least one point...she certainly IS impatient. The problem with solutions deriving from impatience is that they seldom work as intended. Now, as a “black-hearted Prot”, excusing the sins of Papists is not my métier, but Kathy’s bilious hyperbole may have a kernel of ethical legitimacy. One can certainly argue that the presumption of collective guilt obviates the “innocent bystander” argument, and that blithely encouraging moral hazard is folly. The question is then one of appropriate response. It may be that some here are presuming she is advocating an indiscriminate and individual destruction, rather than a societal and cultural destruction. I believe she means the latter. In which case, she and the “democracy builders” are merely arguing tactics, not strategy. In the words of EBD, “[i]f one views the mission as being about the defeat of Islamism itself, then the mission is doomed, of course.” And Shaidle sees it as their defeat.

My favour for the "nuke-em" policy is pure pragmatism...
Any protests that by killing them makes us no better than the islamists is just plain sophistry. Imagine....calling off D-day because we would be invading, killing etc.....would make us no better than the NAZIs. Just imagine!!!!

Is it me or are C-Junk and ET just parroting business as usual?

Look, the object of war it to kill the enemy. Citizens who quake before their leadership are sadly, combatants.

C-Junk, I think attitudes of Islamic Canadians will soften quickly when their home countries will to fight collapses in the face of Western steel and will.

ET, if you think we ought to pussyfoot around a religion that mutilates women, imprisons women, controls its citizens with unimaginable violence.... then tough. We got the bomb and they don't.

And they want the bomb. Just what do you think Islamists will do with it?

The ONLY reason they persist is they have not yet met an enemy determined to fight by their rules. They use our rules of engagement against us. Rules of engagement that people like you CJunk, and you ET burnish with your intellect and "wisdom".

black mamba

If Shaidle's lobbing of kneejerk racial epithets is so fearless and brilliant to you why not spell her name right?

Shaidle: "I supported the war because I hated the anti-war crowd."

Gee, what brilliant, deep thinking. What principles. She supported the war out of spite. I'm sure all the soldiers who've given their lives would appreciate dying for Shaidle's envy and spite.

Shaidle: "Yes, it is different because as you said in your previous sentence, all belief systems are not alike.

Ours is right. There's is wrong. They believe they are superior to everyone, when it is patently obvious that they are backwards.

We in the West believe the exact opposite: that all people are created equal, and yet we are obviously superior to many others."

Wow. What deep thinking. I generally reject arguments that are flatly nonsensical and sound like they've been written by four year olds. Don't you?

Oh, I forgot: you're Black Mamba, who thinks "Shut up" is the height of witty repartee.

Cjunk - exactly- Your whole post is absolutely perfect and says it all. Thank you.

the West won the Cold War, which was an ideological and technological war against communism - an ideology that privileged science and technology even as it denigrated the economic viability of a middle class. And that's why it won - because communism rejects the free middle class.

There is no comparison with Islamism, which is a fascist ideology that rejects reason, science and a middle class economy..and therefore, cannot survive without OIL. Without oil, Islamic fascism is a ragtag of radicals - and the way to deal with thugs like this, is to use the multi-faceted approach that CJunk has outlined.

And yes, if Islam encroaches on our way of life in the West, then it is indeed totally our own fault, our own political correctness, cultural relativism, multiculturalist stupidity. And Shaidle's solution is both barbaric and useless. Because killing innocent civilians or non-fascist Muslims will only enrage a people into a mindset of endless revenge. Shaidle's 'final solution' will actually INCREASE the strength of Islamic fascism!

loki - what 'rosy' picture? I'm a realist, and Islam has to modernize. Why? Because the nations that follow Islam cannot support their exponentially increased populations without moving into an industrial economy.

Islam is a TRIBAL ideology that functions only in a non-industrial no-growth, sustenance agriculturalism. Read the Qu'ran and hadith - these are based around a peasant tribalism and a bare sustenance economy (pastoral nomadic primarily). Since this ideology rejects individualism, reason and science, then, the ideology does not enable change. BUT the population requires industrialism to sustain it.

And an industrial economy requires a middle class - who control the political and economic activities of the nation. And the middle class functions only within democracy. And, an industrial economy requires the capacity to innovate, develop new technology..so, this requires the use of reason, individual reason, and science.

Therefore, Islam..as an ideology capable of functioning only in a non-industrial economy..has to change and modernize. To permit industrialism. At the moment, Islam is a sham..kept intact only because OIL means that it can finance the Old Tribal Mode..and prevent a middle class developing. But that can't last.

Eventually, they'll have no oil, and they'll have to modernize. There are quite a few Islamic scholars who are attempting to modernize the ideology...

Wahhabism is a modern degenerate form of Islam, a kind of intolerant and rigid puritanism. Sufism is understood as the individual 'mystical' and spiritual agenda of the Islamic devotee. Within the main branches of Islam, the Sunni and Shi'ites, there are various minor branches.

But the Wahhabi form, which I think developed as a tribal dysfunctional reaction to exposure to Western economic interactions (and the need for change), is the base of the Al-Qaeda, the jihadist, the intolerant, the anti-democratic, the vicious hatred, the violence against any Other..and the violence against their own people.

Cjunk – Two questions, if I may. (1) Do you believe that “hearts and minds” is a militarily justifiable approach to asserting national self-interest? (2) Does intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign nations to impose our cultural norms constitute “white man’s burden”?

RCGZ: D-Day and WW2 have nothing incommon with our struggle against Islam. WW2 was a Total War ... the current war is not ... read some Keegan or Hanson before you spew such historically ignorant nonsense. Most our problems with Islam are self inflicted ... easily dealth with legislatively.

So, let me get this straight. Muslims are basically The Borg, who are beyond hope. Yet, if we crush their homelands, those who live among us will "soften quickly". You make no sense.

As far as "pussyfoot around a religion that mutilates women, imprisons women, controls its citizens with unimaginable violence" ... are you suggesting we incinerate these very same mutilated, imprisoned, and controlled citizens? You make no sense. Are they victims ... or perpetrators?

Bleetydarling, why would I waste the heights of my witty repartee on you?

What does Shaidle's brilliance have to do with my misspelling?

"We in the West... are obviously superior to many others... all belief systems are not alike. Our's is right. There's (sic) is wrong." That's not argument, that's assertion. Accurate assertion.

But unless you say something increadibly risible or (unbloodylikely) interesting I'm going to stop feeding you now. So you should probably shut up.

Tenebris: Yes and No to your #1. A No to your #2 ... it's a matter of survival.

Have at it.

P.S. -ET. As we speak, Islamists have not yet been given a sufficient incentive to change their "7th" century culture.

This whole debate is just whose incentive will prevail. So far, yours looks just looks endless and expensive.

Cjunk, why do you characterize Shaidle's incendiary rhetoric as Catholic arrogance, instead of white, Western, North American, or Canadian?

Ramon: Because of who Shaidle is ... no offense was meant to Catholics in general; it was a personal shot.

Cjunk - she's an equal opportunity offender. Bill Buckley was ver public Catholic and she went after him yesterday like nobody's business.

...a very public Catholic...

C-Junk - My answer is yes. You supercilious pr*ck.

Cjunk - So then, intervention to impose our cultural norms is in our national interest? “Hearts and minds” is NOT militarily justifiable, BUT does benefit national self-interest?

Clarify, please.

ET - Do you realize you have pounded on tribe/tribalism and the 7th (occasionally 19th) centuries in 7 of 8 posts?

Have you got anything else?

cjunk, I'll agree with you that Kathy's views are a bit extreme but where I disagree with you is in:
"Islam does not, in any way shape or form, pose the same level of threat that did communism."

Let's make an analogy of the cold war situation of two men with loaded rifles standing 10 feet apart pointing them at one another. This is highly dangerous situation and can easily lead to the immediate death of one or both of them if either choses to shoot. With the cold war over the two men put down their rifles and go their separate ways with the winner congratulating himself and thinking that the threat to his life is over. A few years later he notices a small black spot on his arm but doesn't give it a second thought even when it grows quickly and smaller spots appear around it. He thinks: "I've spent years with a rifle pointed at my heart so why should I worry about a small skin lesion". A few weeks later he dies of widely disseminated malignant melanoma.

Islam is a different threat and it is not surprising that the military mind would consider the threat of a family of poorly armed uneducated religious fanatics as no threat at all. Multiply that negligeable threat by 10 million and suddenly one is looking at certain defeat. Islam is the only religion which practices demographic warfare and it will be interesting to see how Israel deals with its exploding arab population in the next 10-20 years.

Demographic warfare is risky as there is always the danger that subsequent generations will take on the characteristics of the enemy and drift away from islam. It requires that women are little more than baby production machines which means keeping them as uneducated as possible and as isolated as possible. What happens to the Afghani birthrate over the next 5-10 years as large numbers of educated women leave school for the first time will be interesting to see. If the birthrate drops then demographic warfare isn' as threatening as it would appear to be. If the birthrate is unchanged then one can only hope that people in the western nations are made aware of the threat they are facing.

Props to Kathy Shaidle, she has it right to a tee.

I wouldn't want ET to watch my 6, too much intellectual cobwebs and ideological baggage for her to get a grip on reality.

Tenebris: It’s all situational and must be considered in the context of the regional geopolitical reality. The theory is that Afghanistan, being so incredibly backward but geographically vast, will continue to pose a threat unless it has a government that can police its own territory.

One can accomplish this using a proxy totalitarian regime, or by assisting the country in establishing the basic infrastructure required for a functioning state. Right now, for instance, there are not enough literate Afghans to even set up a bureaucracy, or fix a motor or pumping station ... least of all create an officer class. Kandahar’s governor rules with a small group who only have cell phones ... there is no bureaucracy because there is no professional class ... like say in Pakistan. If you want to call educating Afghans so that they can form a functioning state one of our “cultural norms”, then so be it.

Nevertheless, our National Interest is served by neutralizing Afghanistan as a terrorist threat for the long term ... you can’t bomb it back to the stone age, because it’s already there, but you can try to lift it enough that it can police itself.

Taking it further, education is key, as well as assistance in building the basic infrastructure required for an even marginally functioning state. But, none of this can take place without first neutralizing the Taliban threat. The Taliban, on the other hand, understand our National Interest better than we do ... and hence constantly attack our attempts at building and educating. A stone age Afghanistan benefits the Islamists, a functioning state, does not.

Hearts and minds is actually a poor term, used primarily by journalists ... more to evoke Vietnam than anything else. If though, we’ve decided that assisting the UN in building a functioning state is in our National Interest, then “hearts and minds” is part of that. If we just want to punish Afghans, bomb them into an even deeper stone age ... then it’s not.

Militarily, we saw proof of “hearts and minds” working as a military strategy in Sunni Iraq. The incredible persistence by American forces to fight Sunni militia, while supporting civilians, paid off. Helped of course, by good old American green backs. It is unlikely that Iraq will pose a threat to us ever again .. yet Iraq now destabilized Iran and Syria ... which is in our National Interest. Not to mention that we now have forces on two Iranian borders and Syria is pinched between Iraq and Israel.

Before we jump to conclusions in Afghanistan, I suggest we let the Americans do their thing. There is a sea change going on in the battle space right now ... it is huge. Americans are arriving in large enough numbers to hold ground, and offer civilians 24/7 protection ... that’s “hearts and minds”. As well, US air assets are butchering the Taliban, their losses a stunning. Canada’s zone of operation has shrunk greatly, meaning that we too, are now able to take and hold far more ground ... offering civilians 24/7 protection. Something we haven’t been able to do.

In conclusion then, in the Afghan context, the theory is that “hearts and minds” is the best strategy for our long term National self interest. In another place, and another time, this might not be the case.

Our official goals can be found here:

http://www.afghanistan.gc.ca/canada-afghanistan/approach-approche/index.aspx?menu_id=1&menu=L

Loki: Most of what you say I agree with. But, most of it can be dealt with legislatively here at home.

I'm more concerned about National suicide caused by "progressive" notions of pluralism.

If we go down, it won't be because somebody Nuked New York ... it'll be because we allowed enough Muslims to immigrate that they took over our institutions by forming voting blocks.

New York will get nuked because progressives handicapped the CIA; not because we didn't bomb the piss out of Afghanistan ... or even Iran.

I've written a lot that the problem is with Islamic foundational doctrine ... it's incredibly supremacist in a violent way ... unlike all the other major religions. So yes, the problem is that we are struggling against a "doctrine" ... but keep in mind that we've struggled successfully against it for 1400 years. What Europe faced in Tours, was far more threatening than anything we face today.

Our enemy is within ... it's called the progressive movement.

It is unlikely that Iraq will pose a threat to us ever again...yadda, yadda,....
~Cjunk

You're nuts.
Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran are all Islamic Republics.
They are absolutely going to threaten us again.
It's the "religion of peace", pal.
Do you have any idea who the prophet Mohammad was, what part he plays in Islam, or what it means for a country to be an Islamic Republic?

Jihad is the 6th Pillar of Islam.

Do our governments want to close all the terrorist camps in one fell swoop, including the 30 or 50 that are operating in Pakistan?

All they have to do is close all the Western borders to any Muslims coming in.
There will then be no point to training any more terrorists if they can't come over here and kill us.

How hard or expensive is that?

Not as hard or expensive, in blood and treasure, as trying to win a war of attrition over there that isn't going to make us safer over here while continuing to let Muslims from over there enter our civilization.

The government could even stop imposing the extraordinary security procedures and privacy invasions they have been applying against their own citizens.

What have they or we got to lose by freezing these savages out?

I can't believe people think sending our soldiers over their to die in vain by establishing Islamic Republics is the only option.

One day, ever seat in the Iraqi and Afghan governments are going to be held by Islamists.
It's inevitable as long as the mode of government is an Islamic Republic.

The imams or ayatollahs will tell the people who to vote for, the moderates, if there are any, will be labelled as "not rigtheous enough Muslims by the imams or ayatollahs, and SHAZZAM!, it'll be a done deal and that's all she wrote.

Oz: Every "seat" in Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, etc. etc etc is held by a Muslim. None of these states threaten us, only movements within them may. What's your solution, nuke the entire Muslim world?

By the way, almost every single attack on the West, including 911, has been hatched or funnelled through the UK.

Do we nuke London?

Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey are not Islamic Republics.

Why don't you research the meaning of "Islamic Republic" and get back to me when you've learned enough to hold up your side of the conversation.

They function under Sharia Oz ... or as closely as possible to it. It makes little difference. After all, they're all The Borg ... right?

As far as immigration ... didn't I mention that?

I'm siding with ET here. Comments on the comments:

"They are backwards savages who want us dead. We have to kill them first."

Al-Qaeda and its believers, yes; but don't extrapolate that to all of Afghan or Muslim society. This attitude is collectivist rather than individualist.

"Its disappointing to see left wing circles IGNORE the threat Islamic Fascism presents to us."

The left knows very well the threat. That's why they encourage it: to destabilize the west and if necessary exterminate humanity. They too prefer death to life. TYha Marxists are playing the Islamists like a violin.

"you have to believe in something greater than yourself"

Unfortunately, this is dangerous nonsense, mysticism. It's the attitude of the suicide bombers, whith Allah substituted for the Christian God. We have to get the Muslims to accept the value of their own individual lives and stop believing in something greater than themselves.

"... the difference between the thugs and kids and civilians who simply want peace. "

Well put. Most people want peace most of the time.

Kathy Shaidle:

Get real, will you? Vapourizing over 1 billion human beings, regardless of their beliefs, is genocide, nothing more, nothing less. As a libertarian, I cannot condone this.

What we need to do is strengthen our legal system so that NO religion trumps the law. That means no Turbans for Mounties, no kirpans at school (I'm willing to make an exception for the 1-inch variety, which no serious person believes is a threat. You could just as easily kill someone with a crucifix or a mezzuzah.), no cloaked women at voting booths. If you believe your religion trumps the rights of other Canadians, then you have no expectation of equal treatment, because you're not willing to give the same.

Sorry, who is "they", Cjunk?
I'm trying to communicate, I won't answer if you don't make a better effort at clarity.

By the way, almost every single attack on the West, including 911, has been hatched or funnelled through the UK.
Do we nuke London?
~Cjunk

We freeze out transports from nations that embark Muslims.
Every western nation would be encouraged to do the same for their own good.

We don't have to nuke all the Muslims.
We could simply nuke Islam itself out of existence.

How?

We could easily nuke Mecca.
It's only 90 miles from the coast of the Red Sea.
We launch an amphibious invasion, drive all the people out a safe distance, basically empty the city, and vaporize it.

A pilgrimage to Mecca is the 5th Pillar of Islam.
Islam is a very brittle religion because of it's physicality.
Muslims have to pray to Mecca 5 times a day, there are very onerous physical requirements to being a good Muslim.
Islam would collapse if Muslims were unable to fulfil the 5th Pillar by pilgramage to Mecca if there were no Mecca, and no Kaaba.

Nuking Mecca would demonstrate to Muslims that Allah is incapable of preventing Mecca's destruction, including the destruction of the Kaaba, and therefore Allah is a false god.

As far as immigration ... didn't I mention that?
~Cjunk

I didn't mention immigration today.
The 9/11 attackers weren't immigrants, they were visitors.

When I wrote, "All they have to do is close all the Western borders to any Muslims coming in.", I meant ANY Muslims that are not in can't come in.
That includes people like the Khadrs who left, went to terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, palled around with Crazy Sammy and his entourage, and then came back.

@ Oz,

In 70 AD the Romans destroyed the Temple of Jerusalem and pillaged the holy relics - the 1st Century equivalent of your proposed destruction of Mecca.

Jews still flourish today. Religious people, especially fanatics will always manage to find a reason congruent with their faith to explain a disaster.

In 70 AD the Romans destroyed the Temple of Jerusalem and pillaged the holy relics - the 1st Century equivalent of your proposed destruction of Mecca.

Wrong.
It isn't an equivalent.
A rough equivalent would have been the destruction of the Arc of the Covenant, IF, the Arc of the Covenant was an essential part of Judaism from the beginning, which it wasn't, and neither were the so-called "holy relics".
Neither was the Arc of the Covenant in the Temple of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Judaism doesn't have idols and no essentials of Judaism are dependent on physical things or places like Islam is.

Judaism doesn't teach that Jews will conquer the world as Islam teaches it's votaries.

Losing Mecca would leave a hole in Islam that couldn't be filled because it is the duty of a Muslim to make a pilgrimage to Mecca once in their lifetime to kiss the black meteorite in the Kaaba.
The meteorite is Islam's idol.

Mohammad commanded that this pilgrimage must be made, it is the 5th Pillar of Islam.
Islam is a very brittle and physical religion, largely lacking in true spirituality.

Bad analogy, but nice try anyway.
Your ignorance of religion is laughable.

That idea about Mecca is madness and puts you into the same level as the character appointed to Iran's defence post that is wanted by interpol for mass murder- soon to be in charge of a nuclear arsenal!
Remember we want to preserve western culture from islamicist expansion- not enter into world war three in a nuclear age with madmen!

Islam and the left is killing the west, slowly, day by day, month by mont, year by year.

reality check.

Islam and the left is killing the west, slowly, day by day, month by month, year by year.

reality check.

Knight 99: "Islam is killing the West"

And whose fault is that? There is little we can't fix through the legislative process, without resorting to monstrous crimes against humanity.

Well 'Kate' that is one hell of a good post. Thanks to all the commenter's for their take on it.

Cjunk - thanks for the clarification. Very instructive.

Cjunk and ET, as I understand you, you suggest that the Jihad of recent years is not connected to Islam's historic expansion efforts. I respectfully disagree. Read Bernard Lewis's works, all of them. Check www.abebooks.com for a listing of his works. The current phase of the 14 century old Islamic expansion effort was rekindled by the establishment of the state of Israel.

Langmann is right and oz is dead wrong. The Temple was every bit as central to Judaism as Mecca is to Islam. Its destruction meant the effective end of Judaism, or rather, required Judaism to change into a substantially different religion. Second Temple Judaism was quite simply not the same as the rabbinical Judaism we have today.

There's no reason to doubt that Islam could make a similar transformation in response to a similar loss. Nor is there any guarantee that the result would be an improvement from our point of view.

There's no reason to doubt that Islam could make a similar transformation in response to a similar loss.
~ebt

Here is a reason for you, ebt.

Islam, the religion, is impervious to modification.
There is no god but Allah and Mohammad is his only prophet.
The Koran is perfect and unalterable.
(core beliefs)

Islam is brittle and closed to reform or change.

Ken: I suggest no such thing. Furthermore, whether or not Jihad is a part of historic Islamic expansion efforts is irrelevant. We are discussing how to deal with it.

Oz: I agree with you that fundamental Islam, or devout Islam, as practiced by most Muslims has no capacity to ever coexist within a Western Democratic setting. It is, frankly, anathema to Western "liberal" democracy.

However, I do believe that like Christianity, a large Muslim middle class can exist which essentially becomes secular and over time ignores the basic tenats of the ideology. Turkey is an example of a more secular state, where the middle class has again and again rebuffed Islamic fundamentalism. Why? Because an industrialized and post-modern state is impossible under fundamental Islam.

I am also encouraged by statistics kept by the Muslim Canadian Congress that show that fully 50% of all Muslim immigrants "dissappear". The Congress believes that they either become fully secular or convert to Christianity. The statistic further shows that the more educated and upward mobile the family, the more likely they are to become secular or convert.

I consider these Muslims to be imancipated.

Having said that, I understand that whenever and wherever Muslims hold a plurality, they "always" pursecute or discriminate against non-Muslims. That's where our domostic politics become critical ... do we want a repeat of Eurabia in North America?

None of this however, justifies crimes against humanity.

Oz....
One refinement....forget the amphibious operation and delivery the device by sub-launched cruise missile----at the height of the "haj.."

Turkey is an example of a more secular state, where the middle class has again and again rebuffed Islamic fundamentalism....
None of this however, justifies crimes against humanity.
~Cjunk

Turkey is an example of resurgent Islamism.
The secular state is rapidly being reclaimed by extremists because Islam is an extreme religion.

Islam IS a crime against humanity and has been from it's beginning.

"Religion IS a crime against humanity and has been from it's beginning."

Fixed that for ya.

For those twits who thought I was agreeing with Kooky Kathy over there, allow me to disabuse you of that notion. That ... "woman" wants to order the Canadian Forces to commit genocide while she stays in Canada making vitriol-filled diatribes, holding rallies, and inspecting the troops. This is the first time I've actually met a person who deserves to be compared to Hitler. She is despicable, as are those of you who've stood up in support of her statements.

If YOU want to commit genocide, then DO IT YOURSELF. Don't expect honorable men and women to do it for you, and don't be surprised when they turn their weapons on you. I place more value on the life of one Afghan child than I do on a million Kathys, and I'd gladly end her miserable existence if she ever attempted to kill one of them. I'll never have to make that call, though, nor will any other soldier, since it's clear that she's just a blowhard and that none of you keyboard warriors have the balls to actually do what you're proposing. So shut up. You're an embarrassment to our nation.

Actually Canada needs more Kathy's & Kate's & less Alex.

It will come to the point where it will be Renounce Sharia Law while adopting ours, or be deported.
If not, I can only see blood shed. Fact is folks the Islamists are winning. watch every Nation they take over by population or Conversion. The first things to go are other Holy Sites destroyed, or desecrated. TThe Jihadists have done it to Jewish, Christian, Hindu & Buddist worship places as well as art.
All Kathy is reminding people of what war really is in my opinion. That Is that ALL war is extermination. Idea's people & culture if vile enough.
JMO

Revnant, truth is the Islamic extremists are much smarter than you give'em credit for.

In exchange for the muslim vote, I could see the next Liberal majority make accommodation space for Sharia in "special cases". That will be the start of the slippery slope to allow creeping Sharia to eventually permeate every part of our lives until we have no choice but to submit or die. Everything that will be done will be done legally...just like the Sharia justified Iranian zealots that stone a teen girl for encouraging her own rape.

If we are to really stop our fall, we must get back to basics to regain a society where ideals like Liberty and Justice can be appreciated and strengthened. Not just given weak lip service.

The Surge at home begins within ourselves.

Get a grip, folks. I don't recall seeing Kathy call for anyone nuking the world's billion or so muslims. The only "nuking" comment I noticed was of Bora-Bora (I think she meant Tora Bora, not the idyllic south pacific island), ie. a terrorist enclave with a smattering of semi-civilians.