I really do love Paris. I am planning a trip there right now having spent two weeks there just recently. I have been going there for many years. I speak a couple of words of French but find it is easy to get by with English. Unlike what some suggest, I have found the people of Paris to be quite warm and friendly toward me and those I have been there with.
Paris is a beautiful city. The food is wonderful. The mood is one of joy and happiness. At the Opera House last time I was there a person was scheduled to give a concert involving several songs. At the end of the first song the audience seemed unsure of whether to clap or not so most sat on their hands while a handful clapped.
She played another song. Fortunately I was there with a person who speaks French or I would not have understood what followed. When she finished and barely a ripple of clapping was heard a member of the audience stood up and said in a loud voice: “why is no one clapping? It is proper to clap at the end of each song. Now clap!”
In response to this reprimand, many started to clap. As the clapping started to get louder, another member of the audience rose and said in a demanding voice: “Stop! Please stop the clapping. It is only proper to clap at the end of a series of songs!”
Then someone else rose to suggest otherwise and before you knew it a dozen or so members of the audience were standing and arguing over when it was appropriate to clap. Meanwhile the artist and her accompanist stood in silent bemusement while the verbal furor among the attendees roared on. Finally, someone in management went up on the stage and made the ruling as to what should be done. That settled it and the concert went on. I knew I would never see anything like that in America.
The attack on Paris saddened me greatly.
Yeats said it best:
‘Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.”
Here though the anarchy comes from the center, the operational headquarters of the Islamic State, which is spreading out its disciples in an ever-widening gyre. Until the center is destroyed, its venom and evil will continue to spread.
It was less than two years ago when President Obama said that the Islamic State was a “JV Team.” His policy toward it has been to continue to treat it as a JV Team as it took over wide swaths of Syria and Iraq, including its second largest city Mosul. He has shown a confused and lackluster approach to this invidious enemy.
In last night’s debate none of the Democratic candidates for president would refer to those that attacked Paris or those in ISIS as “radical Muslims.” They said that was an attack on all Muslims which is nonsense. They professed their love for all Muslims. (Hillary got a little confused in trying to tell why the Paris terrorists were not Radical Muslims.)
Bernie Sanders said he didn’t want to get bogged down on terms. But they seemed to agree the proper term to use is Jidhadist. That is defined as, ” a person who believes that an Islamic state governing the entire community of Muslims must be created, and that this necessity justifies violent conflict with those who stand in its way.” Isn’t that too referring to Muslims?
I feel if they do not know who is our enemy then were bound to suffer greatly. Now is not the time for pussyfooting. The night is descending on us as we just saw in Paris.
Each one has a wishy-washy approach fearful of alienating left field. Each said we have to have the local Muslim nations do the work. Obama tried that to no avail. They were not asked what they would do when those states persisted in doing nothing.
Bernie says we don’t need a Cold War type army. We should be reconfiguring our military just to meet the terrorist threat. He apparently has not been aware of China’s expansion into the South China Sea or of Russia’s new assertiveness which is coupled with allegiances with Iran and Iraq (yes, after 4,000 Americans lost their lives to give them the nation the Iraqis are aligning themselves with Russia, if you can believe it – a lot of good we are getting out of our biggest embassy in the world – maybe we’ll rent it to Putin.)
All blamed Bush for ISIS; but Obama has had the steering wheel of the ship of State for the last seven years, four of which Hlllary helped him steer, and it is during those years that ISIS raised its horribly ugly face, grew in strength and has become increasingly violent downing a Russian airline; blowing up a part of Beirut and now murdering over 125 in Paris.
It is apparent that no Democrat will take the fight to ISIS — each one wants someone else to do it; every someone else wants us to do it; and ISIS spreads its horrors onward and outward.
Poor Paris has learned the hard lesson that weakness or understanding in the face of inhuman butchers results in people lying on the ground being massacred. France is a NATO ally. War has been declared on it and it has been attacked. Like it or not under our treaty obligations we have to respond to extirpate the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. When the center falls its tentacles will atrophy.
We must act now before some America elementary school is invaded and hundreds of children held hostage by these radical Muslims.
Viva La France
” Words are like tin kettles upon which we beat out tunes for bears to dance to, while all the time we long only to move the stars to pity ” … Flaubert
Do something? Sure, how about more bombs?
There are not enough targets in IS held territories. Raqqa is the size of Des Moines. It is a captive city. Its’ population is being held prisoner. Carpet bombing the place out of existence would be a greater crime than the fire bombing of Dresden. At least the Germans got to vote for Hitler. The people of Raqqa are prisoners under armed guard. They didn’t elect the Khalipha. He came upon them like a plague
Tune in to a blog called “Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently.” Just enter Syria Direct.com, and, you can get the latest on IS from courageous underground journalists reporting from Raqqa. Hear it from the folks who live there, instead of the propaganda mill.
The Obama administration has artfully lured Iran into over committing in Syria. The Iranians are stuck in the quagmire, stuck good. Why should the US join them?
The master/slave relation:
Hegel believes that the “master” needs more than obedience. The master must have validation from the slave, as well. For the master to feel secure, the slave must lovingly accept bondage. Without the slave’s willing acknowledgement of the master’s domination, the circuit of power between master, and, slave, cannot be completed. According to Hegel’s thought, the master realizes his true identity only through the slave’s voluntary acquiescence to the unequal power relationship. In effect, he sees himself through the slave’s eyes.
That’s why its so important that Muslims tell the West what it wants to hear.
Matt :
Agreed and Amen !!!
Words are no longer necessary, or needed, or helpful. The mourners trampling a votive candle bed at a massacre site ; the first fleeing picking their way tentatively, and then the full panicked rush that strew liquid light to be extinguished on rainy incarnadined pavement are all mere mortals. They are not metaphors. They bleed. Each wants to live . This happened Saturday night when the stupidest prefect in Paris allowed a fireworks demonstration near one of the cafes. In this case the Memorial was at site where the 29 corner sidewalk cafe victims were enjoying Paris.
The time is past for weighty historical analysis of the Western/Islam …. dialectic. One submits that the history Khalid indicates is accurate and yet does not do more than offer a highly simplified model … Slave/Master … to hypnotically suggest ….. ” Ahhh, that is it !!! I now understand why all those old pensioners were slaughtered as they sat at that one cafe in Paris on Friday night .”
Houston ??????? …. We have a serious problem : And it ain’t dialectical materialism. .
John:
This and you prior posts on Paris are absolutely on point. There’s a time to think; a time to dwell; a time to day dream; a time to wish things were otherwise; and a time to act. We now must act.
Jihad, in Arabic, means to “strive,” as, in, “making a great effort.”
Pious Muslims,, particularly during Ramadhan, struggle against the inner self, that demanding interior voice that must have what it wants, when it wants. Jihad is the daily struggle against this voice, which, is called nafs al-Amr, the “commanding self,” in Arabic. It is the component of the human psyche that wants to eat more, drink more, spend more, consume more. In its’ deeper interpretations, jihad is the struggle against one’s own ego.
Muslims are very confused by the western notion of “moderation.” The Prophet (PBH) teaches that men should choose the middle road between extremes. In fact, that idea is enshrined in the very first surat of the Koran.
For many Muslims, “moderation,” in the western sense, has meant a hundred years of suffering under the rule of western puppet regimes. The Kings of Saudi Arabia ,Morocco, and, Jordan, along with Sultan Sisi of Egypt, are collectively known as”devil puppets” to the populations they oppress. These great allies of the US are despised as bloody handed dictators by most of the people they rule. Muslims are not stupid, they know that the United States operates a neo-colonial empire in the Middle-East, and, that, the so-called “moderate” rulers of Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, and, the Gulf, are it’s franchise holders.
When westerners use judgmental terms like “radical”and “moderate” in reference to Muslims/Islam, they do so strictly out of the self-serving ignorance of the western perspective. Those terms have no weight in the Muslim consciousness.
Hegel’s analysis of the existential relation between the “master” and the “slave” best explains America’s urgent need to force its’ vocabulary on the Muslim world.
Khalid:
Obviously you don’t suggest all Muslims think alike. I’m sure there are some who embrace the ISIS idea of a Caliphate. Are all those who are in ISIS and those who agree with it not Muslims? I’m not sure I follow what you are suggesting when you tell us we should not differentiate between Muslims.
Jihad might mean what you suggest but jihadist means something else. Or do you suggest otherwise.
You suggest the Muslim kings and other Muslim rulers are kept in power by the Western nations. That these rulers are hated by the Muslims whom they oppress. What does that mean? That Muslim groups like ISIS should have a free hand in attacking people in the West? Or that because we empower some Muslims to rule other Muslims we must be victims of Muslims.
I simply cannot follow what you are saying.
Matt,
ISIS supporters are Muslims in the same sense Westboro Baptist Church followers are Christians. It just seems that currently there are more “radical” muslims than “radical” christians in this point in history. One of my best friends is muslim. He just had a baby 1 month ago. He tells me he is terrified that in America today, his kid is going to grow up in a US where there are sitting Senators who would discriminate against refugees based upon religion. He says the past week and half of xenophobia has caused him to not be able to sleep and have panic attacks as he is fearful every day someone might do something to him. That a candidate for US President would not let a 3 year old child into the country because of his religion. This kid is a huge sports fan and if you talked to him on the phone you would think he was a frat boy from USC.
I think what Khalid is trying to say is that the United States is “pro-democracy” in image only. We are pro-democracy only so long as the country we want to liberate elects U.S. friendly leaders who look out for U.S. interests. If the country’s population democratically elects an anti-U.S. government, we are not so excited about that democracy. That does not say that we should support dictators or that our Western views are wrong. On the contrary we are on the right side of issues more often than not. But that is what I believe he was trying to articulate when he was talking about U.S. neo-colonialism.
I’m writing about the insidious fashion in which the West attempts to intellectually colonize and control through its’ use of language. The way the West sees Muslims is not the way Muslims see themselves.
Muslims don’t think of themselves as “radical,” or, “moderate.” These are Western concepts. When Muslims think of the takfiris (IS, al Qaida), they don’t see them as radical, moderate, extremist, etc. To the Muslim consciousness, these ruthless assassins are considered “mujrimin,” in English, “criminals.” This word is derived from the word “jarimat” which means crime, or, sin, in Arabic. The mujrim doesn’t merely break the law of man, that individual defies God by breaking with the divine order. A mujrim by definition exists outside the Shariah, and, is deserving of Allah’s punishment. The vast majority of Muslims believe that the takfiris, because of their bloody un-Islamic actions, are mujrimin. Muslims don’t feel they should called upon, after every incident, to profess their loyalty to the western societies in which they reside. Calling the takfiris “mujrimin” is condemnation enough. Satisfying the demands of paranoid Western ignorance is too much.
What are called “radical, extremist, fundamentalist,” Islamic groups, by the West, are a regularly re-occurring historical phenomena in the history of Islam. They are revivisist chiliastic cults that evolve into mass movements (Hogdson). Over the course of three generations, these millenarian movements flare into being, burn the world they occupy, and, then, subside. Once they achieve the group’s political aims, they invariably descend into decadence, and, gradually, lose their original energy (Ibn Khaldun). The late 19th century Mahdist movement in Sudan is a good example of this phenomena, as are the Muhwahidun movement of Ibn Wahab, which swept through the mashrek at the end of the 18th century, and, Usman Dan Fodio’s militant movement which convulsed West Africa during the early nineteenth century. All three movements sought to purify Islam, but, were gradually, internally, poisoned, over the course of time, by the very corruptions they came to extirpate (Hodgson/Ibn Khaldun).
IS, the Khilafat, is a modern manifestation of this cyclical millenarian trend in Islam. Given time, these groups will fall by their own weight. Only their use of modern technology distinguishes them from other earlier movements.
The West must be patient. These movements will burn out of their own accord. Time is their worst enemy.
For the curious: The Venture of Islam Vol. III, Marshal GS Hodgson.
The Prolegemena of Ibn Kaldun, Ibn Khaldun
It is pointless to categorize what we call our enemies. During WWII, did anyone care if we called our German enemies Germans, Krauts, Nazis, Brownshirts, etc.? In the end, our bombs and bullets still killed them. How did the Allies stomp out Nazi ideology? It took utter and total war. We had to literally destroy the entire German civilization in order for the Nazi ideology to be wiped from the globe (although it still persists 70 years later in the form of neo-nazi groups). Is this country ready to wage total war in Syria/Iraq? I would argue that idea is archaic and pointless.
In America, do we openly refer to very religious Christian people with crazy ideas as extremist Christian Crusaders (Like the Westboro Baptist Church) or do we just call them what they are, lunatics and assholes? My argument is that defining our enemies by their religion is pointless when they misinterpret and twist their own religious beliefs to fit a warped world view. We must only know this, we are at war with TERRORISTS. If an ultra right wing neo-Confederate/KKK militant group training in the backwoods of the South bombed or attacked a public area, would we waste time arguing over whether to call them White Secessionists, Pro-Christian Militants, or would we just say they were a bunch of rotten murderers and go arrest them?
I just don’t understand the backlash that our elected officials endure when the refuse to categorize our enemies in the terms of their religion. A Muslim can exercise his/her religion and not be a terrorist. The term jihad has multiple meanings. It can mean an internal struggle within oneself, or a struggle against one’s enemies. It is interpreted differently throughout the Muslim world. If the goal is to further ostracize Muslims living in the West and push them toward our joining our enemies, persecuting and shaming them is one sure way to do it.
Invading Syria is not the answer. The whole reason the terrorists hate us in the first place is because to them we “occupy” their lands. Including Israel in the fight will only make things worse. I can only imagine it would create an opening for a Sunni insurgency to begin in Israel itself. Right now Israel makes random incursions into Syria to suppress terrorist/militant activity that gets too close to their borders. Any foreign intervention by a Western army will be viewed as occupiers, invaders, etc. A multinational force of Arabic/islamic countries is what is needed. The Arabic/Islamic countries that have that capability are the ones that are currently funding and enabling the multitude of armed factions within Syria/Iraq.
The West was quick to react after 9/11. Something like 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, yet we jumped right into Afghanistan, then without even blinking we invaded Iraq, which was the catalyst for the chaos we currently face in that region. We still have not addressed the Saudi connection to the spread of global Salafism/Wahhabism(Probably the most accurate term you can describe terrorists with), and their financing of terrorist groups. The quickest way to end terrorist movements like Al-Qaeda or ISIS is not to try and wipe them out militarily, because yes we could win tactical victory after tactical victory (like we did in our middle eastern wars and vietnam) yet still lose the overall strategic war. ISIS has suffered 2 major defeats on the battlefield and one major propaganda loss. The Assad regime most recently took back an airbase that was surrounded by ISIS, and the Kurds with help from our USAF/SFs operators recaptured the town of Sinjar, putting the supply line between Raqqa (ISIS defacto Syrian capital) and Mosul (ISIS largest holding in Iraq) in jeopardy. Then Jihadi John was killed. Just as that happened the Beirut and Paris attacks occurred.
This is because you can kill thousands of terrorists, but still not wipe out the IDEOLOGICAL mindset these people have, nor could you wipe out every leader who could preach that mindset. Until we stop the money that pours out of countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, etc. that funds and enables these groups, allows them to buy weapons, fund terrorist ops, create and distribute propaganda on the internet, then we have no chance of winning the war on terror.
Dave:
Nice post. You give me and others a lot of food for thought. You suggest total war against ISIS is archaic and pointless, I disagree and will explain it later in a post.
My identification of ISIS is in conformity with what they call themselves: members of a Caliphate which is a Muslim group. They are all Muslims and they recruit Muslims to fight their enemies. The groups you mentioned did not identify themselves as you say.
Identifying ISIS as radical Muslims is to differentiate them from the vast majority of other Muslims who are good law abiding people. That is why they are identified as such. It is part of the idea that one should know his enemy. I am sure most Muslims who speak English understand the use of the term. Are we to pretend the people who committed the murders in Paris are not all Muslims?
I agree the best solution would be a multinational force of Arabic/islamic countries. They do not want to provide one. What are we to do say OK and let the ISIS attacks go on?
The Saudi connection will never be addressed by us. We know they were the majority of the people who struck on 9/11 and that they and other Arab nations are behind the financing of ISIS. The Saudis have too many American friends in high places. If we wait until we address that we’ll have many more attacks in Western countries because despite their involvement in the 9/11 attack we still cannot respond properly to them. See: http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a39727/paris-attacks-middle-eastern-oligarchies/
Unless we take all of the territory away from ISIS it will represent a threat to us. Its recruitment will fall apart if it has no place for the recruits to go to.
We cannot wipe out the mindset as you suggest but we can certainly minimize the number of people who have it and substantially decrease the number of people willing to carry out the attacks on us. We should stop the money flow and why we don’t is a big mystery — maybe out people in Washington want it to continue. However if you cut down the number of people involved in the ISIS and al Qaeda groups by relentlessly killing everyone you can find then even with the money the few who remain will have very limited ability to spread their evil among us.
There are too many competing interests in Syria/Iraq to put Western troops on the ground without risking an escalation to the conflict that would go beyond the current warzone. Russia/Assad/Iran/Hezbollah vs. Al-Nursa/Al-qaeda and their Saudi and other Arab alies s vs. ISIS vs. Turkey vs. Various groups of Kurds vs. Iraqi Army/Iraqi Shi’ite militias vs. USA/Jordan/Qatar/UAE air forces and sprinkle in Israel here and there. Putting another large scale combat force in there will ignite WW3, as the conflict is already a Saudi Arabia/Iran proxy war.
As more evidence is gathered, it is looking like the Syrian passport found near one of the bodies was a forgery, designed to throw people off track. It is looking like these guys were French and Belgian ISIS supporters, not refugees. I thought it was funny that we would immediately find the passports on the bodies of the terrorists, unless they wanted us to find them. Otherwise, why go into a suicide attack carrying ID?
I just read that Assad and the moderates might be working out a ceasefire so that a multinational force can conduct military operations that concentrate on defeating ISIS. This is the best alternative I have heard yet. Because if you just send troops in right now with all of the other parties involved, it is asking for trouble.
* quartet … there were four at The Bartoclav Theater, unmasked.
Mtc
I think you meant * insidious, not *invidious, above. I liked your anecdote about controversies Parisienne at the theater regarding clapping as an aesthetic form in itself. I was lucky to visit there in 2004 , and found Paris and its citizens quite …. civilized. But I caught the dusky eye cast inquisitively at me in some sort of instinctive sympathy of street kifs for one another, by the Moroccan and Algerian vendors selling souvenirs on the grassy plane in back of the Eiffel Tower. So , there is rhat. The stratification Khalid speaks to, exists..The existential reality of how high minded as well as economically self -serving social policies viz Moslem immigrants lock the French into this present and increasing hell is baring its face in Paris, literally. The Concert assassination triplet did not wear masks!
That sombre fellow who bicycled his antique battered weathered and still beautifully musical little piano behind him. That guy who pulled up at a Cafe massacre site with his uniquely French and uniquely Parisian burden of artistic “Gift” of this sturdy little musical survivor piano ; That Guy ! … His instrument before him he played Lennon’s IMAGINE. . It was completely SUA SPONTE as Bill Buckley Jr. would have said. He and his piano cast a spell . They ROCKED IT .
You need not have majored in ” Advanced Algerian ” to work the calculus of self-interested survival. In Paris they know this Now ! They sang an impromptu Marseillaise as they fled down a stadium hallway tunnel.
Screw who hands you a cloth handtowel ; Paris is Paris. Eventually it comes down to whether Western Democracies like France keep putting up with this disingenuous Jihadi behavioural Shit ; disingenuous because it embeds itself in a worldwide Moslem culture that we are now convinced secretly allows themselves at least an inward smile at the Jihadi-Western Clown Posse blood circus, while publicly disavowing such behaviour and concealed loathings. Watch On for death squads, Right Wing, in Paris and elsewhere. The French may be excused for liberal views. Not assassinated !
Wa-llahi! Who will clean French toilets and sweep the streets? North African Muslims are the Mexicans of France. The French may hate them, but, they cannot do without them.
What is “radical Islam?” The expression makes no sense to a Muslim. “Moderate Muslim” is another meaningless term. The people applying these tags to Islam, and, Muslims, have little, or, no understanding of the religion.
The deeds of these killers are not sanctioned by Islam. It is the stated objective of IS to arouse such a hatred against Muslims living in the West that they are forced to side with the IS to survive. It’s a clever strategy, and, so far, it is working.
Just recently, it has been revealed that ninety percent of the people killed by American drones are not the intended targets. This amounts to indiscriminate collective punishment. When a 2000 lb. JDAM detonates in a populated area it also does not discriminate. Can the dead appreciate the moral difference between being gunned down, as opposed to, being flash fried from above? It’s really just a matter of technology. What occurred in Paris an asymmetrical reply to the hi-tech daily mayhem rained down on the innocent in Syria and Iraq.
What goes around, comes around.
Khalid:
A radical Muslim is a jihadist: a Muslim who believes he is acting on behalf of his religion. Whether such deeds are sanctioned by Islam or not, the person doing them believes that they are. Your suggestion that there is only one type of Muslim, neither radical nor moderate, serves the great majority of Muslims ill. Our understanding of Islam may be faulty; but we do understand that a small minority who profess to be members of that religion are say they are acting on behalf of it are behind IS.
There is little hatred of Muslims in the Wet. Almost all have been welcome and live among us. IS’s strategy has failed to stir up such hatred; it has however lured some from the West back to its homeland and even with that no great hatreds have been stirred up.
Yes, many have been wrongly killed by American drones. What choice do we have. You ask whether the dead can appreciate the difference in the way they die; absolutely not but our killing of those who would kill us has always been recognized as just. We cannot defend ourselves without also having some innocent victims.
You are wrong about Paris. There were no people murdered there who were waging war on IS. They were all innocent victims living in a peaceful country; those innocents in Syria and Iraq are unfortunately living among those who behead people, burn them alive in cages, run over them in tanks, and commit extraordinary barbarities.
The come around you speak of has yet to occur. It is time that it does. Equating the attacks in Paris with the killings of those who would kill us makes no sense.
“Si vis pacem, para bellum” – Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus.
“If you want peace, prepare for war”.
Advice from last week:
http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/run-hide-fight-not-always-the-best-active-killer-response
Advice from yesterday:
https://ricochet.com/lessons-from-paris/
How about using the term “Daesh,” as suggested here?
“To repeat what I said a few days ago, I’m Islamed out. I’m tired of Islam 24/7, at Colorado colleges, Marseilles synagogues, Sydney coffee shops, day after day after day. The west cannot win this thing with a schizophrenic strategy of targeting things and people but not targeting the ideology, of intervening ineffectually overseas and not intervening at all when it comes to the remorseless Islamization and self-segregation of large segments of their own countries.
“So I say again: What’s the happy ending here? Because if M Hollande isn’t prepared to end mass Muslim immigration to France and Europe, then his “pitiless war” isn’t serious. And, if they’re still willing to tolerate Mutti Merkel’s mad plan to reverse Germany’s demographic death spiral through fast-track Islamization, then Europeans aren’t serious. In the end, the decadence of Merkel, Hollande, Cameron and the rest of the fin de civilisation western leadership will cost you your world and everything you love.
So screw the candlelight vigil.
[more]
http://www.steynonline.com/7293/the-barbarians-are-inside-and-there-are-no-gates
Henry:
Thanks. Steyn’s article reflects Yeats’s sentiment: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.”
Bernie Sanders still said in the face of the AA (Allahu Akbar) boys’ Paris attack that Climate Change is still our worst threat. None of the others of the group of those who would be president disagreed.
Obama’s mistake, and Americans in general including the candidates, is believing war is optional. That is because we have for sixty-five years since Korea picked and chosen what wars we would fight: Panama, Grenada, Iraq I, Vietnam, Iraq II, Afghanistan, etc. We could have skipped them all and be better off for having done son.
We didn’t. Now we are sick of wars even though only less than one percent of Americans are affected by them. We wish for a world of peace. “If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.” Obama, conned by the Peace Prize, is leading the wish the parade unable to see that peace is a two sided proposition; the other side has to agree. The AA boys cannot. Their reason for existence is to conduct war on its enemies. Without war they shrivel up and die.
We have been at war for years while wishing it was not so. We have pretended (or wished) that is not the case. We do not understand that true war is not a choice but is inflicted on one.
The Islamic invasion of Europe is continuing unabated. Unable to figure out what to do about those poor people who come, some in sheep’s clothing, the doors are being opened. History is forgotten: there has throughout the long centuries been wars between Christians (are there any left?) and Muslims (who leave no doubt about their presence) Potential recruits of the forces at war with us pour in.
On March 11, 2014, about 40 days after Obama called ISIS the JV, I wrote out my plan (https://mattofboston.com/the-syrian-solution-my-plan-for-ending-the-war-83557/) for bringing peace to Syria. Obviously I was derided for it because it meant going to war again in that hell pit of an area. Now, we have no choice but are options are more limited.
I railed against the idea of going to war against Iran because that would have been a war of choice. Like it or not we hae no choice now. Unfortunately, we have leaders and those who would be leaders who still think we can pretend that we are not. As you and Mr Steyn noted that unless we recognize this: “In the end, the decadence of Merkel, Hollande, Cameron [Obama] and the rest of the fin de civilisation western leadership will cost you your world and everything you love.”