I had an interesting e-mail and telephone exchange this week with reader Jim Matheson, who took exception to a piece by Toronto columnist Eric Margolis that I linked to here. Jim, who says, "I love Canada and their wonderful people,"
found Margolis' article fits right in with a "disappointing" level of support from the Canadian government for U.S. efforts to eradicate terrorism. "While their liberal socialist government spends most of their money on social programs with little attention to the real war on the radical Islamic Jihad, we (the USA) provide them with the freedom that allows them to act like naive children playing in their sand box of peace and tranquility. The truth is that our way of life in North America is in grave danger and the liberal left in the USA and Canada just don't get it."
Jim attached a lengthy piece he found on the Web that for him sums up the problem that the U.S. faces from radical Islam. I disagree with some of the anonymous author's analysis, which in my view is flawed, and some of his conclusions, which are more apocalyptic than reality suggests (but then I'm one of those leftists who probably doesn't "get it"). The author does a pretty good job of lining up his main arguments and I'm reproducing those here because the threat of radical Islam is a central issue for us in the years ahead. It's a question of how best to address it. I'd like to link to this piece in full because I've whittled it down somewhat, but I don't have a link to the original. So here, via Matheson are some considerations about the struggle with militant Islam:
Do you know what losing will mean?
To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).
The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.
First, let's examine a few basics:
1. When did the threat to us start?
Many will say September 11th, 2001. The answer as far as the
United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September
2001, with the following attacks on us:
Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979.
Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983.
Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983.
Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988.
First New York World Trade Center attack 1993.
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996.
Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998.
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998.
Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000.
New York World Trade Center 2001.
Pentagon 2001.
(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).
2. Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. …
3. Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.
4. What is the Muslim population of the World?
25%
5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). … Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others. Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else.
The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing - by their own pronouncements - killing all of us "infidels". I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?
6. So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.
So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?
If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.
We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean? It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is:
We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly to terrorist attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them.
We would of course have no future support from other nations for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see we are impotent and cannot help them. They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do, will be done. Spain is finished.
The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast.
If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else? The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war and therefore are completely committed to winning at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.
Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.
So, how can we lose the war? Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by imploding. That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win. …
In the year and a half I've been blogging, I've dealt with the issue of Muslim extremism in a number of posts. No doubt I'll be dealing with it more in the months ahead, as the problem isn't going away anytime soon. If you see pieces on this broad topic that you'd like to share, send me the links.
Back to top