I find myself in agreement with all three of you Mpresley, KO, and shockingly KA.

The subject has probably been broached before on TBJ, but I couldn't help but feel at the time when W ran away from the term Crusades early on in the post 9/11 world that it was a major defeat for the West and demonstrated a remarkable naivite and child like reaction by the young Bush administration, in that, they almost wet themselves in trying to disown the reference, to a Free Speech issue that demanded that they stand firm in defense of the Crusades from a perspective of Just War theory. This did not mean that it had to defend every aspect of the Crusades, but it was imperative that they not concede the principle of self-defense.

The consequence of that concession all but insured W's own Crusade for Freedom would turn out to be nothing more than Children Crusade II, how ironic that the first Children Crusade is also now thought of as being mainly nothing more than a crusade of poor misguided adults.

I don't understand what Ms. West's issue is here.  Mr. Rasmussen's statements are certainly not contradictory, however, they were made in very different contexts.  Although Muslims are responsible for their own collective and individual actions, and should be accountable for them, in the real world, we must deal with what is rather than what should be.  As Secretary General of NATO, Mr. Rasmussen would be remiss not to oppose the Quran burning.  Even the threat of it was enough to cause a violent Afghan demonstration that place German soldiers in Afghanistan at risk, which resulted in a civilian death.  Similarly, Mssrs. Obama and Gates et al, have a duty to protect Americans and American soldiers from harm.  The pastor's right to burn the Quran was not unlawfully hindered in any way, to my knowledge. 

I agree with most of Ms. West's "speech", however, it is one thing to uphold the law and quite another to argue against Islam, as this speech does.  The West is in conflict with Islam, as much as it was with two other totalitarian social movements in the preceeding century.  This does not mean that we are in conflict with each and every Muslim, anymore than each and every German, Japanese or Russian was our enemy.  But just as we put the onus on Germans, etc., to overthrow their totalitarian governments, we must take the same line with these so-called "moderate" Muslims. 

So is the Socratic method a way, a tenable solution, or not?

Was I wrong in thinking I was referring to a dead Jew and his Way, rather than a dead Greek?

What do I do with Matt 28:19, Go forth...?

Pretty straight forward instruction, no?

I understand "the way things are," but isn't the great failure in the West today - not understanding from whence we came and the way we want to go?

KO,

Funny, you should mention it, Mass conversion is exactly what I had in mind. The Pope's visit to Atlanticist's fair isle will offer an ideal opportunity:

All Brits from the Queen to the lowest most ridiculous figure on Albion's shores, i.e. Prince Charles, can welcome His Holiness, the Pope, the head of the Catholic,  the Universal Church, in unison, in total angelic harmony : "Go Pope! Go Pope!"

His Holiness can respond with a trip long Tridentine Mass and the Pope will never have to look back. Albion is redeemed and once again embraced in the loving bosom of Mother Church.

(For other fantastic tales and unbelieveable events see the postings of one Kappert on this very same TBJ.)

@Atlanticist

That would take some of the byte out of the source of the critics' concern.  I wonder who will come after your computer first, the Revolutionary Guard, the Saudi security services or the FBI, MI5?

@Mpresley and KO

I appreciate the sentiments, but since the starship Enterprise and its transporter is off on another mission, how about we just start converting the bloody heathens among us to the true faith?

I wonder how critics would have reacted if, instead of threatening to hold a physical Qur'an burning event outside his small church in Florida, the pastor had called upon people worldwide to download a copy of the Qur'an from the internet and, at a specified time and date, delete it, thus rendering said item in question 'destroyed'?

In my previous comment I wrote of the "liberal mind." To prevent confusion, I do not mean liberal in the usual popular sense of "conservative v. liberal." In fact, most conservatives (as witnessed by the conservative radio talk-show mafia, and the boys at Fox News) are simply a variant of left liberals.

You can tell if you listen, and not even too closely.

1) They go out of their way to be "inclusive" (we don't mind Muslims, we just don't like the radical ones);

2) They tell anyone who will listen that they're non-racist (whatever that means, today, but it usually means they don't mind massive Third World immigration as long as it's done "legally");

3) They never question liberal spending as long as it's in the interest of maintaining the empire (troops in Korea, no problem; troops in Europe, good idea; troops along the Pacific Rim, fabulous).

4) and generally see Israel as the 51st state, but at the same time wouldn't mind it if a few Arab states also signed on since we don't want to discriminate (see #1), and we can always use the oil.

First, it is interesting how speech has come to mean symbolic actions that may or may not be associated with spoken words.

These actions frighten elites since they are "grass-roots" and represent something very unsettling: that is, a threat to the continued popular expression of their world-view; a view that, in turn, supports their power.

The solution is obvious, but dissonant to the liberal mind. Separation from Islam is the only solution. We now understand, first hand, the basic contradiction of liberal democracy: it allows and in fact encourages the other, even when that other's goal is the destruction of the host. To warn against it is illiberal, and, of all things, that is what we can never be.

The fact that a book-burning is so troubling to Western liberal elites, to the point that the US Afghan commander, and even the POTUS speak out against it, shows 1) how tenuous the basis for our Afghan war is; and 2) how threatening the common people are to elected and non-elected decision makers.

It is finally beginning to occur to many citizens that Islam is the pretense for turning their own home country into a police state. One where it is impossible to board an airplane without a body search. Where it is impossible to conduct an economic transaction without notifying the government. Where it is impossible to criticize a religion without being accused of "endangering the troops" (i.e., treason).

All the while, Islam more rapidly changes the very nature of the indigenous country to the point that it must adapt to the Muslims, but never the other way around.

Yes. I believe people are beginning to dimly wake. Islam is one problem. But it is not the main problem. The main problem is our embrace of a multi-cultural liberalism that holds the "other" to be more important than nation-hood in the traditional sense. The ultimate goal transcends any one nation; it is, in fine, the destruction of traditional Western civilization.