Having returned from holiday which included a trip to Istanbul and seeing first hand a session of Dawa I will continue with the theme that the people at the top (well some of them) do recognise the threat and do have a strategy, in doing this I will expose my own doubts, fears concerns and also my sense that they may be right in part, but also the risk that they take in throwing the baby out with the bathwater, in a previous post I once said that we may start to be successful in turning the Middle East around, but in doing so we destroy our own societies...

I wonder how many people have seen George W Bush getting tetchy with a liberal reporter trying to pin him down on whether we were winning in Afghanistan, based on a previous question and answer session in2006 on Iraq.   President Bush got rather annoyed and in his response really laid out what the strategy in the West is.  Basically he said it was a long struggle, America is fighting against an ideology of thugs and killers, he even called them Jihadists, which I am sure he did not intend to do, he said that we police it and we try to bring them to democracy.   Nothing much different from his strategy laid out after 9/11.

Recently a guest writer posted an essay on Gates of Vienna, in which the author posted his views of our options in Europe.

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/04/surrender-genocide-or-what.html
In this he said that the only way that the Islamic threat could be eliminated would be through the following:
1)   Inducing Muslims to leave of their own free will,
2)   Mass deportations, and
3)   Genocide.

As a result of posting this, GOV were kicked out of Pajamas Media network, with Charles Johnson of LGF somewhere in the story.

I think that the article is incorrect, in one important detail, it will not be the Muslims who will suffer from genocide, it will be us, the non-Muslims, Europe will fragment into a patchwork of Balkan like states with populations fighting each other and of course with their birth rate and natural tendency for violence it will be a conflict that we will lose.   However he does touch on this aspect in his article.

I must also point out that the strategy marked out under the heading of In Closing is exactly what I and any right minded person worried about my people, my life, my families lives knowing what I do of Islam would do.   But politicians at that level do not work on the same level as me, they are protected, their families are normally living in secure areas, they have to grapple with the death of many if it turns into a war and the death of fewer if it does not at least in their time in power, they are doing everything possible not to allow it to turn into a shooting war, where the mass of Muslims feel that we are out to get them as Muslims and that they need to fight to defend their faith, a faith which is the only thing that is worth anything to them and our leaders feel that they can change that, perhaps they can, but while we deny the issue of Islam itself we will fail even if we risk the raising of the Islamic masses against us.

The West’s strategy is as follows:

• Develop democracy and liberty in the Muslims world

• Police the Islamic threat in the west, accept terrorists attacks, Islamic inspired rapes and violence as part of society and the price to stop a future war of civilisations

• Use democratic, human rights and legal principles to undermine the extremists

• Use the fact that as Al Queda and the Islamic Jihadists lose men and resources they will recruit people who are more criminal and violent who will undermine their support in the Muslim world.   Note that this has actually happened in Iraq and other areas of the world

• Do not highlight that the issue is Islam

• Try to develop moderate voices in the Islamic community

• Keep a lid on the numerous attempts to kill people in the West, hide the true scale of the problem from the public to prevent non-Muslim reaction which will turn the conflict into a Islam vs infidel one and thus save Islam

• Muzzle, ridicule anyone who says that Islam is a problem

Develop Democracy and Liberty in the Muslim world

Pros

• Many extremists have bluntly told their people that personal liberty and democracy is directly against Islam, as the people as a whole seem to want democracy and personnel liberty as part of the overall feeling to get away from the stifling corruption of Muslims countries this is a own goal on behalf of Islam

• The normal people really do want democracy as a means of getting rid of the corruption in their countries

Cons

• Islam is submission to the will of god only, Shariah is the only law that is acceptable to real Muslims, while Islam is strong it is very difficult to develop true democracy, freedom of expression and personnel liberty

• They vote for Islamic parties as the non-Islamic parties tend to be corrupt and part of the existing leadership of Muslim countries

• We are trying to push democracy, personnel liberty and freedom of expression , while destroying it in own countries, we are not going to set a good example much longer, take the EU as an example

• Most Muslims do not understand that democracy is just part of the equation, democracy is defended by protected freedom of expression and individual rights, until those aspects are understood and accepted then bringing democracy to the Muslim masses will never work.

Police the Islamic threat in the west, accept terrorists attacks, Islamic inspired rapes and violence as part of society and the price to stop a future war of civilisations

Pros

• The Extremist Muslims are pushing the fact that this is a war by the West against Islam, while the only people saying that and acting that way are the extremists, which undermines Islam in the process

• Muslims who are Muslims in name only will become even more disgusted with the acts carried out by Muslims and question Islam, this is happening in the UK, though it is masked by the much greater profile of the extremists

Cons

• Live becomes a lot less pleasant for us infidels, take air travel for example

• Our wives and daughters are at a much greater risk from rape and murder

• The risk of violent crime is greatly enhanced, a Muslim criminal with contempt for his victim is much more likely to use violence against those who he feels are inferior to him and are keeping him down as detailed by the Quran and his conditioning

• There is a risk that the indigenous population begin to react to the extremism that is destroying their societies

• A Muslim in name only may rediscover Islam based on his life circumstances

Use democratic, human rights and legal principles to undermine the extremists

Pros

• We are seen to be sticking to our principles further emphasising the barbarity of Islam
• Prevent the Islamics defining the conflict in terms that best suit them and raise the masses of Muslims in holy war

Cons

• We are unable to get the really dangerous people out of circulation, as a result the indigenous population are more likely to react to the violence

• We risk real damage to our own societies from the failure to remove the most violent extremists

• That the extremists will terrorize and control the Muslim population in the West

Use the fact that as Al Queda and the Islamic Jihadists lose men and resources they will recruit people who are more criminal and violent who will undermine their support in the Muslim world.   Note that this has actually happened in Iraq and other areas of the world

Pros

• This is enormous, because Al Queda were determined to have a military victory at all costs they allowed themselves to alienate their support by acts against follow Muslims who were not deemed to be devout by people who were hypocrites in terms of Islam

• My feeling is that I really can see progress here in that the actions of Al Queda and Shiite Militias have actually alienated many Muslims who just want to get on with their live and have started turning them away from Islam

Cons

• It is extremely costly for us to fight this war, we are using a vast amount of money and we cannot keep this up, it’s one thing to fight a war, it’s another thing to rebuild a country, but to do both...

Do not highlight that the issue is Islam

Pros

• Prevent the Islamics defining the conflict in terms that best suit them and raise the masses of Muslims in holy war

Cons

• Prevent the population in the West from getting behind the governments in dealing with this

• Ignoring the reality and the seriousness of the situation, especially in regards to the huge and threatening third column now in our midst

• Ignoring the impact of the spreading of Islam by non-violent means which will result in violence once they feel able to

• Placing the burden of this conflict on later generations

Try to develop moderate voices in the Islamic community

Pros

• Further weaken the extremists attempt to create a war of civilisations

• Reduce the impact of the call for jihad

Cons

• Islam is itself extreme and anyone who accepts Western concepts is ignored by most Muslims at this point, the proof is to look at the acts carried out by Muslims and review the scripture

• The extremists who are pretending to be moderates are taken by gullible politicians as moderates thus undermining this approach

• Very few Muslims  have the guts to stand up against the violence and threats

• Any Muslim who is really moderate is no longer a Muslim

Keep a lid on the numerous attempts to kill people in the West, hide the true scale of the problem from the public to prevent non-Muslim reaction which will turn the conflict into a Islam vs infidel one and thus save Islam

Pros

• Further weaken the extremists attempt to create a war of civilisations

Cons

• Sooner or later they will succeed

• Prevent those Muslims in name only from feeling shame and give them the push to leave Islam or counting themselves as Muslims

Muzzle, fail to protect, ridicule anyone who says that Islam is a problem

Pros

• Further weaken the extremists attempt to create a war of civilisations

• Further destroy our own system of personnel liberty and freedom of expression, and embolden the extremists to push harder

Cons

• Lose all respect from the people who see that Islam is a problem and cannot see why people are persecuted for telling the truth, can you take any one seriously when they say things like:

o Anti-Islamic acts (this is to tie in with the overall strategy of painting Al Queda and their ilk as not being Muslims, but nilhists)

o Islam is a religion of peace

• Failure to protect people leaving Islam will make it harder to weaken Islam

I believe that the strategy will fail for one important reason, Islam itself is extreme, the only moderate aspect about Islam is that some people chose not to follow all of its teachings, in doing so they are rejecting Islam and in not doing anything to help them in getting there we are going to fail, however it is a tightrope in terms of not being seen to be at war with Islam, after all just standing up for your own culture is seen as a warlike act by Islam.

I think that the West could keep doing what it is doing, but make more effort to hinder Islam, block Muslim immigration in any way they can while we deal with those that we have, remove from circulation the extremists and the extremist groups and to reduce the number of Mosques and the like that are the support of this dreadful religion, expose the false-moderates, try to show to Muslims that Islam is a dead end.   Push devout Muslims to return home, but this requires reducing the safety net, and most importantly of all the Left are using the immigrant votes to stay in power, we do not have much time left.   I see signs of this happening as the Elite weigh up the growing unrest in their populations.

If this was also being done then I would feel that we had a chance of success, however in doing this the extremists will be able to say that we are at war with Islam so I guess that this will not happen at this stage.

Finally in reviewing the strategy of the West I have come to one conclusion, the "WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER" 60's crowd are in control, at times we have to fight to defend our freedoms, if we do not then we will lose them, our leaders are terrified of war against the Muslim world and its large population of young men, well let me put it in the bluntest terms, the disparity of man power will get worse as time goes on not better, it would be better if we risked a war of civilisation rather than lose our liberty...

In terms of the success of opening Muslims eyes to the issue of Islam read this for a good example:

http://europenews.dk/en/node/9749

It was interesting when you look at the real impact evangelical Christians have had in North Africa, then when you look at the popes speech in relation to this how he focussed on love and reason and logic and you get a feel for the well aimed attempt to turn Muslims away from violence and to see the light so to speak.   And of course I really liked hearing about that Greek Orthodox priest who leaves Muslim clerics spluttering in impotent rage at his excellent understanding of Islam and how that has resulted in many converts due to a television show beamed in to the Muslim world.

A recent development was the news that the USA has been working for four years to get the Islamic clerics to issue a fatwa banning jihad in terms of Muslim on Muslim violence, with the goal of normalising the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, it will be interesting to see where this leads.    I can’t help but think that this is a bit of a trap for Islam, that they admit in effect that Jihad is aimed at non-Mulims, and if they refuse to issue this fatwa then they are damning themselves too.   However it does fit in with the point of view that Al Queda are like the Assassins.

The question I keep asking myself again and again, like the paragraph above is are they right not to start a war, a BBC employee posting as John Reid on Biased BBC made the point that it was better that we only fight 1% of Muslims then 3% of Muslims, which is a greater number of potential warriors than the Red Army.   But let’s be blunt about this, if the above strategy fails then we will have war and the longer we wait the more risky it gets, we are suffering from a demographic time-bomb, we are being out-bred and in 15-20 years time their manpower of 19-35 year olds will far exceed us and many of them will be living in our own countries, will our qualitative edge give us the victory then?
  
Also the various Islamic countries are building up their militaries using their oil and gas wealth.

This brings me now to the Israel question, because if we look at the strategy above, Israel is a great big sore in the West’s attempt to show that we are not at war with Islam, the problem is that no matter how softly Israel acts in trying to maintain its own security the Islamics have managed to paint them as Nazi’s.

I believe that there will be an attack on Israel in the near future, this will force the USA to come to their aid, perhaps just material, perhaps more, but it will enable the Islamics to paint the USA as being at war with Islam, that is their strategy, they will do this as the USA and her allies make ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.   The USA have some assets in the area and I expect that they are gathering intelligence on the deployments made by Hizbullah.

And finally please read this at GOV, I believe that this is the only way we can defend our freedoms, our current strategy alone is not enough, we risk our own socities being destroyed for at best a softening of Islam which will not last.

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/05/counterjihad-vienna-2008.html#readfurther

In my next section I will attempt to look into the spreading of Islam in a unified way across the western world.

In the following section I will attempt to paint the future.