Fighting the Islamist onslaught

A healthy dose of realism from the head of our rapidly dwindling and increasingly ineffective armed forces. General Sir David Richards has said that the West cannot defeat al-Qaeda and militant Islam. Well, yes and no.

Fighting a conventional campaign against an opponent that by necessity uses unconventional methods will result in the failure we are seeing. And it is pointless talking about defeating militant Islam when the politicians and judiciary in this country indulge their agents, and kid themselves that by appeasing them or showing benevolence we can convince them to turn their attentions away from us to something else.

The Islamists sneer at such weakness and draw strength from it because it convinces their warped minds that their aims are righteous and favoured by Allah. The only thing they understand is strength. Anything else spawns their contempt. As such we must be uncompromising in our fight against them. Our politicians do not understand this enemy. They do not understand that there can be negotiation because the only thing the Islamists want is our defeat and fealty to a global Islamic state.

We are engaged in asymmetric warfare with this aggressor. Until the politicians accept the reality and stop trying to fight symmetric battles against them, even mere containment cannot be assured. Our politicians seem incapable of learning the lessons of the past, therefore condemning us to repeat the mistakes of yesteryear. We cannot buy these Islamists off. All we can do is keep killing them so their capability is limited.

3 Responses to “Fighting the Islamist onslaught”

  1. 1 Michele 14/11/2010 at 4:04 am

    Why can we not just apply the law in this country as it is written?

    Marrying a second wife is a crime called ‘bigamy’ – it is against the law – so we withdraw all benefits from second families – because they are breaking our law.

    I would be charged (and many westerners have been) for action that break the law in states like Saudi Arabia etc – even though that law clearly goes against our custom and culture: so arguing that this is a racist comment is self-defeating (not that that will stop them of course)

    And secondly ‘racism’ ‘incitement to hatred’ ‘going armed in public’ and being engaged in ‘offensive behaviour’ should apply equally across the board to all nationals and all cultures – not just the English/white/christian majority.

    I do hope that someone in the police is listening – your inaction only breeds resentment and frustration which (if not addressed) will inevitably lead to vigilante action.

  2. 2 Agincourt 14/11/2010 at 9:37 am

    Why don’t milder Moslems take up against extremist ones, even though they know that – as a result of not doing so – many non-Moslems will probably tar them with the same negative brush as the do for Moslem extremists. That’s even though some of the better Moslems may be serving quite capably in some Western armies & governments, or in hospitals etc. By contrast, Christians can, & do frequently, criticise other Christians for being “bad people” – & probably bad (ie non-genuine) Christians too, though being a bad person is normally the real issue at stake. Because of this asset of a critical & disputational ability, our societies have evolved into democratic ones. In its absence, only autocracies are possible.

    If Moslems can’t criticize their fellow Moslems (without potentially causing uproar), what is their solution? Have you noticed that Moslem countries are never genuinely democratic, & usually are straight-forwardly autocratic? Ruled by a king an emir etc. He fulfils (ie in Moslem nations) the natural need for an authority figure – & is especially necessary where no Moslem male wants to admit to others that he might be wrong over anything, for childish school-boy face-saving reasons. So the tough king/emir is needed to arbitrate & rule over people (especially young males) who don’t want to hear the word “No” said to them. Because of this Moslem male self-centredness, the Moslem ruler (because of this intransigent Moslem male pride & self-centredness) always has to be autocratic – otherwise he doesn’t survive. And this what they expect. Although the moderate Moslems can co-operate with non-Moslems, very few of them can understand why anyone who is not of their group (& therefore also not of their faith) does not treat them toughly too. many of them look on this kindness as weakness, & therefore deserving of being exploited &/or bullied.

    To get anywhere with Moslems therefore demands tough & direct treatment towards them. And also the abandonment of any expectation of Moslem democracy – even in Turkey, where strong rulers have ruled, or tried to rule, since the 1920s. And as for those Moslems living as minority citizens in genunely democratic countries, then they must accept the rules of the majority without dispute. Any dispute by them should be repressed – simply because their Moslem nature is to see authority as weak whever it is not obviously strong.

  3. 3 Span Ows 14/11/2010 at 7:26 pm

    Just by saying those words General Richards has probably boosted the recruitment of dozens of Muslim ‘waiverers’ that at least had a few braincells unwashed.

Comments are currently closed.

Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive

%d bloggers like this: