We did not ask for a war with jihadists. Years ago, they commenced a war of aggression against us. --- hogwash ... the US interventionist policy started this was with the muzzies. we know who started it and why.
On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 7:14:57 AM UTC-6, Travis wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/the-war-that-hasnt-ended?f=must_reads > > > The War That Hasn’t Ended > > by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY > <http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/authors/detail/andrew-mccarthy> > November 14, 2015 > > [image: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: > http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/imgLib/20151114_horrorinparis_november2015_.jpg] > > There is always the chance that the next attack will knock the scales from > our eyes. Always the chance that we will realize the enemy is at war with > us, even as we foolishly believe we can end the war by not fighting it, by > surrendering. > > As this is written, the death count in Paris is 158. That number will grow > higher, and very many more will be counted among the wounded and terrorized. > > *"Allahu Akbar!" cried the jihadists as they killed innocent after French > innocent. The commentators told us it means "God is great." But it doesn't. > It means "Allah is greater!" It is a comparative, a cry of combative > aggression: "Our God is mightier than yours." It is central to a > construction of Islam, mainstream in the Middle East, that sees itself at > war with the West.* > > It is what animates our enemies. > > *Barack Obama tells us - harangues us - that he is the president who came > to end wars. Is that noble? Reflective of an America that honors "our > values"? No, it is juvenile*. > > In the real world, the world of aggression - not "micro-aggression" - you > don't get to end wars by pronouncing them over, or mistaken, or contrary to > "our values." > > You end them by winning them . . . or losing them. > > If you demonstrate that you are willing to lose, then you lose. If you > sympathize with the enemy's critique of the West on the lunatic theory that > this will appease the enemy, you invite more attacks, more mass murder. > > France is hoping the night's bloodshed is done as it counts its dead. And > perhaps it is for now. But the atrocities are not over, not even close. > > In Paris, it has been but the blink of an eye since the *Charlie Hebdo* > massacre, > after which Western nations joined together in supposed solidarity, > supporting the fundamental right to free expression. > > That lasted about five minutes. > > Intelligentsia on both sides of the Atlantic rationalized that, while we > of course (*ahem*) champion free expression - "*Je suis Charlie!"* and > all that - columnists and cartoonists who dare lampoon a totalitarian > ideology are bringing the jihad on themselves. > > It was a familiar story. In 2012, jihadists attacked an American compound > in Benghazi, killing our ambassador and three other officials. The > president responded by . . . condemning an anti-Muslim video that had > nothing to do with the attack, and by proclaiming that "the future must not > belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." > > Islamic supremacism killed Americans, and America's president validated > Islamic supremacism. > > How did the French and the rest of the West react when jihadists attacked > *Charlie > Hebdo* in Paris? > > After a fleeting pro-Western pose, they condemned . . . themselves. > > *What happened when American commentators who had spent years studying > Islamic-supremacist ideology warned that mainstream Muslim doctrine was > fueling jihad against the West?* > > *The Obama administration - the president and his secretary of state, > Hillary Clinton - reacted by targeting the messengers, not the aggressors.* > > Jihadist terror would be obfuscated by euphemisms like "violent extremism" > and "workplace violence." The critics of jihadist terror would be smeared > as racist "Islamophobes." Mrs. Clinton led the administration's effort to > portray examination of Islamic doctrine as hate speech, to brand commentary > about radical Islam as illegal incitement. > > Wouldn't that be a betrayal of First Amendment free expression? If so, > Mrs. Clinton declared, the government had other ways to suppress it. The > administration, she said, would resort to extra-legal extortion: "old > fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming." > > American government intimidation, not against the jihad but against > opponents of the jihad. Could we tell the enemy any more clearly that we > don't think we are worth defending? Could we tell the enemy any more > clearly that we are ripe for the taking? > > Hard experience has taught us that when jihadists have safe haven, they > attack the United States and our Western allies. But as ISIS and al Qaeda > expand their safe haven in Syria and Iraq, we tell the world it is everyone > else's problem - the Kurds have to do the fighting, or the Yazidis, the > Iraqis, the "rebels," anyone but us. > > As hundreds of thousands of refugees flee the region - many of them young, > fighting-fit men whose potential terrorist ties cannot possibly be vetted - > we encourage Europe to open its arms and borders to them, promising to open > our own as well. > > After all, to do otherwise would be to concede that the war is against us > - and Obama is the president who "ends" war. > > The enemy is not impressed. What Obama calls "ending" war the enemy sees > as surrender, as the lack of a will to fight, much less to prevail. > > So, as night follows day, the enemy attacked Paris tonight, yet again. > Jihadists brazenly proclaimed that they were from Syria, spreading their > jihad to France. > > Obama responded by soft-peddling the atrocity as a "tragedy," the acts of > war as a "crime." > > A "crime" that tonight killed 158 people (and counting). A "crime" by > "criminals" who vow more jihadist acts of war against Paris, Rome, London, > Tel Aviv, and New York. > > We did not ask for a war with jihadists. Years ago, they commenced a war > of aggression against us. *Pace* Obama, you can't end such a war by > withdrawing, or by pretending it is just a crime. You end it by winning it > or losing it. > > The enemy senses that we are willing to lose it. Tonight, they pressed > their advantage. It won't be the last time. > > > > Read more: Family Security Matters > <http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/the-war-that-hasnt-ended?f=must_reads#ixzz3rfsH0KIE> > > http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/the-war-that-hasnt-ended?f=must_reads#ixzz3rfsH0KIE > > Under Creative Commons License: Attribution > <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0> > > > __._,_.___ > ------------------------------ > Posted by: "Beowulf" <[email protected] <javascript:>> > ------------------------------ > > > Visit Your Group > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmaXBvdTFpBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0NDc3MTM1NDA-> > > > > [image: Yahoo! Groups] > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlN2JzcTU2BF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ0NzcxMzU0MA--> > > • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • > Unsubscribe <javascript:> • Terms of Use > <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> > > __,_._,___ > > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
