Originally published under the title "West Isn't Posing Much a Threat to ISIS."

Will the latest atrocity committed in Paris by the self-professed soldiers of Allah alter the West's limp response to their challenge?

I doubt it very much. After all, far greater acts of jihadi horror have happened and our governments, along with us, have carried on with a shrug. Hell, we in the West can't even agree on how to name our enemy, much to the amusement of the head-chopping hordes of Islamdom.

The same murdering barbarians are known as the Islamic State or ISIS, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or its Arabic acronym, Daesh. The latter is now used by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry along with British and French leaders in a childish attempt to separate Islam from the terror being conducted in my religion's name.

But this is following the Saudi Arabian agenda, itself the prime promoter of worldwide Islamist agenda through its network of Saudi funded mosques and imams.

I suggest we stick to calling a spade a spade. Our enemy is the Islamic State, ISIS. There are other Islamic States such as Pakistan and Iran, both unsavoury and state sponsors of terrorism in the name of Islam. So for me it's the Islamic State, ISIS. Political correctness and advice from Saudi Arabia be damned.

Anyone suggesting we not let jihadists masquerade as refugees is labelled an 'Islamophobe.'

But back to the place ISIS attacked because it considered it the City of Sin, Paris. We now learn that at least one, possibly two, of the Islamic terrorists was a "refugee" from Syria who passed through Greece in October.

Yet anyone suggesting Canada first ensure we don't end up with Islamists or jihadists among our ranks when we bring in 25,000 Syrian refugees before the end of the year is labelled a racist and an "Islamophobe" when in fact ordinary people are just 'Islamistphobes' and rightfully so.

Let us not insult the intelligence of ordinary Canadians who have a justifiable and rational fear of any Muslim refusing to renounce Sharia law and denounce the doctrine of armed jihad.

Of course we should let in those who are fleeing the horrors of ISIS, but certainly not the soldiers of ISIS.

Once a claimant touches Canadian soil, they're our problem. Period. If a claimant is found to be a security risk, what happens to him? It's not as though we'll succeed in deporting someone to Syria. Even if the government tries to detain the individual, it will no doubt lead to a lengthy legal fight.

What sort of pressure will our security agencies be under to quickly clear claimants when there's a massive queue forming for clearance?

Of course, this pressure no doubt exists even if we try to screen abroad but I'd argue it will be more intense as we have people piling up here.

The new government has set an extremely ambitious timeline for bringing Syrian refugees in. There are serious questions that need to be answered immediately given their own timeline. Sorry, now is the very time to discuss these issues.

And this doesn't even begin to discuss the wisdom of pulling Canada out of the military mission combatting this metastasizing tumour in Iraq and Syria.

ISIS is ultimately gaining adherents not because our "crusader" forces are attacking them but because ISIS is an ascendant organization that is viewed as winning.

The West's half-baked, tentative combatting of ISIS has only made us look that much weaker in the eyes of the jihadists.

As Osama bin Laden said long ago, most people will naturally gravitate to the strong horse.