I want to do a post round this comment I received.
It’s an interesting read which I don’t want lost in the comments side of things as it raises some important points. The author Editor (retired) wrote:- Submitted on 2015/01/12 at 5:26 am
I think I understand the point you’re making. But I don’t think you’re advocating war against the Muslim religion. I certainly hope not.
My personal belief is that news media and politicians are choosing their words carefully for two reasons: 1) To avoid further inflaming public opinion; and 2) To avoid offending law-abiding Muslims.
Responsible Americans, Frenchmen, and citizens of the U.K. are trying hard to be politically correct and avoid dangerous blunders. It’s possible that many people may be in DENIAL of reality.
The politically correct pose is to pretend there is no connection whatever between Muslim terrorists and the religion of Islam; to pretend there is no connection between terrorists and the Muslim community. I call this DENIAL.
Let’s stipulate that the vast majority of Muslims in France, America, and the U.K. are NOT themselves terrorists and do NOT support terrorists. But the terrorists were clearly RAISED in Muslim families and Muslim communities, and LEARNED Islam in their schools and Mosques. At some point, terrorists became extremists and fanatics within the Muslim community.
The danger we face now is a sort of urban guerrilla warfare in which extremist Islamist fighters swim in the Muslim sea around them. That’s classic guerrilla warfare. Fighters escape by blending into the general community. Sometimes, the community harbors the fighters unknowingly. Often, the community protects them, out of support or fear.
Most of us have no way of knowing what’s happening, or what will happen, within the Muslim communities. Different things may be going on in different places.
The answers depend on Muslim communities themselves. Will Muslim communities give tacit approval to terrorists by sheltering extremists among them? Will parents and community leaders allow or encourage the teaching of extremist views? Extremist views provide the motive for terrorism.
In my opinion, it will become clear which side Muslim communities in the West are on. Will they protect extremists and terrorists in the community? Or turn them in to authorities?
I have no doubt that Western governments will mount intensive surveillance efforts involving undercover police and listening devices. I imagine such surveillance is ongoing already.
Extremists like the French terrorists are already known to police. Western leaders face tough decisions about what to do with that knowledge. Will individual extremists be arrested and/or deported before they can commit violence? Certainly, I hope there will be no effort to deport entire communities.
And for countries like France that already have sizable Muslim communities: Can it possibly be in the best interests of France to allow continued immigration of Muslims?
OK, read that and amazingly understood it too as I’m not one of the worlds intelligentsia. Yet, I’ve got a simple approach to the problem.
VERY NON POLITICALLY CORRECT, AND DEFINITELY CONTROVERSIAL.
But first the Definition of war:-
A state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country. Is that not what is occurring?
Am I advocating starting war against a religion?
No need for me to advocate anything, it’s already in full swing, a specific faith against the West and in particular Christians.
It’s no good saying it’s only a few extremists.
At what point do a few killings become enough to warrant action and is this not the same extreme faith that has killed thousands round the world?
In my mind anything the “home” security forces do now is pure self-defense.
After all is it not a persons right to protect themselves?
To extend that, is it not the right (if not duty) of a country to protect its citizens?
I think we’re also WAY BEYOND being tolerant, don’t you?
SUPPORT, the reason why they can operate.
In most wars you find that it is only a minority that fight. The problem in my mind is them who don’t fight but support those who do. A guerrilla force needs local support to function and make no mistake, that is what they are using, guerrilla tactics.
Support, it’s an interesting term isn’t it?
Logistics and providing shelter is the norm.
Intel gathering and message relays, that’s support too.
Yet support doesn’t have to be “practical” and funding is a classic example of that, a passive support as is withholding knowledge of their actions or presence.
Is such support voluntary in this case?
The faithful will seldom go against this religion. Why?
To me this is nothing to do about having blind obedience to a faith.
I feel that this religion is a harsh one with a law system that can, will, and has extracted punishment from a family if it cannot punish the source for “failing the cause” or whatever.
THAT’S FEAR! A POWERFUL MOTIVATOR.
Does that therefore make them victims and worthy of forgiveness?
Not in my book. You support the enemy, you are the enemy.
So what to do about that?
If a group of people are supporting an enemy willingly or not, the best approach is to remove the support. Without that support the guerrilla type aggressor will find it harder to operate.
Am I therefore advocating deporting a select few?
That might work initially if it was key figures and their families.
Except in the long term no I’m thinking it wouldn’t.
The support is mainly FAITH BASED and may not be from a particular ethnic group. Thus it would be harder to identify the bad without Intel from within their ranks and that ain’t about to happen voluntarily.
What happens of war continues after deporting the few?
DEPORT THE FAITH! After all with everyone gone, who would be left to support their “troops”?
Note:- At no time am I advocating using violence against the faith or it’s followers!
Is that cruel, unfair, and too extreme an action?
Probably, but who speaks for the dead and those who will die if things continue? Is the Wests weak political desire to “do the right thing” the whole time an excuse for not acting decisively to stop further carnage?
Will there be an outcry of protest?
You bet your life there will be, FROM EVERYWHERE!
Even them who marched in solidarity against the French killings will be re-marching. The churches, the bleeding hearts groups, the world courts, the legal profession will be besides themselves at the thought of all the business they will get out of it! Add big business and the politicians worried about their own skins?
It’s going to take one hell of a powerful leadership to even THREATEN THIS.
Is there a precedent for doing this?
OK probably a bad example but didn’t the US ‘relocate” whole villages in the Vietnam war to prevent the same support I’m talking about?