The European surrender -- fait accompli.

Everything you read about contemporary Europe tells you that what Mr. Greenfield says is accurate about the decision by some of its countries to surrender. Limitless Muslim immigration, hate speech laws, and determined attacks on nationalist parties tell the whole story. Charles Martel and his men ultimately sired a line terminating in Carnaby Street and the French “Sensitive Urban Zones.”

For the War on Terror to count for anything, it must be a War on Islam, because Islam is the guiding ideology behind terrorism. Rooting out terrorism without rooting out Islam, only painfully prolongs the struggle. A number of European countries have concluded exactly that, and decided that surrendering to Islam will spare them effort and pain. That is not a choice I can support, but it is at least a choice made based on an understanding of the problem. By contrast pretending that we can fight a War on Terror without fighting a War on Islam is simply wishful thinking.

I agree with Greenfield on his major point -- the nature of the threat, Islam itself.

Americans seem to think of Islam as being a benign variant of Presbyterianism or, perhaps, some kind of Middle Eastern version of Jehovah’s Witnesses. We don’t know much about Muslims. Aren't they the ones who, figuratively, knock on our front door from time to time and then meekly and courteously disappear when we tell them we’re not really interested in that stoning adulterers thing just now?

"The Future of the War on Terror, is the War on Islam." By Daniel Greenfield, Sultan Knish, 9/13/10 (emphasis added).