The Truth About WWIII (or IV)

From time to time, we engage in discussions about our current conflict with the Islamofascists, and are often confronted with nomenclature issues. Specifically, what the heck do we call this conflict?

Some opt for World War III, given the global arena in which the current conflict is currently unfolding. But others claim that World War III is what we really should have called the Cold War, since a world war was precisely what it was: a roughly 40 Years War with the dark forces of international Communism with the old Soviet Union at the helm of an Evil Empire. That ideological battle was essentially won in a most unconventional way and concluded in a manner equally unconventional. By faking the Rushkies out with Star Wars, Ronald Reagan effectively spent the Evil Empire to death. The final act of this Last Battle was the fall of the Berlin Wall, once again, a most unconventional conclusion to a long, global conflict of epic proportions.

Of course, old Commies, like old Soldiers, never die. Their relativism, nihilism, and tendency to lie brazenly has found a home in the ongoing, unfolding phenomenon of Islamofascism, the adherents of which employ largely the same tactics of perpetual disinformation and slander to demonize their enemies and snooker the weak-kneed socialist wannabes who inhabit the judiciary, the arts, the media, and academia. With these willing dupes, including the old-guard commies, the Islamofascists are making it quite difficult for us to pin them down and take them out.

But just as the world eventually learned that Marxism was in the end a sham philosophical cover for creating a new and different upper class dedicated to lording it over everyone else, so, too, must the world eventually come to grips with the core of the current 40 Years War: the War Against Islamofascism, which will one day be dubbed either WW III or IV. And the following is probably the best short summary we've seen to date of what is at stake:

In the 1930s, some believed it would be possible to solve the particular problem of the Sudeten-Germans in negotiations with Hitler without considering the place of the Sudeten question in the overall strategy of the Nazis. In the 1980s, some believed it was possible to solve the particular problem represented by the seizure of the embassy in negotiations with Khomeini without considering the significance of the embassy seizure in the strategic conception of Islamism more generally. Today, with the separation of the nuclear question from the ideological dimension of the conflict, this mistake is being repeated. Although the letter made headlines around the world, Washington hesitated to confront the Iranian challenge on its own terrain: that of ideology.Policymakers focused on business as usual and thus missed the opportunity to present the real alternative facing both Muslim and non-Muslim societies: Does the world want to be oriented by life or by death? Does the world prefer individual and social self-determination or to be ruled by a clique of mullahs and their cult of death?

Bolding above is courtesy HazZzMat.

This brilliant assessment is snipped from a larger piece by Matthias Küntzel on the current fascist rulers of Iran. Well worth reading. A hat tip to Power Line, which discovered this article first.