Same old song and dance?

Israel's new Prime Minister has promised that there will be lasting peace between Arabs and Israelis. He said nothing about an autonomous Palestinian nation, which puts him at odds with suicidal Israeli Liberals; however, he also didn't say he wouldn't deport all of them beyond Israel's borders and wash his hands of them.

And really, there will be no lasting peace between the Islamofacists that currently control all Muslim nations and peoples and Israel, the United States, and the rest of the West this side of the grave.

You see, people consistently forget that, like The Gulf War (where we were asked in by the Kuwaitis after Hussein's Iraq invaded them), like the current, ongoing operations in Afghanistan (where we've shut down al-Quaeda training bases, and driven out the Taliban--for now), and like Operation Iraqi Freedom (where Hussein was paying bounties to the families of homicide bombers), the Crusades were primarily a defensive war. The European nations, yes, took the fight into the Middle East. Yes, they killed Muslims--men, and later women and children, as well--and eventually Jews, as well. However, it started when the Muslims began attacking and killing Christians making pilgrimages (hajj to the Muslims), and encroaching into European lands.
`
Granted, the Christians did end up taking things a bit too far in the atrocities--at least, they have according to current thought, which neglects to point out (or even remember) that the first atrocities were on their side, not ours, and with which I disagree. I do have to admit, though that the Crusades failed in most respects: the Muslims kept the Middle East, kept killing peaceful Christian pilgrims, and eventually invaded and conquered a good chunk of Europe. However, the Crusades failed mostly because the bloody Europeans could not work together, and because they couldn't keep fighting a (then) superior foe.

That doesn't mean that the Christians in the Middle Ages didn't have the right idea in taking the fight to the Muslims. Nor does it mean that it's not the right idea now.

We, the West, has left the Middle Ages. We've moved on in pretty much all respects, from respecting the rights that each human being is born with, to improvements in life expectancy and quality through scientific and medical advancement. If Islam were not centered in the biggest available oil reserves (thank you, Democrats), they would be completely irrelevant because they never left the Middle Ages in any respect.

The current regime--er, administration--fully understands that, by controlling language, they can control thought. That's why they've decided to stop calling the terrorists in Guantanamo Bay "enemy combatants" and Middle Eastern operations "the War on Terror." They haven't fully decided what they do want to call them, haven't figured out how they can pc it out of our minds that these Islamofacist killers are dangerous.

I do agree that the terminology needs to be changed. "Enemy combatant" implies, after all, that they are lawful combatants, which they aren't. And the "War on Terror" implies that it's their actions that we're battling, when it's really their entire ideology.

However, I think we need to call a terrorist a terrorist, a spade a spade...and a Crusade a Crusade. After all, better to engage them in their own territory than allow them to import their own Dark Ages views to more civilized lands...and it's not too late to throw the terrorists out.