WHY THE WEST IS DOOMED........

Why The West Is Doomed…

Wednesday, November 18, 2015 4:33

(Before It's News)

https://balladeer.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/coexist-cartoon-2.png

Unless we make a major changes and entirely change direction, Paris is just the beginning of the end, and the West is headed for horrendous consequences and perhaps even defeat.

It's been just a few days since the atrocity in Paris, and the response to it has been similar to similar jihadist attacks. They range from the usual suspects actually excusing the brutality and talking about how it has nothing to do with Islam ala' Mrs. Clinton to misdirected remarks that resemble nothing so much as the old carny game of whack-a-mole, this time with ISIS as the target d'jour.

Walk with me awhile and let's examine the real problems we face, along with what's really involved in solving them. I guarantee you won't be bored. I haven't seen much real analysis anywhere on how to actually win this conflict for obvious reasons,because they involve dealing with some uncomfortable realities. Here's a small spoiler preview…ISIS is neither the main problem nor even the main target.

From the first, we were lied to. According to President George W. Bush post 9/11, we were fighting a war on 'terrorism'. To President Obama and Mrs. Clinton, we're at war with 'extremism.' They all have their own reasons for misdirecting the American people, most of which have anything to do with either the good of the United States or making any real progress in actually winning the conflict against the faux target they've created.

We're in a war, all right. And ISIS is just one of the factors.It's high time we realized that rather than an ISIS problem, we have a major problem with Islam..in particular, with Islamic fascism and its adherents.And even worse, we have problems that could very well doom civilization and freedom as we know it if we continue along the present course.

The idea that we're fighting 'terrorism' or 'extremism' is especially ludicrous and using the terms are a gross insult to our collective intelligence. 'Extremism' is a vague, dubious and deliberately subjective term designed to cloak reality in fog, and 'terrorism,' after all, is a common tactic of war, designed for one purpose and one purpose only – to erode an enemy's desire and ability to make war.

In the Middle Ages, a common tactic of waging war was to try to destroy the wealth of an enemy and it's ability to support warfare by sacking towns and farmlands. Another example more familiar to Americans was General William Sherman's March To The Sea through the most productive part of the Confederacy, leaving a swath of destruction and desolation in their path. They burned Atlanta and other cities and towns to the ground, destroyed not only military targets but civilian property and infrastructure, and lived off the land by 'foraging,' which essentially meant stealing whatever they found and leaving the civilians with a bare minimum to survive on if they were fortunate.The idea was to end the war by degrading the South's ability and will to fight, and it was very successful in that regard.

William-Tecumseh-Sherman.jpg


We are not only fighting armies, but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war, as well as their organized armies. I know that this recent movement of mine through Georgia has had a wonderful effect in this respect. Thousands who had been deceived by their lying papers into the belief that we were being whipped all the time, realized the truth, and have no appetite for a repetition of the same experience. – General Sherman in a report to Union Chief Of Staff General Henry Halleck, December, 1864.

Similar tactics were used in both world wars by both sides for similar reasons.

French President Hollande was entirely correct that the attack on Paris was an act of war, but it was not 'terrorism' or mindless carnage to no purpose. After all, France has been committing acts of war against ISIS by flying 200 air support missions against both combatants and civilians in ISIS territory since September of 2014.

The tactical idea involved also made sense – to remind the West that their cities and their civilians are also vulnerable and can be reached.

Every master of strategic thinking whether its Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, General MacArthur or Napoleon has shared certain basic principles in common. They've all agreed that in order to successfully wage and win a war, you must have clear goals, know whom your enemy is and secure your base. To that, I'd add effective leadership and motivated forces.

Not only is the West not doing any of that, it's doing its best to do the exact opposite. To really get perspective on that, let's look at how ISIS and other jihadist entities, both Sunni and Shi'ite are waging their war against us as opposed to how we're doing whatever it is we've been doing for the past decade and a half or so.

They have secured their bases, and there's little or no fifth column within. Anyone they even suspect of betrayal or less than full commitment to victory is immediately and ruthlessly dealt with. Both their enemies and their goals are clearly defined and marked out with formal declarations of war after the Islamic tradition, which both Osama bin-Laden and ISIS adhered to. On the Shi'ite side, Iran makes no secret of their hostility to us. They want death to America and President Obama is helping them get the tools for the job.

ISIS leaders and their fighters are dedicated, brave and more than prepared to fight and die for Allah and the Caliphate. The Paris attacks were carried out by young fighters fully prepared to give their lives to accomplish their mission. So were their successful attacks on Iraqi forces who on paper outnumbered them and were far better equipped, courtesy of the American taxpayer.

In contrast. our leaders resort to the most tortuous euphemisms to avoid actually mentioning our real enemy or even establishing more than the most vague and general goals. Unlike al-Qaeda in it's heyday, The Muslim Brotherhood, The Taliban, Hizb' al-Tahrir and ISIS, there's no declaration of war by us and no defining of whom or what we're fighting at all.

Not only have they not secured our base, but our current leadership has actually encouraged the breaching of those bases, encouraging mass migration from questionable Muslim countries where Islamism and jihadist thought are quite popular.

As a result of that migration and in particular America's tolerance and even appeasement of the Saudi and Emirate funded Muslim Brotherhood front groups like CAIR, The North American Islamic Trust, The Muslim Public Affairs Counsel, The Islamic Society Of North America and others, a fifth column in America is rampant. Not only are young Muslims radicalized in mosques and madrassahs here by radical imams, but jihadist web sites and platforms like al-Jazeerah, or Jihad TV as I call it are readily accessible.

As opposed to the militaries of our opponents in this war, our severely scaled back forces have seen much of their best combat leaders and experienced combat troops forced into retirement or out of the service to make way for a military that appears to be far more concerned with transgender rights, 'diversity' and placing women in combat roles regardless of whether they meet physical requirements to do so than concentrating on defeating our enemies. Retention is at an all time low. And as for faith, even mentioning G-d is likely to get you reprimanded or even bounced out of the service – unless of course, you're talking aggressively about Islam's ultimate victory over the Infidels and putting 'Soldier of Allah' on your official business card like Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood murderer did.

Finally, our lack of decisive leadership speaks for itself. We have no strategy and no clear goals and we haven't for years. President Obama isn't even following the old rule of 'at the very least, do no harm.' His destabilizing the Middle East and paving the way for Iranian nuclear weapons is a nightmare his successors will have to face and it will not be pretty.

Again – and I can't emphasize this enough – we are in a war with Islamic fascism, and it is far from being as much of a minority as certain people would lead you to believe. There is nothing Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS, the Taliban, Hizb' al Tarir, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Iranian regime or any of the other so-called 'extremists' are doing that is not sanctioned by the Qu'ran.

That, by the way is very different from being in a war with Muslims. Many of them are decent and peaceful people. But Islam itself is not going to be reformed. It is a violent religion that brutalizes women and non-believers and was designed for world conquest. As Mohammed told his followers before he died in 632 CE, they are commanded to fight the infidels until they died, became Muslims or paid massive protection money or other tribute for their lives to Muslims and “felt themselves subdued.”

In response to that command,The Faithful have killed and enslaved more people in the name of religion than all other faiths combined, and perhaps even more than secular leftists like Stalin, Mao and Hitler. The Indian genocide alone might amount to 15-20 million people. It isn't going to change, at least not yet and perhaps never. So we need to take steps to protect ourselves and minimize the problem. Part of that is realizing that the weaker we get and the more we appease Islamic fascism, the more Muslims are going to go along for the ride and side with the triumphant Umma against the Infidel kuf'rs. Again, just look at Europe.

So how do we win? First, of course, we need strong leadership actually prepared to win. We have very little leadership in power in the West (which I'll use as a generic term for the non-Muslim world) right now. Based on the link I shared in paragraph two of this article, it's obvious that there's not a Democrat now running even vaguely qualified to be commander-in-chief, and the single one who was,Jim Webb got disgusted by the foul smell surrounding him and ended his candidacy. And neither our current president or our vice president are qualified either, as they've proven many times. We have no FDR, no Winston Churchill around today in power.

But assuming that resolves itself sometime in the near future, here's some quotes from something I wrote on the same topic way back in 2008, which I recomend you read in full for context. Regrettably, little has changed:

The second point in which I disagree with Professor Dershowitz is on the need for new rules in dealing with this menace.The old ones work quite well, although an intelligent and otherwise reasonable liberal like Professor Dershowitz shies away from them.

The US has dealt in the past with fanatical enemies as well as potential fifth columnists on its soil with great success. The way we did it was not by using half measures.


When World War II began, President Roosevelt took stern measures to secure the nation at home.For starters, he arrested and/or deported anyone with ties to our enemies who might have even remotely resembled a security risk. He gave the FBI carte blanche to wiretap,listen to phone calls and intercept suspect mail and transatlantic cables at will to protect the country. I myself once had had tea with an elderly woman who proudly showed me a medal she received after she steamed the stamp off of a letter and found a microfilm dot underneath that destroyed a dangerous espionage ring and sent six Nazi spies to the gallows.And perhaps most importantly, unlike the present administration, he engaged his fellow Americans in the task of security with a widespread publicity campaign warning against `loose lips that sink ships.' Using posters,speeches, the radio and the newspapers, the Roosevelt administration let the American people know that there was a significant security threat that could endanger the war effort and their freedom,and that their vigilance and help was needed.

On the battlefield itself, particularly in the Pacific,our military dealt with suicidal enemies not only by destroying them en masse but by taking the war to the Japanese home islands with a vengeance.There's no question in my mind that if the Japanese had not surrendered after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the US would likely have destroyed a substantial portion of the Japanese nation. As it was, that defeat of an honor/shame culture similar to the one we face today swept away the poisonous militaristic fascism in Japan and paved the way for a new beginning,just as it did in Germany.

As for legislating dangerous ideologies, our courts have been down this road before when faced with the communist conspiracy here in America in the 1940's and 1950's. Those laws exist and are quite plain and provide a firm and above all constitutional foundation when it comes dealing with most to the problems we have in the US with some practitioners of Islam and the people overseas who export jihad into America. And a few perfectly constitutional tweaks would cover the rest.

I go on to site several applicable laws from the US code of justice that apply to those attempting to subvert or overthrow the US or its Constitution or to engage in a conspiracy to do so. Nowadays, they would also combine with RICO and anti-Terrorism statutes, provided we actually had a president and a justice department willing to prosecute in the future.

Those Muslims who advocates sharia law, the Islamization of America, or jihad against Americans who happen to be Jews or Christians obviously fit this definition. Likewise, anyone who gives material support to such causes does too. And let's not be coy about it – any Muslim advocating sharia law in America is advocating the overthrow of the first and fourteenth amendments as well as the statutes mandating equal protection, since sharia mandates inferior status for women and non-Muslims, and as such is in clear violation of our laws.

This also applies to the sort of texts the Saudis are pushing in the madrassahs they control financially and to those fiery Friday sermons preaching death to the Jews.

And by the way, that is NOT constitutionally protected speech…..and the Supreme court has always agreed, utilizing the test of a `clear and present danger'.

A re-visitation and tweaking of laws like the Smith Act of 1940 and the Internal Security Act of 1950 would provide further ammunition, as would a law banning foreign funding of political lobbying groups and religious entities. That would dry up funds for the Muslim Brotherhood fronts here and their building of jihadi mosques without violating the first Amendment. Surveillance of the existing mosques (about 80% of them are owned by the North American Islamic Trust, a Muslim Brotherhood front group) and suspect imams with deportation as a resource would be key to securing our base.Blocking al-Jazeera and jihadist web sites would likewise close off channels of jihadist indoctrination.

And a ban on Muslim immigration from some of the obvious countries along with real border security would likewise help secure our base. It simply makes common sense, and all we need to do is see how well it's worked out in Europe. Islam does not play well with others, and not only should we pretty much stop importing it, but we need to be alert to whom is practicing it and how it is practiced here in America, and be prepared to deport problem Muslims and Islamists unclear on the concept of America being a free society.

The actual military aspect is likewise self evident.

We have at present given billions of dollars and lots of military hardware to Muslim countries like Pakistan, Qatar and Lebanon (which means Hezbollah) that are by no means friendly to us in the least. Not only that, but we have spent more billions arming and training no less than 3 Arab armies who are definitely not our 'allies' in the least- Iraq, Afghanistan and the Palestinian Authority. The first step is to be far more careful not to fund our enemies.

The second step is restoring our military to its former strength and bringing back commanders like Generals Mattis, Ham and McCrystal. Our military when used needs to have clear goals and a strategy and to not be handcuffed by PC nonsense or ridiculous rules of engagement. Their first order of business should be to kill people, break things and be victorious over our enemies.

The strategy part is extremely important. for instance, when we took out Saddam Hussein, we essentially removed the check to Iran's fascist regime. The same thing would happen if we decided to take out ISIS without curbing Iran. As Dick Cheney famously said about the Iran/Iraq War that cost a combination of a million casualties, “It's a pity they can't both lose.” Thanks to President Obama's abject stupidity and his appeasement of Iran, we're currently arming both sides of the current conflict, supplying arms and funding to Hezbollah via Lebanon and doing the same thing to Jaish al-Fatah, the rebel 'Army of Conquest' for the Sunni rebels that has al-Qaeda allies as its main components and is no better than ISIS. We may end up being required to make sure that both Iran and ISIS lose, but if we do, we need to have clear goals, and declarations of war by Congress in the event we plan something more long term than a pre-emptive strike on Iran, for instance. In short, unlike before, we need to know what comes next and that should most assuredly NOT involve US nation building.

Another step is cultivating and in some cases rebuilding relationships with real allies and partners, something Nixon and Kissinger provided a model for. President Obama did his best to alienate them, but Egypt, Israel, and a strong and viable independent Kurdistan are obvious candidates. And we need to make an attempt to come to an understanding with Russia's Vladimir Putin, who has actually done more to curb ISIS than we have. China, with their own problem with the violent Muslim Uighers are another possibility. So is India.

We can win this war provided we end our self defeating behavior. If not, we can look forward to a new dark age for our freedoms and our civilization. Those are the alternatives.

http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/v2/lg-bookmark-en.gif