Obamageddon in the Middle East

kerThe easiest way to tell that Obama has run out of things to do in the Middle East is his desperate pivot to the peace process. The never-ending peace process, which is now on its fourth administration and its sixth prime minister, is the gift shop in the museum of the Middle East. It’s the place you stop by on the way to the exit because it’s convenient and everyone back home expects some souvenir peace t-shirts.

In 2013, the West Bank and Gaza are more irrelevant to events in the Middle East than ever before. Like toddlers left alone in their high chairs, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas have spent the last year whining that no one is paying attention to them. And no one in the Arab world is paying attention to them because suddenly killing Shiites has become more of a priority than killing Jews.

If in the past Western diplomats could claim with a straight face that peace would stabilize the region, after the diplomats tore it apart with the Arab Spring that line ought to come with its own laugh track.

If Arafat’s corpse rose from the grave to dance the Hora and Netanyahu learned to shout, “Allahu Akbar,” no one in the region would even notice. The Syrians, Turks, Qataris, Saudis, Lebanese and Iraqis are too busy fighting in the misnamed Syrian Civil War to even pretend to care about a peace process that they never really cared about even back when they were pretending to care about it.

Now they aren’t even pretending.

Obama’s trip to Israel to jumpstart another miserable round of non-negotiations between an Israeli side that wants a deal and a Palestinian Authority side that wants an excuse not to make a deal because it wouldn’t survive a day after signing an agreement was another international demonstration of his cluelessness.

Secretary of State John Kerry’s fumbling attempts to play peacemaker in Israel while the rest of the region burns is proof that the administration he works for has no idea what to do about the Sunni-Shiite civil war tearing apart the Middle East.

Iran, like Syria, has been offered another feeble face-saving agreement after hollow threats of action that no one, including the Syrians or Iranians, actually believed. Kerry had to be saved from humiliating his country by the French. And it’s the President of France who headed to Jerusalem to address the Israeli parliament, a task that Obama dodged to push a peace speech to a selected student audience.

After its intervention in Mali, its push for action on Libya, Syria and now Iran; France is far more relevant in the Middle East than Obama.

France isn’t right, but it is decisive and its leaders understand that nuance is a game for fools. The cheese-eaters that devoted liberal turophiles like John Kerry once looked to as a counterweight to the Texas cowboy have once again become the leading Western practitioners of cowboy diplomacy.

After the collapse of Obama’s Arab Spring, France began to set the Western agenda in the Middle East. It was the French who pushed hardest for intervention in Libya. Obama was just the muscle they brought along. And it was the French who would have dragged him into Syria if not for the UK parliament.

While Obama was making empty boasts about Al Qaeda being on the road to defeat, the French were actually doing something about it by going into Mali. It was the French who stopped Kerry from giving a blank check to Iran’s nuclear program. Now France’s nerdy bespectacled president is being received with cheers in Jerusalem while vowing to stand up to Iran, even as Obama’s visit is a fading memory.

Right or wrong, France has an agenda for the Middle East, while America’s Nero is playing second fiddle to François. France is rising as a regional power, while Obama’s America has become a running joke.

America’s relationships in the Middle East are over. Egypt is turning back to the Russians, Turkey is looking to China and even the Saudis are sick and tired of dealing with a government that can’t make up its mind about anything bigger than a presidential banquet. Israel, which seems to be the only country whose leaders actually thought Obama would do something about Iran, is angry and disgusted.

And those were the four countries in the region that American influence depended on.

France, for better or worse, has picked a side in the Sunni-Shiite split. Obama not only won’t pick a side, he refuses to recognize that the split exists. Instead his Iranian negotiations were taking place in some alternate universe in which the goal was a settlement, rather than a balance of power.

There’s only one thing that is going to prevent the Middle East from going nuclear, in more than one sense of the word, and that’s an end to the Iranian nuclear program. The Saudis, Egyptians and other Sunni powers are not going to stop their own rush to the bomb for Kerry’s “24 Hours to a Nuke” deal with Iran. And the Israelis aren’t going to stop mapping bombing runs from Saudi airfields over it.

But that wasn’t something Kerry could deliver. Clinton’s sanctions didn’t stop North Korea from going nuclear. Obama’s sanctions weren’t going to stop Iran from doing the same thing.

Kerry’s nuke giveaway only demonstrated American irrelevance in the age of Obama. The deal would have accomplished nothing except to give Obama a distraction from the unraveling of his disastrous domestic policies. And so the French, in their new capacity as leaders of the free world, slapped down the master yachtsman and sent him back to dogpaddle in Massachusetts.

It was an embarrassing setback, or would have been if a single American newspaper had done anything except reprint talking points from the administration and its supporters praising the deal, but in the Middle East, it was the final blow to American prestige.

John Kerry had taken the already low bar set by Hillary “Reset Button to Benghazi” Clinton and found a way to limbo under it.

The Middle East is still tearing itself apart in a Sunni-Shiite war. It’s an Obamageddon unleashed by the Arab Spring which broke along explicitly religious lines in Syria and is taking the rest of the region with it. As the Sunni axis of Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Egypt prepares to collide with the Shiite axis of Iran, Iraq and Syria, the man who helped unleash it all stands on the sidelines and scratches his head.

*

Don’t miss Jamie Glazov’s video interview with Daniel Greenfield about Obama’s Destructive Agenda, his Muslim Brotherhood Romance, the Anthony Weiner-Huma Abedin saga, and much, much more:

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • tic…tic…BOOM

    It is pathetic that France has taken over the American role in the ME.

    • Rocky Mountain

      I like French wine and they make great bread.

      • BagLady

        My dear, you have named the two most important contributions to the world by the French. They didn’t give much by way of infrastructure and education but there is nowhere in the world that the French have been where you don’t find the benefit of these two products? Here in my humble third world home, ladies come around shouting ‘pain’. Everyone eats mini baguettes with their traditional soup. Come party time, ‘toss the chicken foot’ would not be so much fun without getting pi-eyed on cheap and very sweet wine.

        France may boast the best bread but when they taught the art to the Moroccans I’m afraid they were surpassed in their breakfasts…. That’s if you like a basket with an assortments of freshly baked rolls and dunking the lightest of croissants into your wonderful freshly milled coffee in the street café…. pain au chocolat to die for.

        • Kevin V.

          No. The greatest contribution of France to the world has been rabid nationalism and egalitarianism at the point of a gun. Those ideogies shaped the previous two centuries, led to two devasting world wars that all but destroyed Europe and the latter of the two is still dominant at every level of Western society.

        • ziggy zoggy

          Lying fucking troll.

          • Rocky Mountain

            You’ve got a very nasty and unpleasant way about you and I’m sure your reply will pretty much prove this to be true. Oh, and BTW your aeronautics thing doesn’t impress me at all.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Pest,

            SkagLady is a complete fraud. And what aeronautics are you talking about? Taking a flying fuck? Stick a cork in it, Froggy.

          • defcon 4

            It’s probably referring to the aeronautical study of flying carpets and flying horses — very popular scientific studies in the islamic world — along with the pharmaceutical benefits of camel urine.

  • truebearing

    Great job delineating the stupidity of our so-called leaders. Maybe too good. It makes me sick to see what these evil fools have caused. The consequences are endless and scary.

    • defcon 4

      Stupid? Or corrupt? Maybe it all depends on who’s signing their paychecks, and from what country.

      • truebearing

        Take your pick….stupid, corrupt, evil…it all applies, but I’ve always thought Kerry was a dolt, and clearly, Obama’s intelligence has been vastly overrated. When their policies intend one outcome, but repeatedly yield another, I call that stupidity. If it is intended to hurt the US, I call it evil. Sometimes it’s hard to tell with those fools.

        • BagLady

          … or maybe a bit of double entendre. Perhaps we misunderstood the ‘we’ in “Yes we can!” because there are a few ‘we’ out there doing very nicely thank you. Sales of luxury goods have shot up since ‘the crash’, the Med is awash with yachts and this year’s Christmas hamper could set you back a cool $50,000 – $150,000. (Bearing in mind an hamper is just a picnic basket, there isn’t much in there). I do not grudge the self-made man his yacht but I do not want to see ‘our’ employees paying themselves commission on top of their already inflated salaries. Commission used to be for whiz kids on low wages but earning their keep with good sales. Paying commission to hospitals for every dead body that comes out is hardly conducive to good medical care. I thought of oligarchs as Russian heavies cashing in on the upheaval but I see these oligarchs are springing up like super-weeds all over the world. Some are hiding the fact, of course.

          • defcon 4

            Better oligarchs than psychopathic islam0fascist theocrats.

    • Texas Patriot

      TB: “The consequences are endless and scary.”

      Why be afraid? It is what it is. There is no changing what’s going on in the region between the Shia and the Sunnis. Did you think that America could really make a difference? Maybe you think we should spend a few more trillion dollars trying to keep the peace. Maybe we should send several land armies to do the job. Well, guess what? We tried that and it didn’t work. Basically, you need to relax. Israel can handle herself, and if she adopts a policy of relentless defensive conquest to any attacks by her neighbors, gradually the situation will begin to improve.

      • gawxxx

        you my friend are a fool !

        • Texas Patriot

          And you are probably not as wise as you think you are. ;-)

          • defcon 4

            Your argument for non-interference in Iran’s bid to get nuclear weapons makes me question your motives for doing so.

          • Texas Patriot

            Where do you see any reference to that idea? My basic assumption is that Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities will be removed one way or another. Either we will do it, or the Israelis will do it, or someone else will do it. Somebody will have to do it. There is no alternative.

          • truebearing

            “or someone else will do it” Brilliant analysis. Way to pin it down. Who would that be?

          • Texas Patriot

            TB: “”or someone else will do it” Brilliant analysis. Way to pin it down. Who would that be?”

            Your need for certainty and control over matters beyond any possibility of certainty and beyond any possibility of control never ceases to amaze me. At this point in time, the blinders are coming off, and entire world is waking up to the very real threat posed by the Islamic doctrine of global conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims. Under these circumstances, leaving any possibility that nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of the Islamic Revolutionary Party of Iran should not be regarded as a rational option by any civilized nation. Somebody will make sure that doesn’t happen, and it doesn’t really matter who does it.

          • truebearing

            Then you support the US attacking Iran and destroying its nuclear capacity, by any means possible, right?

          • Texas Patriot

            TB: “Then you support the US attacking Iran and destroying its nuclear capacity, by any means possible, right?”

            If need be, yes. Absolutely. But I’m sorry to disappoint you. There will be no need for a massive invasion and land war sacrificing thousands of American soldiers and trillions of dollars of the American taxpayer’s money. The necessary operation can be accomplished in a single surgical strike using whatever explosive force is necessary to reach Iran’s deeply buried nuclear weapons facilities. `

          • truebearing

            As usual, you make the same moronic and unsupported assumptions about what I think should be done. Where did I say I wanted troops on the ground or trillions spent?

            Just to point out for the umpteenth time that you don’t know what you’re talking about, Iran’s nuclear facilities aren’t all in one place, so a “single surgical strike” is nonsense. Furthermore, Iran built its nuclear facilities very deep underground, so the idea that one surgical strike will automatically destroy anything is delusional, at best.

            Why don’t we just go over there and take over Iran, confiscate its oil, and kick all Iranians out….you know….like you want Israel to do to countries that attack them? We can sell the oil, and a lot of real estate to pay for our conquest. After all, Iran attacked us enough times. We have a perfect right. Why shouldn’t we employ defensive conquest?

          • Texas Patriot

            I hate to tell you, but you really do have a reading comprehension problem.

          • truebearing

            He isn’t commenting on his level of wisdom, but your utter lack.

          • Texas Patriot

            And for my part, I’m not commenting so much upon your lack of wisdom, which needs no further introduction, but rather upon your almost complete failure to appreciate the global phenomenon of Islamic jihad that is now sweeping the world like a prairie fire.

          • truebearing

            Global jihad needs to be confronted and faught globally. You agree then that the United States should attack Muslims all over the world, possess their nations, and expel them from their own countries, right?

          • Texas Patriot

            You have no clue what are talking about, and you obviously have no idea how to win the struggle against global Islamic jihad now sweeping the world. Here’s a hint. The strategy of sending massive land armies around the world at great loss of American blood and treasure does not work.

        • truebearing

          Bingo!

          • Texas Patriot

            If you’re not Rush Limbaugh, you’ve certainly managed a good imitation of him. Unfortunately, Rush Limbaugh has a problem seeing clearly enough to tie his own shoelaces much less to solve the problems of the world.

          • truebearing

            Deluded as you clearly are, you think you are smarter than Rush Limbaugh. Thanks for providing confirmation of my theory that you are completely delusional.

          • Texas Patriot

            Are you saying that you don’t think you are smarter than Rush Limbaugh?

      • defcon 4

        “…gradually the situation will begin to improve.” Yes, because islam has been continuously improving for the last 1300 years hasn’t it?

        • Texas Patriot

          No, because if the terrorist attacks by her neighbors continue, and if Israel adopts a relentless policy of defensive conquest and explosion, gradually but inexorably the lands of Israel will increase and the lands of the perpetually warring Shia and Sunni will decrease, and there will be a greater chance for peace in the entire region.

          • defcon 4

            I guess I have misunderstood you. I’m sorry.

          • Texas Patriot

            Not a problem. There’s a lot of misunderstanding floating around. It takes a while to know who you’re talking with.

          • truebearing

            “There’s a lot of misunderstanding floating around.”

            Indeed. And a disproportionate percentage of it is floating between your ears.

          • Texas Patriot

            You need to get with Ziggy Zoggy. You guys have a very similar posting style. But Ziggy actually makes meaningful arguments and understandable points. You’re just a lot of hot air.

          • truebearing

            It’s not hard to misunderstand someone who thinks Barry Goldwater and Albert Camus are somehow compatible.

          • Texas Patriot

            And it’s not surprising to me that you can’t see how the nihilism and inhumanity of the 20th Century was so abhorrent to both men.

          • truebearing

            It is abhorrent to many men of many different perspectives, so what does that prove? Neo-conservatives feel the same way. Was Goldwater like them, too? Your distinctions are so broad they are pointless.

          • Texas Patriot

            Just keep on connecting the dots. Sooner or later you will probably begin to understand.

          • truebearing

            You didn’t answer my question. Aren’t neo-cons just like Barry Goldwater too?

          • Texas Patriot

            No.

          • truebearing

            Why not? The abhor nihilism and inhumanity, too.

          • Texas Patriot

            Barry Goldwater was not in favor of unnecessarily wasting American blood and treasure on foreign land wars that could not possibly be won.

          • defcon 4

            It’s interesting that Camus saw the Algerian revolt against France as “new Arab imperialism”. Because what is islam, but “Arab imperialism”?

          • truebearing

            You aren’t much a student of history, we can all see. Israel is attacked by most of the world for simply building new settlements in disputed territories. What kind of uproar would ensue if they statred occupying their neighbors? Would their expansion include ethnic cleansing, because if it didn’t, Israel’s occupying forces would get stretched thin real fast.
            Israel was brow beaten by the international community into giving up the West Bank. If they were to go on an aggressive campaign of conquest, they would galvanize world opinion against them and unite hundreds of millions of Muslims, Shiite and Sunni, into a religious war against Israel’s 6 million citizens. Brilliant plan.

            Your “solution” would put Israel at war with the entire world. It is simplistic and nonsensical.

          • Texas Patriot

            You don’t get it, and I don’t think you ever will. Defensive conquest is well recognized as a remedy for anyone who is attacked by their neighbors, and the consequences are clear: the attacker loses its lands and is expelled from them. The solution is clear, unequivocal, and final.

            If there are protests. Let there be protests. But if Israel is attacked in the future, let there be a relentless policy of defensive counterattacks, forfeitures, and expulsions. Eventually the attacks will cease or Israel will continue to acquire more and more territory from her belligerent neighbors. Even the most disinterested observer can see that the more land Israel acquires, the more the belligerent factions of Shia and Sunni will be separated from each other, and the greater chance there will be for a semblance of peace in the region.

            What better way for the descendants of Israel to reacquire the Promised Land and serve as a buffer between the perpetually warring Shia and the perpetually warring Sunni.

          • truebearing

            No, you don’t get it, and with every new post you irrefutably prove it.
            Your theories have no basis in reality. Conquest has its own consequences, and a conqueror has to have enough boots on the ground to rule the conquered territory. It’s hard enough for a large nation, much less a nation the size of Israel.

          • Texas Patriot

            The remedy of defensive conquest would have to be undertaken wisely and appropriately, in a manner proportionate to the attack and limited to manageable bits of new territory. Of course, all of this presupposes that Israel will get a lot stronger economically and militarily, but Israel will have to do that anyway in order to survive in the extremely hostile environment in which she finds herself. Otherwise, the right of defensive conquest is well-settled, and it’s the only way forward from the grotesque reality facing Israel today. I’m sorry you can’t see that, but I’m not altogether surprised.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Israel does not have the logistical ability to conquer and hold its neighboring countries. That is a ridiculous notion. The best it could do would be to clear a small buffer zone that would constantly be infiltrated and most likely attacked outright by Israel’s close friend, Barack Hussein Obama. In fact, Obama would probably attack military sights directly in Israel.

          • Texas Patriot

            You’re just being a worry-wart. Israel will have to get tough in response to the incessant attacks on her citizens, or she won’t survive. Judicious application of the doctrine of defensive conquest is the only chance Israel will ever have for a peaceful existence in the middle east. Either the attacks by her neighbors will eventually stop, or Israel will eventually end up reacquiring the entirety of the original Promised Land. As Israel’s lands increase, there will be new opportunities for immigration and settlement, and Jews will be attracted from all over the world to join in the much-needed Reconquista.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Israel doesn’t have the logistical ability and manpower necessary to do that. It could clear Judea and Samaria but clearing Gaza would be incredibly difficult even with a blockade, and no neighboring country could be held. It should kick Jordan off the banks of the Jordan river, though. Lebanon is major problem that couldn’t be blockaded.

          • Texas Patriot

            It doesn’t have to happen all at once, and the re-conquered territories can be acquired and gradually assimilated, little by little, into the lands of greater Israel. Hopefully Israel’s neighbors will get the message, and the attacks will eventually cease. Otherwise they would continue to lose their lands and make room for more and more immigration into Israel.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Israel doesn’t have a population large enough to do that, and attempting to assimilate the conquered lands would be demographic suicide.

          • Texas Patriot

            Actually it wouldn’t. Perhaps you don’t understand the meaning of forfeiture and expulsion.

          • truebearing

            No, he understands it perfectly well. You are the one who babbles incoherently, not understanding the consequences of the idiotic things you advocate.

            Winning a war doesn’t mean the defeated people automatically forfeit their land, DUH. And expelling them is ethnic cleansing and the UN, plus 1.5 billion Muslims, would be all over Israel if it was attempted. Or did you think that “expulsion” happens spontaneously?

          • Texas Patriot

            TB: “DUH”

            I’d say that summarizes quite well your ability to discover new and more effective ways of dealing with the enemies we face. Unfortunately, the tactics of wasting massive amounts of American blood and treasure on hopeless invasions and land wars haven’t worked anywhere they have been tried. Instead have bankrupted the country and made our enemies stronger. Defensive conquest is legitimate and effective, and if someone would rather not forfeit and be expelled from their land, all they have to do is refrain from attacking their neighbors.

          • truebearing

            Your answer is completely incoherent. You want Israel to conquer her attackers, annex their land, expel their citizens, but not use boots on the ground? How is Israel supposed to conquer and hold these lands with no “land wars?” How is “defensive conquest” accomplished if troops aren’t involved? And how exactly are people expelled if no one is there to expel them?

            Maybe it’s time for you to take a break and get yourself a nice, cool glass of Verbal Immodium.

          • Texas Patriot

            You’re losing it, big guy.

          • truebearing

            You are a blithering, delusional simpleton. Your utopian drivel sounds like some kind of demented fairy tale.

            You suggest israel conquer all enemies and occupy their countries, yet you want the US to be isolationist. You hate what you call “neo-cons,” even using that term as a pejorative toward David Horowitz during the Diana West flap, yet you heartily endorse a foreign policy strategy for Israel that you would call neo-conservative if the US did the exact same thing.

            Your ridiculous theories make sense only if this is your ill-conceived attempt to convince people that the US should stay out of all foreign conflicts, regardless of the merits, or how close an ally is to us. In effect, your desire that the US become isolationist, leaving allies to fend for themselves, while encouraging Israel to conquer and ethnically cleanse Muslim neighbors, is a prescription for Israel’s destruction. Considering the number of times I’ve seen you attack neo-cons, and given the fact that “neo-con” is pejorative code for Jews with you Paulists, it seems entirely possible that you are encouraging Israel to engage in an idiotic and self-destructive foreign policy. Fortunately, they are far too smart to listen to the likes of you.

            The more you opine, the more convinced I am that you are completely unhinged.

          • Texas Patriot

            You obviously have a reading comprehension problem.

          • truebearing

            No, I don’t. I’ll admit that reading your drivel and trying to make sense out of it can be challenging, but the problem isn’t with my comprehension, it is with your dementia.

          • Texas Patriot

            Congratulations. You are almost a perfect representation of everything that is wrong with American politics. Bravo.

          • truebearing

            The version of defensive conquest you are describing is idiocy. It plays into the hands of those who hate Israel and want it destroyed. Those people who hate Israel include the president of the United States. The international Left opposes Israel at every opportunity. The UN is predominantly anti-Israel. You don’t know what you’re babbling about.

            Since you clearly are too stupid to understand the current situation, let me remind you that our president and Secretary of State are in a mad rush to eliminate sanctions on Iran and give them free rein in developing nukes. Iran is just looking for justification to lead a genocidal jihad against israel. Taking over Muslim nations and expelling the citizens of those nations would bring war on Israel from every direction. Your vacuous pronouncements are the prattle of a fool.

          • Texas Patriot

            TB: “The international Left opposes Israel at every opportunity. The UN is predominantly anti-Israel. You don’t know what you’re babbling about.”

            And you are about 40 years behind the times in your thinking. Defensive conquest has nothing to do with the left. It has to do with survival. But I’m sure you don’t know the first thing about that. In any event, I’m sure you’ll be glad, as I am, that Ziggy Zoggy has joined the conversation. Fortunately, he makes a lot more sense than you do.

            I’ll say this. If you’re not Rush Limbaugh, you’re obviously an individual who has spent many years imitating his style. Congratulations. Unfortunately, our friend Mr. Limbaugh can’t see clearly enough to tie his own shoelaces, much less to solve the problems of the world.

            Maybe you should pick a better role model.

          • truebearing

            Now we can add paranoia to your list of attributes. Lest you forget, you have proposed this ridiculous theory before, and my answer will be the same. I am not, nor will I ever be Rush Limbaugh, and while I like Rush, I don’t listen to him except occasionally when he is on Fox. It’s not that I wouldn’t like listening to him. I just don’t have time. That being said, comparing me to Rush is a compliment. Does my similarity entitle me to as much money as he has, or at least a decent percentage?

            You remind me of the Paul fanatics and Obama supporters. Full of utopian zeal, paralogic, and infallible ideology.

          • Texas Patriot

            TB: “That being said, comparing me to Rush is a compliment.”

            Thank you for making that statement. I am not at all surprised.

          • ziggy zoggy

            The more Sunni and Shia are separated, the more time they will have for attacking everybody else.

          • Texas Patriot

            Hopefully the Shia and the Sunni will eventually think better of attacking anyone, and if their actions carry the swift and certain consequences of forfeiture of and expulsion from their lands, perhaps they will be less likely to continue their policies of perpetual Islamic jihad, conquest, and submission of non-Muslims. In any event, it is the right of those attacked to take appropriate measures to defend their neighbors and their citizens from violent attack, and the relentless exercise and implementation of the option of defensive conquest is the best way of insuring that.

          • TienBing

            Israel had the chance to set the precedent for a policy of “defensive conquest” with the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights. Unfortunately they never made the case and ultimately traded the Sinai for peace that never came.

          • Texas Patriot

            Live and learn.

          • truebearing

            By all means, learn. I heartily recommend you try it.

          • Texas Patriot

            You’re the one who needs to try it.

          • truebearing

            They made a mistake, but even if they hadn’t caved to the pressure, it doesn’t mean a policy of defensive conquest would work in the long run. Look at the way the Israel is demonized for “oppressing” the Palestinians. Israelis are accused of stealing a country that didn’t exist. Imagine what would happen if they had conquered Lebanon and made it their own.

            When Israel has won wars and appropriated territory in the past, the world demanded it be returned…for peace that never came. What would possess anyone to believe that Israel could make defensive conquest its policy without massive opposition from Muslims, the UN, Europe, and now Obama? In case those in support of that simplistic solution haven’t noticed, Israel is treated differently than other nations when they defend themselves.

          • defcon 4

            What’s the point in playing nice anymore then? It hasn’t worked in the past, who in their right mind would think it’s going to work in the future?

          • Texas Patriot

            Exactly.

          • truebearing

            I’m not saying Israel should play nice, but Texas Patriot’s “solutions” are so childishly naive that it is ridiculous. Imagine a nation of 6 million people trying to control conquered Muslim territories. It would be a non-stop battle. If Israel tried TP’s idiotic expulsion plan, the entire world would side with the Muslims and Israel would get hit with economic sanctions, etc. until they gave back the lands conquered. Like I said before, Israel isn’t treated the same way other nations are. Even when they are simply defending themselves they are accused of oppressing the worthless Muslims who started the fight.

            Israel’s biggest problem is a weak and decadent West. If the United States and Europe would back Israel in a meaningful, unapologetic way, the Muslims would lay down by their dish. As things are, however, Israel is surrounded by vastly superior numbers, with an international community that is neutral at best, and frequently hostile to Israel. A policy of defensive conquest, especially with ethnic cleansing, would be disastrous.

          • defcon 4

            The entire Western world hasn’t already sided w/the islam0nazis? It seems to me corrupt, amoral Western leaders pay lip service to supporting Israel, but don’t actually do anything.

          • truebearing

            That is my point. Israel is hamstrung by the decadent, weak, and in some cases, anti-semitic West. Now we have a president who is openly hostile to Israel, hence my disbelief that anyone would suggest Israel conquer and ethnically cleanse its neighbors.

            Don’t misunderstand. I would love to see Islam wiped off the map, but liking doesn’t make it so.

          • defcon 4

            I wish Putin would stand with Israel. After all Russian Jews have made significant contributions to both the USSR and Russia. You would think he would have at least some sympathy for them.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Israel couldn’t hold land it took from neighboring countries, and all the people it had to govern there would be dedicated to destroying Israel demographically. Maybe this is what T.P. wants to happen.

          • Texas Patriot

            The doctrine of defensive conquest does not require the non-aggressor to seize and expel the aggressor from its own lands. But it does permit it in appropriate cases. The option of whether to seize and annex the lands of the aggressor is always an option of the non-aggressor which may be exercised or not according to the best interests of the non-aggressor.

          • Texas Patriot

            TB: “Look at the way the Israel is demonized for “oppressing” the Palestinians. Israelis are accused of stealing a country that didn’t exist. Imagine what would happen if they had conquered Lebanon and made it their own. When Israel has won wars and appropriated territory in the past, the world demanded it be returned…for peace that never came. What would possess anyone to believe that Israel could make defensive conquest its policy without massive opposition from Muslims, the UN, Europe, and now Obama? In case those in support of that simplistic solution haven’t noticed, Israel is treated differently than other nations when they defend themselves.”

            You’re thinking is about 40 years out of date. There are very few people anywhere who now think of the so-called Palestinians as being “oppressed”. It’s been forty years since the Israeli athletes were massacred at the Munich Olympics, and all we have seen is a non-stop series of atrocities against innocent civilians from these so-called oppressed Palestinians. We’ve seen the suicide-bomber outfits they give their children for holiday presents, and we’ve seen how children raised as Muslim extremists grow up, the attack on the Mali Mall being only the latest grisly example.

            What is also clear today that never was before is that Israel sits at the epicenter of an age-old blood feud between different sects of Muslims that does not appear to be subsiding in the slightest way. Instead of being the catalyst of war in the region, if anything Israel should be thought of as a distraction to keep the perpetually warring Shia from killing the perpetually warring Sunni.

            At this point, most people probably assume that Israel will be consumed by these two warring factions, either by military conquest or by demographic conquest within Israel itself. Defensive conquest and expulsion of hostile elements within Israel’s borders as well as outside of Israel’s borders is very likely the only chance of survival that Israel has.

          • defcon 4

            Israel hasn’t given back the Golan Heights to Syria has it? Syria used the Golan Ht.s to shell Israeli settlements, then attacked Israel, not once, but twice. Israel owes them nothing except a kick in the face.

          • TienBing

            Agreed.

      • truebearing

        It appears you don’t understand the situation Obama has created, or the dynamics it has set in motion. Anyone with fully functioning brain should be able to see the grave potential consequences of Obama’s feckless floundering in the Middle East — or anywhere else on this globe, for that matter. He has completely destabilised the entire region and planet, leaving huge power vacuums that are being filled by particularly ruthless enemies of this country, and Israel.

        Iran is not only an enemy, but run by a genocidal cult willing to use nukes to fulfill a Shiite prophecy. They are required to “bathe the world in blood,” starting, by their own admission, with Israel and the United States.

        If that, and the prospect of a nuclear war, doesn’t scare you, you are either lying or there is something wrong with you. False bravado is easy on the internet, and denial is a convenient way to defend your ideological position — in your own mind — but neither have anything to do with reality.

        Your simplistic assessment that this is just a struggle between Shiites and Sunnis is breathtaking in its lack of depth or understanding.

        • Texas Patriot

          What I do understand very well is that you continue to favor the failed policy of endlessly pouring American blood and treasure down a bottomless pit without any hope of changing things for better in the middle east. Guess what? We tried that. It didn’t work. We’re moving on.

          Going forward, if we need to take out the Iranian nuclear weapons facilities, we should do it quickly and completely by whatever means necessary. Otherwise, we should stand behind Israel’s policy of defensive conquest and expulsion, and then stay out of the middle east as much as possible.

          This isn’t 1973. The OPEC doesn’t have a monopoly on oil anymore. They can’t hold the West hostage like they did back then. We have more than enough oil and natural gas in the West to last for several centuries. By then there will be a new energy source that will make middle eastern oil totally irrelevant.

          Our days of playing “peacekeeper” in a region where peace is impossible are over. Get used to it.

          • truebearing

            “What I do understand very well is that you continue to favor the failed policy of endlessly pouring American blood and treasure down a bottomless pit without any hope of changing things for better in the middle east.”

            You have alleged that before, now prove it. Show me a quote where I took that position, or stop trying to smear me like the Leftists you claim to oppose.

            My response to your ideological delusions didn’t state anything remotely justifying your ridiculous conclusions about my opinion regarding policy in the Middle East. You are looking for anything black and white enough for you to apply ideological labels. Any solutions I would support would be based on what is required, per the circumstances, to make this country safer and stronger, not based on some rigid ideological mandate. That might mean using nuclear weapons, or it might mean sanctions, but it will always mean supporting our true allies.

          • Texas Patriot

            So you would not oppose withdrawing our military forces from the middle east?

          • truebearing

            From where and when?

            You babble about how Israel should have a policy of “defensive conquest and expulsion,” — which sounds la lot like ethnic cleansing — but you don’t want the US to do the same, apparently. Why shouldn’t the US conquer, occupy, and expel the enemies living in the conquered territory? Or are you suggesting one policy for Israel that you would oppose in the US? If so, why?

          • Texas Patriot

            TB: “You babble about how Israel should have a policy of “defensive conquest and expulsion,” — which sounds a lot like ethnic cleansing — but you don’t want the US to do the same, apparently. Why shouldn’t the US conquer, occupy, and expel the enemies living in the conquered territory? Or are you suggesting one policy for Israel that you would oppose in the US? If so, why?”

            It sounds as if you have bought into the rhetoric that Islamic aggression is somehow exempt from effective reprisal. Here’s a hint. It’s not. Those who attack the lives and property of others should expect to forfeit their own lives and property.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Send in the drones?

          • truebearing

            How did you possibly derive that nonsense from my criticism of your ridiculous strategy? I think we should have hit Iran hard, a long time ago. That shows how far off you are, yet again.

          • Texas Patriot

            It does not surprise me in the least that you have no idea what I’m talking about.

          • ziggy zoggy

            He thinks the circumstances always require burying our heads in the sand.

          • truebearing

            He is a Ron Paul fanatic, but won’t admit it. I recall debating the Paulists on the Daily Caller, and he was one of them… unless there are two Texas Patriots, which is a frightening thing to consider.

          • Texas Patriot

            There may well be another Texas Patriot. As far as i know there could many. But no, I have never debated anything on the Daily Caller, and in fact I have never heard of it. And no, I am not a Ron Paul supporter, although I do concur with some of his ideas, particularly the need for fiscal responsibility and avoiding foreign land wars that are hugely expensive and cannot possibly be won in any meaningful sense. Rather, I’m a cradle Republican born and raised in the tradition of in the tradition of Barry Goldwater, George Patton, and Teddy Roosevelt. Roosevelt said, “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” Patton said, “I don’t want you to die for your country; I want you to help the other guy die for his country.” And Goldwater said, “The object of war is victory.” The truth is that I agree with all of those ideas.

          • ziggy zoggy

            So which of America’s enemies should be attacked, and how?

          • Texas Patriot

            The only legitimate use of force is for self-defense. In the case of the Iranian nuclear weapons facilities, it is a matter of self-defense to prevent the Islamic Revolutionary Party of Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons by surgical strike that destroys those facilities in place. Otherwise, there is no need to attack anyone unless they threaten to attack you first.

          • defcon 4

            When was the OPEC monopoly broken? I don’t see any dissension in the ranks of the islam0fascist petrocracies that run OPEC.

          • Texas Patriot

            We are breaking it day by day. With the new technologies of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing of previously unproductive shale formations, it is now clear that the West has more than enough oil to survive without OPEC oil. In North America alone there is more than enough oil and gas for several centuries. It has now been determined that even Israel has huge offshore natural gas fields and undeveloped oil shale deposits rivaling even Saudi Arabia. In 1973 it was possible for OPEC to talk about boycotting the West for its policies against Israel. It will soon be possible for the West to talk about boycotting OPEC oil for its policies of perpetual war against Israel.

          • defcon 4

            You do realize that even though the US isn’t OPEC’s largest customer — practically all of Europe, China and SE Asia is right? After the ’73’ Yom Kippur War, OPEC punished the US for it’s support of Israel, by curtailing sales to the US, thus causing an energy crisis in the USA and gasoline rationing (because there wasn’t enough gasoline to go around).

          • Texas Patriot

            The balance of power between energy producer-nations and energy consumer-nations is changing, and the West is a long way from the energy dependence we suffered from in 1973. My point is not that OPEC is not a major player in world oil markets; of course it certainly is. But thanks to technological developments in 3D Seismic, ultra-deep ocean drilling, horizontal drilling, and hydraulic fracturing, OPEC is not the dominant player it once was. And in the not too distant future, it is not inconceivable that the West will be able to boycott oil coming in from belligerent OPEC nations, in the same way that OPEC once boycotted the United States. The overall point is that more than one can play at the game of using oil as a “political weapon”, as OPEC threatened to do, and did do, in 1973.

          • ziggy zoggy

            OPEC and the oil emirates don’t use oil as a political weapon. They use oil profits to fund jihad. America can’t contain that by cowering behind its open borders.

          • Texas Patriot

            Here’s a hint. Jihad is political.

          • ziggy zoggy

            So is Islam. It is also expansionist and imperial. You wrote it yourself: the oil sheikhs can’t blackmail us with oil embargoes anymore. They can payroll jihad all around the world, though – and they do. They can’t be left to their own devices, and superficial strikes against them are impotent and counter productive.

            America should embargo THEM, but that isn’t going to happen with Barack Hussein Obama in office.

          • Texas Patriot

            Barack Obama’s presidency will eventually be regarded as the best thing that ever happened for purposes of waking up the West as to the nature and intent of Islamic jihad. If Muslims had wanted to make peace with the rest of the world, they would never have had a better chance than with Barack Obama. Instead they threw his peace efforts back in his face with the assassination of our diplomats and the worldwide chants of “Obama, Obama, We’re All Osama” on September 11, 2012. Now we know how things stand, and there is no longer any reason for supposing that there will be any kind of lasting peace between Muslims and non-Muslims anywhere in the world.

          • ziggy zoggy

            That’s why we can’t leave them on their own. Not that any American should be prevented from traveling to “their” part of the world because they claim they don’t want us there.

          • Texas Patriot

            Sure we can. If they don’t bother us, there is no need for us to bother them.

          • ziggy zoggy

            That is naïveté at best. Bothering people is what they do.

          • Texas Patriot

            They need to learn not to do that.

          • ziggy zoggy

            How are they going to learn that? Convert to Christianity or Buddhism? All 800 million of them? I don’t think you really want them to be dealt with.

          • Texas Patriot

            One way they will learn is through the doctrine of defensive conquest. If they “bother” other people (let’s say by suicide bombings, rocket attacks, hostage taking, etc. etc. etc.), they could suffer the consequences of losing their lands and being expelled from them. It wouldn’t happen overnight, but little by little they may get the idea that bothering other people is not a good idea.

          • truebearing

            Yet another resoundlingly inaccurate assessment of the crisis. Obama was the worst thing that ever happened to this country, or the world. Obama opened Pandora’s Box, and we won’t be able to prevent the world war once Iran, Saudi Arabia, et al. get their nukes.

            You are aware that Obama is going to be the president for three more years, right? That is plenty of time for Iran to acquire enough nukes and missiles to be a serious threat to their own region, and possibly farther. Who is going to stop them? Obama? He’s the one helping them get free of the sanctions.

          • truebearing

            Here is a fact: jihad is religious fanaticism that requires adherents to destroy all who aren’t Muslim.

          • defcon 4

            They have in the past. I’m pretty sure OPEC can still manipulate oil prices pretty easily, and while it might not affect the US much, it could and will affect countries like China, Japan and much of Europe/Eurabia.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Yeah, and Obama is such a simp he wouldn’t embargo them unless Americans got angry enough to openly denounce him and all of his policies. He wouldn’t allow fracking or drilling on public land either, or for refineries to be built.

          • defcon 4

            For the US to embargo islam0fascist petrocracies wouldn’t make much of a difference to them, because the majority of US oil imports don’t come from islam0fascist states (most US oil imports used to come from Mexico). But most of the rest of the industrialized world is dependent on islam0fascist oil.

          • truebearing

            Interesting analysis….myopic, yet ignorant of geopolitical reality.

            OPEC doesn’t need the United States like it once did. It has a bigger market in China, and China is on track to supplant us as the world’s biggest economy. Oh, and they use more oil than we do already. Then there is India, Europe, etc.

          • truebearing

            They’ll sell all the oil they want to China.

          • ziggy zoggy

            “Endlessly pouring American blood and treasure down a bottomless pit?” Do you work for “The New York Times?” Or maybe a comic book company?

            And in case you missed 911, the Islamic countries can’t be ignored for several centuries.

          • Texas Patriot

            No, but I recognize a comic book character when I see one, and I was wondering how long it would take you to show up and start chiming in with TB.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Actually, comic book characters tend to have more responsible policy suggestions for the Islamic world than to simply withdraw behind American borders and wait for the next attacks.

          • Texas Patriot

            ZZ: “Actually, comic book characters tend to have more responsible policy suggestions for the Islamic world than to simply withdraw behind American borders and wait for the next attacks.”

            Are you also suffering from a reading comprehension problem. That’s not what I’m suggesting at all. Basically, the entire civilized world needs to adopt a unified and aggressive policy of defensive conquest and expulsion in response to all acts of Islamic aggression, whenever and wherever they occur.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Where are we going to expel them to? There are a lot of them.

          • Texas Patriot

            It’s a big world. They can go wherever they like. They immigrated into the West under the false pretenses of being a religion of peace and they have not been able to refrain from engaging violent Islamic jihad against non-Muslims. They are clearly not a religion of peace and unless they are able to renounce and refrain from violent jihad altogether, it will be time for them to leave.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Go wherever they like? I don’t think so. Where will they relocate to?

          • Texas Patriot

            Most of the planet remains unoccupied. And there are Muslim-majority nations throughout the middle east, Africa, and Polynesia. If they can’t conquer and subjugate one place, they’ll try another. They’re not stupid.

          • ziggy zoggy

            And how will letting them ruin new places help anybody but them?

          • Texas Patriot

            They immigrated into the West under the false pretenses of being a religion of peace. Now we know that is not the case. If they are unwilling to renounce the doctrines of Islamic jihad, conquest, and submission of non-Muslims, it will be time for them to leave. Where they go is up to them.

          • truebearing

            Texas?

          • truebearing

            Now TP has been bested in a debate by a comic book character. Why am I not surprised?

        • J.

          Thanks TruthBearing been trying to tell TP that, but he just keeps on referring to how Russia will just sell Iran more nuclear equiptment as if Iran doesn’t have nukes already….He’s underestimating the situation here to just superficial politics. The elite wants a WWIII involving the collapse of the superpowers, how else will these people build a one world government?

          • truebearing

            He will drone on ad nauseam, oblivious to any point you make, regardless of how well or factual you make it.

          • Texas Patriot

            TB: “Your simplistic assessment that this is just a struggle between Shiites and Sunnis is breathtaking in its lack of depth or understanding.”

            And from my point of view, your habitual practice of intentionally misquoting and mischaracterizing my remarks, although regrettable, is not at all surprising. But for the sake of your further enlightenment, how remote or unlikely that possibility may be, I will keep on making the argument that our strategy in the middle east for the past forty years has been fundamentally flawed. Why? Because until very recently we have not understood the nature or ultimate purpose of the enemy we face. Sooner or later, I’m hoping you will begin to get the picture. Stranger things have happened.

          • Drakken

            What is going to be understood, is that islam, no matter the stripe is our enemy and must be destroyed. Your going to see cities in the ME burn and purges od muslims from our western lands because Comrade Obummer didn’t understand the balance of power and drove us head first into a ww3 scenario, and yes the Russians will be with the west because they have their own muslim problem.

          • Texas Patriot

            I don’t see any need to destroy cities in the middle east or unnecessarily harm any human being, and there is always hope that non-extremist Muslims will abandon the ideology of conquest and submission that has driven Islam from the beginning. But enough is enough. The West has made an enormous strategic blunder in permitting and pandering to the invading forces of Islam in our lands. They have interpreted our friendliness and openness as a sign of weakness, and the results have been disastrous across the board. We need a policy of zero tolerance for Islamic terrorism and policy of relentless defensive conquest whenever it occurs. Every time a Muslim attacks a non-Muslim, there needs to be an immediate and aggressive response involving forfeiture of citizenship and expulsion of everyone proximately involved. It’s been a forty year steamroller of Islamic invasion in the West. We need to turn that around and start rolling it back the other way.

          • truebearing

            “We need a policy of zero tolerance for Islamic terrorism and policy of relentless defensive conquest whenever it occurs.”

            So, you’re for invading Muslim nations and occupying them, yet you criticize others you suspect of being neo-cons. Nice job of contradicting yourself with yet more incoherent “strategy.”

          • Texas Patriot

            TB: “So, you’re for invading Muslim nations and occupying them, yet you criticize others you suspect of being neo-cons. Nice job of contradicting yourself with yet more incoherent “strategy.”

            Obviously you have no understanding of what I have been saying much less the idea of defensive conquest. But is that a surprise? No.

          • truebearing

            Maybe you should explain how you can conquer a country, take it over, and expel its people without troops. I’m all ears…and you are all space between the ears.

          • Texas Patriot

            Your reading comprehension problem is highlighted quite clearly by the fact that I have ever suggested the that defensive conquest requires the taking over an entire country or that it could be done without soldiers. I haven’t suggested either one of these things, and I never would. In fact, the doctrine of defensive conquest does not require anything beyond acting in accordance with the strategic necessity and legitimate means of the party attacked, and of course it cannot be carried out without soldiers, which is why it should always be regarded as a local remedy.

            Rather, defensive conquest is a specific defensive strategy to be used in response to relentless offensive attacks by neighboring parties who do not respect the right of the party attacked to live in peace. It is designed to be used judiciously and appropriately in order to prevent further acts of hostility and aggression by hostile neighbors through the means of making sure that the attacking parties understand very clearly that there will be serious consequences to their aggression. If, for example, Gazans attack Israel with rockets from an identifiable point in Gaza, Israel may wish to make a point that it will not tolerate such attacks by moving into the area where the rocket attacks originated, seizing the land and expelling all non-Israelis.

            Whether any land is seized, and how much, would always be a decision to be made by the party attacked. The remedy of seizure, forfeiture, and expulsion may not require very much land in a particular case or it may require no land in a particular case. There would never be any compulsion to do it, but it would always be available as an option to the party attacked. It would be a matter of judgment and discretion as to whether the acquisition and annexation of the forfeited territory would serve the overall strategic necessity of the party attacked. And of course the attacking party could always avoid the loss of lands by refraining from further attacks.

            The doctrine of defensive conquest, forfeiture and expulsion of aggressors may seem harsh, but sometimes there is no alternative in order to protect the lives of innocent civilians of nations that are attacked by their neighbors. Therefore, it seems absolutely clear that this remedy should always be available to any sovereign nation in order to prevent further attacks and ensure the peace and security of its citizens

          • BagLady

            I should think there will be a few more wars before we get to the battle of the Titans. If the UN and Brussels is anything to go by, we would have little to fear from a One World Government ever being organized as they killed each other over the few thrones available.

          • J.

            Probably so, a couple more coupe de tat here and there. But none the less a war is one of the tools used to bring in the NWO which is the goal here among the elite, as for their world government collapsing because of internal antagonism as I think they’re all one page where to bring in satan in the flesh….which will be there leader.

          • BagLady

            The avatar they will present as their leader will be yet another puppet for them to hide their shame-faces behind. Sadly Obama is such a leader; most assuredly being worked from behind. Big money is talking, nothing else.

          • J.

            Obama is just a tool to create crisis, The one who will pose as the messiah to help resolve the upcoming crises and restore “peace” will be the anti-christ.

          • defcon 4

            Not “big money”, but rather islam0fascist petrodollars.

        • Texas Patriot

          TB: “Your simplistic assessment that this is just a struggle between Shiites and Sunnis is breathtaking in its lack of depth or understanding.”

          Your failure to understand that Israel is caught in the middle in an age old religious war and tribal blood feud between the Shia and the Sunnis is what I find hard to believe.

          • truebearing

            Everyone knows about the sectarian battle within Islam. That you think your discovery of Muslim rivalry is some kind of brilliant insight speaks volumes about your singularly superficial intellect.

            What you apparently haven’t figured out is that both sects of Islam are enemies of Israel, and that the problem for Israel isn’t that they fight with each other, it is that they both want to destroy Israel. After all, they both adhere to the teachings of Islam.

            If anything, the internecine fighting between the Muslim sects helps Israel. If they were united, they’d have to hate and want to kill someone, and their first choice would be Israel.

          • Texas Patriot

            TB: “What you apparently haven’t figured out is that both sects of Islam are enemies of Israel, and that the problem for Israel isn’t that they fight with each other, it is that they both want to destroy Israel. After all, they both adhere to the teachings of Islam.”

            What you haven’t figured out is that both sects of Islam, in addition to being blood enemies of each other, are committed enemies of the entire world. If anything, Israel keeps the two sects from killing each other.

          • truebearing

            The war between Shiites and Sunnis is a blessing for Israel. If you weren’t so dense, you would see that. If that isn’t true, then why is Saudi Arabia willing to let Israel use its airspace to attack Iran?

          • Texas Patriot

            TB: “The war between Shiites and Sunnis is a blessing for Israel.”

            I tend to agree with that idea. But Israel needs more land, and her best hope of getting it is by defensive conquest and expulsion of her enemies in the event she is attacked. And between the Shia and the Sunnis, getting attacked shouldn’t be a problem. When they’re not busy hating and killing each other, they hate and want to destroy Israel.

          • defcon 4

            Has it been confirmed that Saudi Barbaria made this offer? Because I believe it’s been officially denied — as has been any contact between Israel and their holey islam0fascist kingdom.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Right, because that’s all there is to it. The islamopithecines will stop trying to destroy Israel once their sectarian squabble is finished. They don’t actually want to murder Jews. They are simply collateral damage when they try to kill each other.

          • Texas Patriot

            Who says the Shia-Sunni conflict will ever be finished. It’s a Muslim blood feud that has been going on for almost 1400 years, and it’s not likely to end any time soon. What needs to change is the perception in the West that Israel is somehow causing the violence in the middle east. The violence between Shia and Sunni is here to stay whether Israel exists or not. If anything, Israel is a force for peace in the middle east by getting between the two warring factions and keeping them from killing each other.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Sunni Shlte conflicts are only one aspect of Islamic violence. Those animals are at war with the entire world, and they have been for 1400 years. They even hate and murder themselves, regardless of sect.

            Israel is only sixty five years old, and the Israelis have no place else to go.

            America needs to maintain its military forces all around the world. That doesn’t mean forcibly occupying hostile countries but it does mean maintaining a presence close enough by to be effective when necessary. The Navy especially needs to be built back up.

          • defcon 4

            There are three “authentic” hadith that call for the extermination of Jews. Arabic islamic armies have invaded Israel on three different occasions w/genocidal intent (as related by their leaders).

        • Drakken

          With Comrade Obummer and his clueless feckless minions, they have set a course to war that is now inevitable and unavoidable, hold on, this is going to be a very rough ride.

  • Rocky Mountain

    Twenty years ago as my mother was about two days away from passing on to a better world The Oslo Accords were signed and when she learned about it, I think it left her feeling that at the time of her passing the world was improving. Thank God she doesn’t have to be living through the madness that is the contemporary geopolitical world.

    • BagLady

      Amen

      • defcon 4

        Sure you didn’t mean to write allah ackbar?

      • ziggy zoggy

        Stupid troll.

  • The March Hare

    Some years ago, then president of France Sarkozy lamented that France no longer led the world in diplomatic affairs and power and vowed to return France to the stage as a major player. They are achieving their goal.

    • BagLady

      Ah yes, we remember Mr ‘Zarkozy’s part in the farce. At least he was humorous as le petit Napoleon. What part is M Hollande playing? Hopefully not the lead. The play will surely flop as the audience leaves the theatre in droves due to abject boredom.

      • The March Hare

        HA!

      • ziggy zoggy

        You’re boring me.

  • george mack

    France has traditionally not been keen on Les Anglo-Saxons, and these days that coincides with common sense. But CANADA under Mr. Harper may well have a better claim to be the country that may lead us along a principled way ahead. http://rossrightangle.wordpress.com/2013/11/20/correct-canada-abhor-obamerons-syrian-jihadist-gangster-allies/

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Assuming Harper can stick around

    • defcon 4

      Harper hasn’t done anything about the Montreal muslime police officer who strong-armed a rabbi into dis-inviting Pamela Geller to speak at his synagogue. As a matter of fact, no one in Canada has even tried to do anything. Nor has Harper stood up for Ezra Levant, who is currently being persecuted in civil court for criticising the religion of peace.

  • PaulD

    Excellent analysis of how Obama has not only destroyed American foreign policy, but also paved the way for world chaos. With these great insights, Daniel, you will earn the Left’s scorn for thinking, labeling you as mean-spirited, racist, a warmonger, and anti-peace. Wear the badge with pride.

  • BagLady

    “…And so the French, in their new capacity as leaders of the free world…”

    Am I catching you right? Hollande, leader of the ‘free’ world? Clutching at straws there M Greenfield. He’s very unpopular at home and ignored by the top boys in Brussels. He is seeking a bit of ‘me time’ abroad. He is strutting his stuff but can no doubt be swayed.

    Ah such swift and passing power! Like a party popper of the amyl nitrate genre. Let’s ask the Toronto Mayor and the British Banker/Baptist Minister, Pastor Flower how such power feels.

    In my opinion M Holland will ‘go down’ in history. Nothing more.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      It certainly is pathetic that it has come down to that.

      • logdon

        She’s right though. Putin is the man to watch.

        On a lighter note our ex Co-op Banker has now earned the soubriquet of the Crystal Methodist.

        Here’s the story.

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2509588/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Lets-hear-Crystal-Methodist-Why-tonight-Flowers-portrayed-hapless-victim-evil-newspaper.html

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Putin’s power depends on moving money around Russia’s energy industry. If Fracking really takes off in America, he’s finished. Ironically that gives him a lot in common with Greenpeace.

          • Sifter

            Obama will finally bare his teeth and claws in the Middle East against…. Israel. You watch and see. He hates Israel so much, he will gather some small, but vocal American Jewish (!) support for his atrocity against Israel… all in the name of peace. You read it here first.

          • logdon

            However to get back to the premise, Hollande judging by his dire strait poll figures is toast.

            The French have an almost romantic affiliation with socialism until it bites them in the backside.

        • defcon 4

          I trust Putin more than our wannabe caliph-in-chief in the presidential palace (because the US public is no longer allowed access to the W.H.).

    • gawxxx

      foolish words from a foolish girl ! go back to your street grid and leave important life changing decisions to those who truly want to help ! , the best thing that could happen to the middle east ( minus Israel ) is what the French are trying to avoid ( a parking lot ! )

    • ziggy zoggy

      Relax. Don’t do it, Frankie. Go down on blumpkin time.

  • Cris

    In my opinion Obama is a disguised Muslim.

    • defcon 4

      I’d be inclined to believe the same thing — if it weren’t for the zero’s support of LGBT rights.

  • Texas Patriot

    You nailed it, Daniel. Tragically, hysterically, and dead on.

  • Wolfthatknowsall

    It is a fact that Barack Obama and John Kerry have made America irrelevant, in the modern world. America’s power is still relevant, especially, its military power. But of what use is that power if those who have access to it fear its use? What use is that power if those who have access to it are too incompetent to use it wisely? What use is that power if those with access to it hate the very nature of such power?

    Picture a lion, without teeth and claws. Still strong and intimidating, on the surface. But the other lions see their opportunity to take over the pride …

  • MukeNecca

    test

  • Brad_Brzezinski

    I don’t think Israel wants a deal (para. 6), at least not in the current context. With Palestinian leadership split between Hamas and the P.A., both outside their election terms and the entire region in a state of turmoil, any deal would be meaningless.

    Whatever the real intentions of Abbas, expecting him to come to terms with Israel is also unreasonable in the current climate. If the Obama Administration has a hidden agenda, it is probably to use the failure of talks to push Israel over the “pariah cliff.” Much as their actions support such thoughts, it is far more likely that whatever intelligence they possess is being used only to rationalize their crass, unthinking stupidity, ala the Obamacare embrassglio.

  • Mladen_Andrijasevic

    Let’s be realistic. Who is really going to attack the Iranian nuclear sites – the US, France or Israel? Well, it is obvious that ony Isarel does not have a choice and must do it.

    On May 7, 1940 Leo Amery spoke in the Commons, attacking Neville Chamberlain’s government, quoting Oliver Cromwell: “You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”

    On May 10, 1940, Winston Churchill became Prime Minister.

    There is nobody to play Leo Amery’s role today. But it is clear that Netanyahu is destined to play Churchill’s role and become the leader of the Free World

    Standing Alone – Churchill 1940 – Netanyahu 2013
    http://madisdead.blogspot.co.il/search?q=standing+alone

    • Texas Patriot

      There’s a real question as to whether Israel has the necessary firepower to pull it off. France, on the other hand, could probably do it.

      • Mladen_Andrijasevic

        You do not seem to understand that the Israeli Air Force has 396 fighter aircraft compared to 234 fighter combat aircraft that France
        has and 240 fighter aircraft of the RAF. Actually only the USA, Russia and China have more fighter aircraft than the IAF
        http://military-navy-army-airforce.blogspot.co.il/2012/10/top-10-largest-air-force-in-world.html

        • defcon 4

          Doesn’t France have an aircraft carrier though (maybe even more than one)?

          • Mladen_Andrijasevic

            France has one aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle (R91) with 28 – 40 aircraft, 32 Rafale and 25 Super Étendard in the Navy altogether, but it is still less compared to Israel’s 396.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Naval_Aviation

          • defcon 4

            An aircraft carrier gives you a lot of flexibility as to when and where you can strike.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Unfortunately, they’re also big floating targets for a modern Navy. Fortunately, Iran doesn’t have a modern Navy.

          • defcon 4

            Exactly.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            True, but Israel doesn’t need that kind of expeditionary flexibility. And they’re relatively easy to target. Sure it’d come in handy but they’re much better off working with others, especially since most of their limits are related to political pressures.

          • defcon 4

            “relatively easy to target” by whom? Argentina didn’t manage to hit the English carrier in the Falklands and their lack of air cover ended their bid to conquer the Falklands. I think France’s navy is more than a match for Iran’s.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “”relatively easy to target” by whom?”

            Suicide jihadis in boat swarms. That’s who Israel has to worry about.

          • defcon 4

            Strangely enough, modern naval vessels seem a lot more vulnerable to such attacks than they were in WW2, when ships were bristling w/small caliber, rapid fire cannon and machine guns.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I think France’s navy is more than a match for Iran’s.”

            It depends on the respective objectives of each force. Iran simply wants to maintain a bulletproof fortress to spread global jihad through proxy fights. They don’t need to dominate the Mediterranean, or do what other nations seek to do to maintain peace and order. Their objectives are different. Iran can also sustain a lot more damage before paying any political costs in a war. Anarchists always have that advantage and as far as respecting Western values and norms, they’re anarchists with a death wish. Blow up one French carrier, and, well…

            So in a traditional sense you’re probably right, especially these days (in a conventional war to control a certain territory). But Iran can protect itself from most threats fairly well when everything is considered. They must not be allowed to manufacture, possess or control any nuclear weapons.

          • MukeNecca

            According to Wikipedia France has eight aircraft carriers – one in service and seven decommissioned.

        • Texas Patriot

          Delivery systems are one thing, but if you don’t have the firepower, how are you going to destroy deeply buried nuclear weapons facilities. If Israel has one or more nuclear weapons available for the job, that would probably work. If not, it could easily take hundreds if not thousands of the conventional so-called bunker-buster bombs, and even that may be insufficient to destroy the deeply buried facilities.

          • Mladen_Andrijasevic

            It seems Israel has its own bunker buster bomb http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1808367/pg1

            According to the Sunday Times of London:
            Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium
            enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.

            Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources…

            http://opiniojuris.org/2007/01/07/the-london-times-reports-on-alleged-israeli-nuke-strike-plans-against-iran/

          • Texas Patriot

            That sounds like a winner.

          • Flowerknife_us

            A virus.
            or
            plugging the ventilation system
            or
            Glue the doors shut
            or
            All Three at once.

            Everything becomes worthless, dead, and self contained.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It would be shocking to learn that the Israelis don’t have a specific bomb or missile to for just this mission. It would be shocking if anyone but the USA had superior hardware for the specific task not to mention tactics and training.

          • Texas Patriot

            Perhaps. But it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that Israel does not have nuclear weapons of any kind, much less the kind of tactical nuclear weapons that would be ideal for the mission of destroying deeply buried nuclear weapons facilities.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It’s not nukes that are needed. Nukes are the “big hammer” for when you can’t get close enough. There are other ways to reach deep. Nukes are a last resort. I can’t see anyone using them for a preemptive strike when precision is crucial to minimize political backlash.

            Israel primarily needs political cover and a little help here and there helps them build a kind of coalition that is better politically than doing it entirely alone.

          • Texas Patriot

            After forty years of heinous terrorist attacks against innocent civilians, I really don’t think the West needs to be worried about “political backlash” much any more. With the Boston Marathon Massacre, the Mali Mall Massacre, and the London Assassination of Lee Rigby, we now know what we’re up against and how critical it is to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. If there is any doubt that conventional weapons would be sufficient to destroy the deeply buried Iranian nuclear weapons facilities, we shouldn’t hesitate to use whatever weapons are necessary to make sure the job is done on the first try, and that includes the possibility of nuclear weapons.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            We should not worry because the accusations started long before any legitimate claims existed.

            But Israel has the OIC and OPEC attacking it constantly and anything that can be used against them will be.

            Israel does not want to be the first since WWII and only nation other than the USA to use nukes in any case.

            I think any info leaked to the contrary is probably just to scare Iran. Or it might be considered a last resort. We’ll see.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        France has better political cover than Israel. That’s about it. France helping Israel might improve chances but mainly it’s about politics, not military capability.

  • Cris

    Obama has not done anything good to help the US. Everything that he does is designed to make the US look weaker. Obama screws up American foreign policies and traditions, has promoted his Arab Spring and the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East, betrayed Poland and Egypt´s Mubarak, disappointed Canada regarding the Keystone pipeline, and so on and so forth.
    In the US, the situation could not be worse. So many scandals. Fast and Furious, Associated Press, NSA, IRS, Benghazi, Obamacare… Also he has increased taxes. Americans are becoming poor and unemployment is very high. Obamacare still exists ONLY because the administration can create a new tax – in short, this has been the message that has come from the Supreme Court.
    Obama doesn´t want to resign. If he could, he would stay in power for fifty years, exactly as Fidel Castro, Cuba´s Socialist president. Obama supports killing Americans by means of abortion and the list goes on and on.
    Likewise, Obama wants everybody to believe he´s never guilty. He says he didn´t know. He´s a very bad public manager, who nominates incompetent people and also promotes them, such as Susan Rice.
    Obama has promised “hope and change.” What a shame! He´s a false Messiah. Americans have seen change, and they don´t like it.
    How come Congressmen never talk about impeaching him?

    • objectivefactsmatter

      0’Bama transformation is “helpful” just like helping a tall man by cutting off his legs at the ankles. Take him down a notch and he’ll be more popular or acceptable or something like that.

    • Omar

      Don’t call Fidel Castro (nor Raul Castro) a “president”. He was a dictator of Cuba. Remember, the Castro brothers are not elected, nor do they ever intend on holding elections because they would lose by a landslide.

  • marvin nubwaxer

    look at it like this: the president i would agree has bungled his way into refraining from military action in syria and a large majority of americans support that policy. the less he does there the better as leaves the people there to settle their own disputes. i’ll give putin nobel prize level credit for getting chemical weapons removed from the equation.
    then in iran he’s very busy after he and rouhani talked to each other. we have busy diplomatic negotians going on in public and most likely in proivate as well.
    the first sentence of this propaganda soley to bash the president is a complete fake, phoney, fraudulent fallacy of the writers imagination.

    • Drakken

      You haven’t been paying attention to what has been happening in the world since your hero Obummer has taken office have you? Yeah and praise Comrade Obummer, his idiocy, ignorance, stupidity or by design bungling has made the world a much more unbalanced place and now thanks to his minions complete ignorance on how the real world works, has now made war inevitable.

    • ziggy zoggy

      So what exactly has Obama managed to do right in that part of the world? Greenfield understated Obama’s failure and his deliberate actions to strengthen Islam and weaken America and its allies.

  • fish

    Random idiot on the internet:

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_bibl.htm

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/islfem.htm

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_qura.htm

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_hadiq.htm

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/maller17.htm (how did they manage to forget the theme of exile and return? Israel is not mentioned anywhere on this page, nor the fact that Jew = person from Judea. No mention of the temple)

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_desc.htm

    The Zionist movement was a response within all Jewish traditions to centuries of Christian persecution. Their initial goal was create a Jewish homeland in Palestine. —- Nothing even remotely biblical about Zionism. Prophecy anyone?

    • defcon 4

      What about the centuries of islamic persecution? Or do you think the Jews of Yemen, Morocco, Syria, Iraq, Iran were always treated as equals to their islam0fascist overlords?

  • Texas Patriot

    Exactly.

  • Texas Patriot

    TB: “Look at the way the Israel is demonized for “oppressing” the Palestinians. Israelis are accused of stealing a country that didn’t exist. Imagine what would happen if they had conquered Lebanon and made it their own. When Israel has won wars and appropriated territory in the past, the world demanded it be returned…for peace that never came. What would possess anyone to believe that Israel could make defensive conquest its policy without massive opposition from Muslims, the UN, Europe, and now Obama? In case those in support of that simplistic solution haven’t noticed, Israel is treated differently than other nations when they defend themselves.”

    You’re thinking is about 40 years out of date. There are very few people anywhere who now think of the so-called Palestinians as being “oppressed”. It’s been forty years since the Israeli athletes were massacred at the Munich Olympics, and all we have seen is a non-stop series of atrocities against innocent civilians from these so-called oppressed Palestinians. We’ve seen the suicide-bomber outfits they give their children for holiday presents, and we’ve seen how these children grow up, the attack on the Mali Mall being only the latest grisly example.

    What is also clear today that never was before is that Israel sits at the epicenter of an age-old blood feud between different sects of Muslims that does not appear to be subsiding in the slightest way. Instead of being the catalyst of war in the region, if anything Israel should be thought of as a distraction to keep the perpetually warring Shia from killing the perpetually warring Sunni.

    At this point, most people probably assume that Israel will be consumed by these two warring factions, either by military conquest or by demographic conquest within Israel itself. Defensive conquest and expulsion of hostile elements within Israel’s borders as well as outside of Israel’s borders is very likely the only chance of survival that Israel has.

  • Texas Patriot

    You’re the one who needs to try it.

  • Texas Patriot

    Just keep on connecting the dots. Sooner or later you will begin to understand.

  • Texas Patriot

    For your sake, I will keep on making the argument that our strategy in the middle east for the past forty years has been fundamentally flawed, because we did not understand the nature of the enemy we face. Sooner or later, I’m hoping you will begin to get the picture. Stranger things have happened.

  • Texas Patriot

    We are breaking it day by day. With the new technologies of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing of previously unproductive shale formations, it is now clear that the West has more than enough oil to survive without OPEC oil. In North America alone there is more than enough oil and gas for several centuries. It has now been determined that even Israel has huge offshore natural gas fields and undeveloped oil shale deposits rivaling even Saudi Arabia. In 1973 it was possible for OPEC to talk about boycotting the West for its policies against Israel. It will soon be possible for the West to talk about boycotting OPEC oil for its policies of perpetual war against Israel.

  • Texas Patriot

    TB: “You babble about how Israel should have a policy of “defensive conquest and expulsion,” — which sounds a lot like ethnic cleansing — but you don’t want the US to do the same, apparently. Why shouldn’t the US conquer, occupy, and expel the enemies living in the conquered territory? Or are you suggesting one policy for Israel that you would oppose in the US? If so, why?”

    It sounds as if you have bought into the rhetoric that Islamic aggression is somehow exempt from effective reprisal. Here’s a hint. It’s not. Those who attack the lives and property of others should expect to forfeit their own lives and property.

  • Texas Patriot

    TB: “What you apparently haven’t figured out is that both sects of Islam are enemies of Israel, and that the problem for Israel isn’t that they fight with each other, it is that they both want to destroy Israel. After all, they both adhere to the teachings of Islam.”

    What you haven’t figured out is that both sects of Islam, in addition to being blood enemies of each other, are committed enemies of the entire world. If anything, Israel keeps the two sects from killing each other.

  • Texas Patriot

    And for my part, I’m not commenting so much on your lack of wisdom, which needs no further comment, but rather your almost complete failure to appreciate the changing dynamics of world opinion regarding the global phenomenon of Islamic jihad that is now sweeping the world like a prairie fire.

  • Texas Patriot

    TB: “”or someone else will do it” Brilliant analysis. Way to pin it down. Who would that be?

    Your need for certainty and control over matters beyond any possibility of certainty and beyond any possibility of control never ceases to amaze me. At this point in time, the blinders are coming off, and entire world is waking up to the very real threat posed by the Islamic doctrine of global conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims. Under these circumstances, leaving any possibility that nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of the Islamic Revolutionary Party of Iran should not be regarded as a rational option by any civilized nation. Somebody will make sure that doesn’t happen, and it doesn’t really matter who does it.

  • Texas Patriot

    If you’re not Rush Limbaugh, you’ve certainly managing a good imitation of him. The only problem with that is that Rush Limbaugh can’t see clearly enough to tie his own shoelaces.

  • defcon 4

    You do realize that even though the US isn’t OPEC’s largest customer — practically all of Europe, China and SE Asia is right? After the ’73’ Yom Kippur War, OPEC punished the US for it’s support of Israel, by curtailing sales to the US, thus causing an energy crisis in the USA and gasoline rationing (because there wasn’t enough gasoline to go around).

  • Texas Patriot

    The balance of power between energy producer-nations and energy consumer-nations is changing, and the West is a long way from the energy dependence we suffered from in 1973. My point is not that OPEC is not a major player in world oil markets; of course it certainly is. But thanks to technological developments in 3D Seismic, ultra-deep ocean drilling, horizontal drilling, and hydraulic fracturing, OPEC is not the dominant player it once was. And in the not too distant future, it is not inconceivable that the West will be able to boycott oil coming in from belligerent OPEC nations, in the same way that OPEC once boycotted the United States. The overall point is that more than one can play at the game of using oil as a “political weapon”, as OPEC threatened to do, and did do, in 1973.

  • Drakken

    With Comrade Obummer and his clueless feckless minions, they have set a course to war that is now inevitable and unavoidable, hold on, this is going to be a very rough ride.

  • Drakken

    What is going to be understood, is that islam, no matter the stripe is our enemy and must be destroyed. Your going to see cities in the ME burn and purges od muslims from our western lands because Comrade Obummer didn’t understand the balance of power and drove us head first into a ww3 scenario, and yes the Russians will be with the west because they have their own muslim problem.

  • Drakken

    You haven’t been paying attention to what has been happening in the world since your hero Obummer has taken office have you? Yeah and praise Comrade Obummer, his idiocy, ignorance, stupidity or by design bungling has made the world a much more unbalanced place and now thanks to his minions complete ignorance on how the real world works, has now made war inevitable.

  • Texas Patriot

    The West has made an enormous strategic blunder in pandering to the invading forces of Islam. They have interpreted our friendliness and openness as a sign of weakness, and the results have been disastrous across the board. We need a policy of zero tolerance for Islamic terrorism and policy of relentless defensive conquest whenever it occurs. Every time a Muslim attacks a non-Muslim, there needs to be an immediate and aggressive response involving forfeiture of citizenship and expulsion of everyone remotely involved. It’s been a forty year steamroller of Islamic invasion in the West. We need to turn that around and start rolling it back the other way.

  • ziggy zoggy

    “Endlessly pouring American blood and treasure down a bottomless pit?” Do you work for “The New York Times?” Or maybe a comic book company?

    And in case you missed 911, the Islamic countries can’t be ignored for several centuries.

  • ziggy zoggy

    He thinks the circumstances always require burying our heads in the sand.

  • ziggy zoggy

    Send in the drones?

  • ziggy zoggy

    OPEC and the oil emirates don’t use oil as a political weapon. They use oil profits to fund jihad. America can’t contain that by cowering behind its open borders.

  • Texas Patriot

    No, but I recognize a comic book character when I see one, and I was wondering how long it would take you to show up and start chiming in with TB.

  • Texas Patriot

    Here’s a hint. Jihad is political.

  • ziggy zoggy

    Right, because that’s all there is to it. The islamopithecines will stop trying to destroy Israel once their sectarian squabble is finished. They don’t actually want to murder Jews. They are simply collateral damage when they try to kill each other.

  • ziggy zoggy

    Israel does not have the logistical ability to conquer and hold its neighboring countries. That is a ridiculous notion. The best it could do would be to clear a small buffer zone that would constantly be infiltrated and most likely attacked outright by Israel’s close friend, Barack Hussein Obama. In fact, Obama would probably attack military sights directly in Israel.

  • Texas Patriot

    Who says the Shia-Sunni conflict will ever be finished. It’s a Muslim blood feud that has been going on for almost 1400 years, and it’s not likely to end any time soon. What needs to change the perception in the West that Israel is somehow causing the violence in the middle east. The violence between Shia and Sunni is here to stay whether Israel exists or not. If anything, Israel is a force for peace in the middle east by getting between the two warring factions and keeping them from killing each other.

  • ziggy zoggy

    Pest,

    SkagLady is a complete fraud. And what aeronautics are you talking about? Taking a flying fuck? Stick a cork in it, Froggy.

  • ziggy zoggy

    Unfortunately, they’re also big floating targets for a modern Navy. Fortunately, Iran doesn’t have a modern Navy.

  • Texas Patriot

    You’re just being a worry-wart. israel will have to get tough or she won’t survive. Judicious and proportionate application of the doctrine of judicious conquest is the only chance Israel ever has for peace in the middle east. Either the attacks by her neighbors will eventually stop, or Israel will eventually end up reacquiring the entirety of the original Promised Land. As Israel’s lands increase, there will be new opportunities for immigration and settlement, and Jews will be attracted from all over the world to join in the much-needed Reconquista.

  • ziggy zoggy

    Actually, comic book characters tend to have more responsible policy suggestions for the Islamic world than to simply withdraw behind American borders and wait for the next attacks.

  • Texas Patriot

    That’s not what I’m suggesting. The entire civilized world needs to adopt an aggressive policy of defensive conquest and expulsion to all acts of Islamic aggression whenever and wherever they occur.

  • ziggy zoggy

    So is Islam. It is also expansionist and imperial. You wrote it yourself: the oil sheikhs can’t blackmail us with oil embargoes anymore. They can payroll jihad all around the world, though – and they do. They can’t be left to their own devices, and superficial strikes against them are impotent and counter productive.

    America should embargo THEM, but that isn’t going to happen with Barack Hussein Obama in office.

  • Texas Patriot

    Barack Obama’s presidency will eventually be regarded as the best thing that ever happened for purposes of waking up the West as to the nature and intent of Islamic jihad. If Muslims had wanted to make peace with the rest of the world, they would never get a better chance than with Barack Obama. Instead they threw his peace efforts on their behalf back in his face with the assassination of our diplomats and the worldwide chants of “Obama, Obama, We’re All Osama.” Now we know how things stand, and there is no longer any reason for supposing that there will be any kind of lasting peace between Muslims and non-Muslims anywhere in the world.

  • ziggy zoggy

    That’s why we can’t leave them on their own. Not that any American should be prevented from traveling to “their” part of the world because they claim they don’t want us there.

  • ziggy zoggy

    Where are we going to expel them to? There are a lot of them.

  • Texas Patriot

    Sure we can. If they don’t bother us, there is no need for us to bother them.

  • Texas Patriot

    They can go wherever they like. They immigrated into the West under the false pretenses of being a religion of peace and they have not been able to refrain from engaging against violence against non-Muslims. They are clearly not a religion of peace and unless they are able to renounce violent jihad altogether, it will be time for them to leave.

  • ziggy zoggy

    Israel doesn’t have the logistical ability and manpower necessary to do that. It could clear Judea and Samaria but clearing Gaza would be incredibly difficult even with a blockade, and no neighboring country could be held. It should kick Jordan off the banks of the Jordan river, though. Lebanon is major problem that couldn’t be blockaded.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    France has better political cover than Israel. That’s about it. France helping Israel might improve chances but mainly it’s about politics, not military capability.

  • ziggy zoggy

    So what exactly has Obama managed to do right in that part of the world? Greenfield understated Obama’s failure and his deliberate actions to strengthen Islam and weaken America and its allies.

  • Texas Patriot

    It doesn’t have to happen all at once, and the re-conquered territories can be acquired and gradually assimilated, little by little, into the lands of greater Israel. Hopefully Israel’s neighbors will get the message, and the attacks will eventually cease. Otherwise they would continue to lose their lands and make room for more and more immigration into Israel.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    It would be shocking to learn that the Israelis don’t have a specific bomb or missile to for just this mission. It would be shocking if anyone but the USA had superior hardware for the specific task not to mention tactics and training.

  • Texas Patriot

    Perhaps. But it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that Israel does not have nuclear weapons of any kind, much less the kind of tactical nuclear weapons that would be ideal for the mission of destroying deeply buried nuclear weapons facilities.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    True, but Israel doesn’t need that kind of expeditionary flexibility. And they’re relatively easy to target. Sure it’d come in handy but they’re much better off working with others, especially since most of their limits are related to political pressures.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    It’s not nukes that are needed. Nukes are the “big hammer” for when you can’t get close enough. There are other ways to reach deep. Nukes are a last resort. I can’t see anyone using them for a preemptive strike when precision is crucial to minimize political backlash.

    Israel primarily needs political cover and a little help here and there helps them build a kind of coalition that is better politically than doing it entirely alone.

  • Texas Patriot

    After forty years of heinous terrorist attacks against innocent civilians, I really don’t think the West needs to be worried about “political backlash” much any more. With the Boston Marathon Massacre, the Mali Mall Massacre, and the London Assassination of Lee Rigby, we now know what we’re up against and how critical it is. If there is any doubt that conventional weapons would be insufficient to destroy the deeply buried Iranian nuclear weapons facilities, we shouldn’t hesitate to use whatever weapons are necessary to make sure the job is done on the first try, and that includes the possibility of nuclear weapons.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    We should not worry because the accusations started long before any legitimate claims existed.

    But Israel has the OIC and OPEC attacking it constantly and anything that can be used against them will be.

    Israel does not want to be the first since WWII and only nation other than the USA to use nukes in any case.

    I think any info leaked to the contrary is probably just to scare Iran. Or it might be considered a last resort. We’ll see.

  • defcon 4

    There are three “authentic” hadith that call for the extermination of Jews. Arabic islamic armies have invaded Israel on three different occasions w/genocidal intent (as related by their leaders).

  • defcon 4

    Exactly.

  • defcon 4

    “relatively easy to target” by whom? Argentina didn’t manage to hit the English carrier in the Falklands and their lack of air cover ended their bid to conquer the Falklands. I think France’s navy is more than a match for Iran’s.

  • ziggy zoggy

    Go wherever they like? I don’t think so. Where will they relocate to?

  • ziggy zoggy

    That is naïveté at best. Bothering people is what they do.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “”relatively easy to target” by whom?”

    Suicide jihadis in boat swarms. That’s who Israel has to worry about.

  • ziggy zoggy

    Israel doesn’t have a population large enough to do that, and attempting to assimilate the conquered lands would be demographic suicide.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “I think France’s navy is more than a match for Iran’s.”

    It depends on the respective objectives of each force. Iran simply wants to maintain a bulletproof fortress to spread global jihad through proxy fights. They don’t need to dominate the Mediterranean, or do what other nations seek to do to maintain peace and order. Their objectives are different. Iran can also sustain a lot more damage before paying any political costs in a war. Anarchists always have that advantage and as far as respecting Western values and norms, they’re anarchists with a death wish. Blow up one French carrier, and, well…

    So in a traditional sense you’re probably right, especially these days (in a conventional war to control a certain territory). But Iran can protect itself from most threats fairly well when everything is considered. They must not be allowed to manufacture, possess or control any nuclear weapons.

  • Texas Patriot

    Most of the planet remains unoccupied. And there are Muslim-majority nations throughout the middle east, Africa, and Polynesia. If they can’t conquer and subjugate one place, they’ll try another. They’re not stupid.

  • Texas Patriot

    They need to learn not to do that.

  • Texas Patriot

    Actually it wouldn’t. Perhaps you don’t understand the meaning of the word expulsion.

  • truebearing

    “We need a policy of zero tolerance for Islamic terrorism and policy of relentless defensive conquest whenever it occurs.”

    So, you’re for invading Muslim nations and occupying them, yet you criticize others you suspect of being neo-cons. Nice job of contradicting yourself with yet more incoherent “strategy.”

  • truebearing

    How did you possibly derive that nonsense from my criticism of your ridiculous strategy? I think we should have hit Iran hard, a long time ago. That shows how far off you are, yet again.

  • Texas Patriot

    TB: “So, you’re for invading Muslim nations and occupying them, yet you criticize others you suspect of being neo-cons. Nice job of contradicting yourself with yet more incoherent “strategy.”

    Obviously you have no understanding of the idea of defensive conquest. But is that a surprise? No.

  • Texas Patriot

    It does not surprise me in the least that you have no idea what I’m talking about.

  • truebearing

    I’m not saying Israel should play nice, but Texas Patriot’s “solutions” are so childishly naive that it is ridiculous. Imagine a nation of 6 million people trying to control conquered Muslim territories. It would be a non-stop battle. If Israel tried TP’s idiotic expulsion plan, the entire world would side with the Muslims and Israel would get hit with economic sanctions, etc. until they gave back the lands conquered. Like I said before, Israel isn’t treated the same way other nations are. Even when they are simply defending themselves they are accused of oppressing the worthless Muslims who started the fight.

    Israel’s biggest problem is a weak and decadent West. If the United States and Europe would back Israel in a meaningful, unapologetic way, the Muslims would lay down by their dish. As things are, however, Israel is surrounded by vastly superior numbers, with an international community that is neutral at best, and frequently hostile to Israel. A policy of defensive conquest, especially with ethnic cleansing, would be disastrous.

  • truebearing

    The version of defensive conquest you are describing is idiocy. It plays into the hands of those who hate Israel and want it destroyed. Those people who hate Israel include the president of the United States. The international Left opposes Israel at every opportunity. The UN is predominantly anti-Israel. You don’t know what you’re babbling about.

    Since you clearly are too stupid to understand the current situation, let me remind you that our president and Secretary of State are in a mad rush to eliminate sanctions on Iran and give them free rein in developing nukes. Iran is just looking for justification to lead a genocidal jihad against israel. Taking over Muslim nations and expelling the citizens of those nations would bring war on Israel from every direction. Your vacuous pronouncements are the prattle of a fool.

  • Texas Patriot

    You’ll be glad to know that Ziggy Zoggy has joined the conversation. Fortunately, he makes a lot more sense than you do. If you’re not Rush Limbaugh, you’re obviously an individual who has spent many years imitating his style. Congratulations. Unfortunately, he can’t see clearly enough to tie his own shoelaces, much less to solve the problems of the world.

  • truebearing

    You are a blithering, delusional simpleton. Your utopian drivel sounds like some kind of demented fairy tale.

    You suggest israel conquer all enemies and occupy their countries, yet you want the US to be isolationist. You hate what you call “neo-cons,” even using that term as a pejorative toward David Horowitz during the Diana West flap, yet you heartily endorse a foreign policy strategy for Israel that you would call neo-conservative if the US did the exact same thing.

    Your ridiculous theories make sense only if this is your ill-conceived attempt to convince people that the US should stay out of all foreign conflicts, regardless of the merits, or how close an ally is to us. In effect, your desire that the US become isolationist, leaving allies to fend for themselves, while encouraging Israel to conquer and ethnically cleanse Muslim neighbors, is a prescription for Israel’s destruction. Considering the number of times I’ve seen you attack neo-cons, and given the fact that “neo-con” is pejorative code for Jews with you Paulists, it seems entirely possible that you are encouraging Israel to engage in an idiotic and self-destructive foreign policy. Fortunately, they are far too smart to listen to the likes of you.

    The more you opine, the more convinced I am that you are completely unhinged.

  • Texas Patriot

    You obviously have a reading comprehension problem.

  • defcon 4

    The entire Western world hasn’t already sided w/the islam0nazis? It seems to me corrupt, amoral Western leaders pay lip service to supporting Israel, but don’t actually do anything.

  • truebearing

    Deluded as you clearly are, you think you are smarter than Rush Limbaugh. Thanks for providing confirmation of my theory that you are completely delusional.

  • truebearing

    Then you support the US attacking Iran and destroying its nuclear capacity, by any means possible, right?

  • Texas Patriot

    Are you saying that you don’t think you are smarter than Rush Limbaugh?

  • defcon 4

    It’s probably referring to the aeronautical study of flying carpets and flying horses — very popular scientific studies in the islamic world — along with the pharmaceutical benefits of camel urine.

  • truebearing

    Global jihad needs to be confronted and faught globally. You agree then that the United States should attack Muslims all over the world, possess their nations, and expel them from their own countries, right?

  • truebearing

    You didn’t answer my question. Aren’t neo-cons just like Barry Goldwater too?

  • defcon 4

    Strangely enough, modern naval vessels seem a lot more vulnerable to such attacks than they were in WW2, when ships were bristling w/small caliber, rapid fire cannon and machine guns.

  • Texas Patriot

    TB: “Then you support the US attacking Iran and destroying its nuclear capacity, by any means possible, right?”

    If need be, yes. Absolutely. But I’m sorry to disappoint you. There will be no need for a massive invasion and land war sacrificing thousands of American soldiers and trillions of dollars of the American taxpayer’s money. The necessary operation can be accomplished in a single surgical strike using whatever explosive force is necessary to reach Iran’s deeply buried nuclear weapons facilities. `

  • Texas Patriot

    No.

  • truebearing

    No, he understands it perfectly well. You are the one who babbles incoherently, not understanding the consequences of the idiotic things you advocate.

    Winning a war doesn’t mean the defeated people automatically forfeit their land, DUH. And expelling them is ethnic cleansing and the UN, plus 1.5 billion Muslims, would be all over Israel if it was attempted. Or did you think that “expulsion” happens spontaneously?

  • Texas Patriot

    You have no clue what are talking about, and you obviously have no idea how to win the struggle against global Islamic jihad now sweeping the world. Here’s a hint. The strategy of sending massive land armies around the world at great loss of American blood and treasure does not work.

  • truebearing

    No, I don’t. I’ll admit that reading your drivel and trying to make sense out of it can be challenging, but the problem isn’t with my comprehension, it is with your dementia.

  • Texas Patriot

    TB: “DUH”

    I’d say that summarizes quite well your ability to discover new and more effective ways of dealing with the enemies we face. Unfortunately, the tactics of wasting massive amounts of American blood and treasure on hopeless invasions and land wars haven’t worked anywhere they have been tried, and instead have bankrupted the country. Defensive conquest is legitimate and effective, and if someone would rather not forfeit and be expelled from their land, all they have to do is refrain from attacking their neighbors.

  • truebearing

    As usual, you make the same moronic and unsupported assumptions about what I think should be done. Where did I say I wanted troops on the ground or trillions spent?

    Just to point out for the umpteenth time that you don’t know what you’re talking about, Iran’s nuclear facilities aren’t all in one place, so a “single surgical strike” is nonsense. Furthermore, Iran built its nuclear facilities very deep underground, so the idea that one surgical strike will automatically destroy anything is delusional, at best.

    Why don’t we just go over there and take over Iran, confiscate its oil, and kick all Iranians out….you know….like you want Israel to do to countries that attack them? We can sell the oil, and a lot of real estate to pay for our conquest. After all, Iran attacked us enough times. We have a perfect right. Why shouldn’t we employ defensive conquest?

  • Texas Patriot

    Congratulations. You are almost a perfect representation of everything that is wrong with American politics. Bravo.

  • truebearing

    Why not? The abhor nihilism and inhumanity, too.

  • truebearing

    Your answer is completely incoherent. You want Israel to conquer her attackers, annex their land, expel their citizens, but not use boots on the ground? How is Israel supposed to conquer and hold these lands with no “land wars?” How is “defensive conquest” accomplished if troops aren’t involved? And how exactly are people expelled if no one is there to expel them?

    Maybe it’s time for you to take a break and get yourself a nice, cool glass of Verbal Immodium.

  • Texas Patriot

    I hate to tell you, but you really do have a reading comprehension problem.

  • Texas Patriot

    Barry Goldwater didn’t favor wasting American blood and treasure.

  • Texas Patriot

    You’re losing it, big guy.

  • truebearing

    Now we can add paranoia to your list of attributes. Lest you forget, you have proposed this ridiculous theory before, and my answer will be the same. I am not, nor will I ever be Rush Limbaugh, and while I like Rush, I don’t listen to him except occasionally when he is on Fox. It’s not that I wouldn’t like listening to him. I just don’t have time. That being said, comparing me to Rush is a compliment. Does my similarity entitle me to as much money as he has, or at least a decent percentage?

    You remind me of the Paul fanatics and Obama supporters. Full of utopian zeal, paralogic, and infallible ideology.

  • Texas Patriot

    TB: “That being said, comparing me to Rush is a compliment.”

    Thank you for admitting that. I am not at all surprised.

  • truebearing

    That is my point. Israel is hamstrung by the decadent, weak, and in some cases, anti-semitic West. Now we have a president who is openly hostile to Israel, hence my disbelief that anyone would suggest Israel conquer and ethnically cleanse its neighbors.

    Don’t misunderstand. I would love to see Islam wiped off the map, but liking doesn’t make it so.

  • truebearing

    The war between Shiites and Sunnis is a blessing for Israel. If you weren’t so dense, you would see that. If that isn’t true, then why is Saudi Arabia willing to let Israel use its airspace to attack Iran?

  • Texas Patriot

    TB: “The war between Shiites and Sunnis is a blessing for Israel.”

    I tend to agree with that idea. But Israel needs more land, and her best hope of getting it is by defensive conquest and expulsion of her enemies in the event she is attacked. And between the Shia and the Sunnis, getting attacked shouldn’t be a problem. When they’re not busy hating and killing each other, they hate and want to destroy Israel.

  • truebearing

    Yet another resoundlingly inaccurate assessment of the crisis. Obama was the worst thing that ever happened to this country, or the world. Obama opened Pandora’s Box, and we won’t be able to prevent the world war once Iran, Saudi Arabia, et al. get their nukes.

    You are aware that Obama is going to be the president for three more years, right? That is plenty of time for Iran to acquire enough nukes and missiles to be a serious threat to their own region, and possibly farther. Who is going to stop them? Obama? He’s the one helping them get free of the sanctions.

  • truebearing

    Here is a fact: jihad is religious fanaticism that requires adherents to destroy all who aren’t Muslim.

  • truebearing

    Interesting analysis….myopic, yet ignorant of geopolitical reality.

    OPEC doesn’t need the United States like it once did. It has a bigger market in China, and China is on track to supplant us as the world’s biggest economy. Oh, and they use more oil than we do already. Then there is India, Europe, etc.

  • truebearing

    They’ll sell all the oil they want to China.

  • truebearing

    Texas?

  • truebearing

    Now TP has been bested in a debate by a comic book character. Why am I not surprised?

  • truebearing

    He is a Ron Paul fanatic, but won’t admit it. I recall debating the Paulists on the Daily Caller, and he was one of them… unless there are two Texas Patriots, which is a frightening thing to consider.

  • truebearing

    Maybe you should explain how you can conquer a country, take it over, and expel its people without troops. I’m all ears…and you are all space between the ears.

  • Texas Patriot

    Your reading comprehension problem has to do with the idea that I have ever suggested taking over an entire country. I haven’t suggested that, and I never would suggest that, and in fact, the doctrine of defensive conquest requires nothing of the kind. Rather it is a specific defensive remedy designed to prevent further aggression, and make sure that aggressors understand that there will be consequences to any aggression.

    If, for example, Gazans attack Israel with rockets from an identifiable point in Gaza, Israel may wish to make a point that it will not tolerate such attacks by moving into the area where the rocket attacks originated, seizing the land and expelling all non-Israelis. It may not be very much at all, and there would be no necessity or compulsion to do it. It would always be a matter of whether the acquisition and annexation of the forfeited territory would serve Israel’s overall strategic interests.

    The doctrine of forfeiture and expulsion of aggressors may seem harsh, but sometimes there is no alternative in order to protect the lives of innocent civilians. Therefore, it is clear that the use of the doctrine of defensive conquest should always be available to any sovereign nation to prevent further unprovoked attacks on their citizens.

  • defcon 4

    They have in the past. I’m pretty sure OPEC can still manipulate oil prices pretty easily, and while it might not affect the US much, it could and will affect countries like China, Japan and much of Europe/Eurabia.

  • defcon 4

    Has it been confirmed that Saudi Barbaria made this offer? Because I believe it’s been officially denied — as has been any contact between Israel and their holey islam0fascist kingdom.

  • defcon 4

    Israel hasn’t given back the Golan Heights to Syria has it? Syria used the Golan Ht.s to shell Israeli settlements, then attacked Israel, not once, but twice. Israel owes them nothing except a kick in the face.

  • defcon 4

    I wish Putin would stand with Israel. After all Russian Jews have made significant contributions to both the USSR and Russia. You would think he would have at least some sympathy for them.

  • Texas Patriot

    There may well be another Texas Patriot. As far as i know there could many. But no, I have never debated anything on the Daily Caller, and in fact I have never heard of it. And no, I am not a Ron Paul supporter, although I do concur with some of his ideas, particularly the need for fiscal responsibility and avoiding foreign land wars that are hugely expensive and cannot possibly be won in any meaningful sense. Rather, I’m a cradle Republican born and raised in the tradition of in the tradition of Barry Goldwater, George Patton, and Teddy Roosevelt. Roosevelt said, “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” Patton said, “I don’t want you to die for your country, instead I want you to help the other guy die for his country.” And Goldwater said, “The object of war is victory.” The truth is that I agree with all of those ideas.

  • ziggy zoggy

    And how will letting them ruin new places help anybody but them?

  • ziggy zoggy

    How are they going to learn that? Convert to Christianity or Buddhism? All 800 million of them? I don’t think you really want them to be dealt with.

  • ziggy zoggy

    Yeah, and Obama is such a simp he wouldn’t embargo them unless Americans got angry enough to openly denounce him and all of his policies. He wouldn’t allow fracking or drilling on public land either, or for refineries to be built.

  • ziggy zoggy

    So which of America’s enemies should be attacked, and how?

  • ziggy zoggy

    Israel couldn’t hold land it took from its neighboring countries, and all the people it had to govern there would be dedicated to destroying Israel demographically. Maybe this is what T.P. wants to happen.

  • ziggy zoggy

    The more Sunni and Shia are separated, the more time they will have for attacking everybody else.

  • Lanna

    Our leaders have taken America in a downward spiral, that’s probably their intention to make us like any other 3rd world country…no wonder other countries are becoming more powerful and taking the leadership position. Russia is another country, who’s leader is more popular than Obama.

  • Lanna

    Our leaders have taken America in a downward spiral, that’s probably their intention to make us like any other 3rd world country…no wonder other countries are becoming more powerful and taking the leadership position. Russia is another country, who’s leader is more popular than Obama.

  • Texas Patriot

    They immigrated into the West under the false pretenses of being a religion of peace. Now we know that is not the case. If they are unwilling to renounce the doctrines of Islamic jihad, conquest, and submission of non-Muslims, it will be time for them to leave.

  • Texas Patriot

    One way they will learn is through the doctrine of defensive conquest. If they “bother” other people (let’s say by suicide bombings, etc.), they could suffer the consequences of losing their lands and being expelled from them. It won’t happen overnight, but little by little they may get the idea that bothering other people is not a good idea.

  • Texas Patriot

    The only legitimate use of force is for self-defense. In the case of the Iranian nuclear weapons facilities, it is a matter of self-defense to prevent the Islamic Revolutionary Party of Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons by surgical strike that destroys those facilities in place. Otherwise, there is no need to attack anyone unless they threaten to attack you first.

  • Texas Patriot

    The doctrine of defensive conquest does not require the non-aggressor to seize and expel the aggressor from its own lands. But it does permit it in appropriate cases. The option of whether to seize and annex the lands of the aggressor is always an option of the non-aggressor which may be exercised or not according to the best interests of the non-aggressor.

  • Texas Patriot

    Hopefully the Shia and the Sunni will eventually think better of attacking anyone, and if their actions carry the swift and certain consequences of forfeiture of and expulsion from their lands, perhaps they will be less likely to continue their policies of perpetual Islamic jihad, conquest, and submission of non-Muslims. In any event, it is the right of those attacked to take appropriate measures to defend their neighbors and their citizens from violent attack, and the relentless exercise and implementation of the option of defensive conquest is the best way of insuring that.

  • defcon 4

    It’s interesting that Camus saw the Algerian revolt against France as “new Arab imperialism”. Because what is islam, but “Arab imperialism”?

  • TienBing

    Agreed.

  • Omar

    Don’t call Fidel Castro (nor Raul Castro) a “president”. He was a dictator of Cuba. Remember, the Castro brothers are not elected, nor do they ever intend on holding elections because they would lose by a landslide.

  • Max Modine

    Hillary “Reset Button to Benghazi” Clinton….Appropriate, but I prefer Hillary DB “Dodging Bullets” Clinton…..better illustrates her innate, lying nature. Max

  • Max Modine

    Hillary “Reset Button to Benghazi” Clinton….Appropriate, but I prefer Hillary DB “Dodging Bullets” Clinton…..better illustrates her innate, lying nature. Max

  • defcon 4

    For the US to embargo islam0fascist petrocracies wouldn’t make much of a difference to them, because the majority of US oil imports don’t come from islam0fascist states (most US oil imports used to come from Mexico). But most of the rest of the industrialized world is dependent on islam0fascist oil.

  • defcon 4

    I’d be inclined to believe the same thing — if it weren’t for the zero’s support of LGBT rights.

  • defcon 4

    Maybe where the liberal islam0fascist apologists and sympathizers live: Beverly Hills and NYC.

  • BagLady

    Deja vú: “Every time a Black attacks a White, there needs to be an immediately and aggressive response……..”

    What is this “relentless, defensive conquest” you and A-n-other speak of? Don’t sit well together, those words.

    • Texas Patriot

      The concept of relentless defensive conquest describes the appropriate response to relentless offensive attack.

  • BagLady

    What are you saying? First you empty Gaza — a practise run if you like — and then, using the same argument and the newfound expertise, you empty Iran. Do world leaders flock to your country to learn the tactics behind your “Relentless, Defensive Conquest strategy? Then what?

    • Texas Patriot

      I’m saying that after forty years of relentless terrorist attacks against innocent civilians in the West, enough is enough, and if the relentless offensive attacks by Islamic jihadists continue, the West should respond with a strategy of relentless defensive conquest, so that eventually the attacks will either cease altogether, or the jihadists will, bit by bit, lose all of their land. If the jihadists don’t want to lose any more of their land, all they have to do is stop their attacks.

      • defcon 4

        AUS had its first islam0nazi terrorist attack way back when WW1 was still going on. A bunch of Turkish islam0nazis began killing unarmed picnickers and anyone else they could conveniently kill.

    • defcon 4

      Gee, isn’t that exactly what your fellow musloids have been doing — all over the f’ing world, for the last 1000 years?

  • BagLady
    • defcon 4

      Perhaps you need an airtight head bag.

  • Texas Patriot

    I don’t think they would like it here. Texas has never been a friendly environment for Islamic jihad, and I don’t think that’s likely to change.

  • defcon 4

    Yeah let’s all just ignore the genocide and ethnic cleansing being carried out all over the world in the name of islam — because inaction is the moral thing to do.

    • Texas Patriot

      It’s too late to try to stop it offensively. We don’t have the money or the men. It’s gotten too large, and it’s growing too fast in too many places around the world.

      Relentless defensive conquest, confiscation, forfeiture, and expulsion is the only way to deal with the global phenomenon of offensive Islamic jihad which is now spreading like wildfire around the world. The bottom line is that each nation must defend itself first before it can think about defending anyone else.

      Sure, there can be areas of cooperation and joint action with other nations, particularly Russia, China, and India. But most nations will be lucky to be able to deal with the problem within their own borders.

  • JVR

    Daniel, if France is the leader of the free world, then may the gods help us all…

  • defcon 4

    I’m betting there will be islam0nazi terrorist attacks in the 21st century that will make 9-11 look like a schoolyard brawl.

  • Texas Patriot

    TB: “Now TP has been bested in a debate by a comic book character. Why am I not surprised?”

    Thanks for displaying once again your utterly “Limbaughesque” grasp of reality and preference for the non-sensical one-liner rather than substantive debate. For your information, misquoting and mischaracterizing someone else’s remarks is not winning a debate. Only Rush Limbaugh and his shrinking audience of neo-conservative dittoheads are clueless and gullible enough to think that.

  • defcon 4

    Who cares? It’s not like the muslimes care what happens to the najjis kaffir they’re busily slaughtering, persecuting and raping all over the islamic world. I don’t notice muslimes crying for the million Jews ethnically cleansed from the islam0nazi mid-East and N. Africa, nor for the Zoroastrians, Baha’i and Jews ethnically cleansed from Iran, nor the Christians being ethnically cleansed from the Mid-East and N. Africa now, nor for the Buddhists, Hindus and Sikhs being ethnically cleansed from Pakistain, Bangladesh and Afghanistan (although Afghanistan is already a done deal).