Tuesday, November 17, 2015

In the aftermath of Paris

There have been many commentaries about the terrorist attacks in Paris.  Most haven't been particularly useful.  Some have been spot-on.  Here are a few that struck me as getting at least some things right.  Each headline is also a link that'll take you to the full article, which I recommend you read to get the 'big picture' of what was said.  It's followed by an extract from the article concerned, and my comments.

1.  'Islamic State cannot be defeated with kindness. It's time to kill or be killed.'
The gunmen of Isil cannot – and will not – be defeated through talking, persuasion or understanding. There are no compromises to be offered.

There is, quite simply, nothing to negotiate.

The cold, hard facts are these: the Islamists hate us and their aim is to kill us.

They hate our way of life, our values, our culture, our civilisation. There is nothing we can do to appease them or persuade them to stop their killing spree – whether that murder takes places in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon or on the streets of Paris.

There is nothing we can do – whether it is changing our foreign policy by withdrawing troops or warplanes from the Middle East or ending the Israel-Palestine conflict or anything else – that will make them change their minds.

This will not change the minds of Islamists. They still want to kill us

The terrorists and their willingness and ability to use violence against us will only be defeated by one thing: our own willingness and ability to use violence against them.

. . .

Isil and its death cult stablemates will never be defeated until we get to grips with the concept that this has nothing to do with anything except the fact that we exist. It is that, and that alone, which offends them and which they seek to destroy.

So, unless we are all happy to sign up to radical Islam right now, with every heretic and infidel executed on sight, every man forced to take up arms, every woman enslaved, every homosexual stoned to death and every nine-year-old girl at risk of rape, in a terrifying return to the Dark Ages, we have a choice to make.

That choice is stark: kill or be killed. So which one is it going to be?

An absolutely correct summation . . . with the caveat that it will take a massive investment of money, equipment and (most important of all) lives to do this.  Is the West - particularly Europe - willing to make that investment?  The USA was after 9/11, but because that investment was squandered on a bad strategy that failed - and produced ISIS into the bargain - I don't think it is any longer.  Will Europe step up to the plate?  Will Russia continue its commitment, and perhaps ally with Europe?  Will they form a new alliance that will supplant - perhaps entirely replace - US influence in the region?

2.  The inimitable Karl Denninger has two very trenchant observations.

    (a)  'You done yet?'
The so-called "refugees" coming out of Syria (and elsewhere) are not refugees.  The demographic of refugees tilts heavily toward women, children and the elderly.  Why?  Because real men fight, that's why -- and when your nation is under assault if you're a real man you fight, because that's what a man does.  Call that sexist or whatever if you wish, but it's reality; it's our job as men to do the dirty work when it needs to be done.  This isn't about blood lust or any such thing; it's about how we were made and who we are as that particular half of the human species.

So tell me, my friends, why the so-called "refugees" have an inverted demographic?  Why they are majority fighting-age men?  It takes only a minute of reflection to realize that they are not refugees at all; they are in fact the army going out to wage war while the women and children, along with the infirm, stay behind!

. . .

You bleed from the eyes but it's not because you're compassionate; it's because the invading army you invited in ... just stabbed you in the face, intending to drink your blood and have fried brains for lunch -- yours, to be specific.

    (b)  'The Solution To ISIS'
There is only one thing that stops a madman with a gun -- a good guy with [a] gun.

There are no guarantees in life, especially when the situation is grave.  But a fighting chance always wins over no chance at all.  I cannot carry an armed cop or military member in my pocket but I can carry a defensive firearm and the founders declared that nobody needs a damn permit or license to do so.

. . .

Today is the day folks: Either step up, render your demand that the Second Amendment be enforced as written and be prepared to enforce that demand or shut up if and when the terrorism that just took in France comes here.

What can I say except, "Amen!"?  Also, go read this article at 'Shall Not Be Questioned'.  It discusses the myths surrounding the effectiveness - or claimed lack thereof - of civilian armed self-defense, and demolishes many of them.  See also 'After Westgate, Interpol Chief Ponders Armed Citizenry'.  It was written after the terrorist attack on a Kenyan shopping mall in 2013, but is just as relevant to what happened in Paris last week.  Both articles - and both of Mr. Denninger's - are highly recommended reading.

3.  'The Jihadis' Master Plan to Break Us'
[Paris] happened because the Islamic State, the latest version of the Islamo-apocalyptic movement, has decided that Western democracies, representing the “Infidel” world, are no longer prepared to fight even to preserve their comfortable lives. The Paris attacks came on the first day of the Muslim lunar month of Safar, which coincides with the anniversary of the Prophet Mohammed’s first successful “ghazva” (raid) against the “infidel” at Safwan in 623 AD.

The Islamic State is already referring to the Paris attacks as another “ghazva,” promising many more. The aim is to terrorize all mankind into submitting to the diktats of The Only True Faith.

This is how Sheikh Abu-Bakr Naji, the late theoretician of the Sunni version of the Islamo-apocalyptic movement, put it: “No one should feel safe without submitting, and those who refuse to submit must pay a high price. The aim of our movement is to turn the world into a series of wildernesses in which only those under our rule enjoy security.”

. . .

The sheikh recommends “countless small operations” that render daily life unbearable rather than a few spectacular attacks such as 9/11. The idea is that the “infidel,” leaving his home every morning, should not be sure whether he would be alive in the evening.

This article is worth reading in full.  It outlines a jihadist fundamentalist view of the world and society that's chilling in its nihilism ... and shows us the nature of the enemy with greater clarity.

4.  My meatspace buddy, fellow blogger and awesome writer Larry Correia has his usual insightful analysis of the situation.
And the other [idiotic school of thought] is the they’re all guilty, kill 1/6th of the world’s population, let God sort them out rage posters. Not getting into morality at all, that’s dumb just from a logistical and target selection stand point. That’s just good business. You’ve got a particular problem, focus on that specific rather than the overwhelming whole. Of course we aren’t fighting all Muslims. If we were fighting a billion people, you would know it. However, we are fighting millions. This isn’t some tiny, violent splinter group. This is a fairly wide spread, violent, jihadist, idealized imaginary history, philosophical movement, and they are motivated and think they can win.

The problem is that this murderous faction has taken over large swaths of everything, all over the world, and it has been going on for a long time. I’m not talking physically taking over either, but they’re in the mosques, in the leadership, and in the money. Yes, there are plenty of moderate Muslims who fight these people. That’s why the nut jobs spend most of their energy blowing up people who are supposedly of the same religion. There are bombings and shootings daily across the third world that barely make a blip in our media because they’re business as usual.

For the vast majority of the moderates however, what do we expect them to do? You can ally with the west, where you can fight against the death cultists, but the minute a progressive gets elected, you are going to get sold out and left to die. So why ally with us? Because the death cultists aren’t going anywhere. Those fuckers are committed.

Look at what happened to Iraq and Afghanistan. Why would any leader side with us now? America will come in, kick ass with the greatest fighting force ever… Oh, wait. MSNBC is upset. Buh bye. We’re out. Everybody who helped us get massacred. A year later, if they’re lucky they might get a hashtag on twitter, because that’s how America shows it cares.

Boko Haram, ISIS, and Hamas are all different groups, but they all share that idealistic, death cult, militant, asshole philosophy.

. . .

Europe has been following the liberal, progressive, pseudo-socialist path a lot longer than we have. Instead of doing little things that make sense all along, they’ll let the problem get really big and stupid, and then it is guillotines, gulags, and cattle cars. There’s a lot of really pissed off Europeans right now, and over the centuries we’ve got plenty of examples of what masses of pissed off Europeans do when pushed.

The death cultists are totally cool with that, because they truly believe they’re going to win the apocalypse. The only long term problems liberals can fixate on are imaginary ones that allow them to make the government more intrusive for regular law abiding citizens. So I expect everything to get far stupider from here on out.

. . .

Solution? Beats the hell out of me. It certainly isn’t whatever it is we’ve been doing. The ball is now in Europe’s court. America’s bipolar leadership has abdicated responsibility. Europe can either decide it is in it to win it, and fight like their survival is at stake, or keep doing their thing. The extremists are happy to die, and they consider everybody on their side expendable.

Again, "Amen!"  Go read the whole thing.

All of the above articles are useful food for thought.  I hope you find at least some of them worthwhile.



Anonymous said...

Was going to post a link to Correia's piece in the comments, but figured you'd see it anyway. He hits it out of the ballpark!

Anonymous said...

The difference in worldview is and always will be the issue to overcome when coming to grips with this.

The Islamist worldview is convert, submit to Islam or die worldview and the worldview of the West is lets be reasonable, logical and tolerant of all.

Until leaders of nations realize they will not convert Islam the citizens of nations will continue to suffer from the attacks by Islam and the stupidity and errors of their leadership.

So until then we can only be responsible for ourselves as individuals and possibly small groups and communities. Tribal life may be forced upon Western Civilization.

Anonymous said...

Another anon

Middle East borders are realigning with Isis one of the side effects. We can watch it over years happen, or help shape it.

This is the only piece I have seen so far to discuss some ideas for what really needs to be done in the ME. Chances of it happening are zero.


Plus need huge investment in real R&D to make ME oil not important. One thing jimmy carter did tight. Move this money from the ineffective crony green subsidies for not ready for prime time energy technologies.

Duke of URL VFM#391 said...

0bama is demanding we immediately take in another 10,000 of these so-called "refugees"...
03% = The current estimate of how many of the "refugees" are actually trained jihadis
300 = 3% of 10,000
8 = How many jihadis just attacked unarmed peaceful people in Paris
129 = Death toll in Paris (Would have been much larger if the suicide bombers had succeeded)
1032 = Therefore, how many (at a minimum) 300 jihadis would kill here in the USA...
Wonder if we could get them to target the Dem Convention?

Tal Hartsfeld said...

ISIS is, essentially, an aggregation of some of "the losers of the world".
Jealous of those perceived to be "accepted" and who "are benefiting from" life itself, they act out of jealousy, exacting "revenge" on those they assume to be "more fortunate" than they are in life.
I actually believe this to be the essence of this whole scenario.

Bibliotheca Servare said...

I cannot recommend this post by Sarah Hoyt enough: http://accordingtohoyt.com/2015/11/17/that-global-village/

Quartermaster said...

I'm not in favor of killing simply because someone bears a certain label. War will kill enough such people whether we like it or not. There are only two ways I see ending the mess we find ourselves in. First, we start killing and doing it in a way that the results are utterly crushing and they realize it won't stop short of complete annihilation if they don't see reason. Think Japan 1945. If the response is not completely out of proportion and crushing, you are simply wasting time, material and lives. Their lives as much as ours.

Second, completely quarantine Islam. Close borders to all Muslims, for any reason, and deport those who have come here. I'm of two minds about allowing them to keep any kids they have that were born here. I'm inclined not allow them to take them, but I could be reasoned with (note I said reason. I would ignore any emotional appeal). Ship them back, period. If they resist, kill a few and make the deportation for any resisters that happen to survive very unpleasant and the rest will beg to get aboard what ever mode of transportation is available.

The idiots that claim to be Black Muslims, ask them where they want to go and give them a one way ticket. They don't ever come back, them or their descendants.

The question isn't "what to do?" The question is "Do we as a civilization have the guts to do what we need to do for our kids, grandkids and so on?" So far the answer is "no." The statement that we would just be like the Nazis if we do such things is sheer bunk. The Nazis did things for ideological reasons. We would be doing it in self defense. The character of the act is entirely different.

Either western civilization finds its confidence, grows up again and forces itself to do what is necessary, or it dies. From my study of eschatology the answer to that question is, it dies.

Anonymous said...

Excellent choice of articles