Saturday, November 21, 2015
Before we decide to (Democrat) compassionately take in the "Syrian" refugees or (Republican) hawkishly keep them out, there are some questions about the refugees that I, for one, would like to see answered.
1) The Syrian civil war has been going on for over eight years. Why are refugees from the conflict flooding Europe in great numbers only now?
2) If these refugees are fleeing the violence in Syria, why are so many of them from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Chad, Niger, Somalia, Mali and Libya? What motivated them to suddenly leave those places?
3) Despite the attacks in the middle-east on the few remaining Christians and Jews, all the refugees are Muslim. Why haven't the numerous Muslim countries taken them in? Why are they running to Europe?
4) If these are simple refugees fleeing violence at home, why are so few of them women, children and old folks? Why are the great majority of them military-age men?
5) How have these "pitiful" refugees behaved in the countries -- like Britain, Germany and Sweden -- that have taken them in? Have they shown any gratitude for the free blankets, food, clothing, shelter, money, cars and TV sets that the host countries have given them? Have they bothered to conform to the local laws and customs of their hosts? How many of them have bothered to learn the local languages?
6) Wherever the refugees have been even temporarily settled in refugee camps, large numbers of them have mysteriously vanished. Where have they gone?
7) Where the refugees have been settled in Europe, they usually haven't gotten jobs but have gone on "the dole"/Welfare, and they boast of having sent some of the money back to their families in the old countries. Just how much money does that come to, and exactly where is it going?
I really think we should get accurate and complete answers to these questions before we take in any more of these "Syrian" refugees. In fact, I think that when we get the answers we should seriously consider deporting the ones who are already here.
Saturday, November 14, 2015
Santayana was right; those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Has anyone else noticed current parallels to the days just before World War Two?
Consider: the world, and the US in particular, is just pulling out of a serious economic depression, accompanied by weather shifts that have caused equally serious ecological problems. Russia harrumphs and bullies its neighbors and flexes its military muscle. A dangerous political movement is spreading, deliberately, into Europe and Asia with world conquest clearly in mind. The western countries dither over it but take no action, and the rest of the world watches to see which way to jump.
Yes, there are differences, but the similarities are downright eerie. The Jihadis even use the same anti-Jewish propaganda that the Nazis did, right down to the cartoons, and the intelligentsia make the same excuses for their aggression. Seriously, I've seen supposedly educated political pundits whining that the Jihadis only attack western countries in revenge for insults from the Jewish Banking Conspiracy which supposedly rules Wall Street.
More ominous, back then the Nazis did their best to implant tactical units and loyal German populations in every country in the world. Most of these were small, and did little more than propagandize and recruit sympathizers to the Nazi cause, but some of them were primed for sabotage and more. (There realy were sabotage incidents early in the war, which have been kept secret until just recently.) Meanwhile, their propagandists did a fine job of insisting, to anyone who could be made to listen, that Germans were a civilized people who only wanted some of their "stolen" land back, and all the western countries had to do was placate them, and all would be well. This led to the western countries letting the Nazis have all of Czechoslovakia in exchange for a promise of, in Chamberlain's infamous phrase, "Peace in our time." Of course the Nazis weren't satisfied, and when they invaded Poland the western countries finally realized their danger, and acted. By that time the Nazis were numerous and powerful enough that it took World War Two to eradicate them.
In this case, the Jihadis took care to implant large populations of sympathizers in their targeted countries -- large enough to comprise small armies -- before taking overt action, namely the 9/11/2001 attack on the US. The attack was weak, in that it didn't topple or even cripple the US, but brought serious retaliation on lands (Afghanistan and Iraq) that the Jihadis already held. But then, the US fought a rather weak war, too: merely toppling the former regimes and then walking away -- leaving the conquered territories to be retaken by Jihadis. It also left the implanted Jihadi enclaves intact, capable of doing further harm and spreading more Jihadi propaganda which the government and the intelligentsia still lap up. Since then, we've been fighting something of a "Sitzkrieg", tossing slight and ineffective attacks against the Jihadi troops,trying to negotiate different factions of Jihadis (like Iran) into fighting others, while the European countries have done even less -- letting thousands of Jihadi sympathizers, disguised as refugees, flood their countries and add to the Jihadi enclaves.
The western governments' excuse for this weak opposition is the idea that most Muslims are harmless "moderates", and only a few "extremists" are really pursuing the war. In fact, the Muslim populations in their countries are at least passively supporting the Jihadis -- providing money, recruits, and safe enclaves where the Jihadis can continue their work. The exceptions are few and irrelevant.
But the government/intelligentsia tolerance hasn't prevented the majority of citizens in the targeted countries from growing very disillusioned with the Jihadi propaganda, and pressuring their governments to oppose the Jihadis more effectively. Most countries in the west have refused to take large numbers of the "refugees", and others have refused to take any at all. The government sympathizers have found themselves increasingly at odds with their own populations, and are feeling obliged to seriously attack the core of the Jihadi army -- namely, the group variously called ISIS, ISIL, IS and Daesh.
Seeing the tide turning against them, the Jihadis staged a major attack: first, calling on all Palestinians in Israel to attack "the Jews" at random, then launching the attacks in Paris -- with a promise of more attacks coming.
Well, if the current attacks were meant to panic Israel and France into capitulating, they failed. All the hostility to Israel that decades of careful Jihadi propaganda implanted in Europe has begun to erode as the news faithfully displays videos of innocent-looking Palestinians suddenly attacking people in the streets. If Israel were to finally say "enough" and deport all the Palestinians within its borders, nobody in the west would cry too hard. The president of France finally used the "w" word, calling the attacks in Paris "an act of war", and I expect we can soon see French war-planes joining the bombing raids on ISIL.
The sensible next step in this slow reenactment of WWII would be for all the western nations to say to their Muslim populations: "We're sorry, we know that most of you are innocent and harmless, but we can't tell you from the Jihadis on sight, and we can no longer tolerate the Jihadis' presence among us. You're all being deported."
Yes, deport them all. By all means, let them take with them all the goodies and money they got here in the oddly-prosperous non-Muslim countries; if they own immovable property, sell it and let them take the money with them. If they have children born in the west, the children can stay -- and be raised in western orphanages -- but the adults must leave.
And where should we send them?
Why, to the one place on Earth that good Muslims all want to visit at least once in a lifetime -- Mecca.
Of course we must send them off with exit visas but no passports -- and take thorough photographs, fingerprints, retinal prints, voice prints and DNA prints, and enter those in an international data-base which police and border guards everywhere can instantly access -- to make sure that they don't come back. Any attempts to sneak back into the western countries will be treated as espionage, and those attempting it will be shot on sight. Send the Jihadis and their supporters to Mecca, and leave them there -- and let the Saudis deal with them. That, at least, will keep the Saudis busy with problems inside their own borders and in no position to support the Jihadi cause.
Meanwhile, let everyone send troops -- and more importantly, planes and drones -- to eradicate ISIL. Yes, we can do it. The US military mentioned that they had used drones to identify and locate "Jihadi John", after which they sent the bombers to pulverize the area where he was hiding; this means that the military really are using spy-drones to precisely identify and locate the Jihadi troops. This means we can specifically target them with smart missiles, while sparing the civilians they like to hide behind. We can, and should, kill every last one of them -- starting with the ISIL troops in Iraq and spiraling out from there to every country where they're fighting openly.
Now, what to do about countries where the covert Jihadi attack units will still be hiding, planning to go out and commit more terrorist attacks? Well, besides setting our various security/intelligence forces to hunt for them, we really have to defend our people. Countries like France must do an about-face with their decades-long policy on gun-control; we must arm and train our entire populations, like Switzerland. Everyone must be capable of fighting back against Jihadi terrorists, not stuck unarmed and helpless like fish in a barrel -- like the audience in that theater -- to be killed at the Jihadis' pleasure while the police plan the counter-attack. This will not be a difficult transition in America, where most citizens are tired of mass slaughters in "gun-free"zones. Other countries, like France, may have a harder time changing their minds. I sincerely hope they won't suffer further slaughters, like Friday's, before they're convinced.
Make no mistake, this will be a long and slow war. Still, if we realize what we're fighting, right now, we can keep the death-toll down to less than the 47 million that died in World War Two.
--Leslie <;)))>< )O(
Tuesday, November 3, 2015
(Hi, team. I'm back, and I've got an idea from an old friend in Wisconsin that I'd like to kick around.)
Ever since the flood of Muslim "refugees" began pouring into Europe -- and our federal govt. promised that we'd take in a few hundred thousand of them -- there's been renewed interest in our broken immigration system, particularly as regards our cobweb of a southern border, particularly since a disturbing number of those illegal immigrants are not Mexican or even Latino. We're especially concerned here in Arizona, where illegals have been flooding across our border for decades and the federal govt. has refused to let us turn them back (as viz. the federal courts' gutting of Arizona SB 1070).
Ah, but no law forbids a county or a township -- or an Indian reservation, for that matter -- from keeping out people it doesn't want. The border counties and towns and reservations of Arizona could join forces, and funds, on a couple of tactics that can and will work.
First, the fence. Farmers and ranchers have already built, at their own expense, some 20 miles of fence along the western end of the border. There's no reason that fence couldn't be extended, but I'd suggest setting it some 25-50 yards back from the federal border, so that there's no question about the new fence being on Arizona land. Yes, put fortified and well-guarded gates in the wall where the major highways penetrate, and check -- by hand -- every truck and car that goes through. It wouldn't hurt to have a medical team attached at each check-point, to give the drivers and passengers quick medical checks. This would be a public health measure, which is hard to argue with.
Also, at every 50 yards along the fence, put large signs facing toward Mexico with the following, written in Spanish: "Warning, Illegal Immigrants. Beyond this fence lies the rest of Arizona. Arizona doesn't want you. If you proceed further, you will be captured and sent back the way you came." Below that put two arrows, pointing east and west, and the words: "XXX miles east lies New Mexico. New Mexico will welcome you with jobs. XXX miles west lies California. California will welcome you with free housing, free food, free medical services, easy jobs, and free money. Go east or west, but do not proceed north." If the governments of California or New Mexico complain, tell they we'll take the signs down when they change their policies.
As for how to enforce this, here's where the wonders of modern technology come in. Every 100 yards or so, perch a drone disguised as a large bird. This drone will contain a host of smaller drones, disguised as flying insects, which can fly around the area and come back into the bird-drone for refueling. The bird drone will have a solar-electric generator which can refuel its own battery and the batteries of the bug-drones. The bug drones will contain, besides their own engines and GPS locator, sensitive microphones and videocameras; they'll transmit back to a computer base-station, which will record the pictures and sounds of every creature that approaches the Arizona-side fence. The humans watching the computers will see if any human tries to get over, under, or around the fence, in which case they'll send out bigger drones armed with tranquilizer guns or tazers to shoot the invaders, and notify the police as to where the comatose bodies are. The police can examine the would-be invaders, see if there are any outstanding warrants on them, escort them back to the federal fence and push them across.
Yes, all this will cost money, but not nearly so much as illegal immigrants cost the state every year -- let alone what damage invading terrorists can do. What say you all?
--Leslie <;)))>< )O(