Posted on 09/09/2006 1:32:58 PM PDT by Iris7
LET US SUPPOSE, for the sake of argument, that the war declared by al-Qaeda and other Islamists is under way. Let us further suppose that thousands of “terrorist” attacks carried out in Islam’s name during the past decades form part of this war; and that conflicts that have spread to 50 countries and more, taking the lives of millions — including in inter-Muslim blood-shedding — are the outcome of what Osama bin Laden has called “conducting jihad for the sake of Allah”.
If such war is under way, there are ten good reasons why, as things stand, Islam will not be defeated in it.
1) The first is the extent of political division in the non-Muslim world about what is afoot. Some reject outright that there is a war at all; others agree with the assertion by the US President that “the war we fight is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century”. Divided counsels have also dictated everything from “dialogue” to the use of nuclear weapons, and from reliance on “public diplomacy” to “taking out Islamic sites”, Mecca included. Adding to this incoherence has been the gulf between those bristling to take the fight to the “terrorist” and those who would impede such a fight, whether from domestic civil libertarian concerns or from rivalrous geopolitical calculation.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
I'm 1 of those millions.
Yes I do for three reasons.
Once attacked we must destroy all the enemies ability to make war against us. When you look at the size and population of the enemy it would be impossible to do this with conventional weapons.
If we did not do this we would have just signed our own death warrants and Western Civilization would be at an end.
When the population of our country sees the heart of a city ripped out and several hundred thousand lives lost they will demand instant and over whelming retaliation and they will have a blood lust in their heart. It would make no difference if a Republican or Democrat is in power. In the interest of their own political survival they would strike the enemy with a vengeance. Even a Bill Clinton would do this.
I note too however that these obstacles ultimately are a mere Gordian knot, which can be cut with the sword of ruthless Western determination. The life and death question is, will we ever raise up the leader to do the job? After 9/11 I was one who thought George Bush was that leader, and I thanked God for his election and inauguration despite the coup attempt against America by AlGore and his flunkies. But I see now, after the last couple years of dithering, he is not the man I thought he was, maybe the penultimate leader, but he will not lead us out of the wilderness. His weak and feeble "prudent, kinder gentler" upbringing is his Achilles' heel.
He could have been "da Man" but the George Bush at Ground Zero with the megaphone, or before Congress on 9/13, or at the National Cathedral, with the miserable Clintons looking on, both their pants filled with BM and their mouths filled with ashes and their heads covered with hot coals, is dead and buried.
His intentions were right but his instincts have been proven lacking. He had his boot on the necks of his enemies but he let them get away because...he doesn't know who his real enemies are.
I agree. This is a spiritual struggle as much as a physical one.
In this battle, the Left is totally unarmed and clueless. Even though the secular Right sort of recognizes the threat, it has neither the staying power nor the proper tools. It is being massively undermined at home and abroad by the Left, multiculturalism, and Political Correctness. Nuclear weapons are not enough to ultimately win this struggle.
In which case they can get out their G--D---picks and shovels and get busy before they start to stink.. Better that than waging aggression against peaceable civilized humans.
" Even though the secular Right sort of recognizes the threat, it has neither the staying power nor the proper tools. It is being massively undermined at home and abroad by the Left, multiculturalism, and Political Correctness. Nuclear weapons are not enough to ultimately win this struggle."
all true
I agree with you except for the one more 9/11 part. A year after a second 9/11 we'll be back to arguing with the libs whether we should keep fighting the muslims or not.
Bookmark...
You wrote....The islamic threat is the cancer of western civilzation.....
I suggest that the true cancer of western civilization is the immoral, unGodly, unChristian leftists in our midst that try to shove their vile moral relativism down our collective throats.
There are many Christians all around the world, from Zionists in Israel to Korean missionaries in Afghanistan and even ones right here in America that are speaking the truth about Islam. They have already taken up this spiritual battle.
All is not lost. ^_^
NOW I understand why Dubya is so utterly insistent on open borders with Mexico.
Cheers!
Re post 15, Bingo.
As for immigration, look for more muslims in Europe and I believe in the long run it will impact forgien policy and make them reluctant to fight.
Nothing can stand up to the power of consumerism and the entertainment industry. Their kids will be spoiled and directionless (like ours).
"As for immigration, look for more muslims in Europe and I believe in the long run it will impact forgien policy and make them reluctant to fight."
You mean more reluctant than now?
Who knew that Hitler's question "Is Paris burning?" wouldn't be answered "yes" until last Christmas....
yes, EVEN MORE reluctant.
I stopped reading at Times Online.
Saying that, one thing that always intrigued me was the triangle between the US, China and the Soviet Union. Two Communist countries and us in a battle for the world.
There is a battle again that looms and it is based again on ideology. You have radical Islam, marxism and once again, us. However, the Marxists appear to favor Islam in this battle. Which of couse explains why the Democrats are on the side of the Islamofacists and commies.
The communists don't waorry about this because they know that in the end they will be just as ruthless as the Islamos and that will once again send them whining back to their own little havens.
So how do we win? Do what Bush is doing. Take it to them and get the message out. We are losing the war based on leftist propaganda. First thing is vote the lefties out of office. Then go after the MSM, then finish off the Muzzies.
Even the third world countries are very dependent on technology to maintain there high population levels. You are right that we can not take our 1.5 billion people. However, if you take out the command and control system of a society, it ability to produce fertilizers, and medicine and pesticides for its crops, the constant flow of the new genetically modified rice and wheat strains that feed them, and that culture will die. Without command and control it can not organize. Without fertilizer its crops are minimal. Without the proper seeds for crops, the yield will be reduced even more. Without medicine and infrastructure many many diseases that are easily curable, will kill you. We can destroy millions with a nuclear strike. Disease, famine, plague, and anarchy will kill even more.
I don't know who will take a strong stance when Bush is out.
"...many on the Left have only the fag-end of anti-colonial positions on which to take their stand."
**snicker**
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.