Three Fundamental Mistakes in Dealing with Islam

Sultan Knish:

We might talk of a moderate or extreme Islam, but that is our idea, not theirs.

With our first mistake, we limited our options to one single course of action. With our second mistake, we guided that course of action based on a construct that had no relationship to the reality of the Muslim world. With our third and final mistake, that course of action was hijacked and used to manipulate our behavior, causing us to repeat the same disastrous course of action over and over again. Read more:  Dealing with Islam

Compromise Impossible

(Daniel Greenfield)

We will never be able to appease those who believe it is their moral duty to kill us.

The Western doctrine of non-violence depends on the willingness to compromise. To resolve any conflict by sitting down at a table, finding points of agreement and then working through the rest. The ruthless killing fields of the twentieth century have not shaken that eternal faith in a diplomatic solution, rather they have only strengthened it. But what happens when a compromise is genuinely impossible?

The commitment to non-violence depends on the assumption that while small numbers of fanatics might seek war, the vast majority of people do not. And even if they do want war, they want a humane war, not a genocidal war of extermination. Therefore even when such wars are fought, they do not reflect the will of the people, only that of a small group of fanatics.

That such a manifestly absurd belief that flies in the face of human history could be so widely held among the decision makers of the world’s dominant civilizations is itself apt testimony to the decline and fall of those civilizations. Nevertheless this belief remains unshakeable.  (source)
Related links:

Just Pot, No Big Deal:

(what could be more American than sucking on a joint?)

(Musel-)man of Logic:

The most powerful crime syndicate in the world is our bloated governments!