“China is Not Only Our Enemy, It is the Enemy of All Muslims”

chinawar

China considers running people over with tanks to be a good way of handling a protest rally and thinks that waterboarding is for bleeding heart liberals.

It has armed forces with personnel numbering in the millions and a shared border. Too bad the Koran has nothing to say about “biting off more than you can chew.”

Entrenched in secret mountain bases on Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan, Uighur fighters are gearing up for retribution against China to avenge the deaths of comrades in Beijing’s crackdown on a separatist movement, their leader told a foreign news agency.

A mass stabbing at a train station in the Chinese city of Kunming two weeks ago, in which at least 29 people were killed, has put a new spotlight on the largely Muslim Uighur ethnic minority from Xinjiang, where Beijing says armed groups seek to establish an independent state called East Turkestan.

Beijing has called the Kunming bloodshed a “terrorist attack” carried out by militants, and says separatists operate training camps across the rugged border which abuts Pakistan and Afghanistan.

In a rare but brief interview, Abdullah Mansour, leader of the rebel Turkestan Islamic Party, said it was his holy duty to fight the Chinese.

“The fight against China is our Islamic responsibility and we have to fulfill it,” he said from an undisclosed location.

“China is not only our enemy, but it is the enemy of all Muslims … We have plans for many attacks in China,” he said, speaking in the Uighur language through an interpreter.

“We have a message to China that East Turkestan people and other Muslims have woken up. They cannot suppress us and Islam any more. Muslims will take revenge.”

That’s pretty much all Muslims do. Take revenge, talk about taking revenge, celebrate the last time they took revenge, scream in outrage about the martyrdom of those who tried to take revenge and failed miserably.

  • Veracious_one

    test question…fill in the blank…

    “The fight against _______ is our Islamic responsibility and we have to fulfill it,”

    • darnellecheri

      “all you can eat buffets”

    • truebearing

      “common sense and sanity”

  • Texas Patriot

    You are correct that China will be of the three main planks in the global struggle to eradicate the scourge of Islamic jihad. The other two will be America and Russia. But you could not possibly be more mistaken than to think that terror and barbarism can only be defeated with greater terror and greater barbarism. If that’s what you think, go back to your own country and see if you can sell those ideas to your own countrymen. They are completely against the American ideals of individual and universal human rights, and I personally find them totally despicable. Terrorism and barbarism will fail because the majority of the world wants none of it, and for no other reason.

    • Anukem Jihadi

      As they’ve failed in the Middle East and the rest of the Muslim world? You’ve already decided that your ideas will be victorious in the market place of ideas so what’s left to do?
      Also an analysis of the situation is not an endorsement of “greater terror and greater barbarism” as you’re determined to suggest.

      Having conceded the struggle what you’re doing instead is making a standard pacifistic argument that could be applied to any situation.
      These ideas were entirely discredited for most people after WWII.
      You’re not a patriot, you’re a throwback.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      How’s the soft power working out?

      • Anukem Jihadi

        they’re thrilled

      • Texas Patriot

        Teddy Roosevelt was the first to formulate the idea. The way he put it was, “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” And it’s always worked wherever it’s been tried.

        • rbskillin

          You do realise that ”a big stick” was a metaphor for overwhelming military force, that he clearly was not opposed to using.

          • Texas Patriot

            Of course I do.

          • hiernonymous

            And what do you suppose the “speak softly” part of the aphorism meant?

          • truebearing

            How about not dancing in the end zone, bragging about killing Bin Laden and claiming you defeated Al Queda?

          • hiernonymous

            I don’t know that after-action bragging was what TR had in mind, but I think you could make a case that being subdued in one’s declarations of victory would fit in. Seems reasonable.

          • DVult

            It is the use of overwhelming military force rather than just it’s possession. I think he meant that the big stick should be used to bash enemies over the head. The speak softly part would preclude threatening with the big stick or the passing of messages by sailing by in an aircraft carrier.

      • hiernonymous

        The first invasion of Lebanon drove out the PLO – for a bit. In return, it got the permanent arrival on the scene of Hizballah, which makes the PLO look like an old lady’s knitting group.

        The second invasion of Lebanon, aimed at crushing Hizballah, exposed the degree to which Israel’s commitment of its armed forces to constant security operations had eroded its ability to fight a conventional battle. The IDF was sent packing, and its enemies were encouraged.

        Hard power hasn’t rid Israel of its enemies, but it has cost it the good will of its friends. I believe that the turning point in Israeli history was Sharon’s visit to the Dome of the Rock. He wanted to be PM; he knew what effect his visit would have; and, sure enough, days after his tour, the Palestinians had performed to his script, and his fellow countrymen called on him to save them from a situation that he’d cynically arranged. (Similarly, when Hamas won the PA elections, it did so in a massive protest vote against the corruption of Fatah – but Israel and the U.S. managed to make a bad situation much, much worse by cutting off PA funding and turning the vote into something it wasn’t.)

        Israel chose the path of hard power. How’s that working out?

        • Bryan

          Europe chose soft power to confront the evil Nazis in Germany. After a half dozen countries fell, it required hard power to get rid of it. The fact is that soft power only works if the opposition allows it.

          • hiernonymous

            That’s one way of looking at it. Another is that the Germans were engaging in their bit of collective insanity as a pretty direct result of the viciousness and vindictiveness of Versailles.

            I wonder how many people could, without resort to Google, discuss the French invasion of the Ruhr in 1923.

          • A Z

            What place(s) were you stationed in Deutschland?

          • hiernonymous

            Always Bavaria. I did time in Augsburg, then in a little town between Munich and Salzburg.

          • A Z

            I am not familiar with the area. I just have familiarity with the area to the west, Baden-Wurttemberg.

            In many respects it was no different than America just more crowded.

          • hiernonymous

            Bavaria is about as close to paradise on earth as you could ask. Baden-Wuerttemberg is nice, but it’s more crowded, greyer, and rainier, and the people aren’t as friendly.

            I was really lucky in that as a young man, I participated in the Nijmegen marches, and while training got to tramp around Augsburg on foot, 20-30 miles at a pop several times a week, and really got to know the countryside in a way you don’t from a car. Good times.

          • truebearing

            And what about the terms Germany imposed in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk? Or the terms Germany would have imposed on the allies had it won?

            Yes, the French were vindictive but war, being what it is, always leaves the loser in bad shape, and a nation as excessively proud as Germany didn’t handle defeat very well. Calling the rise of Nazism “collective insanity” is suggesting they had some justification for the evil they collectively pursued. Why not blame the communist and national socialist factions that fomented hate and a culture of victimization and blame?

          • hiernonymous

            Why not blame the communist and national socialist factions that fomented hate and a culture of victimization and blame?

            Those played their role, certainly, but one of the reasons for examining historical situations is for the lessons that can be derived. Versailles, and Poincare’s subsequent vindictiveness, created the conditions in which those other problems festered.

            War may always leave the loser in bad shape, but the U.S. approach to the peace in WWII suggests that examining history for useful lessons is more productive than examining history to rationalize the course of action one presently wishes to take.

            The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was also unreasonably harsh. Had Germany ended the war as the victor, and had it imposed terms on the West comparable to those imposed on Russia, we would no doubt be discussing the seminal reasons for the emergence of the revanchist French regime. The salient point here is not that Germany was good and the French bad, but that a peace regime calculated to prevent the vanquished from recovering will likely lead to further violence.

          • truebearing

            The bottom line is that sometimes hard power is the only choice you have. Usually that limitation in choices is the result of soft power failing because there was no credible threat of hard power.

            Soft power is useless without the capacity to use hard power and make nation’s believe you will use it. Obama is in the process of proving that, over and over.

          • hiernonymous

            And yet another way of looking at it:

            Germany tried to use hard power to dominate Europe and was turned into smoking slag for its troubles.

            A half century of soft power later, and peaceful and diplomatic Germany is the engine of Europe’s economy and the single most influential state on the continent.

        • Responder9

          Israel never realized that the war is a religious war and that the only way to win the war is to exert power over Israel’s enemies to reform their religion and expunge the Koran from it’s genocidal directives. The war to force Islam to reform must include soft and hard power.

          • Drakken

            Islam is either at your throat or at your feet licking your boots, always keep your boots polished.

        • truebearing

          Israel hasn’t been given a choice of using anything but hard power from the start, and you know it.

          What is missing in all of your mini-histories is, curiously, the single most important factor in dealing with Muslims: their religious beliefs. You go on and on, analyzing this and that, but all the while ignoring the simple fact that Muslims do what they do based on what they are taught, and what they are taught is to be intolerant of any and all religions or ideologies, and to destroy them. That is the point of jihad. Islam is a religion with an unapologetic manifest destiny and a mandate to its followers to kill all infidels. What part of this don’t you understand?

          If you don’t understand what motivates a movement or a religion, how can you expect to deal with their aggression? When you ignore their clearly and frequently stated goals, how can you delude yourself into thinking that your path is correct, but the one chosen by a nation that has far more experience and knowledge than you possess is wrong?

          Maybe you should travel to the Muslim countries and tell them about your theories on the efficacy of soft power, or perhaps how they should start ignoring the teachings of Islam. Their scimitars would show your neck the meaning of soft.

          • hiernonymous

            What is missing in all of your mini-histories is, curiously, the single
            most important factor in dealing with Muslims: their religious beliefs.
            You go on and on, analyzing this and that, but all the while ignoring
            the simple fact that Muslims do what they do based on what they are
            taught, and what they are taught is to be intolerant of any and all
            religions or ideologies, and to destroy them.

            When I look at the history of the Middle East, I can’t see that the Muslims are any more prone to violence, or any more enthusiastic about it, than any other confession or group that has been part of its history. The wars between the Romans and Parthians, between the Byzantines and Persians, between the Mongols and the Khawarazmians, were equally violent. During the Crusades, it was a rare war that didn’t find Christians and Muslims on both sides of the fighting. In the Lebanese civil war, Sunni, Shi’a, and Christian were just as brutal and just as prone to resort to violence. It’s hard to argue that Islam is uniquely violent while pondering Sabra and Shatila.

            Islam is a religion with an unapologetic manifest destiny

            Was the irony here intentional or no?

            If you don’t understand what motivates a movement or a religion, how can you expect to deal with their aggression?

            You’re begging the question. You’re assuming that religion serves as the primary motivator, as opposed to the primary justification for actions taken for other reasons.

            …but the one chosen by a nation that has far more experience and knowledge than you possess…

            I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean. In its broadest construction, any “nation” has far more experience than knowledge than any single individual; are you suggesting that all nations are above criticism?

            On the other hand, as part of a professional community of a state with even more knowledge and experience than Israel, I might be forgiven for daring to offer an opinion or two.

            Maybe you should travel to the Muslim countries

            I have, many times. I’ve also lived there, as has my family. I didn’t encounter the wild-eyed fanatics and ‘stealth jihadis’ you and others are constantly on about; I encountered decent people who were trying to get on with their lives, and to whom Islam served the same role that Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc, play for anyone else.

            And not once – not while wandering around in the mountains of Yemen, not while traveling the south of Oman, not in the Gulf, not in Turkey, not in Jordan, not in the West Bank, not in Egypt, did I encounter a scimitar, a knife, or as much as a clenched fist. The Arabs (and Turks) treated me consistently with politeness, respect, and helpfulness. It’s quite plain that there are bad actors in the world; it’s quite plain that there are Muslim extremists – but your attempt to paint all Muslims as aggressive and evil is simply wrong, and I’d submit that a clearer analysis would finds sounder reasons for our problems than “their religion is crazier than ours.”

          • truebearing

            “When I look at the history of the Middle East, I can’t see that the Muslims are any more prone to violence, or any more enthusiastic about it, than any other confession or group that has been part of its history.”

            I know you can’t see that Muslims are more prone to violence. Acknowledging your inability doesn’t make you right. I have to wonder if your blindness is simple denial or dishonesty. instead of looking into ancient history, try looking at the Middle East today. The clear aggressors in every conflict are Muslims, whether it is China, Russia, Syria, Iran, Irag, Egypt, Nigeria, Sudan, Kenya, Israel, etc.

            Muslims are the ones ethnically cleansing Christians, not the other way around. Israel isn’t ethnically cleansing Muslims. Muslims are the ones threatening genocide. They are the ones strapping bombs on children to kill women and children. Your attempts to establish moral equivalency fail to address the current reality in the world.

            “You’re begging the question. You’re assuming that religion serves as the primary motivator, as opposed to the primary justification for actions taken for other reasons.”

            Wrong. You are ignoring the motivational role Islam has on Muslims. You completely ignore the teachings of Islam, and the direct connection between what is required of the devout Muslim and the consistently violent behavior of Muslims who carry out beheadings, honor killings, stonings and the like. How you manage to ignore 1500 years of Muslims invading, enslaving, raping, and murdering in the name of Islam I’ll never understand, but you’ve apparently managed to delude yourself so far.

            I don’t know when you were in the Middle East, in what capacity, or how much security you enjoyed when you were there, but it is obvious you didn’t dare question their beliefs. You’re still alive. I can tell you that 10,000 Christians were murdered by Muslims last year. Christians will cease to exist in the Middle east in a few years because of ethnic cleansing by Muslims. Who knows how many other infidels were beaten, shot, burned, or crucified by Muslims who were following the teachings of Islam.

          • hiernonymous

            The clear aggressors in every conflict are Muslims, whether it is China,
            Russia, Syria, Iran, Irag, Egypt, Nigeria, Sudan, Kenya, Israel, etc.

            Demonstrably incorrect. Muslims are not the aggressors in Myanmar. They’re not the aggressors in the C.A.R. They weren’t the aggressors in our Second Gulf War. They weren’t the aggressors in Bosnia.

            Muslims are the ones ethnically cleansing Christians, not the other way around.

            Except where it’s the other way around, as in the C.A.R. The Muslims of Srebenica might dispute your claim, as well, if any survived. The current contretemps in Crimea is largely between Russians and Ukrainians because the original Muslim inhabitants were cleansed and replaced by the Russians. Dir Yasin was about as clear a case of ethnic cleansing as any on record. Last time I was in Israel, I saw Jewish settlements going up in the West Bank.

            They are the ones strapping bombs on children to kill women and children.

            Yes, and we’re the ones dropping bombs on women and children. Women and children aren’t faring very well at anyone’s hands in these conflicts.

            Your attempts to establish moral equivalency fail to address the current reality in the world.

            I would say that your attempts to filter all of the conflict in the world in a manner that lays the blame at one group or one confession is the approach that fails to address “the current reality in the world.” It doesn’t do much to explain Russia and the Ukraine; China, Taiwan, and Japan; the South Sudanese conflict; the Congo wars; the incipient struggle in Venezuela; Mexico’s endemic violence; North Korea’s provocations against the South; the insurgency in Peru; the gang violence in Central America.

            You’re trying to selectively portray a world that would largely be at peace were it not for those Muslim troublemakers, but, in fact, the world would not be at peace if every Muslim disappeared tomorrow.

            You completely ignore the teachings of Islam, and the direct connection
            between what is required of the devout Muslim and the consistently
            violent behavior of Muslims who carry out beheadings, honor killings,
            stonings and the like. How you manage to ignore 1500 years of Muslims
            invading, enslaving, raping, and murdering in the name of Islam I’ll
            never understand

            That last is probably true. Part of your problem is that you turn to ideologues like Geller, Pipes, etc, for your understanding of what Islam teaches, instead of, oh, say, actual Muslims, so you get a distorted picture of what they’re taught and what they believe. You then selectively filter history, highlighting wars involving Muslims and minimizing the others. The wars involving Christians are disimissed because “they were acting independently of, or in contravention of, their faith,” as if that made the victims of the wars less dead.

            If you want at look at 1500 years, then let’s! Of the greatest mass slaughters of the past millenium and a half, most are of fairly recent manufacture and are largely at the hands of the industrial West. If you can find a Muslim slaughter that remotely approaches the 50 million of WWII, feel free. If you want death of a more recent vintage, it’s hard to top the Second Congo War, in which up to 5.4 million people killed one another – nearly all Christians. Rwanda and Burundi were Christian. The Chinese Civil Wars posted impressive numbers – not many Muslims involved there. Going back further, one of the most savage wars in our history was the 30 Years’ War, involving the death of over a third of the population of what is now Germany and Czechoslovakia at the hands of rulers and soldiers fighting for Christ. The Muslim conquests of North Africa and the Byzantine and Persian empires were impressive, but in terms of numbers of people killed, they were immediately shown up by the Mongols, who showed the ancient world what real ruthlessness looked like.

            I know we like to skip the Crusades, because, after all, they were not as aggressive as they seemed, being aimed at ‘recapturing’ the Holy Land from the great-great-great-great grandchildren of the Muslim aggressors. Except that the Crusades included campaigns directed at the Orthodox Byzantines, the Christians of Southern France, the Slavs of Eastern Europe, and good old Latin Christians in Southern Italy.

            So, whether you want to confine yourself to modern history, or go all the way back to the emergence of Islam, it’s downright silly to try to pretend that Islam is uniquely violent. People are violent, regardless of the pieties escaping their lips to justify their rapine and plunder.

            I don’t know when you were in the Middle East, in what capacity, or how
            much security you enjoyed when you were there, but it is obvious you
            didn’t dare question their beliefs

            It’s interesting how something on which you possess no knowledge whatsoever is somehow “obvious” to you. I’ve had many fascinating conversations with friends and acquaintances in the Middle East in which we question one another’s beliefs.

            As for “how much security I enjoyed,” it’s run the gamut. I’ve spent time ensconced in fortified zones where I only left in armed convoys; I also wandered around every state I listed on my own or with one companion, unarmed. I’ve been in Yemeni mountain towns were I was the only Westerner they’d seen in months or, in some cases, years.

            The trick to discussing religion is to do so respectfully. Again, you assume that the Muslims are uniquely violent or prickly in this respect; I’d suggest that you try wandering around Honduras or El Salvador and offer the same sort of mockery to the Virgin Mary that the Danish cartoons offered Muhammad, for example, and see how long your throat goes uncut. Do you really think that poor people being defensive about their beliefs and culture is unique to Muslim lands?

          • truebearing

            “If you want at look at 1500 years, then let’s! Of the greatest mass slaughters of the past millenium and a half, most are of fairly recent manufacture and are largely at the hands of the industrial West. If you can find a Muslim slaughter that remotely approaches the 50 million of WWII, feel free.”

            The Muslim conquest of India resulted in at least 100,000,000 Hindus being slaughtered, which doesn’t include the unarmed Buddhists who were sliced up. That also doesn’t include the number of people enslaved by the Muslims.

            Once again, you tried to pose as the expert historian, but left out the greatest slaughter in human history. To underscore the slaughter in India, it wasn’t the result of bombs or bullets, but accomplished with swords and other hand held weapons.

            Now lets see you find a religion with the violent, homicidal, genocidal teachings that we see in the Quran.

          • hiernonymous

            The Muslim conquest of India resulted in at least 100,000,000 Hindus being slaughtered

            Source?

            You appear to be using a novel use of the phrase “at least.” The high-end estimate of the decline in the population – over the course of five centuries – is 80 million, a 1973 estimate by Kishori Lal. Lal’s estimate began by choosing among competing estimates of pre-Muslim populations of India ranging from 70 to 300 million, selecting a figure on the higher end (200 million) of the scale, then combing sources for clues to later populations, concluding that the population had declined to 125 million in 1500. Here’s an excerpt from Digby’s critique of this methodology:

            Regarding the population of India before A.D. 1000 Lal quotes the guesses of Colin Clark – 70 millions – and Jyotindra Mohan Datta – 200 to 300 millions. He himself prefers 200 millions and he believes that, mainly as a result of the Muslim invasions and presence, the population of India fell from 200 millions in A.D. 1000 to 125 millions in A.D. 1500, to rise under more amiable Mughal rule to 175 millions in 1700. Five millions are knocked off by the political disorders of the next century, a loss of 2.86%, as opposed to 20 millions or 10% written off as a result of Mahmud of Ghazna’s invasions…

            The author is known for his detailed studies of the Khalji dynasty and of the fifteenth-century Delhi sultanate. He is well versed in the sources of medieval North Indian history. In the present study he has assembled almost all the conceivably relevant dataa and for this reason it will remain of value as a compendium of references. Yet the unknown variables are so great and the quality of the data yielded by our sources so poor that almost any detailed general estimates of population based upon them must appear wilful, if not fantastic. At the time when this review was being written, K.J. Hobabawm…called the attention of historians of pre-modern Europe, who dabble in social statistics based on sources of comparable quality to those of Lal, to an axiom of computor operators ‘GIGO’: this stands for ‘Garbage in – Garbage out’!

            Clark’s estimates of the population of Asia as a whole in AD 1000 are consistent with most other mainstream scholarship, placing the population of the entirety of Asia (including that of China) at somewhere around 180 million – which would make a figure of 200-300 million in India alone quite remarkable. See page 231 of this source, which contains a summary of scholarship 20-odd years more recent than Lal’s.

            One can say with relative certainty that the population in India declined after the Muslim conquest. To jabber about “at least 100,000,000 Hindus being slaughtered” is to speak with confidence about matters of considerable heated debate in the historical community.

            We don’t know the magnitude of the population decline. We don’t know the nature of the population decline. It’s certainly highly unlikely that a decline of at most 80 million over the course of five centuries is comparable in any way to the 50 million killed over the course of six years in WWII, or even to the entire populations of large cities put to the sword by the Mongols.

            Once again, you tried to pose as the expert historian, but left out the
            greatest slaughter in human history. To underscore the slaughter in
            India, it wasn’t the result of bombs or bullets, but accomplished with
            swords and other hand held weapons.

            And, again, the figures you cite are above the higher end of figures cited for a general population decline over the course of five hundred years, not a “mass slaughter” at swordpoint. The figures you cite are 20 million in excess of the highest figure offered by any credible historian. In situations of long-term declines such as these, relatively little of the decline is usually attributable to outright killing, and much more attributable to declining birth rates, emigration, and deaths due to famine and disease in the wake of large-scale military campaigns.

            By contrast,

          • truebearing

            As usual, you are trying to minimize Muslim aggression and atrocities. You can’t compare modern wars to those fought with hand-wielded weapons as apple to apple. Obviously, modern weapons more efficiently kill more people, but conversely, we have much better records of how many died. You say my claim of 100 million* is to high, yet you admit that the number is difficult to confirm. My point in citing the Muslim conquest of India proves that Muslims have committed mass slaughter that dwarfs anything you cited. Your 50 million in WWII is a composite of losses from Germany, Russia, Italy, The US, Japan, Britain, France, etc. The losses weren’t all inflicted upon a single population as they were in India. They were predominantly combat casualties. Millions weren’t enslaved or forced to convert to a warrior cult. The Hindus in India died in a brutal blood bath of ethnic cleansing by Muslims.

            If you want to cite the attempts by the Nazis to ethnically cleanse the Jews, I will readily agree that it was heinous and barbaric, but then it proves my point that both motivating ideologies/religions are evil.

            * The Negationism in India, Koenard Elst

          • hiernonymous

            You say my claim of 100 million* is to high, yet you admit that the number is difficult to confirm.

            I say that your claim of 100 million flies in the face of all that is known about the population of the world at the time, and requires that 2/3 of the entire population of the world have been Hindus living in India for figures much lower than yours to be remotely possible.

            I then point out that the methodology employed doesn’t demonstrate a massacre, it demonstrates a decline in population, whatever the number, over half a millenium – and your numbers are bizarre.

            My point in citing the Muslim conquest of India proves that Muslims have
            committed mass slaughter that dwarfs anything you cited.

            And my point in citing the criticism of Lal’s methodology, in citing the population of the world at the time, and in noting what is and isn’t demonstrated by a decline in population is that you have taken a hyperbolic claim that cannot, given what we know of the history of the world, be true, and are calling it “proof.”

            If your claim, to be true, requires that the population of the world in AD1000 to have been an order of magnitude larger than the largest current estimate, how can you sit there and type that you’ve “proved” that an invasion of early medieval India cost more lives than WWII? Do you even think about what you write?

            Your 50 million in WWII is a composite of losses from Germany, Russia,
            Italy, The US, Japan, Britain, France, etc. The losses weren’t all
            inflicted upon a single population as they were in India. They were
            predominantly combat casualties. Millions weren’t enslaved or forced to
            convert to a warrior cult.

            You sound like you are in need of a couple of good histories of WWII. The casualties in WWII are largely civilian victims of the fighting, and if you don’t believe that millions were enslaved or forced to convert, you aren’t very familiar with the methods of the Germans, the Japanese, or the Soviets.

            but then it proves my point that both motivating ideologies/religions are evil.

            But that wasn’t your point until just now. You’ve now expanded your thesis from Islam to “ideologies/religions.” If your point is now that anything that motivates people to do bad things is bad, I’d agree with you, but it’s a rather banal and useless observation. And you wouldn’t have demonstrated your apparent earlier point, which was that Islam is uniquely violent.

            Bottom line: you’ve made an incredible claim that flies in the face of all that is known about the world’s population at the time and built a house of hysteria on it. You need to greatly refine your understanding of the concept of “proof.”

          • Drakken

            When the Romans gave the world the example of Carthage, everybody listened, when Sherman Marched to the sea, everyone once again paid close attention. Islam is on the march and the only way your going to effectively deal with a medieval ideology is getting downright medieval. High notions and high moral grounds are wonderful when dealing with a academic exercise, but not so much in the real world.

          • hiernonymous

            Islam is on the march

            And yet, oddly, it’s American soldiers in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Egypt, Qatar, and Kuwait, and not the other way around. It’s our fleet off their coasts, our aircraft in their skies, our boots on their ground. It’s a funny sort of march, that.

          • Drakken

            You think colonialism is bad, I call it a stabilizing force in our own best interest. Our western technology and labor is what is getting that oil out of the ground in those countries you mentioned. The bottom line is, I side with us westeners and give no moral equivalence or weight to Islamic grievance.

          • hiernonymous

            You seem to have either missed the point of the post to which you are responding, or are carefully avoiding it. It’s not about colonialism, moral equivalence, grievances, or who you “side” with.

        • SoCalMike

          Conveniently absolving Muslims of any responsibility for the violence they start all over the world in the name of their god AND blaming Sharon for the violence the Palestinians initiated exposes the willingness to carry water for Islamic Jihad and the PLO.
          Next you’re gonna say we got attacked on 9/11 because “of our policies” or the attacks by Uighurs in China are because of Beijing’s “repressive policies.”
          And if Israel chose the path of hard power, the Palestinians would have gone the way of the T-Rex long ago. The Israelis are too kind hosts.

          • hiernonymous

            I think that if one is trying to ‘absolve’ any of the parties of all wrongdoing and place the blame on the other, one is too simpleminded or fanatical to have a productive conversation with.

            I think that Sharon knew exactly what he was doing, and cynically exploited an explosive situation for his own ambitions. That doesn’t imply that the Palestinians don’t share any of the blame. That Sharon knew his actions would precipitate violence doesn’t imply that the resulting violence was justified. If I walked up to you and called your wife an ugly whore, and you broke my nose, I would have acted in a way calculated to provoke violence, and you would have engaged in it. We’d both be wrong, and chances are good that you’d face the stiffer consequences before the law, since you’re the one who escalated the confrontation to violence – but in evaluating what had happened, it’s quite relevant that I chose to provoke the situation.

            I think it’s equally silly to blame 9/11 on U.S. policies, and to pretend that U.S. policies didn’t contribute to 9/11. There’s a reason those planes flew into the World Trade Center rather than the Rio Sul Center, and it isn’t simply because “they hate our freedom.”

            And if Israel chose the path of hard power, the Palestinians would have
            gone the way of the T-Rex long ago. The Israelis are too kind hosts.

            The implications – and the irony – of your suggestion isn’t lost on the Israelis.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Hard power has to be consistent. Lebanon, like Iraq and Afghanistan, was anything but.

          If Israel practiced hard power, there wouldn’t be tens of thousands of terrorists inside its borders.

          • hiernonymous

            Hard power, in this case, being ethnic cleansing or genocide?

          • truebearing

            You mean like the Muslims do things?

          • Drakken

            10,000 years of warfare would disagree with your civilized ideas of what warfare should entail.

          • hiernonymous

            I don’t know how one would go about discussing the matter with 10,000 years of warfare, but a significant fraction of those who practice war have dedicated immense amounts of time, thought, and effort to limiting the brutality of war, and not entirely without success. From the earliest ruminations on jus ad bellum and jus in bello to the codification of the Geneva Conventions, from the Nuremburg trials to The Hague, it’s pretty clear that 1) I’m not alone in my ideas, and 2) those ideas have considerable influence over how war is conducted.

          • hiernonymous

            My last might have been ambiguous. It wasn’t intended rhetorically, as a jab, but as a sincere question. What do you mean by “hard power” in this context, such that it would rid Israel of terrorism?

        • Drakken

          The Israeli’s didn’t do so well in Lebanon because they were afraid of breaking things and killing bad guys, they were way too concerned about so called civilian casualties and took unnecessary casualties as a result.
          Anything and everything sets off the fakestians whether Sharon walked in to that abomination of the temple mount or not. Frankly the muslims don’t need much of an excuse to go off and have themselves a little intifada. Time for much harsher methods in dealing with the savages. Hard power in the end always is the deciding factor.

    • hiernonymous

      While I disagree with your premise – that we are engaged in a global struggle against Islam – I think that your subsequent analysis is well-thought-out.

      If ‘fighting fire with fire’ were an adequate response, one would expect to see that the states that conduct themselves in the manner of which Mr. Greenfield speaks so approvingly would experience less confrontation and terror. That’s clearly not the case. The manly Mr. Putin faces an ever-expanding terrorist threat, and Moscow’s hard-nosed approaches have simply brought the attacks all the way to Moscow. China views waterboarding as being “for bleeding heart liberals,” yet China’s enemies storm into train stations with knives in their hands and murder in their hearts. Israel famously decided to put paid to the PLO in Lebanon once and for all; their steely-eyed resolve and tactical acumen won them a military campaign – and it also created Hizballah.

      One might ask Mr. Greenfield “how’s that hard power working out?”

      • A Z

        The hardest power is genocide. The more the international order breaks down the more you will see of it.

        • hiernonymous

          History is full of breakdowns of international order. That said, your comment suggests that our interest should be in building up the international order, not pursuing elective wars.

          • A Z

            I made an observation. I made no suggestions.

            I have, however, said in the past that I am for one world government. The trick is under what set of rules it would be governed and how do you get to that point.

            Even something a simply relatively speaking as admitting Ireland to the EU was fraught with controversy with moribund France asking or demanding that they raise their tax rates.

            It is worth noting that the 2nd attempt at taking Grozny the Russians leveled it. And this happened at the cusp of the 21st century. It tends to shake your faith. I do not know, where the clueless John F. Kerry was. Perhaps he was wind surfing or registering his yacht in Rhode Island to avoid taxes?

          • hiernonymous

            I made an observation. I made no suggestions.

            I didn’t mean to imply that you had. The construction “your comment suggests…” should be read as “an implication of your comment is…” I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear.

            Regarding your post on “Muslims shoot Buddhist teacher…,” I’m not sure I’m following your point. In recent weeks, I’ve read about Muslims killing schoolchildren in Nigeria, Christians killing Muslims in C.A.R., Muslims killing Buddhists in Thailand, Buddhists killing Muslims in Myanmar. If your point is that people are violent, it’s well-taken.

          • A Z

            Order of Operations is important.

          • A Z

            Perhaps you should catch up on the news.

            “Thailand: Muslims shoot Buddhist teacher, then douse her in gasoline and set her on fire”

            http://vladtepesblog.com/2014/03/14/news-links-for-march-15-2014-1/

            http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/03/thailand-muslims-shoot-buddhist-teacher-then-douse-her-in-gasoline-and-set-her-on-fire

          • truebearing

            His comment doesn’t advocate anything. It is simply an observation of probable cause and effect.

      • truebearing

        Again, conspicuously absent from your specious reasoning is the role Islam plays. Muslims are “hard-nosed” with every religion or country they oppose. They oppose everyone who isn’t Muslim, and they do so violently. Your erroneous assumption is that their bloody history of actions are all reactions to Russia, China, America, or Israel. You completely ignore their scriptural motivation, which renders all of your conclusions false and non sequitur.

        • hiernonymous

          “You completely ignore their scriptural motivation, which renders all of your conclusions on this topic false and non sequitur.”

          I’ll leave you to puzzle out the fallacies here.

          • truebearing

            Given your proven inability, better me than you.

      • truebearing

        You disagree with his premise but agree with his ostensibly supporting argument? Thanks for the laugh.

    • truebearing

      How, specifically, are the three planks going to defeat Islam? Your statement of vague principles is entirely without intelligible solutions.

      America is one third of your Islam defeating alliance. You suggest that “American ideals” will somehow be the answer to Islam, but fail to recognize that Russia and China don’t operate according to American ideals, and never have, so now your idealistic solution has to somehow include a conversion of the Russian and Chinese mentality to that of this idealistic American mentality you believe in. Fat chance. They are both brutal and entirely deaf to human rights.

      BTW, you haven’t established why violent Muslims deserve these vague “human rights” you keep alluding to.

      You sum up your convoluted comment by suggesting that “the combined forces of civilization” can defeat Islam, but previously suggested that force was barbaric. You’re chasing your tail.

      • Texas Patriot

        TB: “…you haven’t established why violent Muslims deserve these vague “human rights” you keep alluding to.”

        Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and the other Signers of the Declaration of Independence established for all time that America stands for the principle that “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.” Our Constitution can be amended, but the Declaration of Independence cannot be amended. If you don’t like the idea that all human beings are inherently endowed with certain “human rights”, that’s your problem. But you really have no business living in America if you don’t buy into that basic idea.

        • truebearing

          The Declaration of Independence wasn’t written as a document of foreign policy with Muslim states or Islamists.Our constitution is for people living in this country.

          Jefferson sent ships to attack the Barbary Pirates, as did Madison. They weren’t sent to discuss human rights. They were sent to kill the Muslims who were kidnapping Americans.

          • Texas Patriot

            TB: “The Declaration of Independence wasn’t written as a document of foreign policy with Muslim states or Islamists.”

            The Declaration of Independence was written as a core statement of American values and American identity, and it was intended to apply to all human beings everywhere:

            We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

          • truebearing

            “The Declaration of Independence was written as a core statement of American values and American identity, and it was intended to apply to all human beings everywhere:”

            No, it wasn’t, deluded one. You’re completely off your rocker.

            Islam won’t fail simply because of ideals. It will fail when it is defeated by those who are willing to do what it takes to defend their ideals.

            Stop telling me what I believe or which side I belong on, you blithering idiot. You decry waterboarding but gladly fling nukes at anyone with jumper cables. You belong in an institution.

      • Texas Patriot

        TB: “You sum up your convoluted comment by suggesting that “the combined forces of civilization” can defeat Islam, but previously suggested that force was barbaric. You’re chasing your tail.”

        I would agree that having a conversation with you is like talking to a dog chasing his tail, but that’s about it. I never said that the use of force was in and of itself barbaric. In fact, I totally favor the use of whatever force is necessary to destroy legitimate military targets, including the Iranian nuclear weapons complex. What I think is barbaric is torturing captive and helpless prisoners of war, which usually gains us nothing but demonstrates conclusively to the world that there are actually Americans like you who do not believe in the basic idea of human rights as set forth in the Declaration of Independence. Do us all a favor. Quit calling yourself an American. Even if as a matter of technical legality you are registered as an American citizen, it is clear that you possess none of the ideals and none of the values that separates America from every other nation in the history of the world.

        • truebearing

          You didn’t mention torture in your first comment, nor did Greenfield endorse torture in his article, nor did I in any comment. You made that up, in yet another one of your delusional fits.

          Do us all a favor and stop setting yourself up as the arbiter of what is American. Self-rightoeous, delusional blather isn’t American, yet you seem to do an inordinate amount of it. What is getting clearer every time you comment is that you have anoointed yourself as the high priest of Americanism. If you weren’t so stupid you’d realize that being American assumes differences of opinion, not rigid, goose stepping adherence to half-baked ideas jumbled together by an incoherent fool. You would fit right in with the Left, or maybe the Muslims.

          • Texas Patriot

            TB: “You didn’t mention torture in your first comment, nor did Greenfield endorse torture in his article, nor did I in any comment. You made that up, in yet another one of your delusional fits.” (emphasis added)

            Regarding your position on torture, I’ll just leave you with a reference to a thread where you engage in an extensive justification of the medieval Spanish practice of waterboarding captive and helpless prisoners of war:

            http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/chinese-communists-remind-american-leftists-of-what-torture-really-is/

            I’ll admit that I’m not an expert on delusional fits, but I’ll readily concede your obvious experience in the area.

          • Drakken

            You haven’t witnessed what muslims do to their captives and prisoners, I could show you pictures of the aftermath of that abomination, so your going to have to forgive me if black is negative and red is positive and make sure their nuts are wet, waterboarding? Please.

          • Texas Patriot

            Drakken, unfortunately, it doesn’t help America to stoop to the level of our enemies. America is worth fighting for because we are better at recognizing the inherent dignity of every human being than any society in the history of the world.

          • Drakken

            Please spare me the academic exercise of a wonderful storybook of fantasy and let me clue you in on what happens in the real world. War is dirty, nasty, brutal, bloody business and high moral ideals when an enemy starts shooting at you, go out the window when survival is at stake. You idealist who try to make war a nicer thing always end up making it worse.

          • Texas Patriot

            You wouldn’t want to fight a war against me, Drakken. I can assure you that you’d never have a chance to use your battery cables. In the first place, if the national security of the United States was not at risk, the armed forces of the United States would never be involved. But if the security of our nation was at risk, and it came down to a choice between putting American soldiers in harm’s way and using nukes, I’d use nukes every single time. And my guess is, that would leave you standing there with your battery cables in hand, mouth wide open and eyes in a state of absolute shock, frozen for all eternity as a monument of how not to fight a war. Believe me, brother. From my perspective, war is a serious business, and I would not be fooling around with battery cables.

          • Drakken

            The use of nukes even tactical ones are a no go at this point and won’t be used as a first strike weapon, period. As for jumper cables, I leave that to the professionals, and don’t ever mistake my professionalism with your amateur hour.

          • truebearing

            “if the security of our nation was at risk, and it came down to a choice between putting American soldiers in harm’s way and using nukes, I’d use nukes every single time.”

            You oppose waterboarding terrorists but would nuke an enemy rather than deploy soldiers? That is stark raving insane. What happened to your high ideals of “human rights?” Where is your sense of proportionality? You find waterboarding abhorrent but not nuking enemy troops preemptively.

            I think you should get some jumper cables and try some self-administered shock therapy. It can’t hurt, at least from a mental standpoint.

          • Texas Patriot

            The difference between you and me is the difference between a Patriot and a Politician. Patriots fight to preserve their nation. Politicians fight to preserve their power. Yours is the statement of a Politician:

            You oppose waterboarding terrorists but would nuke an enemy rather than deploy soldiers? That is stark raving insane.

            This is the statement of a Patriot:

            Let it be known that any hostile force that seeks to destroy the United States of America shall be placing themselves and their entire civilization at risk of immediate and complete destruction by the combined Armed Forces of the United States of America using all the weapons at our disposal, including nuclear weapons. Therefore, to all those with the ambition of destroying the United States of America, beware and take heed against making even a suggestion of warlike intentions towards us. On the other hand, any enemy combatant or prisoner of war who may fall into our hands shall be accorded the highest standards of humane treatment in accordance with the strictest criteria of the applicable Geneva Conventions, and we shall expect, and demand, and exact to the point of forfeiture of your entire civilization, the same treatment of any of our soldiers who may fall into your hands.

            Keep up the hard work, and don’t forget to study very carefully all the material I have recommended for you to read. Maybe someday you too can become a Patriot, although it is doubtful that you could ever become a Conservative.

          • truebearing

            You said you would use nukes preemptively instead of putting American forces in harms way. That is insane. Once you do that, other nuclear powers will respond in kind, incinerating the planet before it is all over. So in effect, you are saying that you would protect American forces from harm by starting a nuclear exchange where the entire country would be demolished. Brilliant thinking.

            No patriot I know would have so little faith in our military that at the slightest chance of conflict, he’d crap his pants and start lobbing nukes. Maybe you should invest in some radiation proof diapers for this war you’re going to start…in your head.

          • Drakken

            Yeah sure Sparky, my experience over your wishful deluded thinking, sure you will win, especially with those ideals of yours, priceless.

          • Texas Patriot

            Hahaha. I would win for sure, because I wouldn’t hesitate to use nuclear weapons against anyone who threatened the national security of the United States of America, and you’ve already said that for you that would be a “no go”. Well, guess what. You would lose by default because you needlessly refrained from using your best weapon. What kind of strategy is that? What nation in history has allowed itself to be destroyed because it didn’t want to use its best weapon? Doesn’t sound like the Marine Corps I’ve always heard about.

          • truebearing

            The difference between the two of you is that he is sane and you are not.

          • Texas Patriot

            Hahaha. I don’t know what country you hail from, but I seriously doubt it is the United States of America.

          • truebearing

            Who cares what you doubt, seriously or not? Now you’re descending into paranoia, yet again.

            OK. I’ll fess up. I’m from Rush Limbaughland.

          • Texas Patriot

            Everything you post is completely anti-Democratic, anti-American, and especially anti-Conservative. Whoever you are and whatever you are, I just hope you are not claiming to be a citizen of the United States of America.

          • truebearing

            I’m moving to Texas and taking over. Rush and I are coming, so get your nukes ready.

            And yes, I am a citizen of the United States, and have been from birth. I am a conservative, but definitely not in the way (s) you claim to be. We don’t nuke first and ask questions later, like you. We prefer a slightly more sane way to deal with conflicts.

            Now you better tie some strings to some cans and put them all around so you can hear us sneaking onto your compound.

          • Texas Patriot

            I’m just amazed that you actually got through school without understanding the first principles of American democracy. But it’s a free country, and you can go wherever you like. Just don’t tell anyone in Texas that instead of using your best weapon to neutralize a dangerous enemy, you would rather needlessly sacrifice the lives of American soldiers on the field of battle. With ideas like that, you’d be lucky to make it out of the first truck stop.

          • truebearing

            America isn’t a democracy, knothead. It’s a democratic republic.

            Just wait until all of those guys you hang around with at truckstops find out you insulted their intelligence by suggesting our soldiers are too wimpy to survive, much less win in combat.

            I’m sure you know a lot about hanging out at truckstops, but don’t worry about me. I have a pick-up truck outfitted with tactical nukes.

          • Texas Patriot

            TB: “Just wait until all of those guys you hang around with at truckstops find out you insulted their intelligence by suggesting our soldiers are too wimpy to survive, much less win in combat.”

            Unlike phony patriots and phony conservatives like you, Texans don’t need to waste time proving themselves on the field of battle. We have work to do, fences to build, hay to bale, children to raise, and wives to keep happy. If we can pull a trigger and neutralize a rabid dog, that’s what we do. We don’t have to fight it tooth and claw to feel good about our manhood. Most of us are Christian and regard our enemies as deluded idiots who need to be educated. If we can help them see the light, fine. All is well. If not, and if they are determined to destroy us and our way of life, we will always choose the most efficient and most effective means of neutralizing them.

            TB: “I’m sure you know a lot about hanging out at truckstops, but don’t worry about me. I have a pick-up truck outfitted with tactical nukes.”

            Bring it on down. We’d love to see that. But more than likely it’s just more of your hot air, braggadocio, and loose talk. Phony patriots and phony conservatives are a dime a dozen, and you sound like the number one Dunkin’ Donut.

          • truebearing

            No point in waterboarding him. All you’d get is more gibberish and sputtering.

            You probably should take cover. He’s pretty eager to lob tactical nukes at anyone who disagrees with him. If they don’t work, he’s got that giant particle beam ray.

          • truebearing

            Waterboarding isn’t torture, dim wit. it is ehanced interrogation. our Supreme Court ruled that waterboarding was justified given the exigencies of stopping further terror after 9/11. I’ll go by their ruling as opposed to your self-righteous drivel.

            Reading your comments is a form of torture, yet you persist in inflicting your convoluted nonsense on the readers of Frontpage. Have you no mercy?

          • truebearing

            You effing idiot, I was talking about terrorists, not prisoners of war. They aren’t the same thing. Add the inability to read to your long list of mental deficiencies.

            The Lois Lerner crack was obviously a joke.

        • Drakken

          I am always reminded that you who think that you can impose so called human rights of the western variety on a eastern country are living in lala land and denial. Those who take the high moral ground in war are always buried in it.

          • Texas Patriot

            Thomas Jefferson and the other signers of the Declaration of Independence had it right. All men are created by God, and as such all men are specially endowed with human rights which are derived from the God who created them. Whether they want to act peacefully and consistently with those rights is another story, but it is the American way always to give enemies the opportunity to make peace before going to war with them. Sometimes we are pleasantly surprised and we end up with brothers in arms we didn’t have before. Otherwise, we never have more enemies by offering peace, so it is always a good practice to hold out the olive branch of peace, even as we always keep our powder dry and guns at the ready. ;-)

          • Drakken

            Our founding fathers wrote the Constitution for us, not for citizens of the world. Go travel the world a little bit and see how your ideas mesh up with reality, your going to be sorely disappointed.

          • Texas Patriot

            Drakken, it’s all a matter of seeing the amazing potential in all men. Will Rogers said he never met a man he didn’t like. With very few exceptions, I’ve never met a man who couldn’t have been a better man, including first and foremost yours truly. There’s always room for improvement even in the best of men, and that’s what America is all about. The Founding Fathers had the right idea. It’s up to us to make it work!

          • Drakken

            Not all people, cultures and religions are all equal, and you fail to make that very important distinction. Western civilization is either worth defending by what ever means necessary or it isn’t. The choices are stark and unforgiving, and sooner or later you will understand that cold harsh reality.

          • Texas Patriot

            America is unique and exceptional because we have a higher regard for the innate dignity of the individual human being than any nation in the history of the world.

          • Drakken

            Yes America is unique and exceptional, anything from the 3rd world isn’t.

      • Texas Patriot

        TB: “Russia and China don’t operate according to American ideals, and never have, so now your idealistic solution has to somehow include a conversion of the Russian and Chinese mentality to that of this idealistic American mentality you believe in. Fat chance. They are both brutal and entirely deaf to human rights.”

        Even as Americans like you are moving away from the unique ideals and value systems that make America the unique and exceptional society it has always been, Russia and China are moving towards them, and that’s what makes an alliance with them a real possibility.

        • truebearing

          Youn don’t have a clue as to my ideals, nor are China and Russia moving toward American ideals, whatever those may include.

          Is invading Ukraine an example of Russia moving closer to Ukraine?

          • Texas Patriot

            TB: “Youn (sic) don’t have a clue as to my ideals, nor are China and Russia moving toward American ideals, whatever those may include.”

            I know you alright. You represent everything America was founded to stand against and nothing America was founded to stand for, and it is obvious that you don’t have a clue what those are.

          • truebearing

            You’re a fool. You still don’t know what I stand for and you keep changing what you stand for. You have deluded yourself into thinking that what you decide is “American” is somehow the final definition…until you lose concentration and go blithering off in another direction. The fact is, you are the antithesis to being an American. America has always been a country of diverse beliefs and opinions, not a dictatorship, which you seem to prefer. Now you’re even defending Obama, the most autocratic, anti-American president in history. Try blathering your way through a denial of that easily proven fact.

          • Texas Patriot

            I’m very disappointed with the presidency of Barack Obama, especially in the areas of education, health, jobs, and the repatriation of American industry. But he still has three years to go in his second term, and the jury is still out on how he will handle the Iranian nuclear weapons issue. By far and away, that is the most important issue facing the world today, and if he fails to keep his word to the American people and the world to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, the world will be a much more dangerous and unstable place when he leaves office. Nevertheless, compared with you, Barack Obama is a shinning example of American Patriotism, and I really can’t imagine how you failed to pick up even a tiny glimmer of understanding of what it means to be an American, much less an American Conservative. Were you raised in another country? Please read some history books. Here’s one I would recommend just for you.

            http://www.amazon.com/The-Ideological-Origins-American-Revolution/dp/0674443020/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1395103591&sr=8-3&keywords=philosophy+of+American+revolution

            Good luck.

          • Drakken

            Go figure, you voted for this abomination in the White house and call him a patriot, and you honestly think Comrade Obummer is going to stop the Iranians from getting a nuke? I really want the drugs your on, because it is obvious you don’t know what the h*ll your talking about.

          • Texas Patriot

            Sorry, Drak. I didn’t vote for Obama in 2008 or 2012, but guess what, he is our President and CinC through 2016, and we had better hope he does a good job for America while he’s in the driver’s seat, especially with regard to the ongoing crisis regarding the development of nuclear weapons by Iran. You say we will never use nuclear weapons in a first strike capacity. The Islamic Revolutionary Party of Iran has no such limitation. Plus, as a good Marine, you need to know who to salute!

          • truebearing

            “I didn’t vote for Obama in 2008 or 2012″

            Yeah, sure. We believe you.

          • Texas Patriot

            I could care less what you believe. It’s obvious that you parted ways with the truth a long time ago.

          • truebearing

            Says the Obama loving Texas Nuker.

          • Texas Patriot

            As Texans, we speak softly and carry a big stick. As Christians, we love all men, including our enemies. But as Patriots, we despise phonies like you.

          • truebearing

            Obama has spent trillions of dollars we don’t have. He destroyed our health care system. He has seriously damaged our military. He has degraded race relations to the worst point in at least 40 years. He supplied weapons to drug cartels, weapons to Al Queda, gave the Russians everything they wanted while eliminating our missile defense, and that of eastern Europe. He has destroyed our alliances. Damaged our international standing in serious ways. Allowed an American ambassador and three other citizens to be killed with impunity. He has strangled our energy industry. He has thumbed his nose at our constitution and completely ignores the separation of powers. The list is much longer, but you think the jury is still out on his presidency. That is the prattle of an abject fool.

            You read your history again. You’re the confused one here.

          • Texas Patriot

            I think you’re exaggerating, but even if all that were true, compared with you, he looks like George Washington.

          • truebearing

            No he doesn’t, but that is irrelevant. I’m not the president, nor will I ever be the president.

            Show me where I’m exaggerating. This should be fun.

  • http://littlenotesfromparis.blogspot.fr/ Rita

    “China is not only our enemy, but it is the enemy of all Muslims … ”

    That makes China the good guys!. GO China GO ! :)

  • wileyvet

    Time for the Muslims there to enjoy a little Chinese takeout, delivered hot right to their door. Jihad Foo Yung, Breaded Achmed Chicken, Sweet and Sour Salafi, Pork Fried Rice, Kung POW Chicken, and War Won Ton Soup. Take out as many as they can, and with six you get eggroll.

    • DVult

      And in an hour they return with more of the same.

  • DogmaelJones1

    “China is not only our enemy, but it is the enemy of all Muslims …” Come again? Non-A is also A? Please, clarify that statement before my brain shorts out on the contradiction. Or do Muslims think that contradictory statements are perfectly logical?

    • hiernonymous

      How is it contradictory?

      1. “China is not ONLY our enemy…” = China is our enemy, but that is not all that China is.

      2. “…but it is the enemy of all Muslims.” = and China is the enemy of all Muslims.

      Not sure where you see a contradiction. Mansour asserts – whether correctly or not, who knows? – that the Uighurs are a subset of a larger group, “all Muslims.” In this statement, he simply claims that China is not an enemy only of the subset, but of the greater whole. How do you read that as “Non-A is also A?” It sounds as if you’re channeling Ayn Rand, but badly.

      • Drakken

        The Chins will not tolerate the muslims waging a little jihad in their country’s borders, so sit back, grab a bourbon and watch as the Chins do what must be done.

    • A Z

      hiernonymous is correct on this one.

      China is not only the enemy of Uighurs (only our enemy), but the enemy of all Muslims.

      A person reading it fast might read the 1st part as China is not the only enemy of the Uighurs, but that other countries are as well. That is how I read it at first.

    • Bryan

      Easy. A person from a Muslim dominated country (from the opening quoted paragraph, I assume that country is Pakistan but I could be wrong) believes that China is an enemy of his country and all other Islamic countries. Glad to help.
      On the other hand, you do raise a valid point about Muslims and contradictory statements. Many people in the West call Islamism the religion of peace, yet it is willing to kill people that don’t accept Mohammed.
      Personally, I think the Muslims have gotten to use to the pacifistic West if they think they can strong arm China.

  • T800

    anybody who is NOT a muslim is the enemy of all muslims.
    y’all shoulda learned that by now.

  • CaoMoo

    Oh yes please make china mad.