In response to the Paris attacks, the usual bullshit from the right

Of course, some of what they are writing today is true and sensible.

But mostly, overwhelmingly mostly, not.

Example.

Another.

And another.

Everybody is pretending this attack proves O is feckless and maybe a traitor, that we need to fight a more aggressive and militarily committed war against ISIS, Boko Haram, the loons in Yemen, etc., etc., etc., much as Geraldo Rivera, horrified at the danger to his daughter who was at that stadium for the France/Germany game, demanded last night on Fox News, to the evident dismay of Shepard Smith, who reminded everyone that 14 years of war in the region begun by GW's invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq did not make Paris safe.

[Was that a run-on? Oh, my, yes.]

This writer comes close to the truth.

He says we won't finally end the terrorist attacks by killing Jihaders, no matter how many we kill, and that is true.

He says we can and should do so by opposing and ending the underlying enemy, Islamist ideology - which is to say without saying, the real historic Islam.

What's needed, then, is an ideological struggle on behalf of modernized, liberalized Islam just as faithful to the real thing as liberal, modernized Christianity is to actual, historic Christianity,

Would part of that struggle be a kind of Radio Free Islam, beaming news and views to, say, Saudi Arabia and Iran, designed to undermine the traditional, medievalist Islams prevalent in those countries, ostensibly in favor of a sort of Islam even Ayaan Hirsi Ali could live with?

I have no doubt such a thing would provoke at least as many attacks on the West as do bombing runs over Syria, and significantly enhance enmity toward us among key Muslim states.

The violence won't end so long as the current wave of hard core Muslim hate of everything that isn't Muslim continues.

And no one can say when or why it will stop, or even diminish.

Meanwhile, those who fear these guys controlling more states and the financial and military resources of more states are very right.

And that alone is sufficient reason to stop ISIS establishing itself, and to prevent the emergence of a radical Muslim state anywhere else, if possible without costs greater than those involved in allowing their existence.

If there were a way to bring down the republic of the Ayatollahs with no more than an acceptable level of risk, that would be lovely, always supposing a successor regime would be less menacing.

[Did Carter miss a chance to save the regime of the Shah?]

And if there were such a way to get hold of Pakistan's nukes, that, too, would be lovely.