To some, Philips is a scaremonger. To others, she is a plain-spoken realist.
Me, I’m getting my gear together for tomorrow’s heavily advertised day of infidel reckoning (situational optimism notwithstanding)—which, if all goes according to plan and western cities are reduced to dust and ash under a fiery nuclear sky, will thankfully delay the airing of my first ever lame attempt to do internet teevee—so I have no time to offer a gloss on Philips’ thesis, I’m afraid. Sorry, but there’s iodine to buy and sardine cans and Girls Gone Wild DVDs to load into the fallout shelter!
Instead, I’d ask that you all watch the video, then come back here and place yourself somewhere on the Philips Continuum™—with total agreement with Ms Philips’ positions being 10, and total disagreement, 1.
Alternately, you can turn the video into a drinking game and take a shot of flaming Ouzu and a bite of KooKoo Baadenjaan every time Ms Philips suggests somebody in the Muslim world really, really really wants to see us good and dead.
Or, for you “progressive” multiculturists out there, try doing both at once while simultaneously denying the philosophical grounds about which you are judging / sucking down shots of licorice-flavored Greek rotgut—then later, while you’re throwing up strands of saffron and bits of eggplant, try convincing yourself that what you’re really doing is birthing a metaphor for the “right’s” rejection of exotic brown peoples with whom our leaders should be holding a dialogue, not presenting as a dark and dangerous Other floating ominously in a pool of watery bile.
(h/t JWebb)
****
update: For those of you who don’t like downloading the video, the WSJ has a transcript available here (thanks to Terry Hastings).
Somebody else go first.
I’d put myself at a 7 or 8. I’d be willing to go higher with a more clearly defined idea of what exactly she means in regards to further restrictions on speech. I agree with her completely that there can be no negotiation with this particular group of ideologues, because I believe them when they state as much.
8.
7.5. They’ve been at war with the West since the seventh century AD. This is another battle in a very long war which won’t end until they change (unlikely, in my view) or we win. The best we can hope for is an armed truce, which is the best that’s been in place for about 1,300 years.
A hypothetical square root of 25.
Not going to rate it numerically, but I am in very substantial agreement with her, visit her site a lot, and have corresponded some. She’s a defector from al-Guardian, and obviously comes in for a lot of abuse in the British press.
8, largely agreeing with Defense Guy’s caveats. I have no doubt that some restriction on freedom of speech is necessary to maintain liberty, though I suspect the relevant laws are already in place in Britain–just not being enforced.
Meh. Not so sure about the speech restrictions thing. I think a clearer concept of just what this war really is, would settle these questions better than arguing over how best to try to fight it within the constrains of an imperfect and incomprehensible definition.
This is a War to Defend Civilization, not a War on Terror, and not a Clash of Civilizations (that last implies that the enemy has one too).
Bush has on occasion correctly identified the enemy, but he still hasn’t demonstrated that he has correctly defined the war. So long as that remains mired in political correctness, we’re going to be fighting with everything but our chin tied behind our back.
If I could tie one of those other things behind my back, I’d be in a different line of work.
As I’m reading this, I also find myself in substantial agreement; especially with regard to the general perspective (not just Britain’s) that this is some sort of negotiable terrorist threat. Islamist terrorism is a transformational ideology that is fixated on the goal of annihilation of Western socities – it’s aim is not tactical, rational, or based in some logical pathway that would substantiate it’s aims. Islamist terrorism exists and has such vehement supporters because they have faith that not only will the goals be acheived (of course they will, Allah will see to that), but that there is no losing scenario because dieing for the cause promises just as good (if not better) rewards that the success of the cause.
9. Free speech has always been limited by the concept of sedition, which Islamofacist imams clearly and persistently practice. Deport the bastards back to their shitholes, asylum be damned.
McGehee’s a true original, so I hope he doesn’t take this as some kind of put-down (intentionality!), but has anyone else noticed an explosion of “meh” in the tube thingies, lately?
I’m a 10. Anything less is hedging in favor of a nemesis that, as she instructs, takes a non-negotiable position with the West. The hammer must come down hard, and with extreme malice. I won’t say it is easy, but it must be done, and I trust that most people understand what must be done if we’re going to protect individual rights for future generations.
Hey, the Brits charged 11 in the terror plot.
Countdown til Sully apologizes . . .
Mine goes to eleven.
Three. It is preferable to win the argument than to suppress the bad idea. Of course, you can’t beat something with nothing. Accordingly, Western civilization again needs the confidence of its convictions. To counter the Islamic, Jihadist threat, Western civilization needs to regain its pride in liberal democracy, free markets, scientific inquiry, the rule of law, political equality, freedom of speech, and freedom of worship. The West has to believe again that these ideals represent a better way to go.
8.
Not sure about the restrictions, favoring the Jeffersonian approach of punishing the actions of the faithful when they break laws, but on the other hand we’ve been ignoring a hell of a lot of their actions. Sending money overseas to “charities” that launder the money and give it to jihadis should be enough to shut down half the mosques in the country, IMHO.
I’m at 5.
I totally agree with her premise as to the nature of the threat.
However, restricting speach in any way to combat this threat is both counterproductive and morally unacceptable.
The solution to bad speech is more speech. What we need to get rid of is the ideas that restrict us from ridiculing the radical islamist beliefs.
We need to be publically proclaiming that these creatures are barbarians, barely human and deserving of as much disrespect as is possible to heap upon them. They are beyond the pale and are not welcome in civilized company until they grow up, get educated and decide that other people have a right to live their lives as they want.
Trying to restrict speach will simply drive underground these idiotic ideas. You deal with the ideas of radical islam the same way you deal with the ideas of bigotry and racist. Publically denounce and snear at the idiocy so nobody dares to voice those ideas for fear of embarrassment or being outcast.
This also has the benefit of making clear who and what the enemies of civilization are.
Once again, PCness is our greatest enemy.
Okay, to shorten my own spew above:
Yeah, what roastedredpeppers said!
She’s obviously right, and she’s been saying this for quite a while. I, of course, would go a lot further than policing speech in the mosques, which is the reason I’ve been so depressed about this for a long time. I’m quite convinced that it will take a dirty bomb or a nuclear device detonated in one or more of our cities to make the idiots who run this country realize what needs to be done.
What needs to be done will be shocking to a lot of people. I don’t give a flying fuck about anyone who comments that I’m crazy, or racist, or impractical. For my part, I’m shocked that so many people don’t understand what’s going on, and the fact that we’ve never faced a threat like this, and that we need to throw out the old ways of thinking, and cowboy up.
Domestically, we need to close off the borders, and not allow in any more muslims, period. For those who would say, “Well, how do you know who’s a muslim?”, don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good. You start by not allowing in anyone from a muslim country. We’ll have to adjust as we go.
Then, we deport the ones who are here. I’d like to see all muslims deported eventually, but we should start with imams and known agitators. Yes, I know that’s a herculean task, and I don’t know if it’s even possible, but we need to start somewhere.
Overseas, we should get serious about the splodeydopes in Iraq. We need to quit tip-toeing around, and unleash the dogs of war. By the way, I don’t give a shit about democracy in the Middle East. That’s one thing Bush is clueless about. Islam is not compatible with democracy, and that’s just a fact. Once we get Iraq relatively stable, we should build a huge military base there from which to operate in the Middle East.
The first order of business should be simultaneously buttoning up Lebanon and Syria so that Israel can operate without having to worry about its internal security, and destroying Iran’s nuclear program. That means utter destruction. I’m tired of hearing about how spread out and buried their facilities are, and how it’s impossible to destroy them. Bullshit. It just takes overwhelming force, including nuclear bunker-busters.
Then, we should go into NW Pakistan and clean out the vermin who are holed up there. Then, we should personally deliver a message to every leader of every muslim country that if they don’t round up all the active terrorists in their countries, that hell will rain down on them. And that if there’s one more American, Israeli, or other American ally killed by terrorism, we will take out ten thousand of theirs.
The rest would have to be worked out, but that’s a start.
Spamword, “steps.” Indeed.
e to the power of pie eye, baby.
I’m imaginary.
SB: mind
head
10. The Islamists are using their right to freedom of expression to destroy us. They are smart enough and cynical enough to use all of the benefits of western civilization to undermine it; they are dismantling it brick by brick. And they are using the tools we, ourselves, provide them. Consider: they would never be able to make this much headway were it not for the generous benefits they enjoy in liberal societies–benefits they can enjoy nowhere else.
If you look around at the rest of the world, freedom of expression is not the natural estate of mankind, it is a privilege resulting from internal political stability. In a destabilized political climate where the very life of the state is at stake, it becomes a luxury. War is an exceptional circumstance and we are at war. If we wish to have any freedom in the future, we had best be prepared to fight for it now.
Think of it this way: A guy is holding a gun on you and tells you he is about to pull the trigger. Do you wrest the gun away from him in an effort to save your life or do you worry about violating his Constitutionally-guaranteed right to bear arms?
Well, you can put me down as a full-throated 10.
As it regards speech restrictions, what Phillips is addressing is treason, sedition, and incitment to murder–fighting words disruptive to the good order of peace and tranquilty.
In Islam, there is no separation of religion and the state, Islam is the law that governs Muslims, irrespective of sovereignty. Islam disagrees with our separate public space for politics, where we peacefully negotiate or adjudicate our social differences. Islam advocates our overthrow and conversion, or our submission under dhimmitude. Islam cares not one whit to compromise or negotiate with those not faithful to their religion. These are not disagreements which we can tolerate, if only because Islam will not tolerate our disagreement with it.
That some pious Muslims do not advocate overthrow of our system of laws are merely the exceptions that prove the rule.
The prohibition Phillips is addressing already exists under law, she is merely asking for confidence in Western culture to enforce the laws.
If the KKK was advocating the overturn of our system, I doubt there would be any hesitancy.
RRPeppers,
Pardon me for saying this, but you’re kidding yourself. This is not a war that can be won through rhetoric. It is going to be a very long slog if we take that path, and one that we are likely to lose as our belief system is taken apart bit-by-bit as the result of persistent attacks. This is the kind of community we’re up against, and they outnumber us significantly.
I agree with you that we have to regain the courage of our convictions. But it must be backed up with a military response that reflects that conviction (note Ben Stein’s comment along this line in the link I’m providing). One fault I have with Bush is that he has been suckered (by Rummy?) into believing that our volunteer force can pull this off, and the rest of us can go back to shopping, thereby presenting Americans with a belief that no sacrifice is necessary in the WoT. It may turn out to be a tragic aspect of his legacy as president.
I may sound alarmist here, but if more attacks occur here, and we keep receiving the same response from our leaders, mixed in with pleas for tolerance from liberal-thinking pacifists, I would not be surprised if the military takes over this country, and that a majority of Americans favor it as it’s happening. The military may just turn out to be our last defense against an enemy that is truly serious and, as Philips states, takes a position toward us that is non-negotiable.
We are fighting an enemy that possesses conviction, commitment, and is suicidal in its mission. We prefer to shop, thereby entertaining ourselves to death while hoping that our slender military keeps the enemy at bay with our technological advantage. But the truth is that our enemy can accomplish more with a knife and their conviction than we can with our bombs.
I share the free speech caveats. The true jihadi is unlikely to be persuaded by more speech. But it can be effective with respect to non-Muslims and—with due respect to CraigC—a fair slice of the Muslim population as well. I would suggest that one reason the US has seen fewer homegrown Muslim terrorists than the UK to date is that the US is operationally less multiculturalist and politically correct than the UK. At the very least, there should be more speech promoting western values and exposing the incitement of various imams.
Accordingly, the UK should not be passing laws to squelch criticism of Islam, either. And it should not be left to Mr. Bean to carry the banner of free speech across the pond.
I am at 11. If this democracy thing doesn’t work out, we are going to have to consider the Ann Coulter option.
I’m a 9.
Perfectly reasonable “speech restrictions” are and have been in place, but they’re not being enforced. Inciting violence is a crime, and this enemy does plenty of it. When it’s violence against the society they’re in (and that they are alien to), it’s time for them to be locked up or thrown out. Full stop, no questions asked.
How many countries wouldn’t do at least that much?
Then there’s the gazillion Euro hate speech laws that don’t seem to apply to the Other. Time to put them to work, mates.
I am not suggesting that we do nothing about sedition or treason, but you had best make it very clear where your lines are drawn or you will end up removing the means to criticize your government, perhaps the very thing which allows us to have this conversation in the first place.
Can’t come up with a number but shank, Roastedredpeppers and RC all come close to expressing my thoughts.
I’ve thought for a long time that political correctness/multiculturalism had the potential for destroying American (and by extension Western) civilization by making it impossible to identify any group as an enemy, and by making it impossible to specify the nature of the threat that an enemy poses.
Radical Islamists are prepared to die for their cause, as shank notes, but too many in Western society are not willing to so much as pay attention (much less inconvenience themselves) in defense of their way of life. Example: the rush to send troops to Lebanon to enforce the “cease fire.”
If we don’t wake up to the threat soon enough, we are doomed to dhimmitude or worse. It might take generations to happen, but those guys are patient. I don’t know whether our civilization can meet the challenge. We have the means, but do we have the will?
TW: Does, as in, failure to act does have consequences.
Karl, let me be a little clearer on the point you addressed. I don’t disagree with what you said, I just don’t think we can afford to give muslims as a whole the benefit of the doubt anymore. It’s unfortunate, but as they say, we have to be right every time, the terrorists only have to be right once.
Sully, apologize for a baseless and hysterical accusation that smears President Bush?
*wiping eyes* Oh, that was a good one.
Actually, Sully will see this as more evidence of the Power of Dark Lord Rove: He can even manipulate Scotland Yard! Re-education camps for gays are just around the corner! Run by Christianists and former Abu Ghraib guards!
And only Sully has the courage to TELL THE TRUTH!
TW: Those who KNOW THE TRUTH can never rest…
8. And hopefully on 08/23/06 I won’t be reading the wisdom from my bunker…. Sardines won’t cut it Jeff. Gonna have to go with my friend Lou, and stock up on Gifelte Fish……
10 ‘cause I like western civilization.
All I know is that I’m a little less than happy that I’m flying to Chicago on Tuesday.
Brian,
You raise a straw man. I did not argue that the conflict can be won merely with rhetoric, and I am certainly not opposed to bombing. I am, however, opposed to speech restrictions. Because Western civilization is worthy of protection, the United States government must be prepared to bomb the cities of Jihadist nation-states whenever an American is killed or taken hostage. Allah be praised, He gave us the weapons, technology, and wealth to accomodate the jihadist’s desire for matrydom.
RRP
10.
Islam is fairly clear about what it is about.
The west, however is not. We need to call it for what it is, not fascism or nazism, but imperialism. The form or method is immaterial. The goal/intent/purpose is central.
They want the world under Shari’a. We don’t.
What are WE going to DO about it.
On the restriction of Free Speech, there have always been restrictions. Incitements to violence and or treason are generally not in the “anything goes” column. Sedition too is not wide open.
Junkyardblog
WRT Melanie Philips’ vid I’m an 11.
Seditionists, inciters should be jailed for the duration (probably life) in prayer-mat free jails.
My line is crossed by sedition-speak like this:
What Melanie Philips advocates was already tried here in the U.S. during the fight against communism. The law is still on the books if you’d like to try again. Heck, why not try again? This ought to be a long enough war to try everything we can think of.
I still don’t see how the Islamofascists win. How do they take over the U.S. or even Europe and make us all into their dhimmis? I don’t see how they can do it. Sure they can destroy but how does that give them control?* I just think taking the fight to them will result in fewer dead Americans over the long term than sitting back and waiting to be attacked again and again and again.
* Only if we surrender.
tw: neither
You neither?
Plus it’s fun to be able to use words like “Dhimmicrat” now that I’m a “Rethuglican”.
I’d say I’m at about 7. She’s more right than wrong.
I’d also rather not see free speech restricted, but I’m wondering why the hate speech issuing from certain London neighborhoods against the West isn’t being drowned out in speech ten times as loud from the other side. It’s either a) a case of the majority afraid of saying things for fear of becoming a target, or b) no one in the west really believes in the West anymore (present company excluded). Is the vast majority of Britain’s population silent out of fear or shame? Why are they silent at all?
The hate-filled clerics ought to be being mocked, derided, and protested at every appearance—this would be far better than restricting their speech.
Restrictions on speech, like gun control, would tend to harm the law abiding more than the criminal because only the lawful are inclined to obey the law. I’d hate to see brand new laws against “hate speech” enacted which are then used to jail those who dare criticize those who are shouting the hateful words the loudest, who themselves fear no prosecution.
That being said, there are plenty of laws against sedition that are on the books, gathering dust. Why don’t the authorities start fining and jailing people who advocate the violent overthrow of the government, when such advocacy is clearly illegal? Are they afraid of the resulting storm?
If so, then that is merely further evidence that the sedition has already been tolerated for far too long.
So far they only have the control we give them. Such as control over what we can say about our enemies, who we can put into movies, and just who we can look at with suspicion.
All useless without the level of conviction our enemy possesses. Waiting to respond to attacks, killings, hostage-taking, means that the foundations of radical fundamentalism are left to flourish. Are you advocating that the British bomb themselves? After all, that’s where their enemy happens to reside.
Our response has to include the elimination of the fundamentalist rhetoric that breathes life into the movement. It has to be eliminated like a cancer.
Robert Crawford
Last night 60 Minutes broadcast a piece on the movie Submission, director Theo Van Gogh, and Hirsi Ali. They showed enough clips of the movie to outrage any Islamofascists who were watching. They showed the sheet draped body of Theo Van Gogh and reported there was anti-Muslim violence in Holland after the murder. They interviewed Hirsi Ali and let her tell why the Islamofascists hate her. 60 Minutes! If they can tell some of the truth, America is not surrendered yet.
I don’t remember the last time I watched any of 60 Minutes but I happened to be clicking through the channels and caught part of that segment. Who knew?
tw: girl
You go girl!
She gets an “E” for effort.
Personally, the more that I learn about Islam, the more convinced I am that we must kill them all. If we don’t, we will die. End of story.
Those who follow Islam in any of its forms are no longer human in my book. If I must become less than human for a time on order to kill those who would kill me and my family, then so be it. My children and grandchildren will be left in peace.
When each of you finally get around to personalizing this threat, mebbe you will finally convince yourselves that you must fight…or die where you stand.
No. I’m not normally this radical. Were it left up to me, I would spend the rest of my life taking care of my flower garden and drinking Jack and Coke while I sit on the deck and watch the clouds go by. Nothing is more important to me than the peace of my house, but if that peace is to be disturbed, there will be a price to be paid by those who disturb it.
There is a time for peace and there is a time for war. War is now upon us. If you are going to die in war, it is better to die fighting. Better still to ensure that those who bring war are those who die first. …if they do, then I can go back to my flowergarden and my Jack and Coke and take comfort in the fact peace has returned to my house.
8-ish. This struggle is less about the west and more about apostasy. The west is only a threat in the sense that it provides opportunity for so-called moderate islam to exist at all. For the jihadi this is more intolerable than all else. It is imperative that non-jihadi Islam realize this and see that the radicals are as much a threat, if not greater threat, to them than to us. Islam will never truly be an existential threat to the west. Sure they could do horrible damage, maybe set us back a century or so but that’s about the most they could do, and after that their game would pretty much be over. All that would be left is radical (stone age) Islam and the rest of the world – where Islam, of any kind, would have no place. The true horror is that, to my mind, the jihadis would be just fine with that.
That is why greater speech restrictions are a bad idea. They would not stop the hate, only drive it underground. What will be more effective is allowing the radicals to spout as much as they wish, and then exposing them to as wide an audience as possible – treat them like Mel Gibson or Andrew Young – make them answer for their words in public. Shame and humiliation, along with the necessazry military defeats, will work when applied effectively. People msut be allowed to choose.
Unfortunately, for the past few years, far too many people have not been willing to do this. CAIR is called a civil rights organization and according a degree of respect that is clearly undeserved. The great work of places like MEMRI goes all but ignored. A former big name ‘journalist’ tosses softballs in an interview with Iran’s nut-in-chief, etc. etc.
We are not serious, and I fear what it will take to make us serious. The west has grow decadent, not in the modern sense of sex-drugs-and rock and roll, but in the sense that we have forgotten what efforts are required to maintain the very foundations of our ciclization.
I should clarify that I don’t believe in curtailing freedom of expression entirely for one and all, but only as it applies to Islamists and their sympathizers. We should enact and enforce hate speech laws that combat any action of theirs that incites people to violence, sedition, revolution, crime or treason.
Such an action would be less radical than it would appear because the rights of the average American would remain untouched.
Why can’t I go inside a theater and scream “FIRE”?
9.
Yelling “Down With America”, “Death to the Great Satan!” etc. does not constitute treason or sedition…just mental and emotional retardation. Now, if anyone really meets the test of treason or sedition then damn right charge and hang them.
Do we need to fight a war and bomb and kill as many of the bastards as possible? Damn right we do.
Don’t mistake my absolute refusal to allow the destruction of what makes our country great as a lack of desire to rid the world of these animals…not so at all.
However, when you start saying we need to outlaw these fundamentalists I have to ask…who decides who is too fundamentalists, and when will the “Crisis” end so that we can stop naming people and groups as fundamentalists that need to be destroyed. Again, don’t get me wrong, the threat we face today is palpable and fundamentalist (or maybe all of) islam is a threat to humanity that must be destroyed or forced to change it’s ugly ways. But who do we go after once we’ve conquered these bad guys?
Would I be any less guilty of Conspiracy to Commit Murder if I planned it in a tool shed with a couple of friends verses publicly in a mosque?
Murder is not free speech.
In the absence of laws precluding “hate speech” that promotes racial intolerance, I’d be against laws precluding expression of other, equally stupid ideas. More speech, not less, is clearly the answer.
But there isn’t a balance, and certain expressions of rank stupidity are precluded, while others are protected. In that world, the world we live in, limiting calls to sedition, jihad, and other dead-ends seems somehow acceptable.
I’d put myself at a 9.5 in agreement with the lady.
Trying to restrict speech will simply drive underground these idiotic ideas.
I keep hearing this argument in a multitude of contexts—“it will just drive xxxx underground if we make it illegal”—as if that were a bad thing. Stuff that’s underground doesn’t spread nearly as easily as stuff that’s out in the open.
Besides, the fact that lots of the incitement is produced in Arabic makes it functionally underground until we all start learning one of the world’s hardest languages to learn.
I’d rather that their ideas were underground, where they can’t infect public consciousness. The last thing we need is a bunch of our own, disillusioned youngsters thinking that jihad is the ultimate X-treme sport.
Oh, and I’m a 9.
Tell that to the Byzantines.
A tremendous outpouring of public apathy?
In any event, my “meh” may be easily misconstrued. It means that I think the question of speech restrictions is the wrong question. Others have pointed out that wartime speech restrictions are not a new idea.
If our government were as serious about this war as it ought to be, Ms. Philips’ proposasl would long since have been adopted already.
It’s scant but non-zero consolation that our government, while less serious than it ought to be, is at least serious to a non-zero degree. Can’t say that about the domestic opposition.
8-9, strong agreement.
I’m with Defenseguy and others who have expressed their concern over free speech restrictions. I think, however, that it is worth a shot at a CLEARLY DEFINED APPLICATION of existing sedition laws. I leave that to others better educated in the law to define those limits. However, I’m also resigned to the idea that even if that happens the result will be “jihadi” speach will either be cleaned up or moved underground.
ThomasD hit the nail on the head about apostacy(I think that you and I are reading the same books!)I would go a bit further and recognize the jihadists’ hatred of Western culture as a corrupting influence. There is plenty of source material out there to illuminate many radicals’ belief that as long as western culture exists, it will corrupt individuals, Islamic States and Islam itself. It’s also important to remember that the most popular books in the Islamic World are so called “Apocalypse Tales,” Guess who is the Great Satan in virtually every one of those (no, Sully, not Rovie.) The Madrassas have been bludgening their little minions with this heady brew of the “final solution” (gee, didn’t some shrimpy mustachoed lunatic use that same phrase?) The little brainwashed wackjobs really think that they are hastening Armegeddon.
I’ll test the biblical neo-scholars out there and suggest that this war (and yes, Kerry-boy, it is a global religious war) needs to be treated as the Old Testament Israelites were commanded to treat the Amalekites.
(First post so please excuse the abysmal spelling or at least abuse me and make me laugh!)
They win by us doing nothing.
Kristalnacht ring a bell?
Somewhere Samuel Hunington gently weeps.
Uh, a couple of small points…slender military? Um, not quite as large as possible – but you have to be aware that alot of logistical and admin functions are no longer done by green suiters. We have an awful lot of combat power NOT being utilized at the moment.
Also, overestimation of the foe is as bad as underestimation – the Imperial Japanese were suicidal, heavily armed, determined, etc. Not too many people in 1944 would have guessed how they would have turned out in 2006, yes? Don’t go assuming that a billion of the Earth’s inhabitants must be walled off, bombed, etc., simply becuase they espouse Islam as their ostensible (or real) faith.
We in the Armed Forces (and the other instruments of national power, to be sure)will do our best to deal with the Wahabbi, Salafi fanatics and followers that DO want to destroy us.
I wish to remain vigilant and hopeful in our coming victory – not giving over to the despair that says we must write off 20% or so of the humanity.
I greatly respect “Mad Mel”, (as she is referred to by our leftist “inteligentsia”), but marking her out of ten on the basis of this interview alone is probabably unfair. From reading her other articles it’s clear that limiting the freedom of speech of the jihadi imams is not the only weapon she espouses, and I think that coming from Europe, where “hate speech” laws are continent wide, she was caught a little off guard by the question.
Whilst she does not have the all the answers to Islamic terrorism, neither does anyone else and it will take time and unfortunately a few more, (lost), battles in the war before the shape of the conflict becomes apparent to enough people that they will countenance the tactics that will be necessary to win this thing.
As for tomorrow’s apocalypse, well Chris Muir has already seen the signs. Three Hoarse men of the Apologists
Heh indeed
Ok Turing, you had to ask! 9
Sedition is not protected speech.
I confess that making intellectuals cry is one of my hobbies.
Now that is literally true. If we just stand there and do nothing while they walk up to us and slit our throats then the terrorists will have won. If they can nuke NY, LA, SF, DC, IA, … and we do nothing then definitely, the terrorists will have won. If they can rape our wives, girlfriends, and children, if they can cut off our balls, if they can enslave us and we do nothing then by definition the terrorists will have won.
Doing nothing is even worse than surrendering, meh? So I suppose we are in complete agreement again.
tw: needed
Thanks, I needed that reminder that doing nothing is not the answer!
I agree with what Phillips says in terms of describing the Islamic Fascists and how deaf, dumb, and blind many in the West are in the fog of political correctness. In this regard I place her amongst the brave truth-telling infidels I admire, such as Oriana Fallaci and Hirsi Ali.
But she loses me on the free speech issue.
Well, here’s my take on the free speech issue.
In my city of Cleveland the local media uncovered a video of the head of the largest mosque in Ohio (Imam Damra of the Islamic Center of Cleveland) making hateful speeched referring to Jews as the sons of dogs and pigs. It was important to shine a spotlight on this rather than brushing it under the rug and continuing with the whitewash of the problems in Islam. A lot of people want to ignore it and that is part of the problem we’re facing.
After the local media aired that video people started looking harder at Damra. It turned out he had lied to get into the country and that he was involved in funding terrorist groups overseas. Today he sits in a jail in Detroit not because of his hateful views but because his hateful views got people to look him over.
So, no, don’t make freedom of speech a casualty of war, but please lets stop hiding what is being said and stop pretending all is well in Islam.
In Britain free speech is not quite as etched into stone as in the USA, which is unfortunate for them. I think Phillips’ views on freedom of speech are influenced by a European culture which is more accepting of thought-policing. In many European countries you’ll already be prosecuted for attacking Islam with your speech (such laws were nearly passed in Britain as well), and it must seem an odd thing when the authorities are cracking down on things being said about Islam while the police protect rallies where signs call for a 9/11 in London.
Also, Britain has more of the hardcore Islamists than the USA, which no doubt has horrified Phillips. It is a strange thing – even here in the USA where there are (I believe) fewer of the hardcore jihadists – to watch people who were generously allowed to immigrate or study in our countries now having pro-terrorist rallies.
It makes me feel like Theo van Gogh: Why are such people here, why are we kissing their asses and bending over backwards for them, and why is no one asking them to leave? I don’t understand people moving to a country they hate and want to destroy and seeing that country acting like that’s okay and pretending they see no problem.
So, I dunno….I guess I put myself at an 8 on the Phillips scale, and am wondering when the fog of political correctness will be swept away and people start telling the truth about the deep problems in Islamic culture. There are lots of moderate Muslims, but Islam itself seems anything but a moderate religion to me, and the problems with Islam will only get worse when the West is too pathetic to call Islamic Fascism what it is.
*10*
If things don’t change, I see a day coming when vigilanties will shoot a man dead in the street for holding a sign that says “death to America”.
I hope the government will take the situation in hand, do what needs to be done, before many of us think that sort of thing is neccessary. That time is not far off.
Yes, that is the problem with hate speech laws, which is why I ordinarily don’t support them. The only reason I’d support them in this instance is that the alternative of permitting the Islamists total freedom of speech is unacceptable. Freedom of expression and media exposure acts like oxygen on a fire to these guys. And it permits the MSM to glamorize them.
Such laws wouldn’t be able to eradicate Islamism, but they might help cool the situation and make it easier for the authorities to maintain control. And I am all for exposing the truth of this movement to the public. I would never ban it from the public discourse. That’s not the point.
The point is to prevent the Islamists from controlling the terms of the debate and appropriating our foolish media for their propaganda. But it’s only one tool.
I’m not sure that such a course is necessarily part of the answer; the point is that we must stop participating in our own demise.
I have heard Mad Mel on radio shows, and yes, she makes compelling arguments as well as stating the obvious. But I don’t think stifling or punishing free speech is the answer. It’s the treasured heritige of this country, and it must be preserved in spite of outside attempts to coerce and co-opt our culture. I am a big believer in smacking people for what they do, not what they say. Hit the islamic terrorist organizations hard for actions resulting from their exhortations to destruction; maybe they’ll be more circumspect in the future, because I have to assume they want to survive (maybe I’m wrong). But shutting down all discourse just drives them underground, I think.
One of the most depressing things I take away from Phillips’ observation is that the very culture of Britain, and all the other countries overrun with insular islamic immigrants, is corrupted by a helpless sense of appeasement. There seems to be a sense that they are resigned to being dominated by a violent minority. It’s a shitter.
Is anyone mobilzing the chavs to combat this crap? They may yet be the saviours here!