Sunday, May 16, 2010

Relying on “Dumb Bombers and Smart Citizens”

The worst attorney general ever? That’s what most folks in the U.S. are saying about the current guy sitting in the chair.

Me? I think it’s mostly a top-down problem. Holder can’t let past his lips anything that is not part of his Obama-derived marching orders. After all, the President is his boss. If our president, B. Hussein O., has dismissed the notion of “radical Islam” then no matter how often a member of his cabinet is asked directly to respond to a question about -gasp — “radical Islam” — that person will stonewall. After all, what can any interlocutor do to a cabinet member that BHO won’t execute in spades? He plays by Chicago rules.

So that’s the background of this bizarre morality play, with Holder stumbling through his lines while up against a Texas Congressional Representative who happens to be the ranking minority member of the House Judiciary Committee.

The Judiciary is powerful; it has a broad reach into all sorts of concerns, from anti-trust matters through civil liberties right on down to Homeland Security. Should the elections in November change the complexion of the House from Blue to Red, Representative Lamar Smith will occupy one of the most powerful seats in Congress. And, yes, you can bet on it: Eric Holder understands this fact of life on the Hill quite well. While it may seem during the video that Mr. Holder is limited intellectually and somewhat hearing-impaired, rest assured he is exquisitely aware of the Honorable Lamar Smith’s standing in the political pecking order.

The video I have come to think of as “Just Say It!” is one Andrew McCarthy calls painful, even as he reminds us of Holder’s own verbal attacks on Americans (the links are Mr. McCarthy’s; the emphasis is mine):

This YouTube clip from the attorney general’s testimony today will be the most painful two minutes of video you will ever watch. Mr. Holder would obviously rather get a root-canal than utter the words “radical Islam” (despite the fact that his description of the American people as “a nation of cowards” on race and of Bush officials as war criminals seemed to roll of the tongue without much difficulty).

Before you watch the video, read the statement that Lamar Smith directed at Holder prior to questioning him. It is these prefatory remarks, which will guide his subsequent questions. The Congressman has his ducks lined up nicely, though we only get to see one question addressed (sort of) by the Attorney General. If the rest is Youtubed, I didn't find it.

Smith begins:

Mr. Attorney General, in the last year three serious terrorist attempts-one of which was successful-have occurred in the U.S.

Army Major Nadal Hasan went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, killing 14 innocent Americans and wounding 30 others.

Omar Farouk Abdulmutallab boarded a plane headed for Detroit with explosives hidden under his clothes. His attack was thwarted by a poorly made bomb and alert passengers.

And Faisal Shahzad, a naturalized citizen, parked a car loaded with explosives in New York City’s Times Square. This attack was stymied by his ineptness and alert pedestrians.

Our national security policy should consist of more than relying on dumb bombers and smart citizens. Sooner or later, a terrorist is going to build a bomb that works.

I’m surprised Holder didn’t interrupt this for a little truth-telling. Something to the effect of, “hey it works for us”.

The Congressman then puts the needle in and proceeds to jam it home, point by point (bulleting for emphasis is mine. The italicized sections are my mind-reading of the Attorney General's replies). While that video is entertaining in a creepy kind of way, what Congressman Smith says to Holder is the meat of the problem with Obama & Co.

Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be a You Tube version of Smith’s remarks. Our downfall may be that we will always prefer circuses and clowns to reality. With the news at an all time high for drear, watching Holder hem and haw is a break from the dark clouds. At any rate, here is the meat. Dessert follows in the form of Holder’s head on a plate.

Smith continues:

As Commander-in-Chief, the President is responsible for protecting the American people. Unfortunately, several of this Administration’s policies have put Americans at greater risk.

  • First, the President’s campaign promise to close the terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay has not reduced the threat of terrorism. Yeah, because that’s all it was: a promise. Like, “the check’s in the mail”. Turned out to be more difficult to do than it was to sign one of those Magic Executive Orders. Call it part of our learning curve.

    In fact, those transferred to other countries can be and are released. And former Gitmo detainees often return to terrorism. Piffle. So they go to some sandbox and kill Americans and our allies. At least they’re not in Gitmo, which is the point. Besides, what part of our voter base is that?
  • Second, trying Gitmo terrorists in civilian courts is a dangerous proposal that has no legal precedent. Once in the U.S., terrorists can argue for additional constitutional rights, making it harder for prosecutors to obtain convictions. Legal precedence? Dangerous? Can you say “a vote-grabber”? This is about winning the political race, not about any war on terror reining in a few lone wolf psychos.
  • Third, treating terrorists like common criminals makes Americans less safe. Giving terrorists the “right to remain silent” limits our ability to interrogate them and obtain intelligence that could prevent attacks and save lives. Yawn. Tell it to your constituents, fellah. We don’t care. We don’t have to care. We won, remember?

    According to news reports, Mr. Attorney General, you recently said that you now want to work with Congress to limit terrorists’ Miranda rights.

    That’s surprising since it is this Administration that has insisted on extending constitutional rights to terrorists in the first place. What, you want consistency?? We’re still trying to figure out where to stuff KSM.

    If the Administration treated terrorists like enemy combatants and tried them in military commissions at Guantanamo Bay Detention Center, they wouldn’t need to be read a Miranda warning. Maybe not, but we’d need protection from our far left base of support. They voted for us based on our promises. So we have to pretend we know what we’re doing.
  • Fourth, the Obama administration’s opposition to REAL ID weakens national security. The administration wants to repeal the law, which was enacted after 9-11 to prevent terrorists from obtaining legitimate forms of identification. This would give terrorists cover to plot and carry out attacks inside the United States. So what is it you don’t understand about union control, Mr. Smith? Read my lips: no REAL ID if we can stop it.
  • And fifth, the Administration’s push for amnesty for illegal immigrants makes America less safe.Good luck on that one, Congressman. Even some of your spineless Republicans friends are with us on that.

Then Congressman Smith turns to Immigration and Amnesty, two issues that fall under the purview of the Judiciary Committee:
- - - - - - - - -
The arrest of the Times Square bomber-a recently naturalized citizen-is another reason why we must reject proposals to give amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

If we can’t detect a potential terrorist who submits himself to our security process — as Shahzad did — how can we identify other potential terrorists who will apply for amnesty?

Amnesty could legalize many would-be terrorists who are already in the U.S. and give them cover to plot attacks against innocent Americans.

It makes no sense to deny the link between immigration enforcement and national security. If we want to prevent attacks, we need to keep terrorists from getting visas and stop them from coming to the U.S. and obtaining citizenship. That means enforcing our immigration laws.

If we don’t enforce our immigration laws, terrorists are not “slipping through the cracks” … they’re walking through the front door.

Success in the War on Terror means preventing attacks, not just responding to attempts. The goal is to detect and deter, not just make arrests after the bomb is set.

But to achieve this goal, we need to:

1. improve our intelligence-gathering by interrogating terrorists-not reading them Miranda warnings.
2 […] End the failed policy of releasing terrorists overseas.
3. […] prevent terrorists from using our immigration system to enter or stay in the U.S.

After those opening remarks, Congressman Smith proceeded to question Obama’s Attorney General, which led to the (in)famous video. Here is a nicely adapted one from the You Tube channel Definite Opinion:

[If you want to see the undiluted, real root canal version, go here. I prefer this Compare and Contrast version, which is from the You Tube channel created and maintained by Standing Guard at the blog, No Sheeples Here.

Of course, this latest display of ineptitude by Holder was too delicious to pass up. Seems like everyone piled on. Beltway Blips has a whole page devoted to those who weighed in, pro and con.

Greg, at Rhymes with Right, lays out his reasons for finding Holder’s stonewalling a “dismal performance”. Then in an update, he links to this unsigned editorial from the Washington Times on Friday (remember…this is the same cabinet official who picked Black History Month to call white Americans “cowards”):

Let’s avoid all the mealy-mouthed euphemisms: In the now-infamous New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.’s Justice Department stands accused of being dishonest, racist, political hacks. The department’s responses to those charges have been so weak that they may as well have pleaded nolo contendere. A hearing today by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights provides the department one more chance to adequately explain itself. Right now, no adequate explanation seems to exist.

Anybody wanna whistle a few bars of “Who’s Sorry Now”?

Michelle Malkin’s commenters take him apart. One, going by the nic “Virginia Patriot”, says:

Islam is the problem, there is no “radical version”. Mohammed wrote the original terrorism manual, the Koran.

I do wish those trying to create a moderate version good luck, though

“The original terrorism manual”? Spot-on. Too bad more people aren’t reading it. We need to know that book as much as we need to know our own Constitution. If you don’t understand the enemy’s playbook, especially when he’s gone to such trouble to litter the land with copies in English, then you can’t strategize successfully.

Hy Science had a few posts on the debacle, and then links to this snip from Jennifer Rubin:

…. Stumbling on and on under questioning by Rep. Lamar Smith, Holder makes apparent the Obama administration’s political and moral confusion about the enemy we are fighting. The question is simple: did radical Islam motivate the attacks that have occurred since Obama assumed the presidency? Holder seems utterly unwilling or unable to formulate a coherent response, and tragically unable to distinguish between radical jihadism and the Muslim religion more generally. If you want to know what is deficient in the Obama team’s conception and approach to the war against Islamic fundamentalists, you will find no better example. One wonders -- how would Obama respond?

Obama would’ve responded more smoothly but he wouldn’t have allowed “radical Islam” to be discussed vis-à-vis terrorism.

My guess is that the apparent unwillingness to “formulate a coherent response” is deliberate. It is no less stupid for being done purposely, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t plan it. Holder didn’t show up in that chair with no talking points. It’s just that he wasn’t prepared to be confronted on the issue of language. Which gives you an idea of how out of touch this administration really is.

This stark editorial in today's Washington Times (the best analysisI’ve seen so far) lays out the core of “Obama’s Invisible Islam”.It finishes this way:
President Obama’s continuing solicitude toward the faith of Muhammad is inexplicable, and as these acts of denial continue, it is becoming dangerous. The United States will not defeat an enemy it is afraid to identify.

Holder should have been ready for that question, but he's unready for much of what goes on outside the Beltway. Arizona? Sorry, he hasn't had time to read the bill, but he knows it's illegal (it isn't).

If Obama didn’t have his hands full heaping scorn on those who don’t agree with him, he’d have had time to look at what people are saying. But suffering as he does from Oval Office-itis (“It’s mine. I won.”) the Big Guy doesn’t hear the undercurrent of dissatisfaction with his administration's handling of our national security and our foreign relations. People are torn between disgust and dismay at our leader’s continuing gaffes.

Here are a few examples. I’m sure you have your own list. President Obama --

  • points at us and lectures, while he bows to our enemies.
  • gears up the p.c. language police to ‘revise’ government papers so that the word ‘terrorism’ has been airbrushed out.
  • decides that New York City will have the KSM trial, without bothering to ask NYC. They beat him down on that poorly-planned idea and now he finds that no one else wants it either.
  • nor does anyone want Gitmo-America. Not even the inmates want to move if it means coming here.
  • plays golf while Poland mourns the loss of its entire leadership.
  • apologizes for his this country at every opportunity, but ignores his own missteps. If Reagan was the “Great Communicator” Obama will be remembered as the “Great Apologizer”.

With a few years to run yet, there are untold numbers of apologies to be made, fixes to be broken, failures to see two steps ahead.

Help yourself, Mr. President. They’ll make wonderful talking points for your opponent in the next election. At the rate you’re going, the opposition will have a full-length movie, maybe even a “Stumbles and Gaffes II” if you don’t learn to dance any better than this.

As for Bag-holder Holder, make no mistake: his boss is pulling the strings that make his mouth move. He’s just the warm body in front of the Judiciary Committee.

Mostly warm…


Anonymous said...

It's not just about national security, but national sovereignty. And I'm amused by Holder's comment on how Americans are cowards on race since they self-segregate in their private lives. So what's next, regulations that say we must have picnics with minorities if we're white? Invite them over for dinner or share our bed?

But yes, Americans are a nation of cowards when it comes to race, since they entertain the politically correct version of things.

Zenster said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dymphna said...


If you didn't click on that "Invisible Islam" link from the Washington Times, I suggest you do so. Very informative.

As for cries of "racism" -- eh, so they call names. It's a bully's game, a con used to avoid having to think. We just keep on saying the truth as we see it until they come to take us away, right?


I don't know of any nation or culture that isn't "preferist" -- i.e., they like to hang out with their own. America is no different.

I like the word "culturist" because it allows for more precise delineations.

We live by choice in a black area. Sometimes that causes tension, but mostly not.

Some residents of some areas in the US tend to be provincial -- e.g., New York City natives think they're the center of gravity for the country.

Boston calls itself "The Hub". When I once asked someone why, he looked at me in surprise: "why the Hub of the Universe, of course!" (said with a twinkle and only half-seriously)...

Differences-- be they race, gender (figure out the varieties on that one), income or age -- will always be noted.

Did you ever watch a baby having a good time entertaining itself among the adults when all of a sudden another baby appears on the scene? Instant change! could be curiosity (usually), suspicion, or just a generally more alert state.

The color of the baby isn't germane, the gender indefinable. But the, look Ma, there's one of ME!

We begin so very early to define our "Like ME" population. It's only a problem if we define it so narrowly that there isn't room for a spectrum of people, some of whom don't agree with us but are nonetheless *like* us anyway.

Dymphna said...

oops...didn't see the over the top parts of your comment, Zenster. COme on, you know better by now.

Annoying to have to delete something that had value.

Dymphna said...

@ Zenster---

Muslims have no problem with terror as a strategy. *We* do have a problem with it so it's our problem.

First part of problem-solving is to figure out who owns the problem.

Zenster said...

I can only assume that mention of Massively Disproportionate Retaliation which posed an exisential threat to Islam was what triggered your reaction, Dymphna. It would be hoped that by now, my preference for the alternative I noted − targeted assassinations of Islam's political, clerical, financial and scholastic elite − was a well-establish matter of record.

The fact remains that, absent the elimination of Islam's jihadist elite, only posing an existential threat to Islam itself will cause any sort of sea change in Muslim behavior and thought. I find it difficult to see what is so offensive about such an observation. It is a matter of simple deduction and how victory was obtained in previous World Wars.

Other than that, I will repeat how Holder's comment about America being a "nation of cowards" is a direct reflection of his own position as a man of color who is obviously incapable of accepting any responsibility for the way that this nation's black minority plays such a disproportionate role in its overall crime statistics.

Beyond that there only remains to note how such marked similarities between thug life and Islam are borne out by the significant percentage of incarcerated black criminals who become Muslims.

Zenster said...

Dymphna: Muslims have no problem with terror as a strategy.

I will reiterate that it is long past tea for the West to make it enough of a problem for Muslims whereby they are motivated to do something about it. Abrupt and dramatically early "retirement" of key jihadist players is one way, the other is to make it increasingly lethal for Muslims in general to not do anything about terrorism.

Again, my preference is long a matter of record.

Anonymous said...

There was once a dictator in Paraguay who made it a legal obligation for Whites to wed non-whites. That was in the 19th century if I remember correctly. History has not retained the result of this policy.

No Sheeples Here! said...

I am honored that you chose my video creation to embed in your post of Eric Holder's unwillingness to name radical Islam as the enemy of America.

I am grateful beyond words.

Dymphna said...


You guessed correctly. Cute of you to repeat your remark. I'll let it stand but let me clarify once more:

remarks like that belong on milblogs, not here. Cut it out.

You said;


The world has changed for the worse since those wars were fought. And whatever the military and intelligence communities do is good for a discussion...on military and intelligence blogs like, say, In From the Cold.

One inevitable decline the Muslims face will take a while to play out -- well past yours or my allotted time here -- and it's the eventual last slurp of petroleum. In the short run, that event will make things worse but eventually, in a post-petroleum world there won't be room for an inflexible 7th century political ideology tarted up as a religion.

Yeah, it would be nice to watch that happen, but it's too long term to be of value here and now.

What we can do, and are doing, is changing the parameters of what is politically possible.

1.We can insist on our sovereign borders (so watch it, you Canadians!.

2. We can insist on English as the social glue that permits our country to blunder on.

3. We can strategize on the best ways to undermine the stranglehold our leftist unions have on the businesses of America (in that, we are helped by the pending bankruptcy of some of the union kleptocracies like Los Angeles).

4. We can insist on a tightening up of our loosely held immigration laws. Arizona is just a start.

#4 is a bi-partisan problem, thus each incumbent in Congress needs to be vetted on his position vis-a-vis immigration.

5. We need to hound the campaigners for office ahead of time re their ability to say "radical Islam". Call it the RITE way. That's an acronym for "Radical Islam Test for Enunciation". If you can't say it, you can't serve.

The military sphere isn't the focus for Gates of Vienna. I'm not saying we'll never cover it,but a post on, say, unmanned drones, is higly unlikely.

Everyone writes what they know. Thus our concern is with cultural changes that could make us safer and stronger.

@ M. Marchenoir --

Dictator or not, that is darn strange. Imagine the convolutions.. how much "white" or "black" ancestry would qualify you to be considered one or the other?

Reminds me of a friend of my son's on Facebook. Like many people, he's unhappy with the Census so he simply MSU (.made stuff up). Called himself Hispanic and told his friends to refer to him as José Negrito, not Joe Black, por favor.

Well, as they say around here, call me anything you want as long as you say "Virginian".

Zenster said...

Dymphna: 5. We need to hound the campaigners for office ahead of time re their ability to say "radical Islam" … If you can't say it, you can't serve.

I could not agree more. This simple litmus test will help avoid sordid spectacles like AG Holder's adamant refusal to implicate Islam in recent terrorist attacks.

However, it could be a grave mistake to assign such reluctance into a category of social or cultural issues when it goes far deeper.

The military sphere isn't the focus for Gates of Vienna. I'm not saying we'll never cover it, but a post on, say, unmanned drones, is highly unlikely.

Which is why I rarely go into depth about military technology at this site. That said, GoV has given extensive coverage of the campaign of Congressional candidate retired Lieutenant Colonel Alan West.

The one principal difference between Attorney General Holder and Alan West is a willingness to name the enemy. And therein lies the entire matter at stake. America is confronted with a military enemy that, seemingly, only a veteran of this nation's armed forces is able to identify as a genuine wartime threat to our country.

While we are confronted with other foes like Communist wolves in faux Liberal clothes and illegal aliens, they cannot be addressed with military force. This observation is not intended to monopolize all discussion by directing it towards strictly military issues.

Yet, the fact remains that a big reason for supporting Alan West is that he names the enemy. Once that now onerous task is done it is not yet time to walk away from the issue. Named at last, the enemy must be fought and that is the gist of why I post comments about military strategy.

However much cultural change needs be sought, it is still vitally important that the American (and European), people be exposed to this looming conflict's true nature. It would be wonderful if that conflict's resolution came about through final depletion of MME (Muslim Middle East) oil deposits.

All signs are that nothing of the sort is likely to occur. Far too much money is flowing into the MME to avoid it acquiring Weapons of Mass Destruction. Iran is a case in point. The sole means of averting terrorist attacks using WMDs is through offensive application of our military forces.

As has been made abundantly clear in recent months, there is no adequate way to defend ourselves from terrorist attacks. Fortress America simply is not a practical way of doing this.

What remains is the option of seeking out our terrorist foes in their lairs. Foremost should be the task of breaking the Bad Boys' toys. Immediately thereafter is breaking the Bad Boys themselves. The only alternative is a horrific boiling of the ocean that terrorist fish swim in and that option continues to be repugnant and will remain so until the first WMD attacks on Western soil begin.

Any hope of averting such a hideous outcome will require the gradual conditioning of Western populations to accept and understand that this is, indeed, a war and that military measures will be needed to resolve it.

The urgency involved does not come from any visceral desire for revenge or wish to impose suffering upon Muslims. It is a direct result of Islam's eagerness to inflict very real and immensely damaging harm upon Western civilization. That harm is not something that can be neutralized through alterations in cultural or social policy save by acclimatizing people to the eventuality of an armed conflict that Islam is driving us towards.

At its very core, this is why only a military veteran like retired Lt. Colonel West seems to have any functional grasp upon the need to identify Islam as our enemy. You also can bet the farm that, were he Commander in Chief, diplomatic negotiations with Islam would not play the primary and totally ineffectual role they currently do in the hands of this administration.

Dymphna said...


Allen West is in the video. He says it all. Click on the video above, "Who's the Coward Now". A few minutes in you'll see West lay it out succinctly.

Practice succinct.

Military measures don't win cultural wars. Cultural wars bring on military measures.

Zenster said...

Dymphna: If you didn't click on that "Invisible Islam" link from the Washington Times, I suggest you do so.

I did and it does not seem to be working. Here is a functional link.

From the article: During questioning before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, a visibly nervous Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. tried valiantly not to utter the expression "radical Islam." The twisting began when Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican, asked whether the men behind three recent terrorist incidents - the Fort Hood massacre, the Christmas Day bombing attempt and the Time Square bombing attempt - "might have been incited to take the actions that they did because of radical Islam."

Mr. Holder said there are a "variety of reasons" why people commit terror attacks. That can be true, but in these cases there was one reason: radical Islam. The attorney general said you have to look at each case individually. That's fine, but when that is done, one comes face to face with radical Islam every time. He said that of the variety of reasons people might commit terror, "some of them are potentially religious." Yes, like radical Islam. When pressed, what Mr. Holder would finally allow is, "I certainly think that it's possible that people who espouse a radical version of Islam have had an ability to have an impact on people like [Times Square bomber Faisal] Shahzad."

I think it's long overdue for people to dispense with this "radical Islam" garbage. The modifier "radical" has nothing to do with anything save the Politically Correct obsession that it is somehow possible to pick up a turd by its clean end. The issue is Islam and continues to be Islam without any need for a "radical" qualifier to enter into it.

The following YouTube clip by Robert Spencer trashes any notion of blame being pinned on "radical" Islam and places it squarely where it belongs. Namely, directly upon the shoulders of Islam itself.

Even an article so mincing as that in the Washington Times cannot help but conclude, as you yourself noted, with this last observation:

President Obama's continuing solicitude toward the faith of Muhammad is inexplicable, and as these acts of denial continue, it is becoming dangerous. The United States will not defeat an enemy it is afraid to identify. [emphasis added]

Dymphna said...

No Sheeples Here has a photoshop blog called "Mako Snark".

Here are the refreshing rules:

Many conservative bloggers contact me requesting permission to “liberate” my Photoshop™ work for use on their sites. I always grant them permission.

If you see something here that you like, feel free to take it. All I ask, out of simple courtesy, is that you link back to this site. Thanks.

She obviously understands the karmic rules of creativity: the more you give away, the more ideas you'll get back.

Funny how that works. Sad how few understand it.

Dymphna said...

Zenster, thanks for the link. I'll change the one in the post.

I'm done with this conversation;it's plain we're simply talking past each other at this point.

Zenster said...

Dymphna: Military measures don't win cultural wars. Cultural wars bring on military measures.

It stands to reason that we are already in the "cultural war" phase, if not a military one even now.

Per your own suggestion, let's examine exactly what is was that Allen West actually said: (his speech begins at video time point 2:35)

But the first thing you’ve got to do is study and understand who you’re up against. And you must realize that this is not a religion that you are fighting against. You are fighting against a theo-political belief system and construct. You are fighting against something that has been doing this thing since [the year] 622AD. The seventh century. Thirteen hundred an eighty eight years. You want to dig up Charles Martel and ask him why he was fighting the Muslim army at the Battle of Tours in 732? You want to ask the Venitian fleet at Lepanto why they were fighting a Muslim fleet in 1571? You want to ask the Christian … uh, I mean the Germanic and Austrian knights why they were fighting at the gates of Vienna in 1683? You want to ask people what happened in Constantinople and why today it’s called Istanbul because they lost that fight in 1453. You need to get into the Qu’ran. You need to understand their precepts. You need to read the Surrah. You need to read the Hadiths. And then you can really understand this is not a perversion. They are doing exactly what this book says.

But, and I want to close by saying this, and I think that we have said this all through this morning, so far. Until you get principled leadership in The United States of America that is willing to say that, we will continue to chase our tail. Because we will never clearly define who this enemy is and then understand their goals and objectives which is on any jihadist web site. And then come up with the right and proper goals and objectives to not only secure our Republic but to secure Western civilization.
[emphasis added]

Mr. West makes it more than apparent that we are well past the culture war phase of this conflict. While that does not decrease the importance of shifting voter opinion against people like AG Holder and the type of executive leadership that would appoint someone like him, it is still quite clear that we have already entered the military war against Islam and will most probably remain in that mode until we manage to, "not only secure our Republic but to secure Western civilization".

As I noted in my earlier comment: Securing America's borders against terrorism simply cannot be accomplished now that Weapons of Mass Destruction exist. They are too compact and portable to permit 100% interdiction at our borders.

How then are we supposed to secure our Republic and Western civilization?

Our sole alternative lies in disabling Islam's ability to inflict the sort of tremendous harm it continues to pursue by marshalling WMDs against us. Such an effort does not reside within the cultural domain.

As I have noted many times before; Were this some 50 or 100 years ago, there might be a chance of altering Islam's jihadist course. Too much time has elapsed and, along with the advent of nuclear weaponry, far too many Muslims have adopted an unadulterated meaning of Qu'ranic doctrine for any such reorientation to occur in time to avert large-scale military conflict.

We are most definitely in a phase of physical conflict with Islam and it is imperative that those cultures which hope to survive begin assuming some measure of war footing. Yes, exchanging political leadership for individuals who are capable of adopting that posture is of relatively equal importance but without a largely convinced citizenry, any chance of success for that leadership is deeply compromised.

Zenster said...

Dymphna: I'm done with this conversation; it's plain we're simply talking past each other at this point.

That's too bad. If we really both were "talking past each other" no one would have discovered that broken link.

Anonymous said...

Actually, military wars do win cultural ones. WW2 anyone? Just invade Mecca and ban Muslims from entering it and turn it into a huge nightclub for orgies, booze and drugs. Defile the symbols of your enemy and make it shameful to have his beliefs. And I don't care about fixing Islam or the life of Muslims. I don't need to win their hearts over, I need to kick them out of my country and make them suffer more by attacking it than they're comfortable with.

See, for me things are clear. Us - Europe. They - Muslims. They get kicked out of our place. They attack our place, they suffer huge pains. Simple and neat. What they do in their hellholes is irrelevant to me. And don't worry, if Iran thought there's a possibility of being turned into glass by using their nuke, they wouldn't.

Robert Marchenoir, as a white person, preserving your genetic integrity is racism though. It perpetuates the genetic inequity among groups. Groupism = racism. Now go marry a Muslima and listen to your leaders who said you should do some miscegenation to save your country.:P

Dymphna, I remember in 8th grade while filling my ethnicity on my high-school test registration, me and the guy I was sharing my desk with wanted to write Gypsy since they get affirmative action and we would have liked getting into a good high-school with merely passing grades, instead of studying for it. The head teacher told us off and the guy said that his dad is the Gypsy king though. lol.

davod said...

"Just invade Mecca and ban Muslims from entering it and turn it into a huge nightclub for orgies, booze and drugs."

Before the Wahabi ratbags got hold of Medina and Mecca in 1928 the tradditional pilgimage to Mecca looked a lot different. The pilgrims wore their traditional clothes and the visit had an almost carnival atmosphere.