My Photo

Recent Comments

COMMENTS?

  • We love comments, but they are treated like letters to the editor -- only some are permanently published. Comments may be depublished or edited if they contain profanity or personal attacks or if they include statements that are false, defamatory, unethical, immoral, or illogical. Rude or inappropriate comments or spam may result in a permanent website ban (comments auto-deleted), so don't do that. Thanks.
  • Google

Like This Blog?

  • Add this blog to my Technorati Favorites!

    Subscribe in NewsGator Online

    Add to Google

    Subscribe in Bloglines

    Add to My AOL

  • Word of the Day

    This Day in History

    In the News

    Quote of the Day

    Spelling Bee
    difficulty level:
    score: -
    please wait...
     
    spell the word:

    Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

13 entries categorized "France - Violence"

July 18, 2007

If Al Qaeda Is "Evolving," Why Can't America's Iraq Strategy Evolve Too?

Here's what passes for the conventional wisdom on Iraq:  The war was badly planned and therefore is failing miserably.  As a result, America's only option is to fold up the entire operation and slink away, leaving the Iraqis to whatever bloodbath awaits them.  We've reached the point of no return; the war is irretrievably lost; and no amount of rethinking or redoubling of effort will make any difference.

Meanwhile, Al Qaeda's early losses in the war on terror, including the deaths of major leaders such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and possibly Osama Bin Ladin himself, are completely irrelevant, since Al Qaeda is "evolving" constantly and is planning mass casualty attacks on the U.S.:

Al Qaeda terrorists are rebuilding their capabilities and continuing to plan mass-casualty attacks inside the United States, according to an intelligence assessment made public yesterday.

"We assess [al Qaeda] has protected or regenerated key elements of its homeland attack capability, including a safe haven in ... Pakistan [tribal areas], operational lieutenants and its top leadership," according to the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a consensus analysis of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies.

"Although we have discovered only a handful of individuals in the United States with ties to al Qaeda senior leadership since 9/11, we judge that al Qaeda will intensify its efforts to put operatives here," the report stated.

Retired Vice Adm. Michael McConnell, the director of national intelligence whose office produced the NIE, said the United States will face a "persistent and evolving terrorist threat" in the next three years.

The seven-page public summary of the classified report said the United States is in a "heightened threat environment."

"They're working as hard as they can in positioning trained operatives here in the United States," Mr. McConnell said. "They have recruitment programs to bring recruits into [the tribal] region of Pakistan [who] could come to the United States, fit into the population and then use some of the training that they receive in the Pakistani area for explosives and so on."

Is the contrast between the defeatism of the media in viewing America's chances in the Iraq war and the endless optimism for Al Qaeda's chances stark enough for you?

Al Qaeda remains a threat because it is "continuing to plan" further attacks and "will intensify its efforts" and its members are "working as hard as they can."

But when it comes to the Iraq war, working harder, intensifying efforts, rethinking, and continuing to plan are off the table for the United States.  The only option we have is to rip our leaders from limb to limb, metaphorically speaking, for having started the war.  Since things look bleak now, they're going to stay that way no matter what America does, and its only option is to turn tail and run.

Don't tell me we've tried long enough and hard enough in Iraq and there's no point in continuing any longer.  Nonsense.  Al Qaeda's attacks on the U.S. predate the Iraq war, but nobody seems to be pulling out a stopwatch and insisting that Al Qaeda's chances of striking a mortal blow at the U.S. or the West are forever lost.

What a fitting metaphor is Harry Reid's surrender slumberthon in the Senate tonight.  Harry Reid knows how to lose a war he has already declared lost.  The solution is quite simple:  Lie down, accept defeat, and make no effort to prevail.

In the real world, the margin between victory and defeat is rarely great, but the outcome matters a great deal.  The margin of victory usually turns on one thing:  motivation.  If we are motivated to win; if we are determined; if we are constantly "rebuilding our capabilities" and "continuing to plan" and "intensifying our efforts  and "working as hard as we can," then there are very few forces on earth that can stand in our way.

By the same token, if we are frequently announcing that we've already lost and that our cause is hopeless, and holding slumberthons to protest our own nation's continued effort to prevail, then we certainly can bring about our own defeat.

Update:  Today brings a stunningly important speech from Senator John McCain (via Captain's Quarters):

Mr. President, we have nearly finished this little exhibition, which was staged, I assume, for the benefit of a briefly amused press corps and in deference to political activists opposed to the war who have come to expect from Congress such gestures, empty though they may be, as proof that the majority in the Senate has heard their demands for action to end the war in Iraq. The outcome of this debate, the vote we are about to take, has never been in doubt to a single member of this body. And to state the obvious, nothing we have done for the last twenty-four hours will have changed any facts on the ground in Iraq or made the outcome of the war any more or less important to the security of our country. The stakes in this war remain as high today as they were yesterday; the consequences of an American defeat are just as grave; the costs of success just as dear. No battle will have been won or lost, no enemy will have been captured or killed, no ground will have been taken or surrendered, no soldier will have survived or been wounded, died or come home because we spent an entire night delivering our poll-tested message points, spinning our soundbites, arguing with each other, and substituting our amateur theatrics for statesmanship. All we have achieved are remarkably similar newspaper accounts of our inflated sense of the drama of this display and our own temporary physical fatigue. Tomorrow the press will move on to other things and we will be better rested. But nothing else will have changed.

In Iraq, American soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen are still fighting bravely and tenaciously in battles that are as dangerous, difficult and consequential as the great battles of our armed forces’ storied past. Our enemies will still be intent on defeating us, and using our defeat to encourage their followers in the jihad they wage against us, a war which will become a greater threat to us should we quit the central battlefield in defeat. The Middle East will still be a tinderbox, which our defeat could ignite in a regional war that will imperil our vital interests at risk there and draw us into a longer and far more costly war. The prospect of genocide in Iraq, in which we will be morally complicit, is still as real a consequence of our withdrawal today as it was yesterday.

During our extended debate over the last few days, I have heard senators repeat certain arguments over and over again. My friends on the other side of this argument accuse those of us who oppose this amendment with advocating “staying the course,” which is intended to suggest that we are intent on continuing the mistakes that have put the outcome of the war in doubt. Yet we all know that with the arrival of General Petraeus we have changed course. We are now fighting a counterinsurgency strategy, which some of us have argued we should have been following from the beginning, and which makes the most effective use of our strength and does not strengthen the tactics of our enemy. This new battle plan is succeeding where our previous tactics have failed, although the outcome remains far from certain. The tactics proposed in the amendment offered by my friends, Senators Levin and Reed – a smaller force, confined to bases distant from the battlefield, from where they will launch occasional search and destroy missions and train the Iraqi military – are precisely the tactics employed for most of this war and which have, by anyone’s account, failed miserably. Now, that, Mr. President, is staying the course, and it is a course that inevitably leads to our defeat and the catastrophic consequences for Iraq, the region and the security of the United States our defeat would entail.

Yes, we have heard quite a lot about the folly of “staying the course,” though the real outcome should this amendment prevail and be signed into law, would be to deny our generals and the Americans they have the honor to command the ability to try, in this late hour, to address the calamity these tried and failed tactics produced, and salvage from the wreckage of our previous failures a measure of stability for Iraq and the Middle East, and a more secure future for the American people.

I have also listened to my colleagues on the other side repeatedly remind us that the American people have spoken in the last election. They have demanded we withdraw from Iraq, and it is our responsibility to do, as quickly as possible, what they have bid us to do. But is that our primary responsibility? Really, Mr. President, is that how we construe our role: to follow without question popular opinion even if we believe it to be in error, and likely to endanger the security of the country we have sworn to defend? Surely, we must be responsive to the people who have elected us to office, and who, if it is their wish, will remove us when they become unsatisfied with our failure to heed their demands. I understand that, of course. And I understand why so many Americans have become sick and tired of this war, given the many, many mistakes made by civilian and military leaders in its prosecution. I, too, have been made sick at heart by these mistakes and the terrible price we have paid for them. But I cannot react to these mistakes by embracing a course of action that I know will be an even greater mistake, a mistake of colossal historical proportions, which will -- and I am as sure of this as I am of anything – seriously endanger the people I represent and the country I have served all my adult life. I have many responsibilities to the people of Arizona, and to all Americans. I take them all seriously, Mr. President, or try to. But I have one responsibility that outweighs all the others – and that is to do everything in my power, to use whatever meager talents I posses, and every resource God has granted me to protect the security of this great and good nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. And that I intend to do, Mr. President, even if I must stand athwart popular opinion. I will explain my reasons to the American people. I will attempt to convince as many of my countrymen as I can that we must show even greater patience, though our patience is nearly exhausted, and that as long as there is a prospect for not losing this war, then we must not choose to lose it. That is how I construe my responsibility to my constituency and my country. That is how I construed it yesterday. It is how I construe it today. And it is how I will construe it tomorrow. I do not know how I could choose any other course.

I cannot be certain that I possess the skills to be persuasive. I cannot be certain that even if I could convince Americans to give General Petraeus the time he needs to determine whether we can prevail, that we will prevail in Iraq. All I am certain of is that our defeat there would be catastrophic, not just for Iraq, but for us, and that I cannot be complicit in it, but must do whatever I can, whether I am effective or not, to help us try to avert it. That, Mr. President, is all I can possibly offer my country at this time. It is not much compared to the sacrifices made by Americans who have volunteered to shoulder a rifle and fight this war for us. I know that, and am humbled by it, as we all are. But though my duty is neither dangerous nor onerous, it compels me nonetheless to say to my colleagues and to all Americans who disagree with me: that as long as we have a chance to succeed we must try to succeed.

I am privileged, as we all are, to be subject to the judgment of the American people and history. But, my friends, they are not always the same judgment. The verdict of the people will arrive long before history’s. I am unlikely to ever know how history has judged us in this hour. The public’s judgment of me I will know soon enough. I will accept it, as I must. But whether it is favorable or unforgiving, I will stand where I stand, and take comfort from my confidence that I took my responsibilities to my country seriously, and despite the mistakes I have made as a public servant and the flaws I have as an advocate, I tried as best I could to help the country we all love remain as safe as she could be in an hour of serious peril.

April 05, 2006

Let's Highlight the Job Skills of French Youths

As a service to unemployed French youths as well as potential employers, today let's highlight the many job skills of French youths who are seeking long-term employment, as demonstrated in the recent job protests in France

Below are photographs of some of the French youths, along with their real-world skills that might be of interest to potential employers.

France_team_building_exercises

Experience With Team Building Exercises

Getting_a_foot_in_the_door

Sales Background:  Getting a Foot in the Door

Leadership_france_2

Leadership Skills

French_job_protest_mime_1

Mime Skills

French_job_protest_dress_for_success_3

Dressing for Success

France_job_protest_respect_for_authority_2

Respect for Authority

France_job_protests_partnering_with_loca_2

Partnering with Local Officials

France_job_protest_graphic_arts_2

Graphic Arts

France_emptying_the_trash_1

Emptying the Trash

French_job_protests_getting_noticed_4

Getting Noticed

France_job_protests_thinking_outside_the

Thinking "Outside the Box"

France_levitation

Levitation Skills

France_fire_eater_2

Fire Eating

Employers, if you're looking to hire go-getters like these, you can find out more about them at Yahoo! News, BBC News and My Way

Remember, it's not just jobs these youths want -- it's guaranteed lifetime employment.  Feel free to list any job offers in the comments section below!

_________________________________________

Update 4/5/06 p.m. - The Gateway Pundit also noticed the enthusiasm and variety of job skills demonstrated by these French youths.  Enjoy!

Update 4/10/06:  Uh-oh.  France has surrendered again and is retreating on the new jobs law.  Is France forever doomed to be the doormat of Europe?  Read the sad news here.

Earlier Posts:

March 23, 2006

Another Fiery Job Application From a French Youth

R3711464381_france_3232006

Another completed job application from a youth in France.

This job application was filed in Paris by a a "go-getter" who is guaranteed to light up your office.  With time and training, this applicant will someday set the world on fire.  Recent experience working with combustion.

Employers???  As a public service to this applicant, any job offers will be posted here!

Related Post:  This French Youth Deserves His Own Job Search Page

January 18, 2006

The Top Underreported Stories of 2005

World Net Daily has the Top Ten Underreported Stories of 2005.

Read it and find out what you may have missed.

However, since you are a blog reader, chances are you're already better informed than most.

The Thanks France Gets for Tolerating Islamists

This is how Islamists reward France for its tolerance:  The Great Train Razzia

Hat tip to Lucianne

January 01, 2006

New Year's Fun in France: The Usual Arson

The "traditional" New Year's Eve fun was had by "youths" in France again last night -- 425 cars set on fire to ring in the new year!  Welcome 2006!  Those "rowdy revelers" -- gotta love 'em!

"In Nice on the French Riviera, firefighters were pelted with stones when they responded to an anonymous phone alert, officials said."  That's Nice!

"Outside Paris in the suburb of Argenteuil, a small fire was reported at a cultural center."  Ah, culture. 

Are we talking French or Muslim culture, I wonder?

As you may recall, rioting by mostly Muslim "youths" has been a teensy, tiny little problem for France since around October 27, 2005, when car arson became a widely observed nightly "tradition" for weeks on end.  One night, 1,408 vehicles were set on fire (much to the appreciation of the cars' owners, no doubt.)

Fortunately, France's fearless leader Jacques Chirac has matters firmly in hand.  In a New Year's Eve televised address, he "urged the French to do more to fight racism and a lack of opportunities in poor neighborhoods — problems that fed frustrations among young rioters."

Isn't it clear that all France needs to do is to give more opportunities to the arsonists?  And who wouldn't want to do that?  These car-bombing "youths" clearly are go-getters.  Personally, I always like to see evidence of recent criminal activity on the resumes of the people I hire.  We do know this much -- these "youths" enjoy working with fire.  Maybe they can become firefighters.

20060101112052france

A man looks at a car burnt out car in Nice, southern France, Sunday, January 1, 2006. (Lionel Cironneau, AP)  Whoever did this clearly deserves a job. 

Related Posts:

November 15, 2005

Malaise Travels Through Time from Jimmy Carter to France's Jacques Chirac

Do the mainstream media knowingly report ironic things without noting the irony, or are the journalists involved just too lacking in historical perspective to realize the irony?

On November 14, Jacque Chirac gave his first televised address to France since the riots began on October 27.  Thousands of French citizens whose cars were been destroyed by arson and whose neighborhoods have been terrorized by violence were surely waiting to hear some uplifting and rousing words from Chirac.  If the Reuters news account and translation are accurate, however, this is the sort of speech they got instead:

"These events bear witness to a deep malaise," he said, sitting behind a desk with the French tricolor flag and European Union flag behind him. "It is ... an identity crisis."   

Where have we heard that word "malaise" before?  Hold on; we'll get there.

The solutions proposed by Chirac were not particularly inspiring.  Reuters reports, "Chirac, who has been under fire for saying little during the crisis, announced the creation of a voluntary task force to help young people find work but ruled out ''positive discrimination' that would favour ethnic minorities for jobs."  According to the New York Times, Chirac "said that he had asked Parliament to extend a national state of emergency to February and that he would set up a program that would provide jobs and training for 50,000 youths by 2007."

I'm sure that the French people will rest easy now, knowing that a "voluntary task force" is on the way.  And providing jobs for some of the "youths" who torched their neighbor's cars seems like a sure-fire way to discourage more of the same.  It will also add at least 50,000 proven "go getters" with no job experience other than an ability to locate matches and gasoline to the French payroll.  It will be interesting to see what these soon-to-be-rewarded arsonists will "go get" next.

Contrast Chirac's address with the memorable and stirring speeches in history that, in a moment of national danger or trouble or tragedy, seized the moment and elevated it beyond the ordinary.  Winston Churchill's speech before the House of Commons on June 4, 1940 is one example of such a speech:  "We shall not flag nor fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France and on the seas and oceans; we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be; we shall fight on beaches, landing grounds, in fields, in streets and on the hills. We shall never surrender . . . .."

Or from American patriot Patrick Henry:  "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

Also memorable was Ronald Reagan's speech after the shocking explosion of the space shuttle Challenger in January 1986, with seven astronauts aboard, including a school teacher, Christina Mcauliffe:  "The crew of the space shuttle Challenger honored us by the manner in which they lived their lives. We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for their journey and waved good-bye and 'slipped the surly bonds of earth' to 'touch the face of God.'"

Not every speech can be a home run, but there are some speeches that go down in history not because they elevated the souls of their listeners, but rather because they dragged them down.  One such speech is then-president Jimmy Carter's speech to America in 1979 that came to be known as his "malaise" speech.  Here's an excerpt:

"The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways. It is a crisis of confidence. It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our Nation.  The erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and the political fabric of America."

There is much more in Jimmy Carter's 1979 "malaise" speech that was equally depressing, including a collection of quotes from ordinary citizens that Carter thought should be shared with the whole nation, like this one:  "Our neck is stretched over the fence and OPEC has a knife."  Jimmy Carter's malaise speech is a good example of how not to rally a nation.

Sometimes a poor speech is only that -- one poor speech.  Other times, the inability to rouse the spirit of the listeners is a symptom of a larger problem such as a leader's inability to accurately diagnose a problem, find a solution that will actually work, and rally people to that solution.  That may indeed be the reason that Jacque Chirac's latest speech, like Jimmy Carter's "malaise" speech, left so much to be desired.

For more on this subject, check out the excellent and insightful post The Jimmy Carter of France at Captain's Quarters.  Other posts on the "malaise" irony can be found at Gateway Pundit; The Pink Flamingo Bar & Grill, Super Fun Power Hour; Below the Beltway; and Daily Pundit.  (Update:  See also a fun post to read, Les Muslimerables in Deep Malaise, at All Things Beautiful.)

Related posts on the violence in France:

November 13, 2005

Ten Unanswered Questions About the Violence in France

The media coverage of the violence in France leaves many unanswered questions.  Here are 10 of them:

1. How do the 7,000 or so people in France whose cars have been torched in the last two weeks feel about it?  Are they as shaken, furious, and depressed as anyone else would be to find their means of transportation and one of their most important assets destroyed for no good reason?

2. Who is paying for all the destroyed vehicles and other property damage in France?  Who will pay in the long run?  How much will it cost the people of France to replace all the cars that have been torched, not to mention schools, warehouses, retirement homes, stores, and other buildings?  What is this violence doing to property values in France?  What is this doing to France’s whole economy?

3.  Assuming that the media can attempt to rationalize or explain car arson as "rather typically French," how does one rationalize the vandalism of schools and a retirement home, among other acts of violence?

4. Why exactly does anyone in the French government or the mainstream media think it is a good idea to suggest that France must offer more job opportunities and political power to people who have demonstrated a willingness to set fire to valuable personal property of their neighbors?

5. Is it consistent with the Golden Rule to take a can of gasoline and set fire to your neighbor’s car?  Is the willingness of the arsonists to ignore the most basic rules of morality relevant in considering who should be rewarded with greater political power?  Is there a critical distinction between how a nation should respond to peaceful, nonviolent protest and how a nation should respond to violent arson, whether or not accompanied by complaints?

6. How does it feel to live in a country where violence is rewarded with discussions about how to give greater economic and political power to those doing the violence, while nonviolence is rewarded by having your car torched and your family terrified?

7. Does torching thousands of cars, destroying property, and terrorizing a nation seem disproportionate to the original offense of the accidental electrocution deaths of two Muslim teens? In light of this disproportionate response, does it make sense to even consider offering political concessions to those who have demonstrated such a violent temper and lack of fundamental fairness?

8. If failure to integrate minorities in France is part of the underlying problem that led to this violence, does the violence itself seem like a good means to build bridges of understanding?  If not, then is the violence an attempt to gain political power through intimidation?  Is it wise for the targets of violent intimidation to yield to it?

9. Why is everything that the French are doing to try to halt the violence, such as imposing a state of emergency and curfews, labeled "provocation" by the arsonists?  What moral standing do the arsonists have to discuss "provocation"?  Is setting fire to thousands of vehicles "provocation"?  Why on earth are patently absurd claims of "provocation" by the arsonists reported without comment by the mainstream media?

10. Is it right for news media to run stories at this time with titles like "The French Riots: A Political Scorecard" (The New York Times) speculating on who will gain and lose politically in France from the current violence?  Is it right to dwell on political calculations at a time when an arson crisis is holding a nation hostage?  Does gossiping about whose political star may rise or fall at this time seem like fiddling while France is burning? 

These questions are not being answered by the mainstream media at this time.  Most of these questions are not even being asked.  It's a shame, because answering questions like these would add depth and meaning to the coverage of the riots in France.  We might even learn something valuable.

For additional commentary on the mainstream media coverage of the violence in France, check out Captain's Quarters here, here and here; Gateway Pundit; Little Green Footballs; The Anchoress; Theodore's World; Below The Beltway; A Blog for All; Panhandle Pundit; No Pasaran! and Michelle Malkin.

Related posts:

Technorati Tags:  ; ;

November 10, 2005

"Duh" Headline Du Jour: Riots Seen Hitting France's Image Abroad

This just in from Yahoo! News:  Riots seen hitting France's image abroad

Yah think?

November 09, 2005

French Riots Abating? Shhhhh!!! Don't Provoke Them Again!

On the plus side, attacks by rioters in France dropped sharply overnight.  France's overnight "success" (only 617 cars torched in 100 towns!) may be due to curfews and emergency security measures.

And here's an encouraging sign that somebody in France is growing a spine:  "Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy told parliament that he had ordered the deportation of non-French rioters convicted, even those with valid residency papers."

But wait!  According to the same story, the French use of the emergency law "has angered the opposition and Algerian immigrants, many of whom called it a 'provocation'."

Uh-oh.  France musn't get them angry!  Because then they might do something violent!

Ahem. 

Deporting people to stop them from committing arson and mayhem is not provocation.

This is provocation:

image

Source:  Click here

Why must the French avoid "provocation" at all costs, while Islamist youths are offered rewards (more jobs! more opportunities!) for having literally set fire to France?

Whether the immediate violence is winding down or just winding up, the trouble behind it is neither over nor necessarily confined to France.  Check out LaShawn Barber's How Empires End.

Denial is not a River in France

If denial is deadly, then mass denial in the mass media is many times more lethal.   

The mainstream media have gone out of their way to downplay the Islamic aspect of the current arson and mayhem in France.  The violence is portrayed instead as a response to unemployment.  This leads to the illogical conclusion that the solution is for France to provide jobs for the happless unemployed "youths" who are rioting.  (See Michelle Malkin's The French Solution:  Pay Off the Rioters.)

I don't know about you, but recent experience firebombing cars is something I do not like to see on the resume of anyone I plan to hire.

To admit that violent Islamists, not merely jobless "youths," are violently attacking the cultural "utopia" known as France at would mean admitting that the whole narrative blaming America for Islamic terrorism is flawed.

Captain's Quarters sums it up nicely:  "FRANCE--like much of the media--stood foursquare against Bush's interventionist policy in Iraq. So if Islamists have targeted France as their next front in an attempt to establish "no-go" territories in the center of Europe, it might call into question much of the anti-Bush narrative. Instead of Muslim anger being caused by America's policies of intervention, Islamofascism might really be a worldwide movement against Western interests."

If it is to survive as a nation, France must begin by opening its eyes.

France: A New Safe Haven for Terrorists?

Through inaction and appeasement, France has afforded violent Islamists safe haven in the form of "no-go zones."  These "little Fallujahs" are, or soon will be, "effectively impenetrable by anything much short of a U.S. Marine division."

Sobering commentary from Tony Blankley at Townhall.com:  Islamist Threat in France.

Blankely predicted the Muslim violence in London and Paris, among other European cities, in his book "The West's Last Chance: Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations?" (Regnery Publishing).  Blankley's analysis is chilling:

"Muslim parts of Paris, Rotterdam and other European cities are already labeled no-go zones for ethnic Europeans, including armed policemen. As the Muslim populations -- and their level of cultural and religious assertiveness -- expand, European geography will be 'reclaimed' for Islam. Europe will become pockmarked with increasing numbers of little Fallujahs that will be effectively impenetrable by anything much short of a U.S. Marine division."

"Thus, as the … fundamentalism expands into European (and perhaps to a lesser extent American) Muslim communities, not only will Islamic cultural aggression against a seemingly passive and apologetic indigenous population increase, but the zone of safety and support for the actual terrorists will expand as well." ("The West's Last Chance," pp 55-56).

Blankley concludes that we should not sneer at French weakness, but encourage them to "re-find their strength."

As improbable as that may seem, it is the only way out for France.

Unfortunately, Michelle Malkin points out, the only French "solution" being seriously discussed so far is to pay off the rioters.  Not exactly a winning strategy unless what you want is more rioting.

There is no antidote to terrorism except courage.

November 08, 2005

What Do All These Countries Have in Common?

What do all these countries have in common?

United States.  India.  Spain.  United Kingdom.  Nigeria.  France.  Egypt.  Netherlands.  Afghanistan.  Saudi Arabia.  Phillipines.  Iraq.  Russia.  Israel.  Italy.  Bali.  Tanzania.  Jordan. 

These nations are all different in language, culture, forms of government, religious tolerance or lack thereof, isolationism or engagement, geography, standard of living and per capita income.

Yet each of these nations has been a victim of Muslim terrorism within recent memory. 

The excuses for terrorism have varied from one nation to the next and, from one month and year to the next, but the violence continues.

It is dangerously myopic for anyone to spend more than five minutes analyzing the excuses offered to justify terrorism in any of these nations.

The excuse du jour in France is that "youths" are "disaffected" by poverty and discrimination, and thus must (of course!) set fire to 4,700 cars (and counting) and deliberately injure police and rescue workers who try to intervene.

Apparently torching cars of innocent citizens is the first task in the job search manual for these long-term unemployed Muslims. 

It may seem harmless for apologists to play the part of Mr. Magoo, wandering blindly through a cartoon world in which all violence in the world must surely be justified by local conditions.  Yet such blindness is not innocent.  It devalues the victims of this terrorism -- innocent men, women and children.  Such deliberate blindness is cruel, worse than hearing your neighbor beating his dog to death and doing nothing to stop it.  It is like cursing the dying dog for good measure. 

There is a time when all nations must awaken, recognize evil for what it is, and fight it.

NEWS & BUZZ

DAILY CARTOON click to enlarge
ANDERTOONS.COM DAILY CARTOONS

WEBSITES TO EXPLORE

  • Blogroll Me!

    "New!" websites were updated within the last 6 hours

SUPPORT OUR ADVERTISERS

GINA COBB

  • The 2006 Weblog Awards
  • "This is a great blog." (Jack Jones)
  • ". . . Gina Cobb is proof that not all lawyers deserve the death penalty." (Gringoman.com)(Gee -- thanks!)
  • "Let the charming and talented Gina Cobb show you how important rhetorical argument can be." (No-Pasaran.blogspot.com)