Skip to comments.'We are at war'
Posted on 02/16/2008 8:20:55 PM PST by FreePoster
Professor Gwyn Prins, one of the authors of the RUSI report made a most important point on the Today programme (0830) when he observed that 'we are at war', although we are behaving as if we are in peacetime. This is undoubtedly true and is the source of so much of the current confusion (Guantanamo, 42 days, etc) and wholly inadequate government and establishment response to the Islamist threat. As the report asks:
Is there any longer a clear distinction between being at war and not being at war? A declaration of war is almost inconceivable today, and yet both our defence and security services are in action against active forces, abroad and at home, at this moment.The resulting confusion and unease, the report suggests, has produced
uneasy similarities with the years just before the First World WarToo many in that establishment cannot get their heads round the fact that, while what we are up against is not war as conventionally understood, ie aggression between states, it is much more than terrorism (not to mention ‘crime’ as the government would have it) because of the strategic goals, which are the overthrow of the west. Partly because the establishment persists in thinking that as this is such a preposterous proposition (how can people stuck in the 7th century possibly ever overthrow the most powerful civilisation in the history of the planet? Too ridiculous for words, dear boy!) it could never happen and therefore should not be taken seriously, and partly because that establishment is so terrified by the implications of a religious war of cultural conquest that it takes refuge in a myriad different fatuous other explanations for what is happening.
The real problem, as the report says, is that there is no common agreement about the existence, nature or priority of the threats that we face, a lack of consensus which leaves us open to ambush.
A vicious circle has thus been set up. There is no coherent and comprehensive mechanism for the analysis of risks and threats within government that the electorate can see to exist, and so rely on. When the unexpected occurs, the response to it is likely to be incoherent and ad hoc: short-termist and uncertain. This encourages government to ‘spin’ and manipulate, to cover the shortfall in real strength and coherence with public relations ploys. This will play into our enemies’ strengths.And at the very core of all of this lies the deepest problem of all – the fact that in Britain we no longer know what we are. With confidence in our cultural identity all but destroyed, we cannot defend that identity any more. That’s what has to be addressed. That’s why multiculturalism is so lethal for us. That’s why the Archbishop’s comments were a declaration of national suicide. The report suggests ways of addressing these core issues by taking security out of the arena of party politics. Can this be done? Is there the political will to do it? Or are we trapped in a vicious circle as a result of the very collapse of national self-confidence that the report identifies?
Yeah!... Civil War... the Iraq thing is chump change...
civil War? When did this happen?
Actually, whether or not we can tell if we’re at war or not is a really good question. The Islamofascist side is using a variety of means to defeat the West, including incremental immigration, use of the legal system, propogandist imagery in the media, appeals against racism and bigotry, calls for religious freedom, as well as old-fashioned tactics such as taking over nations, killing civilians, and destroying property. Islam presents an interesting quandry for the West, since there is no frontline, yet everywhere there is engagement.
The ultimate response - killing all the Moslems - is too horrific to contemplate. Their own ideology, however, tells them that all non-believers should convert or die.
These are interesting times.
When the enemy media(and others) selected and installed John Mclaim as the other team..
You know.... "US"..
George Soros and the Rockefellers are Johns "Daddy"..
Oh! And the Tides Foundation.. i.e. John Kerrys wife's organization..
The "Coup" is coup-ed so to speak..
Bingo, is there any better description of Washington today than this?
“The ultimate response - killing all the Moslems - is too horrific to contemplate.”
You are speaking personally here right?
The more you understand about Islam, the less horrific and more necessary the ultimate solution appears to be.
Ditto. See my tagline.
That’s why I think we have to accept that the Dems have already won the 2008 Presidency and get on with focusing on the Senate races, etc. and 2010 and 2012.
To elect McCain would be to cement their victory over our 2008 primary as a victory over the GOP as a conservative party. McCain would be installed as the GOP leader. Look how much damage was done by Bush’s disconnect with conservatives. For Bush this may have been unintended, but for McCain it would be a mission. And every Dem proposal would be “bi-partisan.”
Also, it will be much easier in 2012 for a conservative to run against an incumbant Dem than an incumbant Republican.
This is not to put the party over the country. For the country’s sake, we cannot afford to lose the party.
You don’t have to kill all the Muslims. You just have to kill enough of them to break their spirit. That is not all of them or even a majority, believe it or not. Also, you should go after Arabs (& possibly Pakistanis) more than the other Muslims because the heart of Islam is in Arabia. Many of the other Muslim races are either not so into Islam or have an inferiority complex toward Arabs. Once you beat the Arabs into submission, it will leave the rest of the Muslims bewildered & lost.
Ugly stuff to say, especially since I love Arabs more than all the Muslims, but it is what it is.
Ah, so true.
>>>Islam isn’t the problem, it is just a symptom. We lived without a qualm with Islam for hundreds of years. The issue is moral cowardice in the west. Period.<<<
I agree with your premise, but some of the specifics I’m going to call into question. Islam was on the march through eastern Europe until they were finally stopped at the Battle of Vienna in 1653, and then it took hundreds of years to push Islam back to Turkey - leaving in their wake death and destruction in the Balkans and a brutal war for independence in Greece in the 19th century. The Americans had to fight the Barbary pirates in the early 19th century, too. We’ve always had a struggle with Islam ever since the Arabs swept across north Africa into Spain. The only lull took place in the mid-20th century, when the Ottomans were finally defeated and the West’s technology overwhelmed the Middle East.
Yes, I agree that the weakness of the West is seen as an opening for Islamic forces to try their hand at more attacks, but those attacks have been consistent at least since the Battle of Tours.
If you have been issued ration coupons for eggs and told to turn in your aluminum pans.
The new factor in the present equation is purely internal weakness within the west. Both politically and demographically. All of it self inflicted.
Islam hasn't been even close to politically united since the Mongols smashed the Abassid caliphate in the 13th century. Their ideology is singularly unattractive, particularly so since the west adopted religious toleration and the enlightenment and modern free economies. As enemies go, they are utterly pathetic compared to powers we have seen off in living memory. No healthy civilization would fear them in the slightest.
Yes, Islaam has been attacking everyone else for a very long time. But the issue is that the mujahideen are simply no match for any advanced country. Or at least they wouldn’t be a match for any country who dealt with them the way they need to be dealt with. They get this far because many don’t have the will &/or the mindset to fight them.
Most people are the cause of their own problems. That includes Muslims, Israel, America, etc.