I had a conversation with a 17 year old friend. I asked him what he thinks of the events in Paris. Well, he knew about it. …..and???? It is sad and upsetting, but with so many atrocities around the world, why are we paying so much attention to this one?
The attitude is a perfect expression of the zeitgeist. A version of the “There is nothing to see here!” defeatism I talked about here. The worst part of this atrocity seems to be the aggravation it causes to this new generation. It is a nuisance making the “living for today” more difficult.
As Ezra Levant points out in his first impressions from Paris, this is the new normal. Mark Steyn does not have much hope to offer either. Accepting terrorism is becoming part of our lives.
So I asked our young friend what he thinks should be done. He didn’t know. He was desperately trying to come up with something just so that we can move on to another subject, but his list ended up being disappointingly short.
The point of this post is to create such a list so that we can evaluate our options on several criteria:
Can it be done? Is there a precedence? Is it politically feasible? Is it humane/compassionate? Last but not least: is it fair? Now, that is an unfair question. If we accept the idea that ‘turnabout is fair play’, than ANYTHING done to ISIS and its supporters is fair play, including the execution of Muslims just for being Muslims.
Some of the following suggestions are not politically correct, but most of the ideas presented are practically feasible. What is so sad about the state of the world is that most of them cannot be discussed in polite company and some cannot be discussed at all.
In an honest world we should be able to talk about anything, sometimes just to confirm that we should definitely not do what we are talking about.
React (or not)
Start a decisive war to defeat ISIS
It is entirely within the power of the Western world to defeat Isis militarily. All that is needed is resolve.
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war.” (Ann Coulter sometimes after 9/11)
Is it politically feasible? Not at this point. Would it be fair? Definitely. Would it be humane and compassionate? Even that is not impossible. Collateral damage would be lower than civilian causalities under ISIS peace. Would it solve the problems on the long run? Definitely not.
End all Western military involvement in the Middle East
It can be argued that the source of the problems in the Middle East is Western military involvement. Maybe the answer is complete, unconditional withdrawal.
Is it feasible? In theory, absolutely. All that is needed is resolve. Does that resolve exist? Definitely not. Would it be Humane? Unlikely. There is little chance that peace would reign if Western powers left.
This Option would only work with the complete agreement of all major world powers and only with a complete arms embargo. It just will not happen.
Reinstate the death penalty for terrorism
The only country in Europe that still has the death penalty is Belarus. Not a place with a serious Muslim problem. Maybe countries with terrorism problems should reconsider their stance. Muslims love death. Hastening their way to paradise may even be a favour to them. Can it be done? Yes. Is it politically feasible? Highly unlikely. Even if there was strong popular support for the idea, the political classes and the media would not go along with it. Would it be fair? Absolutely. Would it be humane? Does it have to be? Would it solve the problem on the long run? Definitely not.
Execute suicide bomber wannabes
There was, a few years back, a web-site set up to recruit suicide bombers. Thousands applied. Each expressed a willingness to die killing. Wouldn’t it be fair to kill them before they can do their killing? To give them the martyrdom they crave? Is it feasible? Not in a civilized world, but the use of a honey-pot web site to identify potential suicide bombers may not be a bad idea………
Stop all immigration from Muslim countries
Could that be done? Absolutely. Would it be compassionate? Absolutely not. The problem is not the people, but the ideology they may bring with them.
It would be a ridiculous overreaction and it would do nothing with the homegrown problem. There must be at least some immigrants who want to leave not just their country but their religion as well.
Restrict immigration from Muslim countries to those who publically renounce Islam
This would be the easiest and possibly the most effective solution. On the other hand, it would not solve the problem with the Muslims that are already living in the Western world. Still, it is feasible. Just look at the caricature in my post “Immigration – the cultural considerations.”
Revoke the citizenship of and exile those who went to join and to fight for ISIS
Doing this would be the easiest response yet it is vehemently opposed when proposed even in its mildest form. For some strange reason, those who consider nationality and citizenship unimportant when it comes to illegal immigration, consider it an unalienable right once it is given.
This option is actually talked about, but facing very loud opposition from the political left.
Expel all Muslims from civilised countries
This is a peaceful proposition, tell Muslims to convert, renounce their religion or leave.
It has been done in the past in several countries in Europe, most notably in Spain in 1492. Most of Spain was Muslim. There is no reason why it couldn’t be done peacefully. Is it fair play? Absolutely.
All ‘infidels’ face such threats in Muslim countries plus abuse and harassment and in some places the very real danger of death.
Exile ISIS sympathizers
We can find dozens of surveys to show that a scary percentage of Muslims are supporting ISIS.
(Al Jazira – Fikra – Doha Institute – Rossya Segodnya.) We are not talking about terrorists, just about those ’moderate’ Muslims who support their goals and excuse their methods. Shouldn’t they be exposed to their reality by living under ISIS rule?
Can this be done? Not bloody likely. Muslims are like the communists were in the West: they peaised hell, but they didn’t really want to live in it.
Stick head in the sand
This seems to be a natural response for the French. In the days following the attacks, the French did what they do best, using the tragedies as an excuse to revel in decadence, or as they put it: [in] “celebrating life” and “Imagine”- ing their reality (‘Imagine all the people living for today’)
Love your enemies
The most pathetic response in Paris came from the Husband of one of the victims. CNN called his response ‘defiant.’ His message, in essence is that “I am not going to hate you, I am not going to do anything against you” His reaction went viral, making the whole liberal world go gaga over it.
Maybe, his is the answer but I doubt it. Suicidal stupidity seldom is. On the other hand, it is always the easiest thing to do.
Denial & Bullshit
The left and the four Ps (Politicians, the Police, the Press and the professors) are all in denial.
Blame anybody but the Muslims and under NO CIRCUMSTANCES WHATSOEVER should you ever blame Islam – seems to be the standard response.
For an exhaustive list of examples, check out Daniel Pipes’ blog post.
Apparently, Muslims are in denial as well, except I do not believe them. What they do is not denial, it is bullshitting. They blame the Jews and the Americans. Watch them in the third segment of Ezra’s show.
Playing delusional stupidity seems to work for them. Just watch Ezra’s reaction and the smirk on his subject’s face. Of course they don’t believe it, but it plays perfectly into their victim narrative and completely throws off the interviewers.
Spend more money on assimilation
Denmark introduced rehab for Syrian fighters. The Swedes are doing the same. Maybe we can talk the jihadists out of their bad ways if we just spend a little money and effort on it. Helping jihadists and ‘migrants’ is a tremendous boom for social services.
Can the above approach work? I let you to be the judge.
Control (or not)
Ban Islam in the Western world
Is that possible, would it work? Unlikely, and it would be only a short term solution. Is it unheard of? Absolutely not. Angola banned Islam. Sometimes even Muslims ban Islam. The Ahmadis are banned in Pakistan. Why? Because they advocate a peaceful interpretation of Islam. You cannot have that in a Muslim country.
Ban Muslim proselytizing in the Western world and expel anybody caught doing it
Again, it’s not unheard of. It is standard practice in Muslim countries. In some Muslim countries you may get killed for proselytizing.
Ban the Koran or Require Muslims to sanitize it.
Most Western countries have laws against hate-speech. The Koran most definitely qualifies as hate literature as it has a chockfull of passages that clearly violate the statutes of those laws.
Infiltrate Muslim organizations, monitor the activities in Mosques, monitor suspected individuals, etc.
This is already being done. Most of the terrorists involved in the Paris attack were already on a watch list. Did not seem to make much of a difference. It is doubtful that doing more would mean doing better.
When Donald Trump suggested that Paris would have had fewer victims if it was not for the strict gun controls, the media went berserk – without ever discussing the evidence he based his suggestion on.
Like any similar tragedy, the Paris terror attacks were used as an excuse by both sides to reiterate their position about gun control. The usual suspects called for even stricter gun control laws than the ones already in place. Does anybody seriously think that it would help? The Hutus were massacring the Tutsis with machetes. The latest Palestinian intifada is fought with knives and cars.
Prevent (or not)
Stop the financing of non-governmental organizations assisting illegal immigration
Governments of Western countries are regular donors to NGOs actively helping illegal activities. Not only are governments not punishing or banning them, they are encouraging their work with special privileges and money.
Shut down George Soros
On top of being a vociferous advocate of uncontrolled immigration, Soros is financing dozens of organizations with the specific mission to break the law. Pamela Geller’s post is a good summary with all the essential links to make the point.
Could it be done? Doubtful. Soros has his filthy hands in so many sleazy organizations that it is highly doubtful that the full scope of their reach and the full range of their objectives can ever be discovered and credibly exposed.
Stop the inflow of money from foreign powers to radical mosques and organizations
Rich Muslim dictatorships are spending billions on supporting Muslim organizations in the western world. Not only subversive ones, of course, but the very fact of support to the larger cause is creating a fertile support network for ‘moderate’ Muslims hindering the possibility of their integration into their host societies. Forcing Western Muslims to finance their own mosques would ensure that there is a lot fewer of them around.
Get the government out of the immigration business
The Libertarian answer to immigration should not surprise anybody: get the government out of the immigration support business. The only legitimate function of the government in this is the security check of the immigrants/refugees. A country should take as many refugees as its society is willing to sponsor. Not a single one more. Could this be done? Easily. Would it solve the problems? Most of it.
Boycott Middle Eastern oil
…and accelerate the move toward a non-carbon economy. The new Canadian prime minister and the Alberta premiere seem to be hell-bent on killing the Canadian oil industry. Any cut-back in production in Canada is a present to the Middle East providing them with the profit they can spend on spreading their totalitarian ideology.
Boycott trade with and tourism to Muslim countries
For some countries such as Egypt and Jordan Tourism is an essential source of income. A cut back in this income could go a long way toward reforming them.
= = = =
I could go on with this list as I still did not exhaust all the possibilities, but the point was only to show that great many things can be done in any possible combination of retribution, control and prevention. All that is needed is a little political will which is the element that is missing the most.
The typical response is denial. Heads stuck in the sand.
When I tried to explain to our 17 year old friend that contrary to what our politicians say, we ARE at war with Islam, he asked me “Are you at war with the Muslim girls you are working with?” NO!!!! – I answered – I am at war with the stupid ideas in their heads.
The problem seems to be that some people cannot separate the three elements of the problem: people, their actions and their ideology. The only way to tackle the problems with the first two is by confronting squarely the third, the ideology. Honestly discussing Islam, the particular teachings of the Koran and the actions of their prophet is the only thing that can lead to change.
Muslims should not be ostracised, but Islam should be. Islam is an embarrassment to humanity and the number one problem that should be addressed is the cowardliness we approach it with. Looking at the track record of their faith, Muslims should be ashamed and embarrassed for being Muslims. Instead of the phony platitudes about the majority of peaceful Muslims, politicians should point to the roots of the problem which is the Koran itself.
All I am hoping for is just a little reason and honesty. Islam declared war on the West yet it is nearly impossible to find a politician to acknowledge the fact that WE ARE AT WAR WITH ISLAM. We did not start it, we did not ask for it, but the war was declared on us. How can we fight, let alone win a war if we refuse to acknowledge its existence?
Imagining, dreaming, ‘living for today’ and playing our pianos are not the things that will bring us peace.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
This is part one of a three part series