Once again, we are tragically reminded of what we are fighting against.

france in mourning
“Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.” Matthew 5:4


Paris.  London.  Madrid.  New York.  Boston.  Mumbai.  Benghazi.  Syria.  Iraq.  Afghanistan. Israel.  Pakistan.  Tunisia. Nigeria. Egypt. Yemen. Istanbul. Amman.  Nairobi. This list is incomplete today and will surely lengthen tomorrow.  Each such attack is but another battlefield in an asymmetrical worldwide conflict — a Third World War as described today by Pope Francis.

The aggressors are not any certain country although certain countries are fueling their fight.   They claim to fight for Islam but their victims are mostly Muslims. Their targets are not simply one country or another but civilization itself.  This is not a war of choice for us but a struggle of necessity.   Their goal is total victory.  We must continue the fight for their total defeat.


  1. Feeling the Bern says:

    This is not a war of choice for us but a struggle of necessity. Their goal is total victory. We must continue the fight for their total defeat.

    To be honest, this comment scares the pud out of me. What is the target? What does victory look like? What is the worse that can happen if the West simply pulls out of the Middle East and worries about immigrants and infrastructures?

    This is war rhetoric, raw and emotional. This is an issue for France to deal with, just as we would want to deal with our own issues.

    Fear or freedom. Pick on, sir.

      • John Konop says:

        Do you think sending a 100, ooo troops to Syria will help why or why not? The scary part about this attack was they were not even wearing masks, did not care ie real suicide mission. This was not a high tech ie real training type attack like 9/11. Who are we really helping in this civil war in the Middle East? Each group has lots of warts…..not a simple good guys verse bad guys…..more like bad guys verse worse guys….Can we not disengage with heavy foot print,and use social force type tactics? Can we not focus on securing the homeland land like Salty suggested, and protecting our economy?

      • Feeling the Bern says:

        define “these people”. Do you understand that we can not have Democracy and the ability to track every human in the same society?

        You can’t even see what the core problems are here, you only want to react with fear and anger.

        Christian based western interference beget the ISUL. This is an un-Holy war, perpetuated by apocalyptist leadership (Bush;s “Gog and Magog” reference to the French President, for example) to hasten the end time so Jesus can come back.

        • Noway says:

          You sound almost offended at my question, Bern. “These People” are the Islamic radicals who are targeting anything seemingly from the West. Paris being the latest example. Do you just want us to do nothing and simply take the violence? Would it be ok with you, Bern, and your progressive apologists if we work to stamp out these people (again with that phrase, you say…) the animals who would kill innocent victims?

  2. saltycracker says:

    I made my comments on immigration, gun laws, the CIA and FBI below. This is not a war on nations but against embedded crazied causes. Considering the toll our young men are taking, mentally and physically in the countries where a large portion of the population hates them, another portion does not want to engage, they are punished for collateral damage and anyone is a threat, the case for our boots on the ground is usually old school. But you gotta love a drone operated from the US with local intelligence.

  3. Raleigh says:

    We are at war. War has been declared on the western world. This time not by nations with standing armies but by crazes ideologues bent on forcing their beliefs and ides on everyone. This time the weapon is not peaceful nonviolent civil disobedience it is terrorism and suicide bombers aimed at civilians. Nothing or no one is off limits to achieve their goals.

    During the US Revolutionary war tactics changed The US did not have the large professional train armies like Great Brittan. We did have a bunch of settlers who learned how to hunt for food and fend for themselves. Because of the lack of trained personnel we used guerrilla warfare to great effect. Fast forward to the Civil war and the equipment of war had changed but tactics had not. Men would stand in line and march against the riffled muskets and mini balls not the smoothbore muskets carried by their forefathers. This led to 680,000 dead.

    Tactics changed again. A standing Army is nothing more than a target to be picked off 1 by 1. The enemy scurries out from under a rock then runs and hides under another rock. In this war a standing army is no good. There are no nations to conquer with defined battlefields. This war will be going on for many years. 100 years maybe more.

    To win this war our tactics must change.

    • saltycracker says:

      Yep, John Wayne and George Patton tactics won’t work. At home it will require identifying and vetting who is here, involving local enforcement agencies, a workable immigration plan, and allowing citizens to own guns that are purchased and registered through licensed dealers.

      The current statement on TV today by our security is we will vet as best we can but info is difficult to get so some may get by and it is harder in mass migrations. That is unacceptable.

      Our legislators do not have the will to do what is necessary, meaning, get ready.

      Abroad it requires the sharing and use of our technological resources through the willing nations supported by their peoples. Our military personnel involved don’t need be the ones on point.

      • Noway says:

        Cheap political points? Is it political theatre to want to protect our citizens from those who require those of different religions to swear allegiance to their brand of extremist Islam or be killed, beheaded or “Berned” alive? These animals should have no defenders but here we have progressives making excuses for Islam’s atrocities while branding anyone who might have a differing view as a bigot. Seriously?

Comments are closed.