Strength and Weakness, Continued

Chefjef responds to this post from yesterday:

The European attitude is not leftist; it is common among the right as well, who seem just as content with the socialist-pacifist society the Euros have willfully created. There are some exceptions, of course, particularly the growing neo-nazi/white supremacist movement within the extreme far right in many European countries.

And what's up with comparing quarter pounders to terrorists? Quarter pounders: They are an American Icon, worthy of nothing less than adoration and praise. Shame on you! You should apologize profusely. But whatever you do, DON'T supersize.

Seriously though, I was pleased to see the Brits get some good suspects. Further, while I suspected (though didn't presume) they would be islamic extremists, the fact that they were British-born Pakistanis, as opposed to immigrants, made it more disturbing.

How does an open society purge itself of such creatures without abusing and alienating the entirety of it's Middle Eastern/muslim population, thereby running the risk of creating a larger "aggressor" group (as a result of a perception of being attacked)? That approach would seem to be destined to result in, eventually, an "us versus them", all out conflict.

On the other hand, a purely "law enforcement" approach cannot possibly identify and excise the vermin - and their sympathizers - at a rapid and thorough enough rate to prevent deadly attacks or inflict a sufficient degree of attrition amongst the evildoers to significantly reduce their offensive capabilites. And, the "create a democracy in Iraq and watch it spread" idea is about as successful as "create a communist state in Vietnam or Afghanistan and watch it spread" turned out to be.

So, what other options are there? What's the answer to dealing with that s***head Bouyeri?

Chefjef

Please forgive the unintended desecration of that most-holy Icon! I meant only a comparison of relative productivity, not to insult the Quarter Pounder, Peace Be Upon It, by comparing it to a muslim! I assure you I keep my Quarter Pounder (SAW) safe in a silken bag above my bed and let no mongrel or infidel (especially mongrel) despoil it!


You may be right about left vs. right in Europe. France's current administration is ostensibly "conservative," but I see no significant difference between its governing philosophy and that of an ostensibly left-wing government like Germany's. Britain has always been different than the Continent and its politics more closely aligned with ours, but Blair's Labour government seems indistinguishable from a US Republican administration on all but a few issues. Still, when I think of "right wing" vis Europe, I think mostly of the skinhead crowd.

As for what to do: I agree that a law enforcement alone approach will be ineffective, although LE is a vital part of the defensive response. Still, "force protection" just preserves resources, it doesn't win wars. Only the offensive wins and that is why Iraq and perhaps half a dozen other like campaigns are and will be necessary before this war is over.

Unfortunately, taking the offensive probably means doing something very undemocratic with our indigenous muslim populations. The only way an open society "purges itself of such creatures" is by purging itself of them. Sending them packing for....wherever, just not here. We gave them the best our society could offer, including great educations; when they go, it will be their turn to pay the world back by building just societies within Dar al-Islam.

Will this "further alienate them?" Of course, but who give a muslim's a$$? They are already fatally and finally alienated, as Britain's homegrown "bombers" demonstrate. The ideals of the society they want and the society they live in are fundamentally incompatible and cannot continue to exist together, unless we are willing to accept their slaughter and barbarism as a commonplace within our society.

There are some on the left and right (Pat Buchannan, anyone? John Kyl on the Native Hawaiian bill?) in this country who would like to see the ethnic and tribal Balkanization of the US that would be required to accommodate muslims on their own terms. It's easier to divide and conquer, after all, if your only goal is power. And a representative can "represent" any constituency, however odious, as long as the voters vote them a comfortable life (as Barbara Boxer, Charles Rangel, Robert Byrd, et al daily prove). I, however, am unalterably opposed to this. It would mean the death of the America we know much more surely than would any mass action against muslims alone. We're not yet far enough into this conflict to take action on permanent mass deportation (thank God), but I believe we may eventually be driven there by enemy action and we need to be mentally prepared for it.

Can we do such a thing and remain a free society? Of course--at the risk of a certain amount of reality-based hypocrisy; but I'll live with the guilt of that if my children and the children of the people from the rest of the world who come here are safe because of it. We banned communists during the Cold War and Nazis during WW II and yet our republic survived. "These weren't religions and the Constitution protects religions," you say? I say: BS! If that's the case, we need to redefine our understanding of "religion." They were every bit as much religious movements as was the hij'ra--were every bit as dangerous as jihad--and can be banned on grounds that are just as practical.

As to roaches like Bouyeri: suspend the rules. They don't recognize or play by our rules, so we have no obligation to follow those rules in dealing with them. Torture them--and I don't mean "make them wear panties;" I mean real Hanoi Hilton stuff--until the last bit of useful information is extracted, then shoot them in the back of the head and throw their bodies in dumpsters somewhere.

"If we do that, we surrender the moral edge." you say? BS. This is a war, not a lady's Wednesday afternoon tea and debating society. Same-same Gitmo. We should do anything and everything we must in order to win, because OUR SIDE WINNING is the only truly moral outcome. We are rapidly approaching Clausewitz' Eigentliche Krieg ("war as it actually is") and he rightly warned us 200 years ago that self-imposed restraint in such war is counterproductive, wasteful of lives, and ultimately futile. (We must only look 30 years into our own past for empirical proof of this.) We have had substantial reasons for restraint so far, and will continue to have in dealing with subjugated peoples (don't kid yourself--that's what they are), but in dealing the the enemy's combatants, such restraint just makes us look weak in the enemy's eyes (and thus encourages him) and gives the enemy exploitable opportunities. We must be (as the muslims of the hij'ra were) ferocious in combat, merciful to the subjugated. And as Bouyeri demonstrated by his contempt in court, he is not subjugated--he is very much still an enemy combatant and will remain so until he dies.

"We didn't have to do that to win previous wars," you say? BS. In fact, we did--we just didn't advertise it to every "congressperson" who was running a gay bordello out of his apartment or every Campari-sipping leftist reporter in the country when we did. Were the firebombings of Dresden and Japanese cities any more "moral?" No, but they were justified by the intent of helping shorten a total war; rightly condemned if and only if all the civilian slaughter they entailed did not shorten the war.

"If we do that they'll do the same to us," you say? BS. Can you say, "Nick Pearl?" Can you say, "Theo Van Gogh?" Can you say, "the Fallujah bridge?" I knew you could.

The jury is still out on creating a democratic state in Iraq and watching it grow. We are not beaten there yet by any means, despite what the suckerfish and moonbats say on the subject, and despite the MSM's deliberate spikings and tendentious distortions, but we must be prepared for the next step if our attempt there is ultimately unsuccessful. I am cynical enough about the world to believe that we may have to ratchet the conflict up to "the war of everyman with everyman" eventually. After all, the enemies of our civilization have an overwhelming incentive to make it so.

Monk

Update: This is revolting, but hardly surprising:

The transformation of four young British men into terrorists appears to have taken place at a government-funded storefront youth centre in Leeds that, according to youth workers, was a hub of radical Islamist activity.

The centre was sealed off and searched by police yesterday after three of its workers said in an interview on the street outside that at least two of the suicide bombers had been "very regular" visitors at all hours to the Hamara Youth Access Point, and a third had been seen there occasionally.

"It had become so radical and so hateful that I asked if I could stop working there," said one of the workers, who along with two others described the storefront drop-in centre as a hub of radical Muslim politics and a hotbed of Islamic organizing, routinely hosting mysterious figures to speak about extremist politics.

Family and friends of the young men repeatedly said yesterday that they had seen no indication that they had adopted such influences. Although they had become more devoutly religious and travelled to Pakistan for study trips, it is not uncommon for naturalized children of immigrants in this part of England to become more devout than their secularized parents.

This report shows the nexus between radical islamic terror and the government-aided culture of poverty. It's significant that Bouyeri was also on government aid, as was Mohamed al-Gerbouzi, the dude the Brits suspect was a mastermind of the London attacks. I think if we looked closely at our own inner cities and other poor areas we would see a similar picture. Recall that the DC snipers were both radical muslims. All these homegrown terrorists accepted their checks with the same contumely that any crack dealer would from his stable of "bitches."

There is an intimate connection here that warrants futher exploration.