Quote from Sam123:
An International coalition of cooperation with a global force of âmilitaryâ police (peace) officers works to a certain extent. But unlike war, it never raises the stakes of destruction and mayhem necessary to ensure a resolution of victory by breaking the will of those who support an infrastructure that is hostile to America and its friends.
But in order for peacetime global law enforcement to succeed in suppressing global Jihad, we have a long way before everyone gets on the same page in the international arena. For one, European nations, and other nations, and even our own nation, must stop all this pussy-footing around the subjects of Muslims, Islam and Jihad. The words from our politicians need to get a lot sharper, and stop pretending that terrorists exist in a vacuum. Also, for example, the U.K., our closest ally, is doing a great job on the law enforcement end, and has thwarted most terrorist attempts and caught Islamists plotting terror, shared information, and so on. But at the same time, the U.K has the most ridiculous asylum law/policies in the world. Americaâs security depends on the folly of this policy.
The good news is that terrorism is inherently self-defeating. The more acts they commit as a means to break our will, actually emboldens us and gets us all on the same page. I bet the U.K. will get rid of those asylum policies in the near future. So, perhaps we can turn this war into a cold one and form a new NATO-like coalition, if it ever gets to that point.
Actually, I think "progressive conservatism" is more accurate than "neocon regressive." It's the "liberals" today who don't want change.
If being firm and resolute with the Muslim world further inflames Muslims, then so be it. Itâs poker time: raise or call. Iâm betting this will actually get moderate Muslims to self-reflect and solve the Fascist Jihad problem for us. But if it in fact inflames them, then they reveal to us their true intentions and we need to know that now. A lot of them are angry now because we are putting them in the uncomfortable position of dealing with Jihad and its place in the Islamic faith. Decades went by with us never saying anything bad about Muslims and look what happened.
It's unconstitutional to limit the 1st Amendment based on an opinion of "fairness", let alone limit free speech to the expression of opinions about unlawful behavior. Criticizing Muslims as a group does not make one a hateful bigot. In fact, it stimulates debate and widens the spectrum of ideas. Bigotry and hate are subjective concepts and cannot be classified legally as a means to limit the freedom of speech. There is always a fringe of people saying âdeath to all Muslims,â but donât confuse that with people accusing Muslim groups for not facing up to the Jihad problem.
I strongly disagree. Itâs about re-discovering what is great about America and why itâs worth defending. If weâre talking tough with those who wish to threaten America, then so be it. Why embolden the causes of our enemies with journalists and intellectuals who routinely perform ritual âself-mutilationâ over Abu Gharib, as if itâs indicative of systematic barbarism from a sick American culture? This is why the Left has lost all credibility. Everyone knows that Abu Gharib was nothing more than an incident of military negligence. A bunch of kids left alone to humiliate some prisoners and then take pictures. The fact that people tried in vain to make it like a massive exposé of systematic barbarism all the way to Rumsfeld shows how mixed up these people are.
