Molon Labe, if you're so keen on drawing that line between civilization and barbarism, I'm not sure I'd count VDH as your ally.

I went to see VDH give a speech to the ROTC a year back. Except for one part, tt was very underhwhelming.

Basically centering on a sub-Spark Notes analysis of the Peloponnesian War along with the some requesite "neocon" mumbo jumbo (e.g. Athen's defeat at Syracuse due somehow to the existence of Sicilian democracy). I was suprised how boring and reserved he was, even demure. The only time his eyes lit up was when he briefly fell off topic to discuss the WOT.

His thesis was simple, somthing along the lines of:
-The West acts civilized but in fact that's not much more than a veneer.
-We can in fact be more cruel and barbaric than any and all of the nations of the East when we choose, as we have been.
-The East is lucky we haven't been reserved in this war.
-If we get attacked again (in strength) we will lose the veneer and there will be a bloodbath.

Up until this departure, VDH's character was hunched over, half mumbling. Likewise, the ROTC were bored, squirming in their seats. Yet as soon as he reached that last point, they all sat up, some smiling, all very eager. The same for VDH, who straightened and went into a short, passionate description of how and where that bloodbath would occur.

The funny thing is, I don't think it's the duty of a good citizen of our country, or Thailand even, to drop that veneer of civility once we have been attacked. On the contrary, in the event of another attack on US soil, the duty of every responsible and upstanding citizen will be to see to it that our country responds in a way that is still civilized, proportionate and just. In effect this will mean restraining the VDH's of the world, and others who make little effort in hiding their hopes that we get attacked again, and that the WOT escalates.

In Thailands case, I don't believe a slaughter of Malays is likely to quell the insurgency. Indeed, most accounts of them put them at under a thousand strong and less than fully ideologicaly committed to driving Bangkok out of the south. Having the army round up a few hundred more farmers and unceromoniously killing them is not going to end your insurgency. The only thing it would end is unspoken detante that has left Bangkok and Thailand's economy relatively unharmed.

I'll venture to say that I don't think it's "unspoken detente" that's kept Thailand's economy (and particularly Bangkok's) from being hurt here. It's the fact that, as you asserted, there aren't a lot of these militants, coupled with the fact that they are uncomfortable operating out of the areas in which they have 'a sea to swim in,' as Mao put it.

Thailand's ethnic composition is such that ethnic Malays are a very small minority -- except in the southernmost provinces, where they are a large majority of the local population. Non-ethnic-Malay Muslims (such as the Thai military's leader, Gen. Sonthi Boonyaratglin) are another minority group, but one that seems to feel little if any connection to the insurgency in the south. It really seems to be more an ethnic-Malay thing than a Muslim thing.

To be clear, I don't think that means that Malaysia is an ally to the ethnic-Malay insurgents. What we're talking about here are the Malay-speaking descendants of what was once an independent kingdom, until it was taken over by the Siamese. That sensibility seems to me the main thing that is driving the insurgency: a hostility toward the central government of Thailand for both ethnic and religious reasons, and a sentiment that they were once independent and ought to be again.

Now, I have heard that international jihadists have shown up to aid the locals -- Bangladeshis in particular have allegedly turned up now and then. It appears to me, based on the advanced infantry tactics that they've employed now and then (e.g., setting ambushes along likely police response routes before setting off an attack) that they've had some help from outside.

Still, by and large this insurgency reads to me as a dirty local war in which nightriders are trying to use violence and terror to reclaim local independence. I imagine that international jihadists have sent along some help in the hope that the insurgency would contribute to their long-term goals, or at least distract some resources that might otherwise be focused on their activities. I don't think that this is a branch of international jihad, though, just a useful potential ally that the jihadists are helping out a bit as they can. The Malay insurgents don't appear to have any support from Thailand's non-Malay Muslims, only limited support from the international jihadists, and they don't appear interested in or capable of operating outside their ethnic strongholds.

I'm less than impressed by what you are calling an "unspoken detente" in Thailand, SAO No doubt it is that detente that led to the recent military coup headed by a Muslim general. Not to mention the slaughter of innocent Buddhists, the destruction of the school system there and intimidation that has escalated to bombing attacks. Some detente!!!

The number of hardcore Islamacist Malays in Thailand is irrelevant, if they are able and willing to burn people alive, target schools in particular for violence and intimidation and can do so with impunity. And they will continue to enjoy just that impunity so long as people like you refuse to acknowledge the destruction they are wreaking or their intentions.

While it takes commitment, hard work and numbers to build a civilization, it takes only a few to destroy one if that civilization does not defend itself. What MEANS we use to do so is important, but irrelevant if we do not first have the WILL to do so.

Nor is it clear what proportionality means in such a situation. Are you suggesting that Thai officials -- or Thai civilians in a vigilante action -- burn a few Malay Islamacists to death in exchange for the death and suffering they are inflicting?

Grim, I tend to agree with you re: the intentions of the Malays in Thailand. My broader point stands however and is underscored by your notice of jihadis wanting to broaden the nature and extent of the violance in Thailand.

And that point is that American news media have failed to provide much information about such violence. The case of the Indonesian schoolgirls is a particularly egregious example, but it's not the only one: little attention has been paid to e.g. the killing of a Scots schoolboy by a 30ish Pakistani-Brit and friends, by burning him alive.

It is time and more than time for us to notice such barbarism and push back against it.

Having the army round up a few hundred more farmers and unceromoniously killing them is not going to end your insurgency. The only thing it would end is unspoken detante that has left Bangkok and Thailand's economy relatively unharmed.

end italics?

SAO--

When not IF a US city is nuked, you'll see the veneer quite properly drop. Since the question will be "will my family and myself survive, or die?"

That's the question and in a war of survival which it already is, all the advantages of the West including individual initiative, ability to check bad decisions, wealth creation, logistical ability should come into play.

We can't exist on this planet with people who view beheading teenage Catholic girls as Ramadan trophies. Which is pretty much the vast majority of Muslims.

There has been no repudiation of this, no mass rallies to protect Christians, nothing but further threats to behead little girls as Ramadan Trophies and "acts of Islamic Charity."

Beslan, beheading etc. are the true face of Islam. Most Americans have concluded that Muslims are their enemy and have ordered themselves accordingly. No "democracy initiatives" but a desire to "nuke em all" to make the problem go away.

WHEN not IF a US city is nuked I expect Iran, Pakistan, and a few other Muslim nations to be incinerated on a strategic level. For those nations to no longer effectively exist. Sheer logic (if you don't respond this way you'll get nuked again) dictates against it, and most Americans have come to understand the true face of Islam.

Eventually Thailand will come to the conclusion (aided by Vietnam, China, and others who fear Islam on their borders) that a good dose of religious cleansing is needed. No we can't all get a long, and good fences make good neighbors. As Thailand goes so goes parts of Vietnam and even China (both of which likely fear a resurgent Islam knocking off parts of their territories).

This is not the province of the Western Media which is objectively on the side of the beheaders (they excuse it while finding it "cool"). Vietnam, China, even Burma gets a vote and I have no illusions about their ability to meet this up to and including genocide.

I'd like to point out that there is a difference between speculating (however astutely or not) about some possible future end state and actually living in it. There is no "one" Islam, and there are moderating forces at work which are not readily apparent.

Having said that, now is definitely the time for civilized people to march, demonstrate, and otherwise demand action. Any people that went through the pain of civil rights like the United States did should understand what is at stake in the world. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and others who claim to carry Dr. King's mantle should be leading the charge. This type of nazi-like fascism will only get worse unless it is forcefully civilly confronted.

One of the problems we have with confronting this barbaric scourge is that Imams say one thing to one group and another thing to others. At least in the south in the 1950s, everybody knew where everybody stood. This new bunch of jerks have no honor -- in fact, they view civil discourse as yet another form of jihad, in which anything goes. They have no honor.

Places like Thailand are important because they are transitional. The west needs to keep a close eye on events there.

Daniel where are these moderating forces? Yusuf Islam aka Cat Stevens who supports jihad financially and wants Salman Rushdie dead? Perhaps it is Hamas or Hezbollah?

Certainly at no time and no place have Muslims EVER demonstrated en-masse to protect non-Muslim religious minorities living in Muslim countries.

Instead we see a seething mass of rage. Rage at being left behind by other nations and cultures which adapted to modernity while Islam and Muslims have become total failures.

Quick name ONE world class company founded and run by Muslims in a Muslim nation. Sitting atop a sea of oil Muslims cannot even pump their own oil out. The only "innovations" they have is suicide bombings which they copied from the Tamil Tigers.

Muslims ARE marching and demonstrating. They carry signs such as "God Bless Hitler," "Get ready for the REAL Holocaust," "Islam will DOMINATE" and "Behead those who insult Islam."

THAT and the beheadings and murders and various atrocities carried out is the true face of Islam. It's not surprising. Traditional societies such as Islam are total failures when you think about it. And no one likes reminders of their total failures.

There is lots of things left to try before we turn to genocide.

1. We can by force of arms try to change how islame is preached to people. Much of the muslim hate in the world is spread and created though massive amounts of propgranda spread by Saudi Arabia and Iran. They have raised almost 2 generations of muslim around the hate the west and the Jews. We can at least stop this.

2. We can embargo (with force) all the islamic nations and take there oil if need be. Without the oil wealth the global Jihad would die.

I belive there is a very deep apeal to destroying something as evil and stupid modern Islam is. Something that wrong just feels like it should be cut out, thats where the apeal of Genocide comes from. This is a very human feeling and it's very much something our ansessters used to do. But the act it self might destroy us. The shame would be very overwhealming for many generations.

Remember these people have been traped in this religion for centuries as it's not a religion you can get up and leave from. It's a conquories religion and in many cases is was convert or die (or become a slave). I feel pity for the people trapped in it. Islam it's self deserves to die. The people don't.

#8 Where is the sheer logic in your view. The Islamists want nukes, so they can use them ineffectively and get completely destryoed in retaliation? Barabrous.

#9 Daniel I partially agree. We can march, demonstrate and so on, on our side the line. We should work in conjunction with countries with which we have some commonality. If we will merely mind our own housekeeping, we will be just fine. Western Europe, Northern Americas and some of the pacific nations combined are simply stronmger than other possible combinations.

Generally, I wonder why with hitler and nazism dead, stalin and communism dead, and no remote state threat to the U.S., we manufacture nightmare scenarios? Why are Americans so afraid? It isn't rational. People should be afraid of car wrecks, and pension shenanigans, loss of constitutional rights too: real things, not children's nightmares of the bogeyman.

If any foreign country were really run by suicidal/homicidal evil demonic maniacs... all those nightmares would already have come true.

One reason, Tom, is precisely the fact that there is no single state actor that can be confronted and either negotiated or forced into responsible behavior. But there ARE states giving financial, moral, logistical and technical aid to Islamacist groups and there is good reason to believe that that aid has extended in some cases to WMD materials and knowhow.

There are plenty of historical examples of a civilized state or group of states falling to barbaric raiders. It happens when the state or civilization grows decadent or is riven by internal rivalries and lacks the will to defend itself.

I too do not understand the precoccupation with disaster scenarios. Even if Jim is dead on, it still makes sense for us to take one thing at a time, and do all we can peacefully to prevent mass bloodshed.

I don't feel our existance is at stake -- barbarians are not about to overrun the White House. The only thing the radical Islamists have the power to do is to provoke us enough to kill tens of millions of their fellow muslims. We can (and probably will) get punched in the nose really good again before this thing is over. But this is not a state actor. It's just a bunch of barely literate thugs.

So aside from fretting over how much we should worry about losign a city like Chicago to a terrorist nuclear blast, perhaps instead we should be thinking of the consequences to the parts of the world that seem intent on fostering the kind of mentality that would cause this carnage. We seem pretty good at moral outrage: I wonder when some politicians say "we've lost our moral authority in the world", where is THEIR moral outrage? Are they superbly moral, but only when it comes to picking apart their own people?

Tom and Daniel:

Americans are not afraid. Your comments sound like the same old "head in the sand" rhetoric of old.

The reason liberals have any traction with the US public on foreign policy is because, as implied above, the MSM and most of the non MSM, do not publicize what is really going on in the rest of the world.

The general lack of world news coverage is not new. What is new is the acceptance of uncorroborated information as the basis for news. Information that always seems to favor opponents of US foreign policy.

The only thing the radical Islamists have the power to do is to provoke us enough to kill tens of millions of their fellow muslims.

Not true, in my estimation.

What the Islamacists and their increasingly close allies in the far left want is to bring down the international finance, trade, cultural and diplomatic networks. They each (the Islamacists and the far left/anarchists) have a vision of what they want to impose via government in its place.

They don't need to overrun us to accomplish that. The cost in revenues to NY businsses and therefore to both wage earners and taxpayers from 9/11 alone was huge. Distrupting power transmission grids, making the internet unviable for info distribution, destroying confidence in treaty alliances to actually guide responses to threats, constant challenges at the borders ... these all can erode away the structures that we rely on.

And BTW I'm not thrilled at the idea of killing millions of people. I'd like us to avoid that -- but not at the cost of defending ourselves. We CAN avoid it if we make it clear we will defend ourselves. However, the deliberate sabotage and obstruction of such a message on the part of the left, abetted by news media that have taken bias and selective filtering of news to new depths, has all but made that impossible now.

Molon,

I'm not following along at all.

Let's suppose I am an evil terrorist. In your opinion, I want to bring down the financial centers and conduits of the west.

Last I checked, the west was based on secularism, free trade, and open commerce. While you can bring down a network, destroy a building or a market, perhaps even create a depression, you ain't coming close to touching the rewards we reap from the Enlightenment. It just ain't happening. Yes, it is awfully clever of those idiots to attack financial networks, but bringing down a free world trading system is not in the cards. They can only inflict pain, not devastation. And that pain would be swiftly returned upon them.

I am not saying there is no threat. Please do not misunderstand me. I believe there is a real and grave threat, and I believe significant conflict will most likely result from it. However, I do not see the point in "jumping ahead" to some dire forecast of doom. We're simply not there yet. Prudence requires us to play the cards we have the best we can, even if the game is rigged.

IMO the emerging Islamacist/far left coalition doesn't need to undo the entire Enlightenment to win -- not at first.

I wish I were as sanguine as you about the secularism tho. There has been a serious push for Sharia in areas of Canada. It was fought back, for now, but it's significant that it occurred at all.

Major areas around French cities are no-go for police and fire. The authorities have simply ceded them to the control of the "youths", and attacks on Jews such as the one after last week's soccer game with Israel, have occurred with increasing frequency and with impunity.

The 4-fold increase in rapes in Sweden over the last decade has been tied by researchers and police officials in the main to immigrant (read: Muslim) communities and is coupled with an increasing influence of radical imams, many of them broadcasting from outside the country. There has been sustained push to impose Islamic teaching in publicly funded classrooms there.

These are just a few examples. None by itself seems all that dangerous. Together, however, these and similar efforts erode just that set of Enlightenment values you point to.

I hear your evidence, Molon, and I acknowledge that it forms an ominous pattern.

But I would ask that you come to grips with the big picture. The Islamists are in a fantasy world. The Caliphate didn't work that well when it was at it's apex, a thousand years ago or so. That system of government never was that good, and never was that functional.

It would be completely impossible for a modern Caliphate to rule the same area some of the others did. The Abbassid Caliphate, for instance, would encompass thousandfolds more people than it used to. And those guys were overrun and destroyed by the Mongols. Even in their heyday, it was not stable.

It's not that we're so great, it's that the terrorist is living in a fantasy that has no close resemblence to reality. Iran is already having problems controlling it's people, and they're funded by oil. The only place Islamic Law is going to work is in places that are too poor for most trade to occur. And even then, it depends on a population ignorant of what things could be like.

Yes, there is trouble on the way. Yes, we need to deal with the things you mention, and yes, they do form a pattern. But things like Shariah Law in Canada and crime statistics in Sweeden are simply non-starters when it comes to forecasting the end of western civilization. Great claims require great evidence.

Islamism right now is like a cross between a third-rate world political party and the mob. They're not that good at playing either role, really. As bad as they are, however, there are serious security issues for the west at stake here. Your article was a well-needed wake-up call. But while there are serious issues that deserve concern, I would just ask that they be put into context.

I hear you on perspective, Daniel. What concerns me the most is the deliberate or inadevertent failure of our media and public leaders to decry these events and trends.

It's a willful blindness that makes them so dangerous, not any significant power they possess in and of themselves.

That said, there is such a thing as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Islamicism is saying the West is decadent, tired and demoralized, ripe for conquest if not conversion. Each time we fail to push back against the sorts of things I've been citing, they are proven more and more right in their own eyes and in the eyes of many others.

Molon I guess you can look at it that way, or you can look at it to understand that the terrorists really haven't ticked us off yet.

Next time there is a 9-11, people will want a stronger reaction than last time, because last time "didn't work". This escalation will continue. Israel is a good model for the future we face.

Internally, however, we have laws that cover most all of the problems you cite in other parts of the world. I would be in favor of having an oath of peacefullness sworn by each Muslim visitor. Breaking it could be punished severely. I don't see any difference between that and the oaths of non-violence southerners had to take after the civil war, so there is precedence.

The media is determined not to cover these stories, Molon, and it is a shame. Like I said, I commend you on the article.

I may be sanguine about the evidence given in #18, but they seem to fall into two large categories. One is the extent to which Western countries intermix religion and government so that the state is considered a proper avenue for religous views. For instance, Canadian muslims can assert that they are seeking much of the same recognition that are given Catholic and Jewish tribunals. Two is the extent to which Western countries make little effort to assimilate immigrants. There are certainly statistics showing that certain non-Islamic immigrant in the United States are corrolated with increased crime. Both of these problems seem to suggest a very commonsense non-Islamic-specific set of solutions: get government out of religion and develop immigration policies that limit social ills. I don't want to be triumphant, but the United States does relatively well in these areas.

#13 Molon

The fear of WMD proliferation to non-state actors is an unsubstantiated fear. Proliferation has occurred amongst states. And still nukes have been used only twice in history, and both by the same power, currently in fear of nukes.

Your premise assumes a specific kind of methodical and dedicated madness overtime on the part of persons whose goal you say is re-establishing the Khalifate. Where is the sense in that? Assuming your opponents are mad leaves one gibbering ineffectually in fear, and missing the real threats.

There are examples of nations falling to outsiders, when the outsiders are strong and are a surprise, and the nation can't properly defend itself. But there is no more terra incognita. There are no unknown regions for a technologically advanced people to come howling out of. While a state riven internally or unwilling to defend itself is at a disadvantage, it is not our case here either. It is also true that states in good order were destroyed from outside like Sung China by the Mongols. It is also true that states fighting fruitless wars not in their own interest can exhaust themselves.