The best way to persue this war is to simply put a complete halt to Muslim immigration to western countries.

BY taking in the overflow we constantly give a leg up to these corrupt regimes by assuming resonsability for people these regimes simply can't feed or take care of.

If non-MUslim nations refused all further Muslim immigration, the world's majority-muslim countires would soon become powder kegs so riddled with strife and conflict, they'd have neither the time, the energy, nor the resources to balle non-Muslims.

By keeping Muslims in their 'native' lands, we keep their feet to the fire, and we make them take responsability for the backwardness the intellectual and economic stagnation that Islam imposes.

Were they kept penned into these hell-holes, things would soon become so desperate and so critical that some muslims would eventually stand up and yell "enough!"

We need to erect a barrier around the islamic world, we need to keep it isolated and in quarantine ( no academic, intellectual or technological exchanges) until they climb down off their high horse, summon some humility and then take responsability for their own failings.

HOwever, if we keep taking in the human overflow, and if we keep providing them with aid money and technological expertise, we then do little more than keep the patient alive so that it can live to kill another day.

Let,s completely withdraw from the portrait, and then let the inevitable disaster happen so that Muslim cease being dependant, infantalised wards of the Kuffur.

It should be noted that India is easily the most experienced in fighting these barbarians for over 600 years, and still remaining  non-barbarian unlike most, with exception of may be Spain.

But one should also understand that India is under attack.Its vast borders are fertile grounds for the Pakis and their sponsers on one side and Chinese commies on the other, with little help from anyone. And it has a very vast fifth column.

I am Indian. God help the beautiful world of ours.all.Thanks.

Very interesting, and an idea that would demonstrate some fresh vision by any Canadian government that pursued it.

But I question the ability of the Commonwealth to unite around anything other than the most mundane of motherhood issues, which frankly include opposition to racism and the necessity of eternal aid transfers. Certainly the membership includes many countries with no meaningful interest in defending anything that goes by the name Western Civilization even if we were to agree to call it something else for administrative purposes. And, to be fair, nor should they have any such interest. From a certain African or Indian point of view, they have already contributed manpower and resources to such foreign quarrels and it should be enough. India might well find interest in cooperating with the West on this front for its own purposes, but find using the Commonwealth a far too historically fraught instrument for doing so.

Also, part of Cameroon was under British rule in imperial times [the smaller part, to be sure]. Namibia was a South African mandate at a time when South Africa was still part of the unitary Empire [right after the Great War] and continued to be one during South Africa's membership of the early Commonwealth, when any outsider regarded it as a "British Commonwealth". Walvis Bay, on the coast, was an integral part of South Africa until Namibian independence, rather than part of the mandate, precisely because Walvis Bay had been under British sovereignty beforehand. So both of these countries had real connections to the British Empire.

Mozambique and Rwanda, both very recent additions, are the only members which did not have any kind of constitutional link to Britain during the Empire.