Posted on 11/15/2015 6:42:27 AM PST by markomalley
The carnage wrought in Paris on Friday served as a grim reminder for the West that no place is truly safe from terror.
None of the 120+ victims expected to become targets while they walked to a soccer match, enjoyed a drink at a cafe or watched a rock band play at their favorite venue. None of them thought they would die in a war that doesn’t discriminate between combatants and civilians on a night meant for care-free entertainment.
It’s hard to think of a literal war being waged against the places people associate with safety and comfort. But that’s the nature of the “new normal” Europe and North America have to live with. For the enemy that struck Paris is not just a villain that can be defeated through an invasion of a foreign locale. This is an enemy that lives in cities throughout the West and is growing stronger every day.
And it’s an enemy that our governments continue to invite in and nurture.
Shortly after the attacks, French President Francois Hollande promised a “ruthless” and “pitiless” retaliation for the blood bath unleashed on his country’s soil. But who exactly is this retaliation going to be directed at? Hollande did say that the violence was the work of ISIS, but if ISIS is living among your population, how will more bombs over Raqqa make you any safer if you fail to tackle the problem in the homeland?
Jihadis are not just in Syria. They can be in your neighborhood, your favorite bar or even your school.
The uncomfortable truth is that Europe will have to endure more of the kind of senseless slaughter the world saw on Friday if nothing is done to control Muslim mass migration and eradicate homegrown extremism.
While it is abundantly clear the attacks were the work of Islamic extremists and ISIS has claimed responsibility for the atrocities, there’s an apparent attempt at foot in social media and normal media outlets to portray the terror along the lines of a natural disaster. The likely culprits are downplayed in favor of promoting the meaningless Eiffel Tower peace sign and calls for more universal understanding.
As fired MSNBC personality Krystal Ball so eloquently put it, “Most powerful response to radical hate is radical love. Open your hearts wider and love harder.”
In other words, welcome more terrorists into your country because you’re more loving than they are. That’s a clearly an invitation for civilization suicide — but it feels a whole lot better than trying to solve the problem.
More than a few liberal commentators expressed shock that the area struck the hardest by Friday’s terror was home to “the city’s young, progressive core,” according to Fusion. These are folks who would never in a million years consider voting for Marine le Pen and the National Front. They’re the “hipster socialists” who wanted to make France welcome refugees and consider criticism of Islamic migration as inherently racist.
Now they’re the very victims of Islamic terror, and there will be more just like them if Europe continues to pursue bad policies and ignores homegrown trouble.
The latest example of bad policy is how the European Union handled the thousands of illegal migrants who swarmed into Europe over the summer. Instead of trying to stop the flow and sending back those who had no legitimate claim to asylum, countries all over Western Europe have enthusiastically welcomed any migrant who claims he (and they’re mostly “hes”) is a refugee.
At least one of the Paris terrorists was a recent refugee, and the majority of the assailants could be as well.
It looks like the fears that militants lurked among the migrant exodus have been proven true.
The West is now faced with a choice. It can close its borders to illegal migrants, deport/arrest promoters of violent jihad and restrict immigrant quotas from countries that are known to breed extremism. Or it can learn to accept the new normal and hope hashtags someday vanquish terrorism.
The peace and love crowd assume that what all these terrorists really want is good ol’ liberal democracy. They just need a hug first and some hip messaging to get on board. In reality, most of these jihadis have been well exposed to liberal values, and have chosen jihad instead. They believe bombings, shootings and beheadings are all done for good, and that what the West represents is pure evil.
A Peace for Paris post is not going to change that.
Those who want to unleash Armageddon upon Syria but want to do little about the jihadis at home are also mistaken. This invade the world/invite the world mentality gives your enemies the opportunity to strike at your cities while you bomb theirs. Besides, the interventions into Iraq and Libya only fueled the fires of radical Islam, with the world becoming a much more dangerous place as a result.
We need to start waging a much smarter War on Terror. It has to place the immediate threats at home first, not the ones far away.
If anything, the bloodshed on Friday the 13th might have finally awoken Europe from its refugee daydream.
Sure thing…
That’s why I have my EDC with emphasis on the ‘E’.
lotsa white phosphorus
The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
Carry concealed ... everywhere, everywhen. You never know when God will cast you in the role of sheepdog and you’ll need to step up to stop a tragedy in the making. Make sure you have the tools to act.
ISIS is code for Muslim.
ISIS is Islam.
They are following the example of their prophet and his instructions in their book.
Islam has been at war with everyone else since 622 A.D.
Ruthless and pitiless retaliation. Yep, heard all that before.
I have a theory that after Islamists are fully entrenched in America, they’ll first start killing all the people that supported them getting here: women, liberals, journalists, homosexuals, liberals, city dwellers, etc.
Now, I haven’t seen any analysis of the people who were murdered in France, but I wonder how many of them actually supported the policies that led to that massacre?
In all cases, it’s the gun carrying adults that’ll be left cleaning it up.
Thoughts?
Quit treating this like a conventional war, where we can eliminate the enemy with soldiers on patrol. We need to infiltrate their infrastructure, poison their processes, and disrupt their ability to organize. Then we need to take them out, one by one if necessary.
And if our government won't do it, then we need to contract the work out.
Not all women should be on your hit list.
“In all cases, it’s the gun carrying adults that’ll be left cleaning it up.”
Indeed. This sort of thing isn’t all that difficult to understand. There are wolves. There are sheep. The sheep want to believe that there aren’t any wolves, or if they do accept the idea that there are wolves, that if they’re nice enough and sweet enough, then the wolves will pass them by.
In the long run whether the sheep survive boils down to the shepherds.
Oh, they mean it this time, they’re negotiating with Lindsey Graham to be their new defense minister. He says he has to beat Donald Trump’s brains out first though.
The Hebrews made that mistake when they went into Canaan. ISIS is the current results.
I don’t know exactly what to expect but I am betting that they DON’T start in the whitetail deer swamps of South Carolina so I think I’ll forget about moving anywhere else.
That is ridiculous. There are many women who can't stand this religion. I was one of the first pointing out koranic verses on this site in the days following 9-11 proving it was islam that was the problem not just a few crazy people the government and liberals were trying to sell us and I am just one of millions of American women who think bringing these men over to the US that want to enslave us is just flat out treasonous!
No, of course not. It’s just a little of typical liberal demographics. Not all city folk should be there, either. But no one reads the longer posts. Sorry for the slight.
Please keep preaching to your sisters because I can’t believe there are ANY women that are OK with this.* Yet, some are. I don’t know what they think will happen. They will be the main recipients of the sad consequences of this current policy.
(Of course, I never meant all women anyway; it’s just a representative sample of typical liberal ‘rat demographics).
*According to CNN’s exit polls, 55 percent of women voted for Obama, while only 44 percent voted for Mitt Romney. Men preferred Romney by a margin of 52 to 45 percent, and women made up about 54 percent of the electorate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.