How Muslims Defeated the United States

Today, I am posting an extraordinary letter from a soldier currently stationed in Iraq, a sometime penpal of mine to whom I sent my three-part series on the aftermath of the surge to elicit his opinion. Knowing how thoughtful he is, I expected a substantive response. Given his time constraints alone, I did not expect an essay of this scope and I decided, with his permission, to present it here. It is unlike any commentary I have read from Iraq; it is both coolly reasoned and deeply passionate, and certain to challenge and disturb readers across the political spectrum: PC-believing liberals, Iraq-as-success-believing conservatives, Islam-as-a-religion-of-peaceniks of both Left and Right.

So be it.

He writes:

I apologize for the delay in my response. I have been putting in long days ... lately and I hadn’t had the time to put the thought and effort into writing this until now.

Your three-part column series wonderfully analyzes Iraq and reaches the correct strategic assessment that no one in power wants to acknowledge.

I have many things that I want to say but I do not wish to waste your time and I therefore put an executive summary at the beginning of this e-mail so you can skip the expanded version if you wish.


You correctly assessed that we have not gained anything positive from our efforts in Iraq and that the nation is not our ally. (The same is true for Afghanistan.) I will go as far as saying that the Iraqis are our enemies—enemies better equipped to wage jihad against us than they have ever been. We will regret what we have done. We will regret that we created this officially Islamic nation. And we will regret that we created an officially Islamic Afghanistan. We will regret that we have placed ourselves in the service of Islam, waging jihad worldwide as we advance the Religion of Peace and eliminate Christians in the process. (So much for the accusation that the U.S. is on a “Crusade.”) It is a shame that so many people refuse to recognize how horrible Islam is, and that the U.S. made a fatal mistake when it refused to declare war against Afghanistan and Islam—when it refused victory by binding the greatest military force of all time.


The Full Analysis:

Parts 1 and 2 of “The ‘Surge’ and ‘Success’” correctly identify that we have gained nothing positive for our efforts in Iraq while the Iraqis have betrayed us. I do not trust any Iraqi or Middle Easterner. I do not care if anyone calls me a “racist” or “bigot” anymore. Those words have lost their meaning. Do I think that every single Iraqi or Middle Easterner is bad? No. But I think it is difficult to tell. An Iraqi or Middle Easterner will smile to your face or be your best friend one moment, and cut your head off in the next. It is odd that so many people cannot comprehend this. It is even weirder that those who pride themselves on being “culturally aware” cannot grasp that Middle Eastern culture and thought, and Islamic behavior and thought are completely different than ours (than ours on the Right, at least). Perhaps this ignorance partially explains why the U.S. had no reaction when Maliki declared victory over the U.S. when we moved out of the major Iraqi cities. But even if it is a partial explanation it still is no excuse.

The Iranian War in Iraq is a travesty and has been since it started under Bush. I still cannot believe that a nation can war against us and murder Servicemen, and not pay the price of oblivion for it. Our nation sits back and apologizes, and defends itself constantly from accusations of an “illegal” and “unjust” war yet Iranians, other foreign terrorists, and even Iraqis go about murdering American troops without any consequence whatsoever. We should war back against them. But we won’t.

I remember when people said that we had brought on the September 11 attacks because “we created Bin Laden.” I never understood that. In fact, that we had helped the Afghanis defeat the Soviet Union should have been even more reason for us to kill Bin Laden and destroy Afghanistan. We had saved their lives and they repaid us for it by murdering us on our own soil. Yet our government refused its God-given duty to its people to mete out punishment and justice. History repeats with Iraq. The Iraqis lived under oppression for decades and when we liberated their nation they repaid our unimaginable mercy and sacrifice with betrayal. It is sickening.

Part 3 (“Victory” in Iraq? Really?) perfectly summarized where the U.S. is now in our “war” in Iraq. Once we made Iraq an officially Islamic country I knew that it would become among our worst enemies. (The same is true for Afghanistan.) I said years ago that the end result of our efforts will be that Iraq will be a rebuilt nation better prepared than ever to wage jihad against us. You cannot create an officially Islamic nation and expect anything less. Regrettably, our leaders and our nation cannot identify Islam for what it is: evil. And so we continue our suicidal practice. The Iraqi betrayal of the U.S. started sooner than I expected it but I expected it nonetheless. This is outrageous. Yet the situation is even more unjust than this.

Muslims have waged jihad against the West since their insane, pedophiliac founder started their cult; they have waged jihad against the U.S. since our inception. But what is worse about our policy of establishing officially Islamic nations and pouring money, technology, weapons, and training into them is that we have been labeled as “occupiers” being on a “Christian crusade to wipe out Islam.” Think about that. We have been demonized as “occupying Christian crusaders” (if only!) even as we have waged jihad in the service of Islam, helped Muslims spread Islam and wipe out Christians, and died for ungrateful Iraqis even as terrorists from all over the war invaded and occupied Iraq, and slaughtered and oppressed Iraqis. (And don’t even get me started on the fact that we—the United States of America—are truly being invaded and occupied by illegal aliens warring on us!)

I am woefully understating the situation when I say that the U.S. has no clue how to fight wars any longer. We have allowed our enemies to control this war and make it one of media and information—information warfare / information operations . We have chosen not to win by refusing to reject the enemies’ preferred warfare; we have chosen not to wage a kinetic warfare where we could easily defeat our enemies in months if not weeks with our superior technology, tactics, and Servicemen. And through it all we seem not the least bit embarrassed that a “coalition” of dozens of nations cannot beat a primitive bunch of troglodytes. I no longer can express my outrage about this or any of the myriad horrors which plague our once great land. Every day there is something new which is more perverse and inequitable than the last day’s wickedness. I sit here in Iraq and do all I can do to stomach the disastrous excuse that passes for “strategy” in this war—a strategy where our leaders openly say that the lives of our Islamic enemies are worth more than ours; a “strategy” where the Army Chief of Staff openly states that the “death of diversity” would be a larger tragedy than the slaughter of Soldiers (and get away with it with but a whisper of outcry from the American people). I pray that I get out of here alive so I can complete my Army contract and get away from this nonsense and betrayal.

Two final things.

First, I wonder how many people have considered how successful the September 11, 2001 Islamic attacks were. Think about what they accomplished. They thrust Islam to the center of the world; they undoubtedly caused more people to learn about Islam than would have prior to their attacks. And the attacks combined with the near non-response of the U.S. doubtlessly gained them converts. Furthermore, what response the United States did produce resulted in the establishment, enrichment, and training of the officially Islamic nations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the enrichment and training of countless other Muslim nations around the globe. Islam now stands better suited than ever to wage jihad across the world. The September 11 attacks also resulted in Muslims being portrayed as victims around the world (thanks to their leftist allies) and helped them (again, with an assist from their leftist allies) advance their jihad even as Muslims and leftists further vilified Christianity, America, and Western values. And finally the crowning achievement of the September 11 Islamic attacks: eight years after them the United States places as its leader a person whom can at best be described as an anti-American, racist, Islamic sympathizer (and who has the same name as an infamous Islamic dictator). This is stunning. It is bizarre. It is incomprehensible. Yet it is our nightmarish reality. The Islamic attacks on September 11, 2001 achieved success beyond the wildest dreams of the Religion of Peace cultists.

Finally, I would like you to know that I am willing to comment on other posts and articles that you publish, including some of your other posts that mention the debate that your three-part column on the Surge started. I am willing to comment for two reasons.

The first reason is that everyone on the Right needs to fight back against the Islamic War on the West and stop the jihad. And one of the ways to fight back is to speak out against it. The second reason is that I want to establish for posterity that I am firmly against this evil and every other evil. I will explain why this matters.

Leftists always rewrite history so as to demonize what is Right and so as to cover their real nature. They abhor the truth as much as the vilest of Muslims. And as a way to enable their rewriting of history they use political correctness to silence opponents; to vilify them so that they have no place in society. We have allowed leftists to use political correctness to emasculate us. In fact, political correctness is the leftist weapon of choice in paralyzing the Right and aiding their Islamic allies who also advance an anti-Christian, anti-Foundational America agenda. Political correctness is what prevents us from fighting back against the left, and what prevents us from fully fighting back against the jihad and ending the Islamic threat. Political correctness makes us acquiesce to the left so as to be “moderate” and “bipartisan.” Our capitulation to the left will doom us physically by allowing the Muslims and left to eliminate the last vestiges of the West and it will doom us historically as our enslaved descendants will look back and ask how we could have allowed the twin insanities of Islam and the left to control and destroy us when we easily could have defeated them both. Our descendants will condemn us for remaining idle in the face of evil . . . and the leftists of the future will use our submission and our descendants’ condemnation to manipulate history and blame us as the originators of the horrific agenda that they instituted. The future left will use our sinful surrender to pave the way for them to control and destroy civilization once more (all in the name of “progressivism” of course).

I do not want leftists to be able to do this. I do not want them to easily rewrite history in the future. I want to be a loud voice (wherever I may be) that opposes everything Islam and the left want. I want there to be no doubt that I, a Right-wing Christian, utterly reject them and their core beliefs. I want to make it all but impossible for future leftists to say that, “It was the Christian Right who enabled and supported the worldwide jihad (not to mention the global warming hoax, the sexual perverts, and the freedom hating communists)! It was the Christian Right who wanted them to take over and destroy the world!” I want to make it all but impossible for future leftists to say that atheists, humanists, and secularists (like Bruce Bawer, Christopher Hitchens, Tammy Bruce, and a few others) tried to oppose the Islamic War on the West but “could not convince the mentally inferior but numerically superior Right-wing Christians to join them!” I want to counteract the in-name-only Christians and conservatives who have bought into the “Religion of Peace” and leftist nonsense, and who will do untold additional amounts of damage to civilization and our good name with their cravenness and rejection of Truth. And that is why I am willing to comment on more of your posts.

I know I am in the minority with my beliefs but I do not care. I want to be like the 300—not just the ones who fought at Thermopylae—but the 300 who fought with Gideon against the Midianites. I want to stand for the Truth.

Keep up the good work.


A US soldier in Iraq


@ Pale Rider

You raised several issues on which we agree.  However, I disagree with your (and Blueglasnost's) contention that "the world is not better off without Saddam Hussein".   Perhaps such a view suffers from 'short memory' or from 'being too young to really know'.  For those who do vividly remember the 1980's and early 90's, it should be obvious that the world is much better off without Saddam's atrocious regime and behavior.  Of course, we cannot create an 'anti-monde', i.e. imagining exactly what the world would be like today if he had regained full sovereignty sitting on the world's 2nd largest oil resources and continuing on his road to be the Arab world's Great Leader. The record of the three large-scale or major international wars that he caused should be clear enough.

But, be that as it may, we should make a distinction between (a) nation building and (b) punishing one's enemies to contain them (i.e. influence their behavior). The world's rogue regimes, including the big ones (China and Russia) will never be 'contained' through international diplomacy (or the illusion of international law), but only by brute force.

So, the lesson from Iraq for conservatives (those who still need it) should be to abandon nation building illusions and to be judicious about punishing enemies. In punishing one's enemies one should make ample use of one's enemies' enemies. I am fairly sure that the Kapitein would be masterful at that game in terms of identifying the latter. The problem with this strategy, as always in a democray, is that it will involve political costs deriving from the existence of numerous 'useful idiots' (to the world's totalitarians) in the Western media. But, compared with the political costs of nation building....


I agree as far as your statement with the use of armed coercion is concerned, these regimes will only be brought to terms through violence. However, it need not come to costly invasion or occupation, surely surgical strikes ought to be sufficient. Iran's nuclear facilities? Bomb them. Saddam Hussein? We should have abducted him through secret methods, and we could have dealt with him afterwards. These are much subtler methods to control our enemies. No need to engage into petty nation-building, for it is pricey and useless.

In Response

Despite bitter differences on other issues, I agree with traveller's comments, as well as pale rider's.


If Islamic societies desire liberalism and democracy, they must choose it and fight for it.  The West should provide support, but not intervene unless vital to its interests, or attempt to deconstruct the established social order.

Dear “US Soldier in Iraq", Part II

As regards Iraq, the Iraqis never intended to “wage jihad” against the United States under Hussein.  Now, the competition for wealth and power among the various ethnic groups, religious sects, tribes and clans will occupy the Iraqis indefinitely.  Despite withdrawing, the United States can topple the government in Baghdad and return Iraq to anarchy and chaos at any time of its choosing.  Once the supporters and beneficiaries of the Ba’ath Party, the Sunni tribes will prove to be useful proxies against Iranian interests, especially as they will be reliant upon Saudi support, much as their Shia enemies are under the power of Iran. 


The 9/11 hijacked airplane attacks were the culmination of a wave of Islamic supremacism that had been gathering momentum for decades.  However, they succeeded in mobilizing the United States and causing it to marshal the forces of the West against Islamic supremacism for the first time in centuries.   Prior to the dramatic introduction of Islam into the American public consciousness, Islam was an unfortunate fact of life for many Europeans, Israelis and Arab Christians, who were very familiar with all forms of Islam’s violence and destruction, from theft to rape to suicide bombings.  Yet in spite of censorship and political correctness, anti-Islamic sentiment is not only expanding, but crystallizing in a way never before seen.


I very much dislike Obama, and more importantly, his vile and ugly wife.  However, your charges against him, while founded on some reasonable concerns, are ridiculous. 


Dear “US Soldier in Iraq", Part I

Dear “US Soldier in Iraq”,


Your conclusion that the counter-insurgency operations in and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq are mistakes is a correct one.  Also, you appreciate that strategy and tactics are at the mercy of political considerations that can cost soldiers’ lives and hinder operations.


However, I take issue with your conclusions that the United States military is advancing Islam at the expense of Christianity, and that the United States needed to declare war against Islam.  Firstly, the United States defeated and dismantled the theocratic Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, and the US is focused diplomatically, militarily and covertly on preventing Islamic supremacists from finding state sanctuary.  On the diplomatic front, this involves working with “friendly” Islamic states, even if these are merely allies of convenience.  Secondly, the US military has neither a mandate to protect one ethnic or religious group over another, nor to practice collective punishment.  Lastly, unless you are proposing that the US uses WMDs to exterminate over 1 billion Muslims, it is ludicrous to declare war against “Islam” as a religion. 


I find your surprise and indignation that the US government would sacrifice American lives in order to preserve peace, that segments of the Afghan and Iraqi populations are hostile to US forces, and that American public opinion is bitterly and extremely divided on the occupations, incredibly naïve. 


In Korea, and to a lesser extent Vietnam, US servicemen died in vain in order to prevent full-scale war with the Soviet Union and then China.  Pyongyang would have already been severely punished for the Poplar Tree Incident and other crimes were it not for Beijing’s nuclear deterrent.  The Northern Alliance, comprising non-Pashtun Afghan tribes, was very appreciative of American support during the Afghan-Soviet War, and joined Coalition forces to drive out the Taleban. Unfortunately, the Pashtun tribes are hostile to any other group and are supremacists both ethnically and religiously.  Similarly, the Kurds in Northern Iraq are relatively grateful for their liberation, even if the Sunnis resented their fall from power and the now-dominant Shias are running amok.  Northern Afghanistan and Northern Iraq are more peaceful, democratic and keen to prosper compared to the other regions of their respective countries.  Finally, hostility to one’s own standing army is a legacy from the British, and was enshrined in the US Constitution.  Despite the association of the anti-war movement with the political left, it shares much of the same intellectual heritage as the constitutional militia movement and Second Amendment advocacy than many believe.  References to the “Greatest Generation” aside, American and British anti-war sentiment was far more opposed initially to the Second World War, than any conflict since.

anti-Christian force

I second most of pale rider comment. This should be pointed out that one of the most unfortunate consequence of this militaristic foreign policy is annihilation of Christian minorities in Muslim states. There is huge conflict of interest between American (and its allies) establishment and Christian cause. How we could evangelize Muslims when they attribute our actions to actions of invaders. This is how atheist Euro-American establishment is by mistake considered 'Christian', being "anti-Christian" is its very essence. Position of Vatican regarding these wars is well known.


Yes, never before world was so much about cash. This is not a capitalistic way to invade for profit. Capitalism cannot exist without liberty and morality.


I mentioned only companies that won contracts in Iraq. You need to improve your knowledge regarding this issue... The second reason for these wars and huge spendings is powerful lobby of US army. No other state spend so much on military than the US and this is not an incident. Lobbing is a very important issue especially in the US (and the EU), third reason is AIPAC if you ask me.

@ Traveller

Traveller, I agree with your point of view. Most Islamic states are artificially constructed entities and by no means resemble anything like the nation-state. While we have been fighting Al Qaeda in backward Afghanistan (with great success, ahem) and replacing the Ba'athist dictatorship by a Islamist pseudo-democracy in Iraq (and, boy, what an improvement that has been), the international coalition against "Crusaders and Jews" has advanced into Pakistan, is gradually taking over this nuclear state (get that "dictator" Musharraf back in power now before it's too late), and it now turns out it has been present all the time in Yemen, described by a Dutch journalist whom I have recently heard saying in an interview as not being a state at all. In the meantime, we have provided Iran with plenty of time to expand its nuclear programme as well as its regional influence to the point where virtually nothing can be done to reverse it.

I also agree that, contrary to popular belief, there may not be a single unified Islamic civilisation. Iran, Turkey, the Arab nations and South Asia all differ from each other. Since the collapse of the caliphate, it is problematic to speak of a single Islamic civilisation. Even at the time of the Ottomans, Arabs were fighting the supposedly Islamic caliphate. Nonetheless, there is but one Islamic faith and in spite of sectarian differences, there is such an idea as Pan-Islamism and universal Islamic brotherhood found in many if not all Islamic nations, as well as the attempt at reviving the Islamic caliphate - Al Qaeda being one of its foremost proponents. Western leaders need to be firm in their opposition to any such dangerous ideologies (assuming they actually are ideologies and not, rather, Islamic theological doctrines).

What continues to astound me in all this is the inability of certain self-styled conservatives to admit that the invasion of Iraq has been a failure and a grave mistake. I find their insistence that the Iraq war has made the United States or the West as a whole a safer place to be utterly repugnant, if not downright dishonest, and a great display of arrogance indeed. The world today is not better off without Saddam Hussein. If anything, it may be far worse and it does not look like the battle against Islamic fundamentalism will be over any time soon.

My point is this: Stop pretending that Islam and Western traditions are compatible. Stick to fighting Islamic terrorism and, for heaven's sake, give up on the nation-building and democracy-spreading nonsense.

@ pale_rider

I wish all conservatives were of the same opinion, for I cannot see where the nation-building gimmick will lead us ultimately. Western soldiers are falling as hay would under the scythe, and for nothing. We are propping up some petty election-rigging dictatorship more intent on making rape legal than spreading democracy. You are absolutely right; Islam and Western civilisation are utterly incompatible, pretending the opposite is profoundly delusional and amounts to digging one's head into the sand. For all its flaws and tyranny, Ba'athist dictatorship was actually better than the war we are ensnared in, for it provided more stability in the Middle East. As for Iran, there is no need to mount a full-scale operation, surgical strikes, precise bombings on nuclear facilities would be sufficient. I suggest that we should rather mount some cordon sanitaire around the Middle East to cut off the infection. Let the area fester and rot, do not give them another excuse to perpetrate their terrorist atrocities in the West.

As for awareness of shared identity amid Muslims, we should be careful. Although there is no world caliphate, recent surveys have shown many Muslims identified as Muslims first rather than Pakistanis, Saudis or else. Sowing division may be possible due to internal strife, not least between Shia and Sunni Islam but do not forget many a Muslim dreams of creating a world caliphate, an Umma.

Yemen is another hive of extremists and terrorists, its economy is in dire straights. In many respects it is one of the world's most retarded countries.

Oil pumpers (democrats)

This soldier is everything but reasonable. This would be complete insanity to declare a war against Islam. You cannot conquer by culture how advanced civilization should do? I suggests to read Pat Buchanan because as far as American-Muslim relations concentrate he seems to be reasonable. If the US wished to remove Saddam from Iraq, he is gone and so should be US army. Otherwise you face predictable consequences, apparently some certain people are too concentrated on oil business. Democracy is just a code name for oil. This is sad, that Christian soldiers must die without any deeper sense.



I'm caught between being sick of and amused by the constant allegation the war was all about oil (for America). If that was the case, why has no major American oil company won contracts to drill or export Iraqi oil. As far as I know, all the new oil contracts have gone to the Chinese. So lets all say together, "the war was not about oil".
Defend Christendom. Defend Jewry. Oppose socialism in Europe.


Shell, Exxon Mobile, Eni, BP, all major allies present. Still more to come. Lets face reality, these days in western world EVERYTHING is about money.

Reality Check

Lets face reality, these days in western world EVERYTHING is about money.

Uh huh. Because it was never like that before "these days". *eyeroll*

"these days in western world EVERYTHING is about money"

The oldest recorded writing recovered by archaeologists (from Mesopotamia or Babylonia I can't remember) is a tally of goods bought and (gasp!).

Just because we can all name the retail petrol companies doesn't mean US oil drilling companies have won any Iraqi contacts. Sure, Exxon can buy Iraqi oil from a Chinese company drilling in Iraq, for refinement in America at Exxon's refineries. But that's no different from US companies buying oil from a Germany drilling company operating in Norwegian waters for refinement in America.

But the fact of the matter is no US companies have won drilling contracts for Iraqi oil and make big bucks that way. The world needs to face that if the war was all about oil and money for the US, why would the US spend $1Trillion on the war and then make no money from that oil, and let the Chinese win the contracts?
Defend Christendom. Defend Jewry. Oppose socialism in Europe.

corporate guilt

"Any tribal chief is responsible for terrorist attacks on his territory." Therefore, the mayors of cities where common killings are frequent should go to jail. But Schwarzenegger wants to export prisoners to Mexico. Isn't that a contradiction? Regarding middle eastern societies as tribal is an impertinence itself. Tehran and Baghdad must be really big tribes, then. The author, as a soldier, pleeds for warfare, total destruction, I might add, citing the old Greek slaughterers - that's promising!

@ kappert

Where did I speak about the mayors of the cities.
I am talking tribes. The people living in Baghdad bvelong to tribes, not to the mayor of Baghdad. The foreigners in Baghdad do NOT belong to Traqui tribes and should therefor, if they are terrorists, be punished or delivered to the authorities by the people who know them.
If the people who know them do not deliver or identify them they should be kept responsible.


Even if the 150+ tribes in Baghdad would form some kind of government, the 'control' of terrorism acts would not be possible, as tribal connections are not following a geographical pattern. Call on responsibility on tribes is therefore a mirage. Even if the majority of citizens still reclaim their tribal decendence, it is much less papable in everday life. Today, political parties reign in Iraq and not the tribal leaders (at least 30 of them are important, not all of these important ones are in 'parliament'). It seems to be a riddle how to engage in a confiant legal system which is supported by the Iraqi people.

@ kappert

It is the ONLY thing palpable in every day life.
The elections are just a sham by the intelligent tribal leaders to get the Americans out of the country as quick as possible since "democracy is installed". As soon as the Americans are out the real fights will start for power.

@ the author

Seeing where you come from and from which viewpoint you are speaking I can only agree with you.
But allow me a few remarks.
The Islamic culture as such doesn't exist, it's the Arabic or Persian culture which you are confronting.
Now when we say Arabic culture we are stretching the meaning of the word, but for lack of a better one we shall use it here.
The Arabic culture has never been able to grow out of the tribal and "main family" system. In that context the tribal chief or the chief of the extended family is the absolute boss.
Going to an Arab country with the declared aim of installing democracy is ridiculous, they don't even understand the concept.
Further, since communication is mainly verbal for the illiterate population, a foreign power is totally dependant on the local verbal translators.
This is an impossible situation.
Let's go back to the original aims of this war: overthrowing a dictator and installing a safe democracy where there is no place for terrorism.
You have overthrown the dictator and his state structure. This left a vacuum in which terrorism installed itself.
You created an embryo of a sort of democratic structure in which the tribal and big family chiefs immediately installed themselves, thus coming
back to the tribal system.
As in the good old days those tribes and families continue to murder their opponents while the terrorists slip in between the mazes and create havoc with everybody, using just those tribal feuds and inflaming them.
The Americans meanwhile are trying to fight terrorists in a "humane way", according to international conventions. This is not working of course because the terrorists have no fear of "humane" methods.
Further the terrorists have a free hand with the local tribes and families since they put themselves under the banner of Islam.
The only way to fight these terrorists is with the help of the local tribes and families.
Any Iraqui member of a terrorist group is responsible for the total expropriation of all property from his family, the family is responsible for their familymembers. Any Iraqui harboring terrorists is responsible with his whole family and the whole family loses its property and pays for the damage and bloodmoney of any victims.
Any tribal chief is responsible for terrorist attacks on his territory.
Inhumane? Sure for Western societies who don't allow terrorists and don't harbor terrorists in their houses, for an Arabic society the joint responsability of a family is normal and applies througout their history.
The fear to lose the whole family property should be bigger than the fear of the terrorists.
Further, any suicide bomber should be identified and published with photographs and the adresses of his family members so that his family could undergo the revenge of the bloodfeud by the families of the victims of the terrorist attack.
Suicide bombers families are supported with money and pensions after the death of the suicide bomber. When they know that their family will be killed because of bloodfeud after their terrorist attack they will be less interested in the 70 virgins.
This fight is now and has to be won, do it in their own way with their own weapons.

It only takes a very

It only takes a very succinct first hand experience of the muslim way of life to be permanently permeated by the conviction that they are not, and never will be, compatible with an enlightened culture. It is not too late for the American people to redeem the fateful choices of a recent past and save themselves. By doing so, I pray they might save us Europeans in the process.

Not Again...

It is not too late for the American people to redeem the fateful choices of a recent past and save themselves. By doing so, I pray they might save us Europeans in the process.

I hope for the first sentence. The second - no! We've had it with "saving" anyone and being kicked in the gut for it.

Save yourselves.