- - - - - - - - -I have to admit that I would not like to be in government today. Nor would I want to live in Villiers-le-Bel. Even less to be a member of the riot police. For I fear that the riots at Clichy-sous-Bois two years ago are only the appetizer of what we are going to have to swallow in the near future.
I am not trying to throw oil on the fire, at any rate these lines fortunately have no chance of being read in Seine-Saint-Denis and other districts scattered throughout the suburban landscape of our beautiful France. But I believe that we must call a spade a spade. When two schools, a library, a police station, a garage and several other buildings on a list already forgotten are set on fire, not to mention dozens of vehicles each day, we are used to it. It has become almost a routine.
However, the second night of Villiers-le-Bel marks an escalation that the media and the government would probably prefer to hush up, but which may be the start of a new stage: the use of firearms. In truth, the surprise is not that the rioters began to use them, but first, that they hadn’t done it sooner (…) and second, that they are still confining themselves to hunting rifles and lead shot. The suburbs however have been armed for a long time with caches of quality war weapons, lethal weapons, against which the bullet-proof vests will be useless.
In other words the situation is explosive in both meanings of the word. It seems that from one riot to the next the techniques harden, the methods become more professional and the police and gendarmes will soon have to confront, if they have not already, experts in urban guerilla warfare…
[…]
I think that what I’m about to say may shock you, and it is not with pleasure that I say it, nor out of provocation. But this is a grave moment. I am convinced that up until now we have been lucky that the thugs and future murderers in the suburbs have not yet dared to use their fire power. I hope that the public authorities will become aware of the imminence of calamity and especially that they will finally seek solutions. I would not like to be in their shoes, for the margin of maneuverability, if there is one, will be very narrow. Yes, the perpetrators must be mercilessly punished. But repression, in the long term, solves nothing.
And people must stop dreaming, those on the Left and the others: neighborhood police are not a panacea either. You cannot graft an ethnic police force (“police communautaire”) on a society that is this sick and torn apart, in which the members are in open rebellion against society.
There’s more at Gallia Watch.
Hat tip: Kepiblanc
37 comments:
If Paris is turned into the new Beirut, you can confidently bet your life that the US will perform another Clintonist multi-culti intervention to help the oppressed muslims of France. And hordes of leftists will openly side with the insurgents as well, and probably convert to Islam. The media will universaly present this as a revolution. There will be mass, world wide condemnations of "Islamophobia".
Sad to say, but Paris turning into a new Beirut is probably the best thing that can happen. It is the only way people are going to open their eyes to the threat of the muslim mass migration. Open warfare will happen sooner or later. Better that it happens while Europeans are still in the majority in our own countries. Even if it proves to be too late to save France it might save the rest of the western world from suffering a similar fate.
Sad to say, they wont wake up, it will give them a cause to rally around.
@Last_Norwegian,
I still believe that more and more Europeans are becoming aware of the Islamic threat, and the common people are well aware of the threats, but it is the leading nomenklature that needs to wake up, but I doubt that that will happen until it's too late, or perhaps not even then. Thus I doubt that even further riots or other such incidents will shake them out of their beliefs.
Europe will only really take action once the populations of the European countries no longer grants legitimacy to the people who are leading them into the multi-cultural cul-de-sac, the political leaders, the leftist elites etc.
In many ways it's like in the early years of National Socialism, when a lot of the intellectuals and the elites were flirting with the Nazi ideology, and weren't really changing away from that until it became apparent that they were on the losing side.
So to wish for more riots and mayhem, may not be the best situation, as long as Islam seems to be the winning side the ones that currently supports or give succor to them will continue to do so. Only when people understands that their leaders are betraying them, will change happen, and I pray that that moment will come before it is too late, to avoid major bloodshed.
Fortunately we do see a beginning, where people are becoming aware of the dangers, but they still need to be able to connect the dots, and see that the danger isn't islam alone, but also their traitorous leaders and henchmen, who are helping and abetting the enemy by breaking down the structures of our own culture and taking away our means of defense. Once a greater majority of people recognize this, things are going to be very “interesting”... However, the outcome is yet to be seen.
IIt also seems that every generation or two will have to reinvent democracy and freedom, and save us from whatever militant ideology that is prevalent and gets the support from the Marxists in our midst. And our time has come, the big question is whether we have enough time to make a peaceful transition in our countries or whether we will have to go through major civil unrests or worse.
Sorry folks but it has passed the "peaceful" possibility. The leftist elite will continue importing more and more muzzies because they are seen as political allies. Just read Mona Sahlin's (Sweden's next Prime Minister) speeches.
Like I have said in earlier posts, the death camps are going to come back, and they'll be for people like us.
Last Norwegian: Even if it proves to be too late to save France it might save the rest of the western world from suffering a similar fate.
No way will America allow France to go Islamic. Not at least without some serious intervention to confiscate the French nuclear arsenal. Muslim fanatics in possession of nuclear weapons is a recipe for disaster. Pakistan is bad enough as it is.
I still maintain that Europeans will finally revert to their old form and slaughter their Muslim population if no one has the good sense to deport them first.
There are amusing similarities between the EUcracy in Brussels and the court at Versailles. It isn't 1789 yet, maybe half-past 1787?
As I recall la Marseillaise makes mention of hordes of foreigners descending on France to kill and pillage.
Homophobic Horse,
No, not as long as we have the Second Amendment! That's what makes the difference.
"I still maintain that Europeans will finally revert to their old form and slaughter their Muslim population if no one has the good sense to deport them first."
I for one do not want that to ever happen anywhere for any reason and people here should stop saying that.
Blogs like this are already illegal in Europe, we should avoid giving our enemies a reason to gas us publicly on international television.
Homophobic Horse--
I second your motion.
People should get off the killing wagon or exit the comments on this blog.
Not only are such sentiments rude and crude, they put us is a category I dislike.
So, listen up, guys: another burdensome rule regarding the dialogue here:
ANY COPMMENT ABOUT MAYHEM OR MURDER WILL BE DELETED. PRONTO...or as soon as I notice it.
I should have said this a long time ago.
I have never commented but would like to say something. I hate to say this but I think that people getting angry and venting about the idea of revolution is good here. Perhaps not advocating genocide but that is sort of the tribal situation that all this is part of, no matter how we might wish it were not so. If everyone must behave with formal lines not to cross then this sort of discussion loses its force of thought. People need to let others see how upset they really are. I hear some very angry people on talk radio here in Houston, TX and it lets me know I am not alone in my feelings. Please do not be an overly harsh censor of these emotions.
What kind of things do you hear on talk radio?
I would consider the comment deletion of kind of moral chastisement. I forward a motion that this website become CHRISTIANIST.
Tenets of GoV Christianism: Observe the 10 commandments.
Refrain from the 7 deadly sins, especially wrath.
Lately I have heard the local radio hosts try and talk alot of people down from the position of near rebellion down here. The illegal situation and the escalating crime and violence has begun to take a toll. This area is literal on the edge in my opinion and that scares me a little. I think of myself generally as a clear minded person but there is a deep and growing sense of anger here. About 2 weeks ago there was spontaneous riot in Pasadena, TX (a suburb of Houston). Just people here have had enough. They went to stop a protest against a homeowner that had killed some thugs that robbed his neighbors home. On last Friday night alone there were 3 criminals killed by homeowners and business people in various stages of criminal activity. Things down here are heading towards a dark course from what I can see.
@Mosasaurgirl,
Anger is not a particular good ally here, as it clouds your mind and it really is like “Drinking a cup of poison and expecting the other person to die!”, and if we are going to win this battle it is not with emotions clouding our judgement, but with clear heads and rational thoughts. In this case I'm 100% with the Pope, we need more reason and less emotion, otherwise we become our own enemy!
Zonka said:
...IIt also seems that every generation or two will have to reinvent democracy and freedom, and save us from whatever militant ideology that is prevalent and gets the support from the Marxists in our midst. And our time has come, the big question is whether we have enough time to make a peaceful transition in our countries or whether we will have to go through major civil unrests or worse.
Exactly. You don't inherit liberty: every generation must nourish and sustain it.
It is not only a matter of having enough time but of having the will to face our obligations.
There is no obvious path, so we must mark our own.
And so it has been, always.
Here is the incident (and its aftermath) that Mosasaurgirl was talking about:
No Trespassing
It is interesting for several factors and I may do a small post on it tomorrow. I need to do a little more digging first, but the implications of several factors could push this into the national news just on the various legalities.
OTOH, this *is* Texas...
dymphna: People should get off the killing wagon or exit the comments on this blog.
This is a sincere question and meant with all due respect:
Is it also wrong to simply predict such a turn of events?
I have no wish to see such horrors come about but, if history is any indicator, expulsion or genocide will once again be the methods of last resort in Europe. The tactics of El Cid and Hitler have cropped up repeatedly in the last several centuries of European history and it would be intellectually dishonest to omit them from consideration just because they are repugnant.
At the very least, I would hope that open discussion of such assuredly drastic and undesirable alternatives might spur whatever moderate Muslim populations there are into more frankly addressing their co-religionists about the dangers of pursuing jihad. This is much the same as Bush or Sarkozy telling Iran that "all options are on the table". Moreover, to eliminate all injection of such ideas is a disservice to Islam in that it creates a false atmosphere of security through voluntary censorship regarding the full range of consequences that await unabated terrorist atrocities.
Islam has been the source of countless genocides and expulsions all through its relatively brief history. I fail to see how it is entirely inappropriate to note that Muslims invite retaliation in kind through their continued advocacy of converting and subjugating our entire world by force.
If we look at the ideologies of the past/present all of them have one thing in common: None of them gained any sort of mass appeal through reason, but all of them played on fear and loathing of others. Socialism, Nazism, ecomaniacs... All have their enemies and utopian/dystopian visions, and none of it has much root in reality.
We can wish for people to be wise and come to the right conclusions based on cool, factual evidence. But the simple truth is most people are guided by their emotions and not their intellects. Without appealing to emotion we will never get anywhere.
In addition anger works. Look at our current 'leaders'. Angry mobs of muslims/greenies have a huge influence on decisions while our 'leaders' know that ignoring the calm, common man has no consequences for them. Not too hard to figure out who they'll appease and who they'll ignore then.
Look to France, Germany and probably England. Even today a 3rd of children born are born into islam. And most people still don't realize how serious the situation is. If the borders were closed tomorrow, islam would still have an explosive growth over the next few decades. But in reality many of these children will find spouses abroad as well as import various siblings, cousins, parents etc. If we wait for people to realize just how explosive the mass migration is it will already be too late. -Many Europeans will remain leftists and the muslims will be a majority among men of military age, which is the only demographic that will matter in the streetfighting ahead.
Mind you, recognizing that an early war is better for Europe is not the same as encouraging people to shave their heads and go out looking for muslims to beat up in the same way muslim gangs hunt whites in every major European city. Doing so would merely play into the leftist propaganda.
What we need to do is try and spread word of the riots and incidents of persecution so people come to understand what is actually going on in Europe today. The very reason the MSM ignores or downplays these incidents is because they realize every such incident proves us right and increases our support.
Every such riot is another opportunity to get the word out, and the only alternative is more of the same do-nothing-and-hope-for-better-times that is going nowhere. We already know statistics won't shake people out of their utopian dreams. Rapes and assaults committed by the muslims won't either. People got used to it before they even noticed. The only thing that can shock people out of their stupor now is large-scale violence. Only when people get afraid will they realize that mass migration is *the* political issue of our time.
zenster, I appreciate your concern about where the border of civil discourse lies when discussing strategy to contain and envelop extremes like the jihadi philosophy (and action) of murderous intent against anyone not like them.
But, as Zonka said,
Anger is not a particular good ally here, as it clouds your mind and it really is like “Drinking a cup of poison and expecting the other person to die!”, and if we are going to win this battle it is not with emotions clouding our judgement, but with clear heads...
We can acknowledge the behavior that would bring down the Twin Towers without threats to do the same.
We can strategize calmly about what options we have in the future against such a poisonous belief system that the Muslim Brotherhood professes.
But "off with their heads", etc., just doesn't add anything to the conversation.
I know that's not very clear, but the multi-cultis are quite violent in their speech and behavior and I don't want us to go that road. In fact, I would say that the pee cee crowd are anti-war but only when it comes to the West. The rest are free to do to us what they will.
So it's like picking your way thru a minefield notto unwittingly fall into their hole.
Last_Norwegian: In addition anger works. Look at our current 'leaders'. Angry mobs of muslims/greenies have a huge influence on decisions while our 'leaders' know that ignoring the calm, common man has no consequences for them. Not too hard to figure out who they'll appease and who they'll ignore then.
[emphasis added]
Excellent post, Last_Norwegian. You've identified several key elements that all militate toward extreme violence instead of less forceful solutions to these issues. Moreover, it is quite clear how multiculturalist politicians bear much responsibility for this. In answering only to those who threaten their political office rather than being concerned about the electorate's welfare, such abject self-interest breeds up far more horrors to come. This is what will eventually transform the "calm, common man" into a militant national who will defend home, hearth and family by all means available. As JFK noted:
THOSE WHO MAKE PEACEFUL REVOLUTION IMPOSSIBLE, MAKE VIOLENT REVOLUTION INEVITABLE.
Last_Norwegian: The very reason the MSM ignores or downplays these incidents is because they realize every such incident proves us right and increases our support.
This is where the MSM's culpability also comes into play. Their reportorial bias inhibits the degree of societal awareness needed to drive native populations towards legal mitigations and, instead, increases the likelihood of violent confrontation. Most vile of all is how these politicians and news establishments all portray themselves as peacemakers when they are the basest sorts of appeasers.
This same journo-politico machine is at work in America and the consequences promise to be far more devastating. With this latest NIE report on Iran, nearly everyone involved has lulled themselves into a false sense of security when nothing could be farther from the truth.
Cursory examination of Iran's nuclear strategy reveals how their entire focus is upon the refinement of HEU (Highly Enriched Uranium). The only weapons application such fissile material has is in a "gun-bomb" design like that of "Fat Man", which was dropped upon Hiroshima. Iran's ICBMs lack the payload capacity to deliver such a device. Due to US air supremacy, Iran is also unlikely to airdrop this sort of weapon.
This leaves only one other alternative: A "container" or truck bomb as their delivery method. Please note how Iran has little to no trade with Israel. The final upshot of all this is that The United States of America remains as the most likely target for Iran's nuclear weapons.
When one combines this with apocalyptic Shi'ite orthodoxy—as it involves the manifestation of their Mahdi or 12th Imam—a nuclear attack upon America will precipitate the exact sort of catastrophic circumstances that would putatively bring about their messiah's arrival.
Thus, we see similar mechanisms at work both in Europe and America whereby indirect collusion between media outlets and elected politicians result in the buildup of a massive threat to native populations. As I have previously noted, the nature of these threats are so dire that—once they manifest in a significant form—the response to them will be cataclysmic. Worst of all is how there do not seem to be any mitigating factors or mechanisms in place to avert these dire circumstances. All of the most vital avenues of political action and public awareness are intentionally blockaded by self-interest or agendas wholly inimical to the native population's well being.
This is why I am obliged to predict such convulsive reactions against Islam's continued predation upon Western cultures. Neither will Islam voluntarily reform itself nor will Western populations be allowed the tools of immigration restriction or legal prohibition to contain this threat. All of these factors militate towards the most violent sorts of outcomes and that is what I continue to anticipate.
Dymphna: I know that's not very clear, but the multi-cultis are quite violent in their speech and behavior and I don't want us to go that road. In fact, I would say that the pee cee crowd are anti-war but only when it comes to the West. The rest are free to do to us what they will.
I'd like very much to believe that sites like the Gates of Vienna directly serve the cause of increasing public awareness without inciting the indiscriminate violence that blind anger might otherwise propagate. However, you yourself recognize that the multiculturalist opposition is quite fond of violence and grants its use to all parties except the most justifiably aggrieved—namely, the West. It is precisely this sort of lopsided and intentionally slanted playing field that will lead to far more extreme circumstances.
In many ways, the fact that "The rest are free to do to us what they will" points towards a similarly unrestrained attitude in retaliation to such predation. That remains my central point. As in fighting fire with fire, so may jihad need to be fought with jihadist stratagies. Unappealing as that might seem, giving one's opponent a dose of their own medicine is frequently the only way of making them realize the exact magnitude of their error.
In light of how so many other avenues remain barred, the prospects for more gentle expressions of displeasure seem remote at best. This applies in equal measure to any promise of their efficacy as well. Altogether, not a very comforting outlook.
To those that think that assassinations will help in the Counter-Jihad I urge you to think again... The results of such tactics are dubious at best... And there is very good reasons for abstaining from such tactics...
1. Consider if the Jihadis did assassinate leaders of the Counter-Jihad movement, would you back down and surrender the fight, or become more convinced that it is necessary to fight back even harder?
2. Eliminate a leader in the Jihadi movement and another takes his place. It didn't make much of an impression in the Islamic world when the U.S. air-force took out What's his name again in Iraq. Fighting the Jihadis is like fighting the hydra, cut off the head and another grows out. And in the meantime you have lost credibility among some of your potential allies.
3. And finally who should be doing these assassinations? Should they be vigilantism or officially sanctioned. The first would put our governments in an even more awkward situation, where they would be pushed to take hard measures against such people, and officially sanctioned... forget it, ain't gonna happen anytime soon!
4. And if we open up Pandora's box, who's next? Do we get to wipe out our political opponents? Where do we draw the line?
No the answer is not to assassinate our opponents, but to make them irrelevant, by denying them legitimacy, expose them for what they are and what interests that they are serving. If you're fighting for freedom and democracy there is no easy and quick solutions, you have to live up to your own standards or have your goal corrupted. And that is why a movement that fights for freedom, justice and democracy cannot endorse assassinations, the moment we do then we're no longer fighting for freedom, justice and democracy, and instead we're entering the road towards another totalitarian system.
This is not to say that we should be meek and bowing in our response to the Jihadi menace, far from it, but there are certain measures that we must not use, even though they are applied by our enemies, simply because we do not want to become our enemies!
To paraphrase an old saying by Longfellow: “The mills of Democracy grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small; Though with patience it's waiting, with exactness grinds it all.”
Zenster wrote:
In many ways, the fact that "The rest are free to do to us what they will" points towards a similarly unrestrained attitude in retaliation to such predation. That remains my central point. As in fighting fire with fire, so may jihad need to be fought with jihadist stratagies.
That is exactly where we part ways, if we do allow ourselves to fall into that trap, we have failed! We have failed to uphold the very priciples that we're supposedly fighting for. And yes adhering to those principles may look like a disadvange in reality it is not, in the long run it will be an advantage to have remained true to our goals, and proving that we don't sell out our values when convenient, don't sell out our friends when convenient.
And the sad thing is that we are in some respects the last bastion of freedom, democracy and rule of law... our governments have started to sell out, do you really wish to follow them on that path?
Two thoughts come to mind: First, as everyone "knows" who reads literature and history, terrorism is the weapon of the weak. Thus, Islam uses suicide bombers to attack the West because they cannot match us in conventional arms.
But as things are now going- particularly in Europe- the Muslims are growing in strength, both demographically and politically. Given that Europe is ruled by leftists who are generally Muslim apologists, we're reaching a point where the "Natives" are losing political power. So does that mean that the ethnic Swedes will begin blowing themselves up in the markets of Sweden?
And Zenster, you suggest that the Iranians would use a "suitcase nuke" to attack the US. Not a chance on earth. They're actually playing a game of brinkmanship: Push to the limit, and then back off.
Iran simply cannot ever- repeat, ever- attack the US with nukes. They would be destroyed, and the entire non-Islamic world would shrug their collective shoulders. As would many of their neighbors. What kind of idiot would use a pocket knife to stab a neighbor, when they know the neighbor has a big ass sword in his hand, and is perfectly willing to use it?
As Stratfor has long said (if you don't know them, use Google), Iran's concern is their own security. Attacking the US would, to say the least, increase their insecurity. They want a safe and stable western border. Just as the Shah did, and every other "Iranian" going back to at least 400 B.C.
According to Stratfor, the whole nuclear weapon thing is a gambit. They want the US to talk to them as equals. They try and destabilize Iraq to convince the US to compromise with them. If and when they get an Iraq with no ability to threaten Iran, they'll be content.
Zonka -- my problem with your comment is that survival not principles are at stake. This is a common confusion among leftists.
SURVIVAL trumps all else.
IMHO the best course of action is to point out to Liberals that leaving a vacuum will only allow a Napoleon to fill it.
Ordinary Europeans are "sunk" into their nations, they lack sufficient English, skills, and money to move to the US. Some might own small property.
It is true that the autonomer are the current noisy street presence along with the Muslim mobs. But a regime that cannot maintain order and protect the populace loses legitimacy and finds itself vulnerable to a Lenin or Napoleon who WILL offer a proposed solution.
THUS the self-interest of Leftists IF they can be persuaded of the danger to themselves would REQUIRE them to do things they don't like (in the way a man may take foul-tasting medicine to save his life) to retain power.
The danger for the Left is that some military man with respect can mount a public stage after riots and outright declarations of "Independent Islamic Republics" with defacto or formal recognition and offer salvation for ordinary people. Who in SURVIVAL MODE WILL TAKE IT. As Napoleon and Lenin found takers, and members of their street armies.
I personally am pessimistic on this strategy, because I believe that the Left is so delusional and isolated that they don't see the danger. And some Napoleon will arise after some shocking event scares the heck out of ordinary people and remnants of the military decide that the government is weak and ineffectual. Or even some trans-national movement ala the many participants in the Thirty Years War. Which drew in the Swedes, Russians, Poles, French, Turks, and practically everyone else.
I believe Col Peters was correct in his prediction of violence and horror in Europe, because sensible measures will not take place even though Leftist rulers will be toppled by Napoleons by failing to take them. I do not like this but I can see how the incredible denial of reality affects actions. [Much of it steeped in Cold War ideology and thinking, but that is another story.]
Zenster of course is correct, in that the gun-type bombs are good only for shipping container wars. Europe also does btw big shipping trade. Nuclear war by deniable proxies against a weak target, say Europe, without a "proven" US protector or reliable return address could happen in support of "Independent Islamic Republics" -- one of the lessons of Europe is that they are so weak that they can be attacked with impunity absent America's guaranteed protection.
I don't think France will be the flashpoint -- I think Sweden with a "dead" military incapable of fighting it's way out of a paper bag, proximity to lots of aimless young German men without money, careers, women, or a future, and opportunity to make something of themselves in war. Never bet against the bad parts of human nature.
Whiskey_199 wrote:
Zonka -- my problem with your comment is that survival not principles are at stake. This is a common confusion among leftists.
SURVIVAL trumps all else.
If survival is all that matters and principles can just be thrown in the dump, then I suggest that we all convert to Islam, and be done with it!
Don't like that solution? Then what are you fighting for besides your life?
And the real fight haven't really begun yet, and still a lot of people are calling up the end-game scenarios, where we ditch all principles, ethics, morals, etc. and just go for pure bloodlust... If that is your commitment to freedom and democracy, then it is sad indeed!
Zonka's right.
If survival were all that mattered, we'd have surrendered in 1941 (if we're American) or in 1939 (if we're British).
If survival were all that mattered, we'd have paid the stamp tax and never said a bad word about King George.
If survival were all that mattered, the plantation owners in Mississippi would have kept their slaves and the mills in Massachusetts would have continued to receive their cheap cotton.
If survival were all that mattered, no hydrogen bombs would have been built and the Red Army would simply have strolled from the Elbe to the Bay of Biscay.
There are things worth dying for. Human beings have proved that time and time again.
Sometime's it's a piece of real estate people die for -- Virginia, Schleswig, or Bessarabia.
Sometimes it's an ideal.
We have our ideals. That what distinguishes us from the enemy.
The big question in this argument is: How many ideals are we willing to let go of in order to win the battle?
If the answer is "all of them", then there's no point in fighting in the first place.
Perhaps it is time to define exactly what it is that we're fighting for instead of letting what we're fighting against define us.
Here is why a good study of war history is so important. Our first encounter with muslim warriors lead to some amazing inovations in the ways we fought them. One of the most important things is to remember that while there are some things muslim fighters are good at, like dying for their god, they are easily swayed by the principles of 'insh'allah' which is to say, fatalism. This is why wars with them take forever, no sooner do they pick a fight, then they declare a hudna. And we never finish the job. Just look at Israel....oh, heck, just look at the Old Testament. Never finished off the Canaanites when they had the chance and they have been fighting them ever since. Only the deities have changed.
Zonka: Perhaps it is time to define exactly what it is that we're fighting for instead of letting what we're fighting against define us.
Let's please do that. This lengthy post will need to be in a couple of parts.
Zonka: 2. Eliminate a leader in the Jihadi movement and another takes his place. It didn't make much of an impression in the Islamic world when the U.S. air-force took out What's his name again in Iraq. Fighting the Jihadis is like fighting the hydra, cut off the head and another grows out. And in the meantime you have lost credibility among some of your potential allies.
Your statement makes it evident that you may be unaware of the difference between low context and high context cultures. At least, your above quote certainly seems to indicate this.
Islam is the pluperfect example of a high context culture. I’ll start with a direct quote of Wretchard’s from his exceptionally informative website, The Belmont Club:
The Israeli strike against the terrorist top tier exploits the weakness inherent in terrorist organizations which are unstable alliances based on a delicate balance of internal intimidation. None of them, the Palestinian Authority included, are either transparent or accountable. They are exceptionally vulnerable to changes in their leadership. They can stand the loss of any number of teenage fighters or youthful suicide bombers without much damage but are rocked -- as Yassin's death illustrates -- by death at the top.
The abovementioned vulnerability is a direct outgrowth of high context culture. Let’s examine some of the differences between low context and high context cultures.
Low Context:
Less verbally explicit communication, less written/formal information
More internalized understandings of what is communicated
Multiple cross-cutting ties and intersections with others
Long term relationships
Strong boundaries- who is accepted as belonging vs who is considered an "outsider"
Knowledge is situational, relational.
Decisions and activities focus around personal face-to-face relationships, often around a central person who has authority
High Context:
Rule oriented, people play by external rules
More knowledge is codified, public, external, and accessible.
Sequencing, separation--of time, of space, of activities, of relationships
More interpersonal connections of shorter duration
Knowledge is more often transferable
Task-centered. Decisions and activities focus around what needs to be done, division of responsibilities.
Now, let’s sequentially examine the implications of these differences:
Low Context:
Less verbally explicit communication, less written/formal information
Less explicit communications permits greater latitude of interpretation and subsequently inappropriate application of putative suggestions or mandates. This represents a superb vehicle for plausible deniability, as can be seen in how the constant Palestinian terror attacks are conveniently blamed upon oddball alphabet soup proxies without Fatah or Hamas ever having to suffer direct consequences for such atrocities.
More internalized understandings of what is communicated
Internalization can only lead to misinterpretation, intentional or otherwise. Explicit definitions DO NOT serve the ends of terrorism and are therefore eschewed. One merely need examine the vague, nebulous language that is constantly applied to UN definitions of terrorism to understand this. More importantly, please note how often there is a total lack of any forthright definition of terrorism AT ALL. If any other proof is needed, consider how Muslims constantly slaughter each other because of insufficient “Islamic purity”. The issue of Takfir sums this up rather well.
Multiple cross-cutting ties and intersections with others
Call it tribalism, sectarianism or cronyism, there is little difference. The clannish aspect of high context societies facilitates the exact sort of networks and cell structures needed to shield and protect terrorist groups and their supporters. Moreover, such nepotistic constructs also engender corruption and graft, a problem that is rampant throughout the MME (Muslim Middle East).
Long term relationships
While this may sound obvious, terrorism runs in the family. Closer examination reveals much deeper implications with respect to this seemingly simple observation. One major reason the West has had such difficulty infiltrating or disrupting terrorist networks of all sorts—be they Islamic, IRA or Tamil Tigers—is that they enjoy the secretiveness and allegiance fostered by kinship and marriage. There is no way to overstate the leverage this provides terrorist organizations. The shared argot or lingo makes intercepting communiqués that much more difficult and common background interferes heavily with any ability to decipher a given message.
Strong boundaries- who is accepted as belonging vs who is considered an "outsider"
These xenophobic roots provide a heightened level of protection for terrorist networks and other subversive forces. Once again, familial ties enable expanded degrees of security and refuge where it might not otherwise be available. Furthermore, such a homogenous population makes infiltration just that much more conspicuous. One need only consider the popularity of consanguineous marriage to comprehend how strongly reinforced this aspect of Islamic truly is.
Knowledge is situational, relational
This harkens back to shared background and a common argot or lingo. Without foreknowledge of explicit definitions regarding locations, landmarks and timing, few military forces can possibly overcome such arcane references. Additionally, an absence of firm, fixed fact-based references lends unmerited persuasiveness to unscrupulous individuals whose motives might otherwise come into question.
Decisions and activities focus around personal face-to-face relationships, often around a central person who has authority
This is the most key of all. Individuals, not groups or committees play a critical role in decision-making or delegation of authority. This decentralization of power is exemplified by the constant stream of arbitrary and often contradictory fatwan spewed forth by Islam’s clerical community.
Combine all of the above metrics with this cardinal feature and immediately it becomes clear that certain persons or leaders are vital to—not just assembling strategy and tactics—but the critical authorization of action in any theater. These pivotal individuals are not subject to general election and are, more often, appointed or even self-appointed. All of this serves to breed up the very worst sort of authoritarian and totalitarian governmental structures. Few better examples exist than theocratic and political Islam.
Now, let’s please examine low context societal parameters:
Rule oriented, people play by external rules
This one single feature is utterly contrary to all aspects of terrorist activity. The total disregard for and breaking of any existing rules forms the foundation and fundament of all terrorism. Rule of law, rules of order, sanctity of human life and rules of any sort all fall by the wayside if these concepts are entertained within a high context society.
More knowledge is codified, public, external, and accessible.
While shari’a law might seem “codified” in some respect, it is far more subject to interpretation than something like constitutional law. Low context cultures thrive on transparency, something that is anathema to Islam in general and terrorism in particular.
Sequencing, separation--of time, of space, of activities, of relationships
Propinquity represents a significant restraint upon low context cultures. It inhibits swift decision-making, the proper delegation of authority and allocation of resources. Islam’s economic and cultural growth is severely retarded by its reliance upon proximity for authorization and access to resources or information. Simultaneously, this facilitates terrorism in many different ways in that dependence upon localization maintains closely knit support infrastructure and tight security. Islam willfully disregards the inhibition of prosperity that this causes in favor of entrenching and perpetuating its own power structure.
More interpersonal connections of shorter duration
Low context culture does not require lengthy personal relationships as a prerequisite for reliable interaction. Business with complete strangers can be conducted swiftly with the knowledge that contractual law will be enforced against any default. Commerce in high context societies suffers immensely from loosely imposed legal guidelines. This is only the better for those individuals who indulge in graft and corruption. Note that the converse circumstances of high context cultures require lengthy personal relationships in order to establish trust, prestige and authority. This depth of contact is one thing that shields terrorist operations from penetration and compromise.
Knowledge is more often transferable
Quite possibly, this is the most critical difference between low context and high context cultures. It is also what makes terrorist organizations so sensitive to loss of leadership. The need for lengthy personal relationships in order to establish power and trust reduces the interchangeability of given individuals within an organization, especially at the very apex of control. Witness how modern corporations can exchange CEOs with relative ease as compared to the transfer of power within the governments or businesses in high context cultures.
Leadership within high context cultures often is wholly reliant upon personal contacts and insider knowledge that is jealously guarded from associates and contenders. Often, it is only by preserving certain specialized abilities or arcane information that a given individual maintains their position of power. This is terrorism’s Achilles’ heel and one that the West is only beginning to capitalize upon. As Wretchard notes, terrorist leaders dispose of countless foot soldiers with cheerful abandon yet rarely lead their troops into battle or don a bomb vest themselves. Nor does one ever see the children of these demagogues being placed in harm’s way. This is a telling contrast between dynastic and egalitarian power structures.
Task-centered. Decisions and activities focus around what needs to be done, division of responsibilities.
Again, terrorist organizations do not willingly divide responsibility among operatives. It is contrary to their covert and secretive nature. Such transparency only increases the chances of compromise. Moreover, those in a position of privilege routinely reject decentralization of power as it dilutes their opportunities for illicit gain and only increases the chances of their ouster. While terrorism may appear to be task-centered, those individual duties are performed only with the maintenance of Islamic theocracy’s ascendancy in mind. The productivity of Western industrialized cultures is largely a foreign concept.
Should any proof of this be required, reflect upon how the entire MME’s combined industrial exports total some five billion dollars. That figure is matched by the output of Finland’s Nokia telecom company alone.
All of the foregoing stands as powerful testimony to just how sensitive terrorist organizations are to loss of leadership. “Eliminate a leader in the Jihadi movement and another takes his place”, most definitely does not hold true. Witness how the swift elimination of Sheikh Ahmad Yassin and Abd al-Aziz Rantissi has thrown the entire Palestinian cause into turmoil and internecine conflict of the most destructive sort. Note how the eliminating senior leadership of al Qaeda in Iraq has crippled their ability to impose further disruption.
The evidence at hand gives every indication that decapitating terrorist leadership has devastating effects upon its ability to operate. I maintain that if the following list of terrorist clerics, financiers and scholars were removed from their positions of power that Islamic terrorism would be severely hobbled, quite possibly for long enough to begin dismantling its power structure in an irreversible fashion. The following forty individuals are prime movers in modern Islamic terrorism and deserve no mercy from Western civilization:
1. Ayman al-Zawahiri
2. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
3. Ayatollah Kahmeini
4. Mullah Muhammad Omar
5. Abu Bakar Ba'asyir (Bashir)
6. Moqtada Sadr,
7. Abu Hamza al-Masri,
8. Mullah Krekar (AKA: Abu Sayyid Qutb),
9. Khaled Meshal
10. Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah
11. Ismail Haniya
12. Mohammed Abbas
13. Yusuf al-Qaradawi
14. Tariq Ramadan
15. Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilali
16. imam Omar Bakri Muhammed Fustuq
17. imam Abdel-Samie Mahmoud Ibrahim Moussa
18. imam Sheikh SyeSyed Mubarik Ali Gilani
19. Sheikh Abdullah al-Faisal
20. Sheik Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi
21. Dr. Mahmoud al-Zahar
22. Prince Sultan Ibn Abd al-Aziz
23. Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz
24. Prince Nayef bin Abdulaziz
25. Muhammad Taqi Usmani
26. Yasin al Qadi (Saudi terrorist financier)
27. Imad Mugniyah, — Iranian master terrorist
28. Sheikh Abdullah bin Jibreen — top Wahabbi cleric
29. Sheikh Saleh Al-Fawzan — top Wahabbi cleric
30. Sheikh Nasser Al-Omar — top Wahabbi cleric
31. Sheikh Essa
32. Abu Waleed Ansari
33. Abu Yahya al-Libbi
34. Maulana Ilyas Kashmiri
35. Ahmed Abu Laban — DEAD — January 19, 2007
36. Sheikh Abu Yahya al-Libi (al Qaeda CEO)
37. Sheikh Abdel-Aziz Al al-Sheikh — Saudi Grand Mufti
38. Ramadan Shalah — Islamic Jihad leader
39. Ali Abdullah Saleh – Yemini President
40. Sheikh Ibrahim Al-Ghaith — head SA’s Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.
Few other individuals alive wield the power and authority that those listed above currently possess. It would take years—if not decades—for such extensive contacts and financial conduits to be re-established. Their removal would also send a significant warning shot across Islam’s bow regarding the West’s refusal to tolerate political Islam. Theocratic Islam has no redeeming qualities. It is the source of tremendous human misery, constant crimes against humanity, intense oppression and physical mutilation of women, destruction of antiquities and violent atrocities that only promise to escalate until a nuclear terrorist attack is finally consummated.
Far better that we begin to scrape away a few hundred of terrorism’s key operatives than permit them to bring about the deaths of untold millions. We lose nothing of our humanity and not one iota of our moral authority in doing so. We suffered no such loss in shooting down Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto’s plane and can only benefit in a similar manner by decapitating Islam's terrorist leadership. Consider the implications of a global caliphate:
The needless deaths of millions of women due to preventable illnesses because they are no longer permitted to see male doctors
The swift execution of this world’s homosexual population
The destruction of Western civilization’s most prized architectural, artistic and literary treasures.
The imprisonment or murder of all political opposition.
The reversion of modern civilization to 7th century technology and the onset of epidemics and famine that it would bring.
Just the above few items would result in the death of BILLIONS of people around the world. I am not prepared to allow Islam’s political elite any breathing room out of falsely awarded respect or consideration. They must be prevented from any further expansion of Islam’s empire until such a time as jihad is abandoned, shari’a law repealed, taqiyya renounced and theocracy foresworn. Until then, Islam remains and shall remain the enemy of all civilization and must be treated as such.
Zonka: That is exactly where we part ways, if we do allow ourselves to fall into that trap, we have failed!
I beg to differ. We fought the Nazis using horrific retaliatory measures like the carpet bombing of Dresden and Hamburg. We fought the Imperial Japanese military by fire bombing Tokyo and nuclear attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I neither case did we become like our enemies. We prevailed because our cause was just and the moral authority devolving from that made us and our allies more strongly motivated than our enemies.
The same exact circumstances apply to this current conflict with Islam and we must not allow any moral or cultural relativism to interfere with our sense of survival.
Zonka: And yes adhering to those principles may look like a disadvange in reality it is not
Do you approve of terrorist prisoners being granted Geneva Convention protections? Do you approve of negotiating with terrorists or paying their ransoms? Please answer these questions.
Islam intentionally turns every best practice and ethic of Western civilization against us. Our humanity, sense of decency and honor all are weaponized by the terrorists. Either we surrender our right to practice these qualities amongst ourselves or we begin to deny our enemies these boons. Which shall it be?
Gun-Totin-Wacko: Iran simply cannot ever- repeat, ever- attack the US with nukes. They would be destroyed, and the entire non-Islamic world would shrug their collective shoulders. As would many of their neighbors. What kind of idiot would use a pocket knife to stab a neighbor, when they know the neighbor has a big ass sword in his hand, and is perfectly willing to use it?
The same sort of lunatic madman who would say the following:
"We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."
Ayatollah Khomeini — Qom — 1980
As I noted about about high context and low context cultures, there is simply no way for most Westerners to comprehend how Islamic thought processes work. They are nearly alien in nature to most non-Muslim people. Islam is, by nature, an apocalyptic creed and rewards of the hereafter are such a central focus that worldly matters can only be a secondary consideration at best.
Whiskey_199: Zenster of course is correct, in that the gun-type bombs are good only for shipping container wars.
Credit given where credit is due, W_199. You are the one who has taken great pains to make this point over at Belmont Club and I've seen little contradict it. I find it unlikely that Iran would first use a nuclear weapon in Europe. Firstly, due to the Muslim populations there and, secondly, because America is a much more significant target for Islamic hatred.
Post a Comment