An Intro to Daniel Greenfield, ‘…we have to be willing to kill them’

A Subject Essential to Winning, Yet Repugnant to the Western Mind

Intro by John R. Houk, Blog Editor

Intro © August 5, 2026

 

You have to realize the USA is probably the most powerful military on the planet with the CCP-controlled China not far behind (and formerly Communist-controlled Russia probably lagging in 3^rd as the new sick-man of Europe military that can’t even smack corrupt Ukraine into oblivion).

 

If there is a lesson learned from the Global War on Terror - a politically correct term that that should have been termed the Global War on Islam; where Islam controls the nation, ONLY the destruction of Islam as a theo-political force will end the conflict.

 

THAT CONCEPT is repugnant to Western thinking. It is especially repugnant to the typical Liberal Woke individual. Why? The destruction of Islam would mean destroying those who propagate Islam and those devoted to those propagators.

 

A military power would have to do to Muslim devotees what Islamic conquest did to conquered populations over a span of centuries that insured and secured Islamic power. MUST READ BOOKS:

 

o   Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims; By Andrew G. Bostom M.D.; Amazon; Published 3/1/08

 

o   Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery; By M A Khan; Amazon; Published 1/26/09

 

SEE ALSO:

 

o   The Historical Reality of the Muslim Conquests; By Raymond Ibrahim (via Jihad Watch); Middle East Forum; 3/1/12

 

o   Islam’s Bloody Legacy: Conquest, Coercion, and Centuries of Abuse; By HEL MORT®; Hel's Substack; 5/3/26

 

o   Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars: Forced Conversion; Last Edited by Asmith; WikiIslam; Last Edited May 2026

 

Western history paints such destruction in a negative light when whole populations were slaughtered who refused conquest assimilation.

 

Frankly, I do not believe there is a single Western leader ready to implement the destruction of Islamic Theo-Political power. Not even President Trump. IRONICALLY, the CCP-controlled China is capable of such a bloody endeavor. HOWEVER, the CCP is using Islamic dominated nations as a foil against Western Powers.

 

Herein lies the problem President Trump is facing in negotiating with the Iranian Shia-Twelver death cult [Doctrine Explained: HERE, HERE, HERE & HERE] controlling Iran: Islam tells a more powerful non-Muslim foe what the non-Muslim wants to hear to regroup and then re-attack. It’s a combination of Taqiyya [Explanation: HERE, HERE & HERE] and Hudna [Explanation: HERE & HERE] with the objective of vanquishing the non-Muslim foe.

 

This is the reason Daniel Greenfield says, “…we have to be willing to kill them”. This is where it is insightful to read the Greenfield post at Front Page Magazine entitled, “Treat Iran Like Terrorists, Not a State”.

 

JRH 8/5/26

ALWAYS FREE TO READ yet READER SUPPORTED!

PLEASE! I need more Patriots to step up. I need Readers to chip in $5 - $10 - $25 - $50 - $100 (PAYPAL or CARD - one-time or recurring). YOUR generosity is APPRECIATED. PLEASE GIVE to Help me be a voice for Liberty:

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

Big Tech Censorship is pervasive – Share voluminously on all social media platforms!

Our Senior Citizen Family Supplements our income. Diana & I endorse Magic Functional Coffee and Matcha Tea. It’s MAGIC because there is a weight loss or weight control emphasis among other wellbeing benefits.  Clicking the Diana Wellness Store will take you to the online store. CLICK  or SCROLL to the BUY tab (Agara Coffee or Agara Matcha). DRINK COFFEE or MATCHA:

 

https://dianawellnessstore.com

**************************

Treat Iran Like Terrorists, Not a State

We can defeat enemies who are not afraid to die. But we have to be willing to kill them

Defend Freedom – Defeat Terror (FPM Photo)

 

By Daniel Greenfield

August 4, 2026

Front Page Magazine

 

Treating Iran like a state has been a policy failure. Both diplomatic and military efforts to either engage or pressure Iran have all rested on the assumption that its terrorist regime is a state with national interests and that it could be tempted with membership in the international community or pressured to comply through economic sanctions or selective strikes on key targets.

 

Some of those tactics might have worked on normal countries that prioritize commerce over conquest, value international engagement, deplore losing money and military assets in a war that they can’t win and at the very least care about maintaining their everyday state functions.

 

But those same tactics have failed not only in Iran, but also when confronting other Islamic terror states like the Taliban, Hamas in Gaza or the Houthis in Yemen which do not care about the normal functioning of a state, and can absorb military and economic losses because they see them as only means to a larger ideological end only achievable through constant conflict.

 

Dictators conquer in order to rule a state, terrorists rule a state in order to conquer. The state, its people, its wealth and weapons are expendable assets to spread the ideology of the terrorists.

 

We’re not fighting Iran as a country. What we are fighting is a fanatical cult and terrorist organization that has taken over Iran. The distinction is harder to spot because, unlike Afghanistan or Yemen, the terrorists took over a large, sophisticated and urbane nation, they command professional diplomats and nuclear scientists, vast industries and great wealth.

 

But all of that is in service to terrorists who see them as assets to be used to conquer the world.

 

Iran’s regime turned its weak hand into a strong one, not by traditional statecraft, but through the usual tactics of terrorists, showing a complete disregard for its losses while hijacking a vital waterway, calculating that the infidels may have bigger weapons, but weaker morale.

 

Islamic terrorists don’t win victories on the battlefield, they prevail by persisting until they negotiate concessions, and then taking those concessions, gaining more recruits and then pressing the attack again, absorbing the blowback, and achieving more concessions.

 

Oct 7, like the ISIS campaign, showed that when Islamic terrorists attack even a poorly prepared modern force, they rely on insurgent tactics and their victories fall apart when modern armies can bring their full command of the battlefield to bear on any organized opposition.

 

This Maoist model, losing battles and winning the war through fortitude and global propaganda, has been adopted by successful Islamic terrorists. Those like ISIS and Al Qaeda who stray too far from it are defeated. It’s the model used by the Taliban, who didn’t set out to win, only to remain in the field long enough to negotiate a worthless deal and watch us leave and it’s the model that was used by Hamas many times before and is being used by it once again.

 

That’s the easily recognizable model that Iran is relying on now.

 

And it’s only possible because Western nations have come to rely on a heavily flawed foreign policy toolkit that emphasizes leverage, displays strength without expecting to have to make full use of it, offers an economic carrot and waits for rogue nations to reform and come to heel. This approach has been completely useless on countries and in theaters that reject its basic premise, whether it’s North Korea or the Russia-Ukraine War, that the conflict must end.

 

Most civilized nations don’t want a prolonged conflict. To win, the other side just has to be willing to prolong the conflict indefinitely. There are two responses to this, one is to unleash sufficient power so as to completely crush the other side, the other is to save face and make a deal after a show of force that is supposed to convince someone outside D.C. that we mean business.

 

Ever since WWII, we’ve been pursuing the latter course from Korea to Vietnam to Afghanistan, and that’s understandable because Americans don’t want to fight any ‘forever wars.’

 

But that just means our enemies can win every time by threatening us with a ‘forever war’.

 

Jihadists, like the old fanatical Communist movements, are using the apparatus of state power not for national purposes, but the international ones of global conquest, and so whether we like it or not, we are stuck in a ‘forever war’ with them until they defeat us or we defeat them.

 

The alternative, a balance of power, could be sustainable with Cold War enemies like the USSR and China whose leaders were more concerned with their national power than an imminent global revolution, and preferred subversion to an apocalyptic world war, but may be less so with actual Islamic terror that are prepared to sacrifice the traditional prerequisites of statehood states as opposed to their modern Soviet national equivalents like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.

 

To defeat Iran or at least return to a balance of power, we have to stop thinking of it as a state. Iran has had better luck using force as a leverage for forcing concessions from us than the other way around because it cares less about the most basic concern of a state: normalcy.

 

Most countries want order, not chaos. They want the systems of the state to work reliably because that is the means by which their power operates. They want to know what the price of wheat and oil will be tomorrow. Terrorists however are different. They embrace chaos, destabilize normalcy and see disruption as a banner broadcasting the triumph of their ideology.

 

We can’t defeat Iran by disrupting or threatening its normal functioning, as we’ve tried to do. We have crippled its larger ability to threaten us by directly targeting its nuclear program. If we want to stop threats from it on the water, we have to destroy its naval and aerial capabilities. If we want to end threats from its regime, we have to treat it like ISIS, not like an unfriendly state.

 

Anything else will just drag us into a waiting game with terrorists who can outwait us if all they have to fear from us are some limited economic sanctions and an occasional bombing raid.

 

We can defeat enemies who are not afraid to die. But we have to be willing to kill them.

 

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism. Daniel became CEO of the David Horowitz Freedom Center in 2025.

 

Copyright © 2026 · frontpagemag.com

Islam: A Permanent World War

You will hear Multiculturalists, Muslim apologists and deceptive Muslims tricking a non-Muslim to convert to Islam way that Islam is peace. The pseudonymous writer Fjordman explains that Islam actually means submission. AND the followers of Islam are to use any means necessary – deception, violence and/or war – to get all the people of the world to submit to Islam either by keeping their religion (officially only the people of the Book; i.e. Jews and Christians) but submitting to the rules of Islam, convert to Islam or die for refusing submission to Islam.

Fjordman essentially posits that this very nature of submission means Islamic terrorism will be a permanent state of war (or terrorism) until total Islamization is achieved. Don’t be fooled by the propaganda of peace!

This was originally posted just after the Islamic terrorist attacks in Paris, but the recent violence of the San Bernardino Massacre still applies and will undoubted apply wherever literal allegiance to the Muslim belief of perfection in the Quran and Mohammed exist.

JRH 12/17/15

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

************************

Islam: A Permanent World War

By Fjordman

Posted by Baron Bodissey

November 17, 2015 9:34 pm

Gates of Vienna

If you appreciate this essay by Fjordman, please consider making a donation to him, using the button at the bottom of this post.

Fjordman Logo

On the evening of Friday November 13th 2015, Paris was shaken by a coordinated series of extremely brutal Islamic terror attacks that left at least 129 people dead and hundreds wounded. It is strongly suspected that the Jihadist group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) was behind these bloody attacks against multiple targets in the French capital.^[1] This happened after the city had barely recovered from the Islamic massacre on the staff of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo some months earlier.

Jihad Attack in Paris 11/13/15

On October 31, 2015, a Russian passenger plane crashed over the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt, killing 224 people. Russian and Western intelligence services have concluded that the crash was an act of terrorism caused by a bomb.^[2] Jihadists associated with the Islamic State have claimed responsibility for this terror attack. If this is true, it means that militant Muslims from the Islamic State brutally murdered more than 350 Europeans in just two weeks.

Apologists claim that Islam is a religion of peace and that Islam means peace. This is not true. The Arabic word Islam means “submission,” not peace. A Muslim is a person who submits. Technically speaking, it is true that the terms Islam and Muslim are derived from the same three-letter root (s-l-m) as the word salaam. Salaam means peace, just as shalom does in the related Semitic language Hebrew. Yet that does not mean that Islam is peaceful. On the contrary, it indicates that peace is only possible after submission to Islamic rule and Islamic law. Peace is identical with submission to Islam. The absence of sharia law is the absence of peace. Islam is therefore essentially an ideology of eternal global war. It advocates the permanent incorporation of the non-Islamic Dar al-Harb, the “House of War,” into the Dar al-Islam, the “House of Islam” or “House of Submission.” The term “House of War” indicates that all areas under non-Islamic rule are viewed as a place of war until such areas cease to exist worldwide and submit to forces which are loyal to Allah and his Prophet. Some Islamic theologians use intermediate categories where Islam is making progress, yet does not yet reign supreme. However, the basic divide in Islamic theology is between the House of War and the House of Islam.

“It follows,” wrote the Islamic scholar Majid Khadduri, professor of the Middle East Studies Program at Johns Hopkins University, “that the existence of a dar-al-harb is ultimately outlawed under the Islamic jural order; that the dar al-Islam is permanently under jihad obligation until the dar al-harb is reduced to non-existence… The universality of Islam, in all its embracing creed, is imposed on the believers as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political if not strictly military.”^[3]

MB Logo with Hassan al Banna

Western audiences are perhaps familiar with the Muslim Brotherhood, a revivalist organization founded by Hassan al-Banna, which has included such individuals as the al-Qaida ideologue Sayyid Qutb and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State (ISIS). Abul Ala Maududi, founder of Pakistan’s Jamaat-e-Islami (Party of Islam), was also one of the most influential Islamic ideologues of the twentieth century. He explained that the objective of Jihad, Islamic Holy War, “is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of state rule. Islam does not intend to confine this revolution to a single state or a few countries; the aim is to bring about a universal revolution.” Maududi emphasized that while Jihad involves armed combat, Jihadists include all those who help achieve the ultimate goal of worldwide Islamic domination. Not just those who fight in the battlefield, but also the millions behind them who contribute to the effort.^[4]

The scholar Andrew Bostom and others have clearly proven that Islamic culture has never been “tolerant” in any meaningful sense of the word. This is a modern myth. Constant humiliations and occasional outbursts of deadly violence against non-Muslims have been a continuous feature of Islamic life for centuries, encouraged by Islamic religious scriptures. This is not a recent phenomenon, and it goes for both major branches of Islam. There are theological differences between Shias and Sunnis, but while these matter to Muslims themselves, they are of secondary importance to non-Muslims. Both Shia Islam and Sunni Islam encourage Jihad expansion, doctrines of Islamic supremacy and violent hatred of non-Muslims.

According to traditional Islamic history, the Treaty of Hudaybiyya was an agreement between Mohammad and his early Muslim followers in Medina, and the pre-Islamic pagan Quraysh tribe of Mecca. This is alleged to have taken place in the year 628 of our era. It affirmed a ten-year truce, a “hudna” or period of temporary calm. However, this truce was broken as soon as the Muslims felt that they were in a stronger position vis-à-vis their non-Muslim neighbors. A true and lasting peace on equal terms with non-Muslims is impossible, according to Islamic law. In the end, Islam can and should be globally triumphant. It is important to recall that the Sunna or personal example of Islam’s founder Mohammed and his early followers is intended to be valid for all times and all places. The Treaty of Hudaybiyya is therefore not merely of historical interest; it remains crucial for understanding how devout Muslims relate to non-Muslims today.

The traditional hadith literature of Sunni Muslims confirm Mohammad’s tactical formulation when waging Jihad: “War is deceit.” (Hadith Bukhari 4:269).^[5] In addition to this, we encounter the Islamic doctrines of taqiyya and kitman (concealment and disguise). This allows for Muslims to lie and cheat to others, if this can be used to further Islam’s cause. Such tactics are employed by Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims alike.

Muslim Terrorist with Quran & Gun

Jihad is eternal. It entails a conflict that will never end, until the supremacy of Islam, Islamic rule and sharia laws have been established worldwide. Any agreement with non-Muslims is viewed as a hudna, similar to the Treaty of Hudaybiyya which Mohammed himself made with his non-Muslim opponents. Such a truce exists only so that Muslims can grow in strength and regain the upper hand. As soon as they feel they have the advantage, Muslims are encouraged to go on the offensive against the infidels again. As Andrew Bostom notes:

“In fact the consensus view of orthodox Islamic jurisprudence regarding jihad, since its formulation during the 8th and 9th centuries, through the current era, is that non-Muslims peacefully going about their lives—from the Khaybar farmers whom Muhammad ordered attacked in 628, to those sitting in the World Trade Center on 9/11/01 — are — muba’a, licit, in the Dar al Harb. As described by the great 20th century scholar of Islamic Law, Joseph Schacht, ‘A non-Muslim who is not protected by a treaty is called harbi, — ‘in a state of war’, — ‘enemy alien’; his life and property are completely unprotected by law…’ And these innocent non-combatants can be killed, and have always been killed, with impunity simply by virtue of being ‘harbis’ during endless razzias and or full scale jihad campaigns that have occurred continuously since the time of Muhammad, through the present. This is the crux of the specific institutionalized religio-political ideology, i.e., jihad, which makes Islamdom’s borders (and the further reaches of today’s jihadists) bloody, to paraphrase Samuel Huntington, across the globe.”^[6]

Islam contains elements of a traditional religion, but also elements of a totalitarian belief system centered around a personality cult of Mohammad. Islam is a creed of war, not a religion of peace. In theory, this war will end when all human beings on Earth have submitted to Islamic rule and eventually become Muslims. In practice, experience show us that Muslim societies are far from peaceful. Muslims will continue to fight amongst themselves over who are the best and truest Muslims. Islam can with some justification be classified as a permanent world war, a war that has so far been raging for fourteen centuries and claimed countless lives.

Notes:

1. www.foxnews.com/world/2015/11/17/france-carries-out-fresh-isis-airstrikes-as-report-claims-allies-targeted-paris/ Russia joins France striking ISIS stronghold in Syria. November 17, 2015. 

2. www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34840943 Russia plane crash: ‘Terror act’ downed A321 over Egypt’s Sinai. Nov 17, 2015.

3. Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1955), page 64. 

4. Quoted in the book Marked for Death: Islam’s War Against the West and Me, by Geert Wilders, page 78.

5. www.sacred-texts.com/isl/bukhari/bh4/bh4_272.htm Hadith 4:269. Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah: The Prophet said, “War is deceit.”

6. Iran’s Final Solution for Israel. By Andrew G. Bostom, 2014. Page 44. 

DONATE TO FJORDMAN: To contribute to Fjordman you need to go the bottom of this post at the Gates of Vienna looking for the Fjordman Logo with the words “Donate to Fjordman”.

For a complete archive of Fjordman’s writings, see the multi-index listing in the Fjordman Files.

________________

Baron Bodissey posts

Gates of Vienna Homepage