French Prime Minister manages to say what Obama won’t
From France’s Prime Minister Manuel Valls, a declaration of war that is surprisingly specific:
“It is a war against terrorism, against jihadism, against radical Islam, against everything that is aimed at breaking fraternity, freedom, solidarity,” Mr. Valls said during a speech in é‰vry, south of Paris.
It remains to be seen what France is willing to actually do in that war. But naming the enemy is at least a first step.
Here’s an interesting fact:
Large numbers of French citizens have been traveling to Syria and Iraq to fight with the Islamic State militant group.
I’m not sure what “large numbers” means, but it’s a very disturbing development. Does the French government know the names of these people? If so, is it prepared to strip them of their citizenship?
Is that why their boy Chirac tried to aid Saddam Hussein then? Because they were making war on Islamic Jihad?
The Telegraph provides what seems to be the full text of the speech. To my mind, it doesn’t have the punch the NY Times gave it. From the Telegraph:
Ymarsakar,
Don’t forget that there were Frenchmen benefitting from Oil For Food money. I suspect such connections have been going on for quite a while.
Shades of George W. Bush’s “Islam is a religion of peace.”
Why do Western leaders keep insisting on this, in the face of all evidence to the contrary? Why?
ann and rick!
Good points. It appears that Manuel Valls still has a long way to go before he can name our enemy.
Stripping them of citizenship may be a problem if they were born in France. Maybe try them for war crimes (joining a terrorist organization) and put them in prison for the rest of their lives? Another idea might be to buy part of Algeria and encourage all French muslims who do not wish to assimilate to move there.
Anyone who proclaims Islam to be a faith of tolerance is either a liar or in willful denial. No surer indication is needed, that the French authorities have not changed their POV.
“Why do Western leaders keep insisting on this, in the face of all evidence to the contrary? Why?” rickl
Because the alternative is politically unacceptable… to the public.
What logically follows if the West’s leaders admit that Islam itself is the problem? What necessary actions and consequences would follow? If Islam itself is the problem, how do we avoid war with 1.6 BILLION Muslims?
Given the Islamic doctrines of Taqiyya and Muruna, what viable alternative to forced expulsion of all Muslims from the West would there be if Islam itself is admitted to be the source of the problem?
Consequence: given the utter dependence of Europe upon immigration to keep its socialist economic system afloat, expulsion of Muslims from Europe would collapse the system far sooner than otherwise.
Consequence: expulsion of Muslims from America destroys religious freedom because it would be a de facto defining of what is an ‘acceptable’ religion (not just a banning of certain practices).
Nor would expulsion be sufficient but merely the start of the measures that a war upon Islam would entail.
Unlike the Nazis, War upon Islam would be a religious war and religious wars are the most brutal and long lasting.
Contemplation of this causes politicians to run for the nearest exit because their careers and perhaps lives would not survive.
I believe there are answers that do not involve making war upon all Muslims but I do not believe religious freedom could survive if we apply those solutions nor would Europe’s socialistic economy survive. So they will do nothing but place band-aids upon the cancer.
Once it metastasizes enough, they’ll be forced to resort to drastic enough measures* that the West’s survival as representative democracies becomes problematic.
Upon our current trajectory, glass parking lots await us.
* Deny terrorists entrance into paradise by using Islamic dogma against them. Allah, in the Qur’an has declared that an ‘unclean’ Muslim cannot enter paradise.
So, hollow point ammo dipped in dried pig’s blood for combat with terrorists, terrorists captured given a military trial and those males convicted, forced through a sex-change operation and then executed by drowning them in a vat of pig’s blood. Televise the executions. Go after the Imams and Mullahs with the same weapons. The prospect of no paradise nor virgins will greatly reduce volunteers. Hold hostage the continued survival of Islam’s holy sites to their good behavior. Quarantine all Muslim majority countries. Then wait. 7th century Islam cannot survive another century of cultural intrusion from the modern world. Which is what this is really all about for the ‘radicals’.
Socialists have always been populists. They don’t care about their people, only taking the largest amount of power for the government, each of the bureaucrats think they are personally gaining through that. They don’t care if their people die, especially not Jews or dissenters who are not in their ranks, working directly for them. They have designs of their own, and this might work for them on a number of fronts. All this appointee was doing was spewing a pre-recorded, islam approved, note to the masses trying to get out ahead of the herd so as to drive it back to the slaughter pens.
Does France even have a military strong enough to deal with the muslims in their midst? I lost track when they first started burning cars, though I think that has continued, in spits, but went unreported. And weren’t they just about to cede some of their sovereignty, within France’s own nation proper, to islam?
Yeah, pardon me if I believe nothing this toad says.
GB:
Everyone needs to read “Three Conjectures” by Fernandez.
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2003/09/three-conjectures-pew-poll-finds-40-of.html
You allude to a similar idea.
But you make the same mistake seemingly everyone except Robert Spencer makes. The solution is not to oppose muslims.
The solution is to oppose islam, the words, the ideas, the thoughts, the habits, the rituals, the absurd koran.
I beg everyone to read the Koran and Spencer, at a minimum.
Stop using islamist, islamism, islamo-fascism and other proclamations of ignorance.
Or be the first on your block to explain why you use these terms and what exactly they mean.
Do the jihadis proclaim themselves islamists? Do even their phony “moderate” supporters refer to islamism?
Oppose islam in all the ways, shapes and forms stupidity can be opposed.
But that will not happen when even highly intelligent people refuse to confront the words and ideas of islam, and hide behind phony words.
Steve:
I linked to a piece I wrote about stripping people of citizenship even if they are native born citizens, if they are guilty of treason, which these people are.
I don’t know the laws in France about this, but there may be a similar process that could be made available.
I agree as to the Three Conjectures, which I read back in 2004. The allusion is not accidental, IMO Fernandez’ logic is unassailable.
I was responding to rickl’s question and thus the (relative) brevity of my response.
I fully agree that Islam’s ‘philosophical’ foundation should be challenged an said so shortly after 9/11. Here’s what inspired that realization.
I disagree however that part of the solution is not to oppose Muslims. People make up Islam not merely ideas. The Nazi’s could not be defeated without fighting those who espoused that ideology.
I’m quite familiar with Spenser and generally agree with him but find some of his assertions politically naive.
I’ve never used the term islamo-fascism and only object to it because it implies that Islam has a fascist faction separate from Islam. I have frequently used Islamist, which is simply a devout Islamic fundamentalist. I can’t recall ever using Islamism but agree as to its inaccuracy.
There is only one Islam, no ‘moderate or immoderate’ Islams. There are devout, fundamentalist Muslims and cafeteria Muslims, of which there are several variations.
There are apologists for Islam who insist that jihad is a peaceful, internal, spiritual struggle. The promotion of which intentionally makes the term ‘jihadist’ somewhat confusing as well. My solution is to attach ‘terrorist’ to either term when used.
I assure you I’m not hiding behind anything, I’m pretty plain spoken and the meaning of my words will get through to those open to it. I learned long ago that people who aren’t open to any view contrary to their own won’t listen, no matter how articulate and accurate the words.
Geoffrey Britain Says:
” If Islam itself is the problem, how do we avoid war with 1.6 BILLION Muslims?”
Islam is the problem and we are indeed at war with 1.6 billion Muslims. We have no choice. Muslims have been at war with the rest of humanity since the seventh century. The leftists have opened the gates and invited the enemies in. Because of the actions of the left there is a real possibility that Islam will succeed in overthrowing the West.
If Islam is successful, the slave markets will reopen and native Europeans will again be enslaved by Muslims. Incidentally Muslims especially prize white female sex slaves. That is one reason they prize Yazidi slaves so much, because Yazidi women have beautiful blue eyes. Black female slaves are much less valuable.
Iluminati,
‘Islam is the problem and we are indeed at war with 1.6 billion Muslims. .. Because of the actions of the left there is a real possibility that Islam will succeed in overthrowing the West.”
Islam is half of the problem with the Left being the other half. It is Islam that is at war with the West not all Muslims. That is a subtle but important distinction. In fact, only a small minority of Muslims are actively at war with the West. The majority of Muslims do condone the violence but that is not the same as active support and importantly, the passive support of condoning lacks commitment.
Islam can do great damage especially with the Left’s facilitation but Islam lacks the logistical, technological, industrial and intellectual resources to ‘overthrow’ the West.
Some European countries may succumb but Europe itself will not. The veneer of civilization is very thin and denial of reality has an expiration date.
Geoffrey Britain Says:
“Islam can do great damage especially with the Left’s facilitation but Islam lacks the logistical, technological, industrial and intellectual resources to ‘overthrow’ the West.”
I wish I were as sanguine as you seem to be. Islam does not need logistical, technological nor intellectual resources to overthrow the West just as Ebola is perfectly capable to overcome the human body without the means to survive on its own outside the body. Islam is a parasitical religion – was from the beginning. We can know that it has always has been parasitical even if we ignore history simply by studying the Islamic moral codes in the Koran and the Hadiths by which all Muslims – moderate and radical alike – live.
The welfare state is ideal for the Muslim invaders since the Muslims need the jizya to finance the invasion and leftists are eager to help them by taking money from the native Europeans in the form of taxes and paying those taxes to the Muslims in welfare payments. The more wives the Muslim men have and the more children they sire the more welfare benefits they receive. The radical Imams have no shame in accepting welfare from native populations while simultaneously preaching hatred and destruction on their benefactors since the Muslims’ right to jizya from non-Muslims is written into the moral code of the Koran itself.
It may take a few generations for the invaders to completely overwhelm the native European populations but so long as the left are in power it is only a matter of time until Western civilization dies. The Roman Empire, called the Byzantine Empire, fought off the Muslim invaders for hundreds of years but slowly the Muslims strangled them through the very same tactics they are now using in Europe. The more sane Muslims will keep their malignant intentions against the native populations somewhat hidden until it is too late. Not that the truth is unavailable to anyone who is willing to sit down with a Muslim and listen to his/her dawah.
Muslims are very harsh on those who steal from other Muslims but they have defined stealing so that all Muslims are free to seize booty and slaves at will from non-Muslims in dar al-harb. In other words all Muslims who follow the Koran must agree that any non-Muslim is potential chattel if there is ever conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims. And conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims are inevitable. Moderate Muslims may disagree with the tactics of ISIS but they all agree that eventually Islam must rule the entire World.
Muslims have been at war with the rest of humanity since the seventh century.
Islam is half of the problem with the Left being the other half. It is Islam that is at war with the West not all Muslims.
Also true, especially given Bush’s desire not to offend Muslims when armed forces were going to be occupying Islamic places. Whether he tried to appease the neutral Muslims or whether he went with his cowboy guts and said “bring it on”, people will always complain about their leadership. It’s not what people say that matters, it’s what they actually do about it.
Fighting a two front war is strategically a losing proposition. If the Leftist alliance doesn’t conquer the West, Islam will, and vice a versa. Against that kind of enemy, a certain level of military genius is required to win. If the West has such a person, the Left is already planning on killing them.
Islam has historically never had cultural or technological advantages over their enemies. They merely conquered their enemies and made their enemy’s cultural and technological distinction part of the Islamic slave empire, devoted to Allah or paying the jizya. Arabic numerals? Indian numerals and Persian math. White slave trade from Africa? That was the Islamic slave trade, usually. Islam’s strength is their fanaticism and their biological breeding speed. Much of it due to capturing genetically diverse populations, just look at Spain’s history for that.
The sex slave trade is already open for market. They mostly kidnap girls in Eastern Europe, but Americans also get kidnapped in Palestinian territory and the Europeans certainly get their fair share of traps laid.
The Islamic Jihad is making good profit off of that, in alliance with mafis and criminal cartels. I mean, there was a whole movie Taken about that stuff, that people found surprisingly. Shows what they knew about world events.
Presume one percent of the world’s Muslims are or are willing to commit violence themselves. That’s sixteen million trigger pullers.
In WW II, we had fifteen million men in the military, most of whom supported the relatively few trigger pullers.
In the current unpleasantness, we have the rest of the Muslim world–say a third of them, anyway–supporting sixteen million trigger pullers. In money, looking the other way, complaining about islamophobia to claim special privileges, pretending to be offended to shut down a discussion, failing to drop the dime….
Iluminati,
It’s not a sanguine attitude you detect but a realistic assessment of Islam’s logistical prospects vis a vis the West.
“The difference between the amateur and professional soldier is that the professional focuses on logistics, while the amateur focuses on tactics.” Winston Churchill
One does not have to be a professional soldier however to grasp the principle Churchill alludes to, & not to denigrate the bravery of the allies’ soldiers but the industrial might of America won WWII.
The analogy you draw between Islamic fanaticism and Ebola is, IMO an invalid one.
No disagreement as to Islam having always been a parasitical ideology and, a welfare state is indeed an ideal environment for Islamic subversion. Which is why I referred to ‘civilization’s thin veneer’. For many years, the tremors of European revolt at their leftist masters have been growing. Personal survival trumps ideology for the great majority of people. Finally, the European ‘tribes’ are beginning to stir from their slumber. It is only a matter of time until the Left is swept from power, the liberal/left’s denial and Islam’s ‘nature’ ensures that outcome.
The Byzantine Empire had no logistical advantage over the Muslims. Even puny NATO dwarfs Islam’s combined might and Europe’s industrial might immeasurably exceeds Islam’s.
Conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims are indeed inevitable and because “all Muslims who follow the Koran must agree that any non-Muslim is potential chattel” they shall be compelled to repeatedly act upon that belief, which shall impose a reality upon the West that cannot be denied. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
All moderate Muslims do not agree that eventually Islam must rule the entire World but they will not oppose those Muslims who wish to impose Islam upon the world because to do so requires full examination of the ‘religion’ they embrace. ‘Moderate’ Muslims are in as much denial as to Islam’s inherent nature as are western liberals.
Ymarsakar,
“Fighting a two front war is strategically a losing proposition.”
WWII would argue otherwise. More comparable would be the two-front war the Union faced with the South & Indian wars, which we also won.
“If the Leftist alliance doesn’t conquer the West, Islam will, and vice a versa.”
It is my firm belief that the Left and Islam are in an unspoken ‘marriage of convenience’, it is not accidental that neither directly attacks the other. Charlie Hebdo broke that informal agreement, which they probably didn’t even realize was in effect.
Both sides rightly recognize that the American right is the greater impediment to their agendas. Of the two, the Left is the far greater threat to Western civilization.
“Against that kind of enemy, a certain level of military genius is required to win. If the West has such a person, the Left is already planning on killing them.”
That person is not even on their radar screen, think Napoleon’s rise from obscurity.
“Islam has historically never had cultural or technological advantages over their enemies. They merely conquered their enemies and made their enemy’s cultural and technological distinction part of the Islamic slave empire”
Very true but in our modern context, irrelevant. Islam cannot make “their enemy’s cultural and technological distinction part of the Islamic slave empire”, as they possess none of the requisite attributes* to allow such an acquisition of the West’s logistical resources.
*industrial base, technological expertise and resources, capitalistic enterprise, individual freedom to realize their full potential, etc, etc.
“Islam’s strength is their fanaticism and their biological breeding speed.”
The WWII Japanese and Nazis had fanaticism on their side as well.
As to breeding speed; in the Anglo-Zulu Wars at The Battle of Rorke’s Drift, 4,500 Zulu warriors took on 139 English soldiers and lost… badly. Technology and military expertise made the difference, not bravery.
“It is only a matter of time until the Left is swept from power, the liberal/left’s denial and Islam’s ‘nature’ ensures that outcome.”
Let’s hope the left is flushed from power in time. I’m not as optimistic as you but if the Europeans awake to their danger soon enough and are ruthless enough to do what needs to be done, perhaps they can successfully win this battle.
“The Byzantine Empire had no logistical advantage over the Muslims. Even puny NATO dwarfs Islam’s combined might and Europe’s industrial might immeasurably exceeds Islam’s.”
The Byzantine Empire had at least one technological advantage which was crucial for their survival for centuries – Greek Fire. The Muslims apparently never succeeded in reproducing Greek Fire although they did produce imperfect copies. Over the centuries the Romans gradually lost more and more territory to Islam through demographics along the Eastern periphery of the empire. Eventually Constantinople was an isolated Roman city surrounded by hostile Muslims.
“All moderate Muslims do not agree that eventually Islam must rule the entire World ”
I agree to the extent that I am unaware of any verses in the Koran which directly state that Islam must rule the entire World. The Hadiths have more Islamic eschatology in which Isa (Jesus in English) returns as a Muslim warrior to lead the Muslims to their final universal victory. Once the Muslims have won that battle presumably they will rule the entire World.
“‘Moderate’ Muslims are in as much denial as to Islam’s inherent nature as are western liberals.”
As they say, a good Muslim is a bad Muslim. Seriously, I don’t necessarily accept that argument. There are aspects of ISIS and Al Qaeda which many Muslims will reject. For instance all Muslims don’t condone suicide bombers. Obviously chopping off the heads of other Muslims doesn’t sit well with the friends and families of the beheaded. However, the basic principles of Islam are almost universal among Muslims. For a religion without a centralized doctrinal authority Islam is amazingly similar across communities such as the Sunni and the Shia. One of the most damaging commands in the Koran is the one which tells Muslims not to take unbelievers as friends since this command is considered a direct command from Allah.
It is only a matter of time until the Left is swept from power, the liberal/left’s denial and Islam’s ‘nature’ ensures that outcome.
Europe uses mostly a parliamentary system. Even extreme parties cannot be swept from power, they are still often used as coalition partners to share portfolios. In fact Merkel was a combination of the Christian Democrats of Western Germany allied with the SDP of Eastern Germany, although that’s like Democrats allying with Sarah Palin….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_coalition_%28Germany%29
It’s going to be very difficult for even a nationalist party to be able to hold together enough votes to purge the rest, and not share power given that parliaments are designed to share power while the US system is designed to rotate, not share, power.
Why that matters against Islam is that the nationalist parties will have to fight not only against an external and internal enemy in the form of colonial and imperialistic Islam, but their fifth column will be sharing political power right along with the rest.
as they possess none of the requisite attributes* to allow such an acquisition of the West’s logistical resources.
Are you under the mistaken belief that Islam’s religion doesn’t allow them to use Western technology? Have you forgotten whose weapons and airplanes they have been using? They don’t need to build that in Saudi Arabia, they just need to have the Western countries paying enough jizya to obtain such an industrial base.
If it is logistics you wish to talk about, Islam’s logistics is based on conquering pre existing technical and scientific foundations. It doesn’t matter what Islam does not currently and never had, the requirements for Western technology. That is not a requirement to conquer slaves and have the slaves build them their nukes and airplanes.
Iluminati,
Europe will not awaken until they are faced with another Dunkirk.
When I stated that, “‘Moderate’ Muslims are in as much denial as to Islam’s inherent nature as are western liberals.” I was referring to the “basic principles of Islam”. Islam’s inherent nature and it’s basic principles are inseparable.
Islam’s amazing similarity across communities is due to Muhammad’s most basic claim; that the Qur’an is Allah’s direct testimony. Exactly comparable to the Ten Commandments. Equally inviolate because the claim by Moses was that the ‘hand of God’ literally wrote them.
Since fallible man may NOT revise (correct) infallible divinity, not one comma of the Qur’an can be changed.
Ymarsakar,
Europe’s parliamentary system and the EU’s bureaucratic system will indeed delay a shift in power. When things get grim enough, those systems will be swept away, either by Europeans or their conquerors.
No, I’m not under the mistaken belief that Islam’s religion doesn’t allow them to use Western technology nor have I forgotten whose weapons and airplanes they have been using. However, Islamic ideology does prevent them from producing technology. Stealing technology for what amounts to temporary use and producing technology are entirely different matters.
Nor will all the jizza taxes paid give them that industrial base because the heart of an an industrial/technological base is people with the knowledge to run it, maintain it and improve it against competition. Enslaved workers do not outproduce and outthink a free society, we just proved that with the Soviets.
Islam hasn’t conquered pre-existing technical and scientific foundations since the Battle of Vienna in 1683. It’s stagnation since has been the result of lacking the intellectual resources to develop, maintain and grow a technological base. To be clear, it’s not a matter of intelligence but cultural stasis. Islam has never had an industrial revolution because its precepts prevent Islamic societies from evolving beyond it’s 7th century ideology. That is because a society that cannot reform itself cannot improve itself.
It’s not logistics “I wish to talk about” but rather logistical comparisons being necessary to an objective evaluation of the disputants, i.e. Islam vs Western Civilization. One cannot objectively evaluate whether Islam can overcome the West without considering logistics. By definition, terrorism is the tactic of the weak, when the society that produces those terrorists lacks a technological/industrial base and is incapable of developing one or managing one (it lacking the intellectual resources to do so) ultimately it cannot prevail, regardless of how much damage it might do. Egypt’s al-Sisi realizes this and, IMO that is the primary reason why he spoke out.
Stealing technology for what amounts to temporary use and producing technology are entirely different matters.
Nor will all the jizza taxes paid give them that industrial base because the heart of an an industrial/technological base is people with the knowledge to run it, maintain it and improve it against competition. Enslaved workers do not outproduce and outthink a free society, we just proved that with the Soviets.
The Jizya will be in the form of weapons and other end products. Hussein makes the stingers in the US and then sells them to the Islamic Jihad, as he has been doing for the last 6 years or so. That’s one example.
It’s not necessary to have total control of an industrial base, if that base is making weapons solely for them. Logistics isn’t about making your supply pure, so long as you have a supply line, that is sufficient.
It won’t matter to the West whether Islam can progress upon the technological base of the West, after Islam uses the technology of the West to destroy the West. Islam may destroy itself or freeze their progress afterwards, but it won’t be a concern of Westerners at that point.
Islam will not get the same quality of weapons and armament as they would if they made things on their own using Western methods and using scientific methods. However, I don’t think that difference will be sufficient to render Islam at a fatal logistical disadvantage compared to the West. If Islam lacks scientists, that is what their alliance with Leftists is for. The Left educates Islamic jihadists, the Left provides Islamic Jihad with what they are missing, and the Left provides Islamic Jihad with their global warming scientists. They may be a sorry excuse compared to the real scientific pioneers of Western society, but it will be sufficient to allow Islam to compete logistically with Western capabilities, until those capabilities are Islam’s capabilities.
We have already seen the classic “Obey Authority or else” behavior amongst Americans and Europeans. Obey the police if you don’t want to get killed. If that is the Sum Total of Virtue in this society, then what’s the problem with obeying Islamic Jihadists to avoid getting killed by them? It’s the same thing. And if Islamic JIhadists want weapons and a supply center, they will be provided one, at no cost.