The Diplomad has some initial thoughts on the terrorist attack in Paris, including that we need look for farther than Islam for what motivated the attacks. He writes:
As I repeatedly have said, you can be a good person or you can be a good Muslim. The Venn diagram showing an overlap between those two categories does not exist except in the minds of apologist hacks, progressive idiots, and Hollywood--which is to say the same thing. It is with Islam as it is with Communism, Nazism, or KKKism, you can be an honorable and good person, or you can believe in that mind-rot.He also points out:
France has to have a serious look at itself and decide what benefit derives to Gaul from having millions of hostile parasitic Muslims in its midst. In fact, all the West from Australia to the USA and Canada, and over to Scandinavia, UK, Holland, Spain, Italy, Belgium, and Germany, must engage in the same exercise.
The targetted satirical French magazine ... forgot one rule: progressives must not criticize Islam or treat Mohammed as they treat Jesus Christ or Moses. Here in America, we have no problem exhibiting the "Piss Christ," or ridiculing the Book of Mormon in plays and cartoons, but shun doing the same with the Koran and its psychotic prescriptions for life and death. Muslims, it turns out, love killing in progressive cities as we have seen in New York, Boston, Ottawa, Sidney, Paris, Madrid, London, etc. Progressives, still not having buried their dead, immediately blame themselves for not being sensitive enough to Islam, and begin to worry about preventing a backlash against the people and ideology killing them. Progressives are a very soft target--e.g., they don't believe in an armed citizenry.
We are being murdered by Islam, and the progressive insistence that we have to welcome millions of Islam's followers into our societies and that we have to accommodate them by changing our societies.Read the whole thing.
I am currently reading William S. Lind's book, On War, which is a collection of his articles and essays from 2004 to 2009. For those of you unfamiliar with Lind, he is one of the principle proponents of the theory of Fourth Generation warfare--a term that is subject to different interpretations by the people that use it, but used by Lind to describe warfare against and within states by non-state actors. Lind believes that Fourth Generation warfare will dominate the 21st Century because nation-states will face a crises of legitimacy, which will encourage non-state groups to challenge that legitimacy. The tactics of 4th Generation warfare are essentially that of the insurgent or guerrilla, and from what I've read, many writing on the subject simply use 4th Generation warfare as a shorthand for insurgency/counter-insurgency.
The term "4th generation" comes from what Lind and others envision as stages in modern warfare (as opposed to ancient or primitive warfare). The 1st generation begins roughly at the end of the 30 years war (the Peace of Westphalia in 1648), is characterized by the state obtaining a monopoly on violence ("the Leviathan"), after which war was waged by and between states. This was warfare based on the movement of tight formations of men on a (relatively) ordered battlefield. However, as the order of the battlefield broke down, armies responded in one of two ways. Second generation warfare was one response--it is the warfare of firepower/attrition, where artillery dominates the battlefield, and decision making is centralized and hierarchical. The First World War is the archetype of 2nd generation warfare, but it is Lind's contention that many armed forces, including the United States', still rely on 2nd generation organizations and operations. Third generation warfare was maneuver warfare--the theory that underlie the German blitzkrieg--and requires mobility and pushing decision making down to individual units; speed replaces firepower as the critical tool.
Lind then explains 4th generation warfare:
4th Generation war is the greatest change since the Peace of Westphalia, because it marks the end of the state's monopoly on war. Once again, as before 1648, many different entities, not states, are fighting war. They use many different means, including terrorism and immigration, not just formal armies. Differences between cultures, not just states, become paramount, and other culture will not fight the way we fight. All over the world, state militaries are fighting non-state opponents, and almost always, the state is losing. State militaries were designed to fight other state militaries like themselves, and against non-state enemies most of their equipment, tactics and training are useless or counterproductive.These non-state entities' success will not giver rise to new states, but to what Lind refers to as centers of disorder.
First world countries, including the United States, will not be immune from 4th Generation warfare. Lind writes:
In its ultimate form, [4th generation warfare] is not something we face over there, in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq. Nor is it an import, like 9/11. 4th Generation theory says that the state here, in the good old USA, is also likely to break apart as Americans too transfer their loyalty away from the state to a wide variety of other things. The conflicts among these new loyalties will, in many cases, be sharp enough to generate fighting.In developed countries, Lind foresees criminal gangs becoming important components of 4th Generation warfare. But ultimately, it is the "immigration" aspect of 4th Generation warfare that will most affect developed nations. Lind writes:
Centers of disorder will be the growing number of failed states. Sources of disorder will certainly include Islam, thanks to the concept of jihad, even if some Islamic societies are ordered internally. Isolation, I write in TAC, "will mean minimizing contacts that involve flows of people, money, materials and new primary loyalties, such as religions [sic] ideologies, into the United States." First and foremost, that requires ending the current de facto policy of open immigration. In a 4th Generation world, open immigration is akin to leaving the castle gate open at night when the Huns are in the neighborhood.Unfortunately, Lind sees isolation as being the single hardest strategy for the Establishment--the political and cultural elite--to accept. Likewise, the elite having nothing to offset the ideologies that will fight each other and the state. As he observes, "decent Western elites ... no longer believe in anything"--all they offer is "civil society," and "[u]nlike real belief, civil society is not worth fighting for, killing for or dying for."
In a topic that I hope to revisit in the future, the United States is being overrun by illegal immigration from Latin America that will, in all likelihood, prove disastrous. But at least they share a common Christian heritage. Europe is being overrun by invading Muslims that refuse to acculturate. Lind writes:
[I]mmigrants who do not acculturate are a greater danger than an invading army. The army eventually goes home, while the immigrants stay, permanently changing the cultural landscape. With 500,000 illegal immigrants now entering Europe each year from North Africa, Islam's muftis in mufti are rapidly reversing the verdict of the Battle of Tours. Strategically, Islamic immigration is a far greater threat to Europe than al-Qaeda's terrorism.I would contend that due to the failure to acculturate Muslim immigrants, France (and other European nations) have effectively imported or grown centers of disorder within their own borders. Rowan Scarborough wrote in yesterday's The Washington Times:
A backdrop to the massacre in Paris on Wednesday by self-professed al Qaeda terrorists is that city officials have increasingly ceded control of heavily Muslim neighborhoods to Islamists, block by block.
France has Europe’s largest population of Muslims, some of whom talk openly of ruling the country one day and casting aside Western legal systems for harsh, Islam-based Shariah law.
“The situation is out of control, and it is not reversible,” said Soeren Kern, an analyst at the Gatestone Institute and author of annual reports on the “Islamization of France.”
“Islam is a permanent part of France now. It is not going away,” Mr. Kern said. “I think the future looks very bleak. The problem is a lot of these younger-generation Muslims are not integrating into French society. Although they are French citizens, they don’t really have a future in French society. They feel very alienated from France. This is why radical Islam is so attractive because it gives them a sense of meaning in their life.”
While not a complete safe-haven for al Qaeda-type operatives, Paris and other French cities have become more fertile places for Muslim extremists in the past decade. City leaders have allowed virtual Islamic mini-states to thrive as Muslims gain power to govern in their own way.
“There are no-go areas not just in Paris, but all over France, where they are effectively in control,” said Robert Spencer, who directs JihadWatch.org, a nonprofit that monitors Muslim extremists.
“They’re operating with impunity, apparently secure in the knowledge that authorities cannot or will not act decisively to stop them,” he said. “And with the universal denial and obfuscation of the clear motive for the Charlie Hebdo attack, they have good reason to think that.”
The attackers who killed 12 people at the offices of the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo claimed to be members of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen. Witnesses said they spoke perfect French, a strong indication that they are homegrown terrorists who received help from AQAP or another group.
Mr. Kern said the connection between the attack and the Islamization movement is that French jihadis are becoming bolder in trying to stamp out any criticism of Islam.
“What they are trying to do is shut down any sort of criticism of Islam, any sort of speech, cartoons, discussion, anything,” he said. “Essentially, the French government and the other European governments have lost control over the situation. It’s a snowball that is growing bigger and bigger, in particular over the past 10 years.”
* * *
“Who has the right to say that France in 30 or 40 years will not be a Muslim country? Who has the right in this country to deprive us of it?” said Marwan Muhammed, a spokesman for Collective Against Islamophobia in France.Who indeed?
Earlier this year, Harold Goldmeier reviewed a book entitled The French Intifada. Of it, he wrote:
"The French Intifada" is the most frightening non-fiction book I have ever read.
Andrew Hussey builds a convincing case that jihadist Islamists seethe with ugly fury for impious Western civilization. Ruthless violence is the tool of preferred choice to mete out revenge to their oppressors, and deconstruct Western society.
Hussey concludes that their world, whether they are living in the banlieue, Paris slums, or rural villages in North Africa, is prepared for a long war with the West. The West either pathologically ignores this reality, or is to too arrogant to accept it. Citizen of the French Republic first, Muslim second, is what they naively expect.
The hallmarks of French colonialism were cultural arrogance, avarice, and racism that inflamed Arab nationalism. Terror, brutality, and fear against colons and innocents became Islamist trademarks in rebellions across Morocco, Tunisia, and most gruesomely in Algeria.
* * *
The banlieues of Paris, Lyons, and Marseille are soldiers in the French intifada. The nation “itself is still under attack from the angry and dispossessed heirs of the French colonial project.”
Many of the 5 million living in France are first Muslims and citizens of the Republic second. To the French this is impossible. In their country ‘difference’ is sectarianism and a threat to the Republic. To many religious Muslims, civilization means acculturation and assimilation. Their memory keepers educate young Muslims about life under the yoke of colonialism, the massacres of Arabs by French military, and the glory for God in wins like the battle for Algiers. Current French army forays in Somalia and Mali are seen as attacks on Islamist God worshipers. The Muslims do not want reforms of French society, “They are looking for revenge,” writes Hussey.
The French Intifada paints a picture of ruthless Arabs imbued with feral evil disposition for violence. Muslim ranks are swelling with converts from the West and Black Africa. Novitiates often collaborate in the ferocious Fourth World War, as Hussey describes it.Of course, we needn't take the words of a European or American intellectual on what we are facing. In today's USA Today was an op-ed by Anjem Choudary, a Muslim cleric in London and lecturer on sharia. Choudary explains:
The battlefield is without borders. French soldiers milling around off duty, Jewish children in a Tolouse school, and visitors in the Brussels Jewish Museum, are legitimate targets for Islamist French citizens. ...
Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people's desires.
Although Muslims may not agree about the idea of freedom of expression, even non-Muslims who espouse it say it comes with responsibilities. In an increasingly unstable and insecure world, the potential consequences of insulting the Messenger Muhammad are known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, "Whoever insults a Prophet kill him."
However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see.Choudary then goes on to call for anti-blasphemy laws to prohibit expression that he believes dishonors Mohammed.
If we are to take Choudary at his word, then the attack on Charlie Hebdo is a challenge to France and the French people--will they stand up for their culture, or surrender it meekly. The EU and France, acting as a nation-state, will probably do nothing, being too heavily invested in multiculturalism (i.e., cultural Marxism, or the absence of culture). However, there are signs that the Europeans, including the French people, are less sanguine about their impending demise. If the the French state does not intervene to control the Muslim 4th generation warriors, it will lose its legitimacy: not only among the Muslim insurgents, but the French people. After all, the basic function of a state is to protect its citizens; and if it cannot do that, why have a state at all? The result is that there may be non-state groups that begin to step into the gap, and real violence--the type that leads to ethnic cleansing--may erupt.
Let me add that after the attack--even into the following day--there were some that said it was not appropriate to blame Islam because we didn't know the motivation for the attacks. Well, read this account from a woman in the Charlie Hebdo offices:
A journalist has revealed how the terrorists who massacred her Charlie Hebdo colleagues spared her life - because she was a woman.
Reporter Sigolene Vinson survived the brutal attack on the French satirical magazine, in which 12 people including six of her co-workers and two police officers were shot dead.
She told Radio France Internationale that one of the killers held a gun to her head, but decided against killing her too.
Miss Vinson said the one of the shooters told her: 'I'm not killing you because you are a woman and we don't kill women but you have to convert to Islam, read the Qu'ran and wear a veil.'
She added that the men shouted 'Allahu akbar, Allahu akbar' as they fled the scene.