If Genocide Won’t Unite Iraq, Nothing Will

iraq-isis-yazidiThe more things change, the more they stay the same.

Obama’s Iraq policy in 2014 is his 2007 policy all over again. The minimal attacks on Al Qaeda are paired with the expectation that Iraqis will unite to achieve a political solution.

But what if they don’t?

In 2007, Obama had claimed that American withdrawals would pressure Iraqis into a political solution. He was wrong. The withdrawals not only failed to move Iraq toward a political solution, but they gave Maliki and his Iranian allies the power they needed to marginalize the Kurds and the Sunnis.

Obama went on insisting that the only solution to Al Qaeda could come from Iraqi unity right up until the threat of Yazidi genocide forced him to commit to air strikes. Denial of aid from the United States even as ISIS forces were closing in on Baghdad and Erbil had still failed to lead to a political solution.

Even now Obama is still reading from the same worn political unity script. But if even the threat of genocide hasn’t brought political unity in Iraq, is there anything that will?

It’s unknown whether Obama ever really believed in some anti-colonialist doctrine that convinced him that Iraqis would unite after an American withdrawal or whether he was using it as a fig leaf for his preemptive withdrawal platform, but time and mass murder have discredited him and it either way.

Middle Eastern countries with mixed ethnic and religious populations tend to be unstable and war-torn. Israel and Lebanon are two of the obvious examples, but Iraq and Syria have long histories of conflict predating the current civil wars. Whatever stability they had came from dictators and bloodshed.

In Israel, Sunni Muslims can’t get along with the native Jewish population they had once conquered, but which had managed to achieve political independence. In Lebanon, Sunni and Shiite Muslims can’t get along with each other or the pre-existing Christian population despite multiple agreements.

Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims can’t get along in Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq. And that’s just a partial list.

There’s a pattern here that doesn’t suggest a bright future for a unified Iraq.

In a country where either Sunni or Shiite Muslims are so weak that they pose no threat to the Muslim majority of a different sect, they are persecuted, but the country as a whole can be stable. However where the demographic or political split is less tilted toward one side, then conflict becomes inevitable.

It’s not just a numbers game. It’s often a question of which families or tribes are closest to the centers of power. It’s also a regional conflict much like the Cold War in which Sunni and Shiite countries promote the spread of their brand of Islam through terrorism and armed insurgencies.

Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Kuwait, Qatar and the rest of the boys didn’t want a democratic Iraq in which different religious groups got along with each other. They wanted their religious sect to prevail.

When the United States left Iraq, Iran filled the void in Baghdad while even more Sunni oil money began flowing into Al Qaeda. And it really took off once Obama began favoring Iran’s nuclear program.

ISIS represents a familiar Saudi tactic. It’s the revival of the Ikhwan, the armies of Wahhabi bandit raiders who united Saudi Arabia under the House of Saud by terrorizing Sunni rivals and Shiite Muslims. The ISIS atrocities of today were business as usual for the Ikhwan who referred to other Muslims as infidels, invaded Iraq, Kuwait and Jordan, killed some 400,000 people and created a million refugees.

(Similar events had also taken place earlier such as the Wahhabi sack of Kerbala in Iraq in 1802. A contemporary description relates, “The elderly, women, and children—everybody died by the barbarians’ sword.”)

The Ikhwan, like Al Qaeda, turned on the Saudis and their attacks on British territory attracted Imperial attention. The Saudis used British air strikes to put down the Ikhwan in the 1920s and transformed what was left of them into the country’s National Guard. This pattern becomes familiar to us if we swap out the Ikhwan for Al Qaeda in its various forms. The difference is that modern technology and oil wealth have given the Wahhabi raiders a truly global reach as we discovered on September 11.

A century later, the United States is stuck playing the British role with the Saudis using Wahhabi insurgencies to crush their rivals before bringing in the United States to clean up the mess.

Maintaining a unified Iraq doesn’t just mean protecting it from Al Qaeda, but protecting it from Iran and the Saudis. And that isn’t something that we can realistically do. Barring an Iraqi Ataturk who can create a secular Iraqi state backed by a powerful army and reformist elite, there is no hope for a unified Iraq.

Iraq’s multiculturalism enabled ISIS. The shifting agendas of Maliki, his Shiite rivals, the Kurds and their various factions destroyed any possibility of resistance to the advancing Al Qaeda army. The Shiites wanted to use ISIS to impose central control on everyone else. The Kurds wanted to use ISIS to achieve their full independence. Despite the threat of genocide, these clashing agendas have not changed.

Right now we have two bad choices in Iraq. We can either ignore everything that happens there or try to micromanage it. Both policies have failed. We tried walking away from Iraq only to discover that it had become even more dangerous. At the same time we failed to create a stable multicultural Iraq.

The neo-conservative idea of stabilizing the Middle East with a democratic Iraq was visionary, but it was also fatally flawed by longstanding religious and ethnic tensions within the country and the region. The very idea of creating an Iraqi Egypt or Turkey to counterbalance explicitly sectarian Islamic powers only ensured that Iran and Saudi Arabia would do everything in their power to destabilize the experiment.

And that is what happened.

The only real hope for stability lies in breaking Iraq up along demographic lines into majority ethnic and religious states. These states will face external threats and they may be drawn into the orbits of Sunni and Shiite powers, but they will be internally stable and therefore less likely to host Al Qaeda. And they may be dependent enough on American weapons and aid to protect non-Muslim minorities.

The solution won’t be neat or easy, the history of Kirkuk testifies to that, but it is likely to be a solution that will leave behind countries that won’t require our constant involvement. To implement it, we don’t have to reject democracy, but we do have to be realistic about the prospects of multicultural states in a region where tribal wars of race and religion are a commonplace reality.

ISIS showed how unreal Iraqi nationalism was, just as the AKP proved that Turkey’s secular nationalism could be undone with Islamist money. Hamas demonstrated that Palestinian nationalism was a phantom and the Muslim Brotherhood showed how fragile Egyptian nationalism was.

In the Middle East, clan trumps nation and only religion occasionally trumps clan.

We can fight against the facts of the Middle East or we can work with them to create an Iraq that we can finally walk away from.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • Yehuda Levi

    Iraq’s multiculturalism does not work any better than the US’s multiculturalism.

    You don’t unify people by putting them into groups who attack other groups. Multiculturalism supports grouping people, Individualism does not.

    Not all cultures are equal. Islam has proven itself to be an inferior culture.

    • truebearing

      It’s a mess, but allowing ISIS to grow unchecked is untenable. The least we should do is help the Kurds. ISIS sees everyone as a group that must be murdered. They are the last people on earth who will respect individuality.

    • Americana

      http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/11/world/meast/iraq-crisis/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

      Iraq is seemingly beginning to come to grips w/the real problem — that ISIS exploits sectarian divisions. With the move on to replace PM Maliki and the attempt to allow a Kurdish PM to replace him, the Iraqi government is moving toward recognizing that sectarian divisions can operate within a unified government and still be inclusionary.

      The worst thing at this moment for this government changeover is there are sections of Baghdad where inhabitants are sympathetic to ISIS. For the Iraqi government transfer to occur at such a delicate moment is fraught w/difficulties and risk. The one thing the Iraqi government has going for it is the Iraqi troops now understand what’s at stake and that they must stand their ground.

      • Drakken

        Iraq isn’t coming to grips with anything, Maliki replaced his officer corps with shia’s loyal to him and they are incompetent. You have Iranians running all over the place creating their own havoc, so in all, this is a clusterf**k.The only positive in this whole bloody mess is to get the Kurds armed up and ready to go. .

        • Americana

          Iraq effectively has a new PM even if former PM al-Maliki is thinking of a coup to retain power. As for what the Kurds will be able to contribute to the solution of driving back ISIS, the Kurds will focus on saving their own region first. The Kurds will likely only help defeat ISIS on a larger scale across Iraq when they’re assured that if they move away from their planned-for independent Kurdistan, they won’t be putting their own people at risk. I’m not sure that even having a new ethnic Kurdish PM of all of Iraq will motivate the Kurds to put their people at risk. I’m sure they’ll help if they feel all the other Iraqis can hold ISIS at bay.

          • Drakken

            The Kurds one way or another are going to have their own nation and they don’t give a rat’s azz who likes it at this point, Iraq exists in name only.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            And what kind of nation will the Kurds establish? A tolerant, freedom loving democracy? Or another all-too-typical islamic-fascist state that persecutes anyone not-a-moslem ? Anyone want to take bets?

          • Drakken

            As long as they are killing fellow muslims, I am all good with it.

          • Conniption Fitz

            I pray all involved will repent and become Christians.

        • LastOne23

          So you’re saying that Iran is doing the same thing Russia did in the Ukraine – sending in troops, or in this case civilians, to stir things up?
          Maliki tried to maintain his position and called in over 100 troops when the new PM was announced (I thought a Shia and not a Kurd) but his troops abandoned him. He was down to 54 within hours.
          The Kurds are our best ally next to Israel in that region. We should take care of their safety and arm them.

          • Drakken

            Iran is supporting its shia allies which are losing, so they are running amok openly all over Iraq, the other sunni tribes are trying to keep what they have or joining ISIS and the Kurds have had enough and are going their own way, sunni and shai be damned. The Turks are now very worried about their own Kurdish problem and play both sides of the fence where ISIS is concerned. This problem is only going to get bigger and far worse as time moves on.

    • IslamDownpressesHumanity

      Islam is an “inferior culture”? That’s putting it mildly, considering the growing pile of bodies attributable to the actions of the adherents of the religion of peace in the 21st century alone.

  • truebearing

    “The only real hope for stability lies in breaking Iraq up along demographic lines into majority ethnic and religious states.”

    I think you’re right. Unity, if defined as one Iraq shared by all of the disparate parties, is out of the question. It is almost as absurd as peace with the Palestinians.

    We should arm the Kurds to the teeth. At least they will fight, are generally friendly to the US, and are willing to give refugees from ISIS safe haven. With a combination of arms, food, and air support, the Kurds could hold off ISIS. Turkey and Iran won’t like it, but we have to start somewhere. If the Kurds have some success, we then find the next willing faction and do the same thing. It is possible that for the sake of their survival, a federation of independent states could form a defense pact that could defeat ISIS.

    • IslamDownpressesHumanity

      I seem to remember the US at one point arming the Taliban in opposition to the USSR. That didn’t seem to work out too well. Why would I want my tax dollars being spent to support ANY islamic regime, regardless of how “moderate” they claim to be. If you want to support the muslim Kurds, please do so out of your own pocket. I’m sure whatever islamic state they establish will be a regular model of decency and democracy. Cough, choke, gag.

      • truebearing

        Take a look at the agenda of groups like ISIS and you will quickly realize that they aren’t going to stop in Iraq. If you turn a blind eye to genocide, you will someday be the target. We don’t have the luxury of ignoring what is difficult in this world. We’re on Earth.

        I am not saying we should do their fighting for them. The Kurds are willing and able to fight, unlike the Iraqis. i am also not saying we have to give them all of their ammo and weapons. They have control of some of Iraq’s oil. If they want weapons, they should buy them, but in the immediate future, we have people being beheaded, shot, buried alive, and burned to death and it is incumbent upon us to help stop it, as compassionate people.

        • IslamDownpressesHumanity

          If you’re so interested in stopping genocide then why don’t you do something for the innocent Christians of Nigeria, rather than the Kurdish muslims?

      • American Patriot

        The US did not arm the Taliban. That is Communist propaganda. The Taliban didn’t exist until after the Soviets’ imperialist war in Afghanistan. The US and other Western countries supported the Mujahdeen, many of which also fought against the Taliban in more recent times.

        • IslamDownpressesHumanity

          SO the holey mujhadeen morphed into the Taliban later, that just makes it all better now doesn’t it? I know OBL was there, fighting against the Soviets.

  • saurabh

    US is wrong from the very beginning. They fought against Saddam for oil, now they are trying a way to retreat. Sin never gets effaced,,US can not get out of Middle East and it will die with the middle east

    • PatnTrucks

      So we have a “Tar Baby”.

    • American Patriot

      The US was right from the very beginning, you Communist. The US fought Saddam to free Iraq of tyranny. But they also fought Saddam to keep the world safe from terrorism. This has nothing to do with oil. I bet you supported Saddam’s Iraq’s illegal occupation of Kuwait over two decades ago. Quit repeating Communist propaganda.

  • Kali

    The muzloid hates itself and cannot, therefore, co-exist with anyone.

    • IslamDownpressesHumanity

      Guess what religion the vast majority of Kurds are? Does anyone wonder why all the Jewish Kurds have made aliyah? Because it would seem to me that fact would be a vote of no-confidence in their fellow muslim Kurds.

    • tedh754

      Did you ever hear that saying “Try walking in another person’s shoes?” Well, no matter how hard I try, I can’t imagine feeling blessed by a God because I slaughtered people. Mass murder, beheadings, forced conversions, rape, enslavement. I can’t even begin to name the depredations. I think that is the word. To me, becoming a Muslim is as likely as me becoming a martian. Sorry, I can’t believe in a God that demands his followers to cause unimaginable torment in others. That is a lesser god. It takes a special kind of person to feel nothing as he saws a person’s head off with a steak knife, while chanting “God is Greater” because he does that.

      • LastOne23

        The minority believes in these atrocities. The radicals recruit in a fertile ground of uneducated peoples.
        I’ve worked with so many Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan that I could no more lump them all into this obscene version of hate than I could say all whites do this or all blacks do that.
        We should address the radicals.

        • Drakken

          What part of there isn’t any radicals aren’t you quite getting? When push comes to shove, they always side with their own over us infidels, they will always be tribal by nature and no amount of hand wringing by a westerners is going to change that. Islam is islam and where ever islam goes, the blood always flows, without exception. So get it through that infidel head of yours, it comes down to the very simple equation, it is either them or us.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            All we have to do is look at any islamic state to prove your words as all of them are religious apartheid states and, in the case of Soddy Barbaria, a judenrein by design, gender apartheid state.

        • nobullhere

          Plenty of our troops have also worked with Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan, then been shot dead the first time their backs get turned. These are sneak assassins. The former British Prime Minister William Gladstone held up a copy of the Koran in the Houses of Commons, called it an ‘accursed book’ then said “As long as there is this book, there will never be peace”. That was before the political correctness of the 1960s onwards, where telling the truth about Islam is almost a ‘hate crime’. And we know that Mohammed was a thief, warlord and mass murderer, and ISIS’s trreatment of the helpless unarmed Yazidis, shooting over 500 of them in the backs and hurling them into pits and burying them, often whilst still alive, is following Mohammed’s example at the Trench. That is the history of Islam all over again – murdering and persecuting the defenceless, then turning into whiny boys when they start a war and someone dares to fight back and gives them a battering.

          • LastOne23

            How’d we Christians do during the Crusades?
            …and White Men Can’t Jump – none of them?

        • Kingsley Beattie

          I suggest that the “radicals” are those like Irshad Manji, who are trying to reform the ideology. It is the orthodox believers who provide us with with the “extremist” followers of a belief system which reflect the culture of 7th Century Arab tribal barbarians.

  • wildjew

    “Maintaining a unified Iraq doesn’t just mean protecting it from Al Qaeda, but protecting it from Iran and the Saudis. And that isn’t something that we can realistically do. Barring an Iraqi Ataturk who can create a secular Iraqi state backed by a powerful army and reformist elite, there is no hope for a unified Iraq.”

    This was essentially Daniel Pipes recommendation (installing a secular-leaning, America-friendly strongman) soon after the 2003 invasion of Iraq but there were no takers. No one saw any wisdom in it. Implanting democracy looked to be the best option.

    • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

      I remember Pipes’ recommendation back then. Martin Kramer was also critical of the democracy nations-building project. It is interesting that the Middle East experts most friendly to the administration were ignored in those first few years.

      • wildjew

        It wasn’t conservatism. It was a boneheaded Utopian ideal. Then came Israel’s turn.

        UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 20, 2005 – Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged Israel on Tuesday to allow Palestinians to carry out their legislative elections in January without Israeli interference, implicitly criticizing Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister.

        During a visit to New York last week, Mr. Sharon said he would withhold cooperation with the Palestinian legislative elections if candidates from the militant group Hamas took part. Both he and Palestinian leaders said elections could not be held without Israeli cooperation.

        “This is going to be a Palestinian process,” Ms. Rice said after a meeting here to discuss the Middle East, “and I think we have to give the Palestinians some room for the evolution of their political process.

        Mr. Sharon’s assertion puts the Bush administration in the awkward position of having to choose between its two most important foreign policy goals: fighting terrorism and spreading democracy in the Arab world….

        • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

          You are right and I remember it well. Idealism is too polite a word for it. Condi Rice was willfully ignorant of Middle Eastern cultures. She never did her homework to learn about the various cultural institutions in Arab lands. At one point she revealed her main tool of analysis, introspection, when she said that Gazans love their children just like we love ours. Generating cliches instead of cracking books seem to earn her contempt from others in the administration. Rumsfeld called her a perpetual graduate student in Russian Studies.

  • mtnhikerdude

    Islam . “The Religion of Hate ” which morphs into murder of fellow Muslims .Can anyone imagine the chaos on the Planet if Catholics ,Baptists , Methodists , Evangelists , etc were at war with one another ? Can a religion that destroys and desecrates its own places of worship ,threatens death in lieu of conversion be in any sane mind considered a religion ? Muslims comprise approximately 30 % of the Planet’s population . They despise the remaining 70 %. Get a clue Infidels !

    • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

      As you were writing I was commenting on the “chaos on the Planet if Catholics ,Baptists , Methodists , Evangelists , etc were at war with one another.” The Thirty Years War, which started as a religious war in the early 1600s. was devastating and had a major impact on Western Civilization.

      • Pete

        The play Mother Courage, which takes lace during the 30 Years War, is good read despite being written by a communist.

        • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

          I’ve never seen it. I’ll keep it in mind. Good drama can transcend the author’s alleged parallel. The Crucible is a well-written drama even if one refuses to relate it to the event of the 1950s. It actually applies better to the politically correct anti-racism hysteria today.

          • Pete

            It is by Berthold Brecht. Good ole Berthold rewrote his play a few times because the audience identified with the eponymous Mother Courage and she was suppose to be the capitalist villain. He tried and tried and fail. LMAO

            Leftists can make good movies or write good stories. At least when they first start out. They rely on primeval archetypes. then after they get rich they make political/artistic pieces, which generally flop.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Leftists have a history of creating unexpectedly iconic characters who were meant to represent right-wing evil.

          • Pete

            Has someone written a masters or doctoral thesis for this or maybe an essay?

            If they even come close to hitting the nail on the head, a person could get some valuable insights on human psychology.

            The creator of Star Wars studies primeval archetypes. He read Joseph Campbell. He consulted with Mr Campbell during the making of Star Wars.

            Some people are complaining that Star Wars is a lame plot. They may have some legitimate points, but it hits all the right things about story telling and archetypes. The latter movies latter 3 movies made are not as good.

          • trickyblain

            “A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man.”

            Hero with a Thousand Faces is a great read …

          • Americana

            Why on earth would anyone write a thesis w/a premise that applies to all points on the political compass and try to pretend the thesis applies only to liberals and Leftists?

          • Pete

            Berthold Brecht and George Lucas created heroes for their stories as described by Joseph Campbell. Mr Lucas actually read and consulted Mr Campbell. between his technical savvy and using the formula as laid out by Mr Campbell, Mr Lucas was successful. The prequel series has not been as well received.

            Brecht rewrote his play several times because in his mind audience members were supposed to boo Mother Courage and they cheered her. It is clear to see in his case that although he created a ‘hit’ play, it was because he tapped into something primordial while he was trying to be didactic/pendatic.

            I want to understand that pathology.

      • tedh754

        That was a long time ago. This is now, and these wars and beliefs truly have a global reach.

  • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

    You consider several options, some by choice and others by default. What about the Sunni-Shiite civil war option with Iran getting involved in fighting ISIS and coming to Maliki’s aid militarily. This could lead to Saudi Arabia asking Egypt to come to the aid of the Sunni side. Right now it appears that the Sunni side is split between the Saudi and Qatar factions and Iran is focused on Syria. But tribal rivalries can be shelved for religious unity as you note.

    There can be an Islamic “Thirty Years War” with the whole region in flames. This could be conventional as long as Iran doesn’t get nukes. If they do Saudi Arabia will seek out Pakistan. And Turkey could drag in NATO. Israel would have to invade Lebanon to prevent it from becoming a staging ground far worse than Gaza.

    Let’s remember that the “Thirty Years War” began as a religious war and ended as a national war will alliance across religion. The permutations of alliances are hard to predict.

    • Daniel G

      I know that sounds appealing but these wars don’t stay in their backyards and giving terrorists the opportunity to train, recruit and build armies will lead to major attacks on America

      Also Arab armies don’t fight like Europeans

      One side runs away faster than people expect leaving the other side intact and victorious

      • Americana

        Of course these wars will “stay in their backyards” for years if their initial aims are the creation of a Caliphate w/a solid grounding in the populace. These Islamists will have to spend years fighting sectarian backlash within their newly-seized domain. They will have to consolidate their own holdings and ensure that groups aren’t fomenting revolution in their backyard. Whatever fighting is done against ISIS, it will be done in the Middle East first.

        There’s a reason these cities were lost to ISIS. They should basically be seen as strategic outposts where no reinforcements were sent to relieve them when they were surrounded by ISIS. As for Arabs “not fighting like Europeans” and “one side running away faster than expected,” the entire Arab bloc is beginning to realize they have nowhere to run if they fail to hold their ground.

        • Drakken

          No these wars will not stay in their backyards, they will be coming to a neighborhood near you. Islam never stays static, it always moves and morphs into to something worse. It is now uncontainable at this point and a wider war is coming, you just don’t see it yet.

          • Americana

            I see the coming conflict as remaining within the confines of the Middle East. The larger battle will not come to the West for a long, long time unless grievous mistakes are made. Most of the more stable Middle East’s Muslim countries’ populaces may have intellectually welcomed the concept of a Caliphate but they sure don’t want a Caliphate at the ISIS price. The fact those populations are presently operating like all civilian populations facing war and don’t know how to handle themselves is merely the beginning of the conflict. This is the moment when Islam confronts the downsides to Islamic doctrine for the very first time. Nothing is hidden. Nothing is heard of second-hand. Everyone sees the severed heads. Everyone sees a jihadi parent encouraging his son to pick up a rotting head and demanding the child dedicate himself to this futile, feudal, effed up policy of human polity. The Muslim world is going to confront its flaws this time around.

          • Pete

            “I see the coming conflict as remaining within the confines of the Middle East”

            And if it doesn’t what will you do or say?

            What was Boston bombing? A one off?

          • Americana

            Don’t be inane. Terrorism is NOT the same thing as fighting a full-scale war in one’s backyard which is what Drakken is suggesting is coming. I fully expect there to be more terrorism in the U.S. but what I don’t expect is a full-scale continent wide war between ISIS and U.S. forces and we U.S. citizens. That scenario — of a full-scale war between militant Islamist forces and U.S. forces on U.S. soil — is HIGHLY UNLIKELY FOR YEARS, if then.

          • Pete

            6 or 7 car bombs going off a year, why that is not problem. it would be like it was an actual War War ( to channel a little Whoopi Goldberg).

            Maybe you ought to pull you head out of you bung and read longwarjournal.org

          • Pete

            The Boston bombing were done by Chechens. the Chechens are to be found in Bosnia, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan,Pakistan and elsewhere.

            After the Russians devastated Chechnya and the U.S. saved Bosnia from Serbia, what did we get?

            A f_cking Chechen terrorists on welfare one of them married to a doctor’s daughter, who could look forward to a good life, who f_cked us in the @zz and you are covering for them with your inane commentary.

            The staff and readers of LWJ are looking at video questioning if the red bearded guy is is The Chechen and you are hear playing tiddlywinks with the truth.

          • Americana

            The Boston bombing was done by Muslim Chechen immigrants as a fallback for not choosing to wage jihad in Palestine. If the older brother who wished to wage jihad on behalf of the Palestinians hadn’t faltered in his resolve (he lacked the guts to face the language barrier in Palestine), the Boston bombing might not have happened.

            I don’t play w/the truth. Either one conveys accurate information and honest analysis or one doesn’t. It’s pretty easy to begin to differentiate who’s interested in what level of truth after a while.

          • Drakken

            You certainly play fast and lose with the facts though, those Chechen scumbags come from the same Chechen scumbags that wage jihad in Russia, its the same goddamn jihad you see everywhere else, fakestine is just another excuse for Israel is the little satan and the US is the big satan. As long as these jihadists, no matter where they come from, kill Jews and Infidels, they are all good with it.

          • Americana

            The fact there is one word — JIHAD — that describe a lot of discrete wars and fighting by Muslims doesn’t mean they’re all interested in each other’s jihads succeeding other than peripherally. If you consider that playing fast and loose w/the facts, you’ve got another think coming. The world Caliphate so far has been greeted w/about ZILCH in the way of enthusiasm other than by those Muslims who are already passionate about Muslim hegemony.

          • Pete

            Interesting use of the word “discrete”. That is a Jedi mind trick if i ever saw one. It won’t work on Drakken.

            Chechens, Yemenis, Uzbeks, Arabs go from Bosnia to South Ossetia to Dagestan to Chechnya to Pakistan to Afghanistan to Uzbekistan to Kirghizstan to Yemen to Somalia to Mali to Syria to Iraq and Americana says that it is discrete as in separate, because that is what she has been told to say.

          • Americana

            I haven’t “been told to say anything.” I do look around at the world though and I figure that “discrete” is a perfectly acceptable way to describe separate and distinct instances of jihad warfare that aren’t connected currently and will possibly never connect. Not all the jihads are connected w/one another currently even if the jihads are being executed by Muslims and they’re sharing literature and advice. The Indonesians and the Far Eastern jihadis don’t think of the Palestinians except as sharing the same fight against their own society. Whoever finally brings the really disparate jihads together isn’t going to be able to ride the tiger. Look at how pathetic the reception of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has been. You see the Saudis cheering the announcement of the Caliphate? Even the Saudis who’ve been supporting the Palestinians?

            Here’s Merriam Webster for you if you don’t believe the use of “discrete” in that sense is realistic:

            dis·crete adjective dis-ˈkrēt, ˈdis-ˌ

            : separate and different from each other

            Full Definition of DISCRETE

            1: constituting a separate entity : individually distinct

            2 a : consisting of distinct or unconnected elements : noncontinuousb : taking on or having a finite or countably infinite number of values

          • Pete

            Yes, one jihad is discrete from another, go peddle that lie someplace else.

          • Drakken

            Is that 30 pieces of silver I see? It so aptly describes americanas wishful thinking. !

          • Pete

            Yes.

            She is not a Republican, conservative or libertarian. She is not someone like Reagan said who agrees with us on 70% (7 out of 10 things) and disagrees on 30%. she is fighting us tooth and nail on everything and then she wonders why we do not trust her, like her or respect her.

            I’m half tempted to get cracking and see who is who.

          • Americana

            Talking about 30 pieces of silver, considering what you’re being paid, I can see why you’d feel the need to keep drumming up business for the contractor business.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            Her lies, obfuscations and evasions go well beyond what a neutral leftist would spew. IT has an agenda. An islamic agenda.

          • Americana

            Don’t be such a dimwit. As for your phrase “a neutral Leftist,” what are you some sort of dingbat? According to what I read here, a Leftist is not “neutral.” Lordy, but you do believe in wading in deep BS.

          • Drakken

            They all fuc*ing cooperate with each other dumbazz! It doesn’t matter where the fuc* they are from. I am not talking about a single caliphate you moron, I am talking about all muslim jihadist movements, they are all intertwined by funding, exchange of fighters and bomb makers and money movers. Your just to effing ignorant to connect the dots and think its all about Israel.

          • Americana

            Don’t pull your machismo on me, Drakken. You can’t simply scream down everyone us by using “dumbazz” every post. Not all jihadi movements are connected even if they share the funding from the same Muslim charities. Jihads are regional right now even if they can be very large or very small. You’re just too effing opinionated and propagandistic to admit it. The time may come when they merge in a larger fashion but we’re not there yet.

            As for whether it’s all about Israel, of course it’s not. But Israel certainly has played a role in Palestinians popularizing jihad and raising its international profile as the religio-political solution via the news. What do you do if you don’t like your government or your current situation. What do you do? You start jihad. The U.S. should never have left the Israelis to their own devices about how to handle the Palestinians just because of the war participation of the other countries in the Arab bloc.

          • truebearing

            Israel is a sovereign country. The US doesn’t control Israel, and has meddled enough already, with dubious results. If anything, we should make it clear that we won’t allow the UN to foster terrorism-by-attrition and back Israel unreservedly when it tries to rid the area of evil death cults like Hamas.

          • truebearing

            “Not all jihadi movements are connected”

            Yes they are. They are connected by the teachings of Islam.

            Notice what is happening with ISIS. Jihadis from various groups are joining ISIS because ISIS is successful and utterly ruthless. They want to get in on the raping, kidnapping, torturing, beheading, and burying women alive. That is the definition of success to a jihadist, so yes, they are all connected to the same nihilistic quest.

            If you want to make the case that not all jihadist movements are connected, you will have to make the case on a doctrinal basis. You will have to show where the Quran differentiates jihadist objectives, since it is, after all, the source and inspiration for jihad. Good luck with that.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            Excellent rebuttal…

          • Americana

            No, I don’t have to prove they are isolated from each other. since they’ve already proven that by their own solitary existences as unsupported jihads that have been jihads for decades and have never drawn jihadis from other regions. Other than sharing a philosophical basis on a doctrinal level, the Philippines jihad doesn’t expect to connect w/the Iraqi jihad until some point in the distant future, if then. Any and all of these jihads would be fine if they were to accomplish their own regional aims even if they never achieved any further gains toward the pie-in-the-sky world Caliphate.

          • Drakken

            The Moro’s in the Philippines get money, arms, training and “advisors” from other muslim countries shortbus. Again you can’t connect the dots to save your life.

          • Americana

            You’re a little out of date, Drakken, the Moro jihadists have signed a peace treaty w/the Philippines government for an autonomous region under Muslim control to be set up by 2016. Although I suppose this treaty could fall apart, somehow I think it might come to pass.

            http://online.wsj.com/articles/philippine-lawmakers-near-deal-on-muslim-autonomous-region-1406288590

            http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/589751/key-moments-in-the-history-of-moro-insurgency

            Aug. 4, 2011: President Aquino flies to Japan for a secret meeting with Murad Ebrahim, who had become the new MILF leader after the death of Hashim Salamat in 2003. It is the first direct talks between a Philippine president and an MILF rebel leader since peace talks began. The meeting becomes recognized as a key breakthrough in the peace process.

            Oct. 15, 2012: The government and the MILF sign a preliminary agreement in Malacañang outlining a broad road map for peace, with the details on power-sharing, wealth divisions and disarmament later agreed upon during negotiations in Malaysia.

            September 2013: Misuari’s armed followers attack the southern port of Zamboanga province in a bid to block the MILF peace deal that they fear would sideline the MNLF leader. The attack sparks three weeks of urban conflict with the military that leaves at least 244 people dead and 116,000 civilians displaced.

            Jan. 25, 2014: Government and MILF negotiators conclude talks in Malaysia on the details of the proposed peace agreement.

            March 27, 2014: The government and the MILF sign the “Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro,” which outlines a plan to create a Muslim southern autonomous region with locally elected leaders by mid-2016. In return, the MILF will give up its weapons and form a political party.

            Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/589751/key-moments-in-the-history-of-moro-insurgency#ixzz3AD5tkhLF
            Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook
            _____________________________________________________

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moro_insurgency_in_the_Philippines

            In 2013, two main camps of the Abu Sayyaf group were overrun by forces of the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) in its latest offensive in Patikul.[53] According to MNLF leader Nur Misuari, the MNLF offensive against the Abu Sayyaf is because of the MNLF opposition to the Abu Sayyafs human rights abuses which goes againstIslam.

            During the term of President Benigno Aquino III, a series of peace talks for the cessation of hostilities was held, including the meeting of MILF Chair Al Haj Murad Ibrahim in Tokyo, Japan which was lauded on both sides.[29] Norway also joined the International Monitoring Team (IMT) on January 2011, overseeing the ceasefire agreement between the government and MILF on Mindanao. Despite the peace talks, a series of conflicts erupted. on September 10, 2011, Jal Idris, a hardcore member of Abu Sayyaf, was arrested by government forces after a crossfire between the Philippine Army and the rebel group[54] The Armed Forces of the Philippines also killed threeAbu Sayyaf militants in a stand-off[55] the following day after the arrest of Jal Idris.

            Terrorism continued throughout his term, on January 2011, 4 merchants and a guide were killed by the Abu Sayyaf[56] and later, a soldier would be killed in a clash against the rebels.[57] These rebel groups attacked a village in Sulu, killing 7 Marines and taking 7 civilians captive. They later freed 2 of the hostages after a ransom was paid.[58] Also, several areas in Mindanao were bombed on August 2011 and a Filipino businesswoman was abducted on September 2011[59] who was later freed after the three gunmen were gunned down by the Armed Forces of the Philippines.[60]

            On October 2011, the MILF was blamed for the killings 30 government troops, thereby violating the ceasefire agreement. It produced outrage and so the battle againstterrorism in the country wages on.

            The Zamboanga City crisis erupted on September 9, 2013 when this MNLF faction attempted to raise the flag of the self-proclaimed Bangsamoro Republik at Zamboanga City Hall, which had earlier declared its independence on August 12, 2013 in Talipao, Sulu. This armed incursion was met by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP), which sought to free the hostages and expel the MNLF from the city. The standoff degenerated into urban warfare, and had brought parts of the city under a standstill for days. On September 28, the government declared the end of military operations in Zamboanga City after successfully defeating the MNLF.

            On January 24, 2014, Philippine government chief negotiator Miriam Coronel Ferer and MILF chief negotiator Mohagher Iqbal signed a peace agreement in Kuala Lumpur. The agreement would pave the way for the creation of the new Muslim autonomous entity called “Bangsamoro” under a law to be approved by the Philippine Congress. The government aims to set up the region by 2016. The agreement calls for Muslim self-rule in parts of the southern Philippines in exchange for a deactivation of rebel forces by the MILF. MILF forces would turn over their firearms to a third party to be selected by the MILF and the Philippine government. A regional police force would be established, and the Philippine military would reduce the presence of troops and help disband private armies in the area.

          • Pete

            There were agreements going back to 1976. That one broke down with in a year.

          • Americana

            Doesn’t matter what happened in 1976. This latest agreement hasn’t yet broken down and considering what the Moro jihadis did to secure it, it may come to pass.

          • Pete

            Maybe, Maybe not.

            But if it breaks down in 2015, I can see you in 2016 when a new, new agreement is announced “This time it will be different. This time it will work.”

            Do you know what inductive reasoning is?

            You didn’t go to college did you.

          • Americana

            Yes, I did go to college. As for inductive reasoning, if inductive reasoning is all it’s cracked up to be why did you feel you needed to lie about being from a farming family? Why not rely on inductive reasoning at all times? Lies obviously work for you and you also think insults do as well.

          • Pete

            I didn’t know they had women’s studies in English universities. It is not a real discipline you know.

          • Drakken

            You can wish in one hand and sh*t in the other, which one are you going to fill first?

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            Yeah, let’s put our trust in muslims. After all, it’s worked out so well for the najjis kaffir everywhere else in the world.

          • Drakken

            That so called peace treaty isn’t worth the goddamn paper it was written on and the little bloody savages will be at it again shortly, you can take that to the bank, they are rearming as we speak for another go around and here you are in the LA LA land of the peace activist. Read a little history honey, you just might learn something and gee whiz golly actually connect the dots for once instead of spouting the latest leftarded talking points. Just for your perusal, the Colt 45 was invented for the sole reason of fighting the Moro jihadist since the 38 wasn’t getting the job done.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            Oh how wonderful an “autonomous region” for muslim-nazis in the Philippines. I suppose the areas to be ceded have already been ethnically cleansed of the najjis kaffir so maybe no one will notice the difference.

          • Drakken

            The US should have let the Israeli’s finish the job and be done with it. All jihadist groups around the world are interconnected, those are facts, not conjecture sweetheart. You leftys need to be told in blunt, no uncertain, harsh terms what the deal is, otherwise you don’t get it.

          • Drakken

            If I was screaming at you, you would melt, so consider yourself lucky.

          • Americana

            I doubt it. But keep up the machismo. Maybe that should be spelt “muchismo.”

          • Pete

            Chechens are to be f_cking feared until you bury their f_cking @sses.

            If there is a war involving Muslims, there are freaking Chechens except maybe Indonesia, Thailand, Phillipines and Palestine.

          • Americana

            Those are totally distinct jihads from the Palstinian jihad. There’s a reason why Indonesian jihadis aren’t in Palestine and vice versa. They’re interested in their own jihad. There may certainly eventually be a coalescing of jihads but that’s not what’s happening now. You’ll note that the only ones flocking to the Middle East conflict are Muslims from Europe. They’re disenfranchised Muslims who think they’re going to solve all their problems by joining the Caliphate and helping it be born.

          • Pete

            Lie-la-lie
            Lie-la-lie-la-la-la-lie
            La-la-lie-la-lie

            Foreign Jihadis Flocking To Islamist-Held Northern Mali…
            Northern Mali, ‘magnet for international jihadis’

            Syria: the foreign fighters joining the war against Bashar al-Assad

            Up to 7,000 foreign jihadis fighting in Syria, new study finds

            British jihadis, go to Yemen

            Philippine rebels linking up with foreign jihadis

            “There are somewhere “between 600 and 6,000” Chechens from the North Caucasus fighting in Syria,”

            Minnesota: Families of Teens Killed Fighting in Somalia Protest Against CAIR

            300 Foreign Jihadis … or overt that there is a significant number of foreign fighters in Somalia

            http://weaselzippers.us/125419-foreign-jihadis-flocking-to-islamist-held-northern-mali/

            http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/25/northern-mali-magnet-for-international-jihadis/

            http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/23/syria-foreign-fighters-joining-war

            http://www.jpost.com/Syria/Up-to-7000-foreign-jihadis-fighting-in-Syria-new-study-finds-336933

            http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/rod-liddle/2013/08/british-jihadis-go-to-yemen/

            http://s3.zetaboards.com/Defense_Philippines/topic/831627/1/

            http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139333/charles-king/not-your-average-chechen-jihadis

          • Americana

            You must never read your links thoroughly, Pete, because those “foreign fighters” are basically from West Africa. The vast majority are from the neighboring countries surrounding Mali. Here’s a bit from the New York Times West African bureau chief from one of your links:

            NYTimes >>>> He added, “We are hearing reports from people who live in that region that foreign fighters are coming into Northern Mali to help defend this quasi al-Qaeda state. They are coming from Western Sahara, they’re coming from Algeria, they’re coming from Nigeria and some are even reported to have come from Pakistan.”

          • Pete

            These jihadis are like water sloshing in a container. So many are coming from one end of the earth to the other end. They stay a while and move on. Many of these jihadis have been to several rodeos.

            Jihadis coming from Mauretania which would be considered Western Sahara would consider themselves Arab (in culture if not actually in genes >50%).

            You are to the point where if 49% of the come from Muslim countries far afield and 51% come from the country at war or a country next door and you will say “See see it makes my point”.

            Meanwhile Sharia law is being enacted and you go on trolling.

          • Drakken

            Holy jumping jesus! Again, you show that you don’t know WTF your talking about.

          • Americana

            Ah, then that’s a pretty large part of the world where Chechen Muslims aren’t to be found fighting jihad, wouldn’t you say? So, at some level, you admit that there are discrete jihads even if you can’t bring yourself to look deeper into that concept.

          • Pete

            You do not get the concept of war theatre do you?

            Consider Australia in WW2

          • truebearing

            What happens when Iran, or other Muslim nations, develop or acquire nukes and missiles capable of reaching Israel, Spain, France, Britain, or the US? North Korea and Pakistan already have nukes and are exporting technology. China has no principles, and neither does Russia. Iran has the capacity to develop more sophiisticated weapons, especially with the Russians and Chinese helping them. Jihad then becomes truly global, and it won’t take many years for that to happen.

          • Americana

            As for what will happen if and when Iran joins the nuclear nations, I’m not going to speculate here as to what I think will happen. I’ll reserve that for other private sites. North Korea and Pakistan are two entirely different nations and have different factors determining their role in nuclear technology dissemination. You cannot pair China and Russia. They have competing interests and competing hemispheric locations. Neither China nor Russia would ever try at this point in time to exploit jihadis by helping them reach a much wider global scale. The Russians did X-amount of that in earlier years and they now realize the circumstances have changed. The Chinese have never intentionally facilitated jihadis and I don’t believe they ever will.

          • truebearing

            The Russians need money and the Chinese need oil. Both want a market for their weapons, and both want to see the US crushed. Neither have ever had any qualms about enabling evil. China uses North Korea as a way to test the US and Russia has exported scientists who have facilitated the spread of nukes. Don’t be so naive.

          • American Patriot

            That’s why Russia needs regime change. It was progressing under Yeltsin. Under Yeltsin, Russia was democratic and pro-Western. Now, it’s going neo-Communist under Putin. Yeltsin’s mistake was not expelling every Communist and neo-Communist from the government. The next pro-democratic leader of Russia needs to follow Yeltsin’s agenda, especially regarding foreign policy.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            Russia would never willingly give nukes to islamic-fascists. Putin isn’t that insane, nor is he that corrupt.

          • truebearing

            He has been helping Iran with nuclear power. Iran is the biggest threat in the Middle East.

            Putin isn’t how corrupt? He is as corrupt as they come. If he needed cash flow to keep the natives from getting restless, he would do whatever it took.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            What has 0-b@ma been selling to Qatar? Or Egypt? Or Bahrain? All of which are islamic-fascist states. 0-b@ma has been financing islamic-fascist states that sponsor islamic terrorism (e.g. Pakistan).

          • Drakken

            It won’t stay in the middle east honey, it will spread to Europe soon enough. The muslim world isn’t going to confront jacksh*t amongst themselves, they will do what they always do, pit one group against another until it comes to their own countries. This war is only in the beginning stages, it will spread, you can count on it.

          • Yehuda Levi

            “demanding the child dedicate himself to this futile, feudal, effed up policy of human polity” – Americana

            The Palestinian Arabs do this as well, yet the individual you are responding to actively endorses a sovereign state be the reward for this behavior – a state right next to Israel.

            There is no substantive difference between Hamas and ISIS. So if ISIS is a “effed up policy of human polity” why is Hamas deserving of irrational sympathy and a separate state? Does it has something to do with the fact the Israel is a Jewish state?

          • Americana

            Nope, it’s got nothing w/the fact Israel is “a Jewish state.” Let’s see if you can guess what it has to do with..

        • Daniel Greenfield

          The best way to score Islamic points is still killing infidels.

          Once they run out of Christians and Yazidis, it’s back to killing Westerners.

          That’s how we got 9/11 in the first place.

          Bin Laden was getting at the Saudis though us.

          • Americana

            Osama bin Laden told us exactly — point by point — why he was intent on getting us out of the Middle East and he certainly didn’t need to attack the U.S. to get at the Saudis.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Actually, yes he did.

            That’s how these conflicts work.

          • Americana

            You’re going to have to get a little more technical w/your explanation and point of view, Daniel, the above is useless.

          • truebearing

            Maybe it wasn’t the explanation that was the problem. Perhaps it was your reluctance to admitting checkmate. Do you claim to not understand the rules of chess when you are losing?

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            Don’t they get double bonus virgin rewards points for killing zionists?

        • ping

          Garbage. The Taliban had to fight Hazara Shi’ites, Ahmadiyya, Sikhs, Hindus and Sunnis who opposed them in Afghanistan and yet they still caused trouble for America!

          • Americana

            The Taliban aren’t the jihadis who’ve caused the terror problems in the U.S. Here in the U.S. we’ve pretty much faced only those acting on behalf of the Palestinian jihad. The terrorist incident that set the U.S. on the warpath in the Middle East —9/11 — was the worst ever terrorist attack on the U.S. and it was organized and committed by Saudi nationals acting on behalf of Palestinians.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            No it wasn’t committed on behalf of the Palestinians.

            It was committed due to Bin Laden’s obsession with Mecca and Medina. The Fatwa justifying it was based on the presence of US forces in Saudi Arabia.

          • Americana

            Honestly, do I really have to go and get Osama bin Laden’s 9/11 manifesto all over again and dig out the relevant references to the Palestinians and Israel? Yes, without a doubt, the Palestinian situation played a huge role in the 9/11 attack. Since the U.S. closed all its Saudi bases and moved its troops to a newly constructed base in Qatar, there is at least one issue w/bin Laden that the U.S. has solved.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The Fatwa was titled “Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places,

            You can get the gist of it from the title

          • Americana

            Nope, different manifestos. This one below is called “Letter to America” and it focuses on America’s support of Israel and our various wars against Muslims in support of American foreign policy. But it’s a bin Laden doozy so, of course, he’s going to throw in all sorts of moral inequities and tell us to shape up.

            http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

            Section 5 contains the references saying the U.S. should leave Muslim lands but it’s not nearly the dominating topic of yours nor does it deal specifically w/certain holy places:

            (5) We also advise you to pack your luggage and get out of our lands. We desire for your goodness, guidance, and righteousness, so do not force us to send you back as cargo in coffins.

            ______________

            In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful,

            “Permission to fight (against disbelievers) is given to those (believers) who are fought against, because they have been wronged and surely, Allah is Able to give them (believers) victory” [Quran 22:39]

            “Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (anything worshipped other than Allah e.g. Satan). So fight you against the friends of Satan; ever feeble is indeed the plot of Satan.”[Quran 4:76]

            Some American writers have published articles under the title ‘On what basis are we fighting?’ These articles have generated a number of responses, some of which adhered to the truth and were based on Islamic Law, and others which have not. Here we wanted to outline the truth – as an explanation and warning – hoping for Allah’s reward, seeking success and support from Him.

            While seeking Allah’s help, we form our reply based on two questions directed at the Americans:

            (Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?
            Q2)What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

            As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:

            (1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

            a) You attacked us in Palestine:

            (i) Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than 80 years. The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily.

            (ii) It brings us both laughter and tears to see that you have not yet tired of repeating your fabricated lies that the Jews have a historical right to Palestine, as it was promised to them in the Torah. Anyone who disputes with them on this alleged fact is accused of anti-semitism. This is one of the most fallacious, widely-circulated fabrications in history. The people of Palestine are pure Arabs and original Semites. It is the Muslims who are the inheritors of Moses (peace be upon him) and the inheritors of the real Torah that has not been changed. Muslims believe in all of the Prophets, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all. If the followers of Moses have been promised a right to Palestine in the Torah, then the Muslims are the most worthy nation of this.

            When the Muslims conquered Palestine and drove out the Romans, Palestine and Jerusalem returned to Islaam, the religion of all the Prophets peace be upon them. Therefore, the call to a historical right to Palestine cannot be raised against the Islamic Ummah that believes in all the Prophets of Allah (peace and blessings be upon them) – and we make no distinction between them.

            (iii) The blood pouring out of Palestine must be equally revenged. You must know that the Palestinians do not cry alone; their women are not widowed alone; their sons are not orphaned alone.

            (b) You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon.

            (c) Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis;

            (i) These governments prevent our people from establishing the Islamic Shariah, using violence and lies to do so.

            (ii) These governments give us a taste of humiliation, and places us in a large prison of fear and subdual.

            (iii) These governments steal our Ummah’s wealth and sell them to you at a paltry price.

            (iv) These governments have surrendered to the Jews, and handed them most of Palestine, acknowledging the existence of their state over the dismembered limbs of their own people.

            (v) The removal of these governments is an obligation upon us, and a necessary step to free the Ummah, to make the Shariah the supreme law and to regain Palestine. And our fight against these governments is not separate from out fight against you.

            (d) You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of you international influence and military threats. This theft is indeed the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world.

            (e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures.

            (f) You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down.

            (g) You have supported the Jews in their idea that Jerusalem is their eternal capital, and agreed to move your embassy there. With your help and under your protection, the Israelis are planning to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque. Under the protection of your weapons, Sharon entered the Al-Aqsa mosque, to pollute it as a preparation to capture and destroy it.

            (2) These tragedies and calamities are only a few examples of your oppression and aggression against us. It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge. Is it in any way rational to expect that after America has attacked us for more than half a century, that we will then leave her to live in security and peace?!!

            (3) You may then dispute that all the above does not justify aggression against civilians, for crimes they did not commit and offenses in which they did not partake:

            (a) This argument contradicts your continuous repetition that America is the land of freedom, and its leaders in this world. Therefore, the American people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies. Thus the American people have chosen, consented to, and affirmed their support for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, the occupation and usurpation of their land, and its continuous killing, torture, punishment and expulsion of the Palestinians. The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change it if they want.

            (b) The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq. These tax dollars are given to Israel for it to continue to attack us and penetrate our lands. So the American people are the ones who fund the attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates.

          • Jack DIamond

            The list of grievances is endless nor are they really the point. He also calls us “Crusaders.” He also demanded, many times, the release of the Blind Sheikh, or else. There is no placating him. Even throwing Israel to the (Muslim) wolves, as you would have liked, would solve nothing. The reason for the jihad is answered in what bin Laden had to say to fellow MUSLIMS. A document such as “Moderate Islam is a Prostration to the West” where he gives the real reason–the same any and every Islamic jihadist would give you from Gaza to Indonesia to Sudan:

            “There are only three choices in Islam: either willing
            submission, or payment of the jizya thereby physical, though not spiritual submission to the authority of Islam, or the sword–for it is not right to let him live (an infidel). The matter is summed up for every person alive; either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die.”

            “Muslims and especially the learned among them, should spread Sharia law to the world, that and nothing else…(Muhammad:)”I have been commanded to battle mankind until they declare there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah…He
            also said, per Berida..”Call them to Islam, if they respond (convert) accept this… if they refuse to accept Islam, demand of them the jizya…if they refuse, seek the aid of Allah and fight them. Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority, corporeally if not spiritually? Yes.”

            “In fact, Muslims are obligated to raid the lands of the
            infidels, occupy them, and exchange their systems of governance for an Islamic system, barring any practice that contradicts the Shari’a from being publicly voiced among the people as was the case at the dawn of Islam…They say that our Shari’a does not impose our particular beliefs upon others, this is a false assumption. For it is, in fact, part of our religion to impose our
            particular beliefs upon others.”

            “Offensive Jihad is an established and basic tenet of this
            religion. It is a religious duty rejected only by the most
            deluded. Divine foundations that are built upon hating the infidels, repudiating them with tongue and teeth till they embrace Islam or pay the jizya with willing submission and humility. The Prophet was “sent in the final hours with the sword so that none is worshiped but Allah alone, partnerless.”

            The idea jihad “struggles” are nationalistic, local, and unconnected is farcical and belied by the statements of the jihadis themselves. They would all concur with Bin Ladin here. See if you find a specific political grievance in any of this. You won’t. You will find the foundation for permanent, eternal RELIGIOUS war. This what he writes to Muslims to justify 9/11. This is jihad and jihad is Islam. Now you know.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            As usual American is as slippery as a worm. Obfuscations and evasions are its stock in trade, but only when defending islam.

          • Americana

            I’m not at all interested in obfuscations and evasions nor am I interested in defending Islam. I wouldn’t bring up the reformation of Islam as a constant theme if that were the case.

          • Drakken

            Islam will never ever be reformed, your going to have to eliminate from existence.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            The whole concept of reforming islam is nothing more than a red herring; an a rotten one at that.

    • Pete

      Maliki is gone as of this morning. We see what comes next.

    • Pete

      30% of central Europe died (Germany) during the 30 Years War.

      Not something we want to contemplate, but something we might get.

      • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

        Yes, it’s not a proposal but a fear. Indeed, it may only be preventable by a nation that has (or had) the wherewithal … i.e. us.

  • mtnhikerdude

    All this chaos in the Middle East is being funded with Petro / Obama Dollars . The status symbol is an AK -47 notched with Christian kills.

    • IslamDownpressesHumanity

      Please, you’re being very islamophobic. While Muhammud may have shown a certain fondness for Judaism, magnanimous Muhammud clearly had no moral issues with slaughtering any unbeliever, equally.

  • JVictor

    “…breaking Iraq up along demographic lines into majority ethnic and religious states…” is truly the only idea that will work in the Muslim dominated regions. The progressives of the world balk at this type of logic in Iraq and
    African nations while demanding a “two-state solution” for the
    Israeli-Arab situation. Why? Once the common denominator of Islam is removed, then this solution is problematic. Islam will never be fully satisfied until all other religions are eradicated. Ergo, the issue is a spiritual battle and not merely a physical battle which is something liberal progressives a loathe to admit is even possible, much less a reality. And they fan the flames of antisemitism all the more.

    • LastOne23

      So many Sunnis are married to Shia that I think they’d push back – maybe this could work but the radicals are the problem. I like the fact that ISIS is forming their own caliphate. It tells us where to drop the big one.

      • Drakken

        There is no such thing as a so called radical, they are all muslims of different stripes and allegiances who are doing what they have always done since that pedophile false prophet of the devil came crawling out of the desert and screwed his first 9 year old.

  • mtnhikerdude

    When was the last time a Christian donned a suicide vest or called for beheading for those who insult Christianity ? We are dealing with an inbred hatred from infancy . Where is the outrage ? The lack of outrage in Germany lead to WW III .
    What are we heading for now ? Denial is the STP treated path to Planet Insanity.

    • Drakken

      This will spread, one way or another, a wider war is coming because the muzaloids smell the west’s weakness in their inability to name the enemy and lack of spine.

      • IslamDownpressesHumanity

        But for reason, you think the muslim Kurds will be our trustworthy allies for peace? That seems to have as much sense as picking the SA over the SS.

        • Drakken

          The reason you arm the Kurds is that they will be a nice wonderful pain in the azz to the Iranians, whatever is left of Iraq, Syria and the goddamn Turks, it is simple step to take to keep the muslims flooding the region from western states to kill each other to their little jihadist hearts content. The question remains, does the west have the spine to deal with the little bastards if they try to return to our lands, at this point they don’t.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            I see, excellent.

        • Johnnnyboy

          The Kurds are too small and weak to have international aspirations. That makes them safe from our point of view. An additional plus is that they are less nasty than some of the others.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            Tell that to the Armenian and Assyrian Christians who were slaughtered and enslaved by Kurdish muslims during the Armenian Genocide.

  • Lanna

    Get a load of what Obama’s policies have caused…Iraq was peaceful before the US pulled out, look at LIbya, and Syria, Ukraine, Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood whom the people wanted gone, Hamas who has been given billions of dollars to build a war machine to use against Israel. No leadership….No Peace! The world went chaotic when this administration took over!

  • DogmaelJones1

    As Daniel points out in this comprehensive column on the history of Mideast strife between Muslims (aside from the strife between Jews and Muslims), the murderous religious conflicts antedate today’s concerns about ISIS, the Sunnis and Shiites. I contend that “democracy,” or what is known as living under a secular rule of law, is impossible to Muslims. Even in a state “stabilized”
    by a figment of rule of law, as Iraq was, will still have the kindling for further
    strife as Sunnis, Shiites, and other Muslim sects are forced to cohabit the
    same region under a single government. Pacified for a while, religious and clan
    rivalries will seethe just below boiling points until some action precipitates
    violent clashes.

    Also, it isn’t commonly known that the Sauds did not help to crush the Turks during WWI. Saudi clans did not accompany Lawrence of Arabia on his raids against the Ottomans, but those of another Muslim headman, whom the British at first supported, but then dropped when the British and the Sauds reached an “understanding.” The predecessors of the current rulers of Saudi Arabia sat out the war and contributed nothing in the way of money or men to the campaign against the Turks. As Daniel points out, the Sauds post-WWI employed the Ikhwan Wahhabists to finish off any opposition to Saudi
    dominance of the Arabian Peninsula. And when Ikhwan revolted against King Saud, the Sauds used British air power and some ground troops, together with arms sales, to help them put down the revolt. (This history is brought to life in the novel, “The Back Stone,” set in 1930 San Francisco during a murder
    investigation.) That particular episode of intramural rivalry did not get the
    press coverage the current events are getting vis-à-vis Al Queda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and now ISIS. Mideast strife was not yet the focus of journalists at the time.

  • Habbgun

    America must arm the Kurds and it must find a way to arm Christian minorities. As for myself the little I know seems to say that there will one day be a considerable private sector solution in this.

    If private efforts came about to provide money and arms to groups under threat the government will have three choices. Allow the private sector to make contributions, avoid embarrassment and go about providing the right aid or find a way to crack down on those groups proving there is some kind of influence by the Islamists.

    I believe as long as the government is getting more socialistic it will choose the third choice. The ability to deny weaponry is a form of power and socialists are nothing if they are not believers in detached centralized power. Unfortunately just because government has its interests it doesn’t mean we are free of Islamism. Like it or not there will have to be more than trust in government.

    • knowshistory

      we had 10 years to arm and train Iraq’s at-risk minorities so they could defend themselves against islam. yes. islam. not isis. not al-Qaida. not “extremist islam”. islam. but we did not, due to the stupidity of bush and Obama’s malicious hatred of infidels.

  • Michael Gersh

    “The only real hope for stability lies in breaking Iraq up along demographic lines into majority ethnic and religious states.”

    So we have come full circle. The Ottomans left the region mostly to its own devices, and the various tribes and sects were allowed to live as they saw fit. Then came the European colonizers, who sectioned the region into chunks that suited them (Sikes-Picot) but had little regard for local desires. Saddam ran Iraq by playing the various factions off against each other with his whip hand. That was good enough for the West, but when he started to expand his borders we got involved.

    It is too late to change Iraq back to some Western version of Arab utopia, but it is true that we broke it, so we have some responsibility to fix it. Here in the West our elites fetishize multiculturalism, and maybe it did work to some extent in Europe for a time, but the natural state of humanity is to self organize into smaller groups and tiny kingdoms. Daniel Pipes and Joe Biden were right – let them organize into borders that make more sense to them, not necessarily to us.

    Of course can support those factions we like better, for whatever reason and using whatever means, but we can not dictate the outcome, short of forming another dictatorship along the lines of Saddam’s. No matter what we do, the jockeying for power and position will continue, to a more or less violent extent. That is what humans do, no matter what the organizing principles are, no matter what kind of a world Western intellectuals would rather like to see. Meanwhile we can foresee wars, large and small, as far as the eye can see into the future. Fukuyama’s “End of History” was a hope, now smashed. History never really stopped. Maybe it paused for a tiny time, but now it is back with a vengeance.

    • truebearing

      Well said. If multiculturalism isn’t working here in the US, how is it going to work in Iraq? Muslims destroy other cultures as a matter of doctrinal principle. We would have more success teaching water to flow uphill than get Muslims to accept multiculturalism.

      Multiculturalism as a concept contradicts itself. It destroys cultures by blending them together according to cultural marxism. Cultures are groups of people living together, sharing beliefs, customs, language, etc. The more cultures living under one tent, the less unity. Multiculturalism is really intended to homogenize cultures until they no longer exist. I believe this is one of the reasons the Left is anti-semitic — Jews have stuck together despite all adversity and are very unlikely to willingly submit to cultural homogenization. Christians of faith present the same problem. That these idiots on the Left think multiculturalism will work in Muslim counties is perfect proof that they don’t understand religion, and especially Islam.

      • Drakken

        Multiculturalism and diversity always without exception leads to Balkanization and massive bloodshed, it is as it has always been as it will always be, but leftist keep truly believing that they can put round pegs into square holes and make them fit.

        • truebearing

          They think they can undermine any culture and reduce it to the point that their own sick culture can dominate. Marxism is the Ebola of ideologies. It is essentially a political disease. Like the Ebola virus that disables the immune system before destroying the internal organs, Marxists disable the cultural survival instinct with the pernicious idiocy of political correctness, infiltrate the institutions of society — the organs — then push multiculturalism as the cure for the problems they intentionally exacerbated. They sicken a country and keep it sick so they can have power.

          • Drakken

            No matter how times and how many different ways they try Marxism/communism, it always leads to a stack of dead bodies, and in this day and age it is no exception.

    • Drakken

      You forget Mike, war is natural to the human condition since the dawn of time and will be with us for at least another millennia or two. It is what we do now to ensure that western civilization thrives and survives that will make the difference.

    • IslamDownpressesHumanity

      Your statements about the Ottoman empire whitewash the reality. The reality of persecution, the Janissary program, slavery and dhimmitude.

      • Michael Gersh

        None of that changes a word I posted. Your postmodern sensitivities to such things would have been no big deal to a Jew or Christian living in the Levant hundreds of years ago. And, FWIW, service in the Ottoman Empire, especially as a Janissary, would have been seen as an opportunity, not some form of oppression. Dhimmitude was a system of taxation, and these populations were not fodder for slavery. The people of the book were exempt, and of course that stuff did not apply to Arabs.

        • IslamDownpressesHumanity

          Um Janissaries had no choice in their service they were CHILDREN, taken from their kaffir parents and forced into military service by Turkish muslims. If that isn’t oppression what is? Dhimmitude was a “system of taxation”, what a freakin’ lie that is. It was a systematized form of oppression that went far beyond a simple tax imposed on the najjis kaffir.

          • Michael Gersh

            You are completely wrong. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Many Janissaries achieved status and power, and many saw it as an opportunity, and a way out for their kids. Similarly, Dhimmitude was not seen by CONTEMPORARIES as unusual oppression. For instance, European Jews immigrated to Ottoman lands for the lesser oppression that there was in those places. I guess modern Millennials would chafe under such conditions, but in those days, it was a choice that many people made.

            It is an unfortunate trend these days to apply modern mores to past behavior. Makes little sense, but I guess it makes you feel superior. Time was that allowing male landowners to vote was considered a great advance of democracy and freedom, and a man could only marry a woman. Today that might be considered oppression. Makes no sense to me, but that is the screwed up world we live in. Nobody reads books anymore, apparently.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            Aw gee, how would you like it if muslims had to pay a special tax in the USA for being muslims? How would you like it if the daily call to prayer were disallowed (as the ringing of church bells and the sounding of the shofar in Turkey is today). Your damn, dumb, muslim lies won’t fly with me.
            Here’s one viewpoint on the janissary program:

            http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Turkish_Genocides_-_Genocides_in_the_Osmannic_Empire_1908-1918

            In Serbia, Bosnia, Armenia, Albania, Romania, Bulgaria and Macedonia
            Christian fathers were to bring their small boys to the marketplace.
            Here a Muslim judge would select the prettiest, healthiest and most
            robust children as a tax to the Muslims. This ‘boy harvest’, as it was
            called, had several purposes:

            1. To increase the Muslim population and decrease the Christian.
            2.
            To strengthen the Islamic army, as the boys were to be brainwashed to
            be fanatic Muslims with an intense hatred towards all Christians. These
            boys later formed the foundation of the Janissary regiments, Muslim
            elite soldiers, whose units were always first in line during attacks.
            3.
            This lead to another gain: In case of a rebellion or opposition from
            the subdued Christians, the Janissary units would be used, thus causing
            the parents to fight against their own children.

            The Devshirme institution, the idea of ‘harvesting’ the Christian
            boys by a number of 8000-12,000 a year, was developed further by
            corrupt civil servants ‘harvesting’ many more boys than demanded by the
            sultan. These became an extra income to the servants, who would either
            sell them into slavery or back to their parents.

          • Michael Gersh

            [Yawn] When you grow up you might realize that crowd-sourced Wiki pages reflect the zeitgeist more than reality. Cutting and pasting from such summary sources shows just how little you understand. Reading contemporary sources you might see a quite different POV, but one that does not reflect the desires of the elites. But I can’t teach you, and am giving up the attempt.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            You might be selling Al Taqiyya lies muslim, but I’m not buying.

          • Michael Gersh

            You are a presumptuous fool. I have been warning about the danger of the moslem hordes probably since before you were born. If making your point requires telling lies, you should hit the books and learn about that which you post. The truth is bad enough, making stuff up makes you look like an idiot.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            WRT your last sentence you should be looking in a mirror — especially WRT your insipid lies about dhimmitude.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            More information on the Turkish barbaric practice of Devshrime:
            http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/09/devshirme-muslim-scourge-on-christians.html

            Stealing children from their parents and brainwashing them into becoming muslims is called an “opportunity” to Michael Gersh.

  • Pete

    “The ISIS atrocities of today were business as usual for the Ikhwan who referred to other Muslims as infidels, invaded Iraq, Kuwait and Jordan, killed some 400,000 people and created a million refugees.”

    I realized this. Iread the book The Kingdom: Arabia and the House of Sa’Ud – February 1, 1983 by Robert Lacey

  • Pete

    “Obama ever really believed in some anti-colonialist doctrine that convinced him that Iraqis would unite after an American withdrawal or whether he was using it as a fig leaf for his preemptive withdrawal platform, but time and mass murder have discredited him and it either way.”

    This is like betting on a football game. Nowadays it isn’t simply good enough to pick the winning team. The point spread of victory is taken into account with a lot of bets.

    On a philosophical or moral level, Obama is right. It would be better if the Iraqis unite.

    It might be necessary to put pressure on them to unite. But it matters how. A timetable matters. Bush called Maliki everyday and likely coaxed and wheedled and threatened Maliki. The people of Iraq were safer for it. Obama merely gives us platitudes and aphorisms. There is probably an app for it; we don’t need obama for that.

    If the Shia unite with good faith with the Kurds, when they are kicked out of Baghdad and are pushed back 1/2 way to Basrah, will that be a victory for Obama’s way? The point spread matters. Here the point spread is measured in lives lost or ruined. The point spread is in the hundreds of thousands odf dead and could go into the million s soon.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Bush was on top of the Iraq War.

      Obama declares wars and then checks out.

      • trickyblain

        It’s hard to be on top of something that one doesn’t understand. If he was on top of the Iraq War, he would have come to the same conclusion that you rightfully have now. The same conclusion that Biden had in 2006 and was shouted down by the Neos. Bush had no long-term vision or strategy for Iraq during his second term; he merely waited it out and left the hard choices to the next guy.

        As Biden wrote in 2006: “It is increasingly clear that President Bush does not have a strategy for victory in Iraq. Rather, he hopes to prevent defeat and pass the problem along to his successor…Iraq’s new government of national unity will not stop the deterioration…The first is to establish three largely autonomous regions with a viable central government in Baghdad. The Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite regions would each be responsible for their own domestic laws, administration and internal security.”

        • Daniel Greenfield

          More accurately Bush hadn’t shifted to a new vision in his second term, but it didn’t change the fact that he remained closely involved all the time in what was going on.

          I wouldn’t exactly use Biden as a role model. Yes he proposed splitting Iraq up, but he had quite a few positions on Iraq over the years and served as the point man for Obama’s disastrous Iraq policy.

          “I am very optimistic about — about Iraq… this could be one of the great achievements of this administration.” Joe Biden

          • trickyblain

            No, I don’t hold Biden (or Obama, or any modern pol for that matter) up as a role model. He comes across as a buffoon with zero self-awareness. But he’s not dumb, as many portray him. I actually liked him better as a senator.

            The point is that he did earn some points being the only person in the federal gov’t (that I know of) to come the the only logical conclusion of the Iraq fiasco.

            What is Obama’s disastrous policy? As you note above, there aren’t any great options. Maybe there’s middle ground, but to me the choices are a) leave and let the chips fall where they may, and b) keep sacrificing blood and treasure to keep an artificial country together, knowing it will eventually be in vain when we do decide to disengage.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Air strikes against ISIS a lot earlier… in a sentence.

            The bizarre pretense that we should stop worrying about Al Qaeda in Iraq once we had pulled out.

          • trickyblain

            Agree on that point! But that’s tactical. What, strategically, can the current admin do in terms of stabilizing the “country”?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            If we had made it clear that we still considered ISIS a target early on, it wouldn’t have gathered a Sunni coalition around it for fear of becoming targets.

          • Drakken

            Arm up the Kurds and let them take their own territories by hacking off what they have in Iraq and take their territory in Syria since Assad at this point doesn’t have the means to keep it, and let the Kurds be a really wonderful pain in the azz to the Turks and the Iranians, that will keep the bastards occupied for a while. Iraq at this point is not going to be held together any longer, that is a done deal.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            I don’t like the idea of my tax dollars going to support another islamic-fascist group. In the long run the US arming the islamic-fascists in Afghanistan backfired (regardless of whether or not the label applied to the islamic-fascists is mujhadeen or Taliban).

          • Drakken

            When these inbred savages are right in the middle of slaughtering each other, never get in the way and grab a bourbon and watch the show.

        • truebearing

          Bush had a long-term vision and strategy. He simply underestimated the difficulty (near impossibility) of unifying Sunnis and Shiites. Bush was too idealistic. The Left should be very sympathetic given their utter lack of understanding of the nature of Islam.

          Bush should have saved the money we spent on nation building in Iraq and gone after Iran for the casualties they caused throughout the conflict. Now Iran is the beneficiary of a pro-Muslim president who refused to maintain a SOF in a fractured Iraq. We took Saddam down fast, and should have kept moving and blitzed Iran with Shock and Awe 2.0.

          • trickyblain

            I actually don’t entirely disagree. Only point of contention is that it should have started with Iran. Arab Iraq was a pro choice. The Iranian people identify as Persian; it’s a unified population with cosmopolitan Western tastes. Targeted strikes with regime change as the goal may very well have had a good ending. A powerful, pro-western Iran would be in our national interests a thousandful more than a tribal, factional Arab backwater.

          • truebearing

            I agree that it was the more important target, but strategically, neutering Saddam in a lightning strike and then proceeding into Iran on the grounds of their supplying IEDS to Al Qeada would have given us justification, and could have been done before Russia could take a stance it would have to back down from. It would have caught Iran off-guard and given us airfields to operate from that were right next door. Iraq was the right war if we would have used it as a springboard into Iran, but we don’t think like the great conquerors of old. We keep whistling in the dark and pretending “this will be the last war.”

            Unfortunately, it wasn’t to be, and now we are drifting inexorably toward a world in which Iran has nukes and can arm terrorists with them at will.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The problem was that the US had been locked into a Saddam cycle since the Gulf War. It dragged Bill Clinton in.

            Ending the problem and turning Iraq around seemed logical from the standpoint of dealing with an ongoing problem.

          • Americana

            Pres. Bush’s long-term vision and strategy belonged to VPres. Cheney and Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld and other neo-cons. It was no more likely to work in Iran than Iraq or work on the two of them together but you can hold to that fantasy of yours if you want… Yes, we probably could have taken both countries during a single war that plowed on through both countries from end to end, and we’d STILL end up w/this identical situation. You must be forgetting the most recent “Death to America! Death to Israel!” marches in Iran over our interference w/their nuclear program.

          • truebearing

            You are ignoring the points Tricky made regarding the nature of the Iranian people. Read his comment, if you haven’t already.

            With a democratic Iran, Iraq wouldn’t be nearly as unstable. Iran was pulling the strings in the Maliki government, which made a coalition government with the Sunnis an absolute impossibility. Take the Ayatollahs out of the equation and you end the Twelver insanity, including the desire to nuke the entire world. Iraq could have then been split into autonomous states somewhat successfully. Assad may have been the next domino to fall had the Twelvers been beaten in Iran. Hizbollah would certainly have been on some mighty shaky ground. Iran was the right target, but Iraq was the perfect gate.

            No war ends all conflict, but some wars postpone some very serious consequences that will happen in the absence of making successful strategic war. That is the nature of the human geopolitical reality here on earth, like it or not.

          • Americana

            The “nature of the Iranian people” being Persians and having some homogeneity and being interested in Westernization of some aspects of their lives doesn’t necessarily change how receptive they would be to being vanquished by imperialist America targeting them out of the blue just because we want to squelch jihadi actions in the Middle East. Iranians wouldn’t tolerate us bombing them back into the stone age, the way we did Iraq and they certainly wouldn’t afterward happily play the role of the vanquished. I’m not ignoring trickyblain’s points at all, I’m saying it’s bizarre to talk about the Iranians and give such absurd weight in the equation to the Iranians being homogeneous ethnically when they’ve had such a fractious relationship w/the U.S. over all sorts of different foreign policy issues and they’re still quite rabidly anti-American about our foreign policy..

          • American Patriot

            America isn’t imperialist, fool. Neo-Communist Russia and Communist China are both imperialist, along with Islamist Iran. America is democratic and needs to be the leader of democracy in the world.

          • Drakken

            Sorry, but democracy does not and will not work in the arab or Iranian world, so you have a choice, you either have the mullahs or a strongman in charge, otherwise go whole hog and eliminate the religious aspect by eliminating all the mullahs, ayatollahs and imams and the madrassas and putting a General in charge until they are educated enough to understand the simple concept of a democracy, in the muslim mind, democracy does not compute.

      • Americana

        Pres. Bush was lucky enough to EXECUTE the Iraq War. When Bush signed the Status of Forces agreement that stated U.S. forces had to leave Iraq by 2011, he should have begun to have a pretty good idea just how effed up things could get. ANY U.S. President, whatever his party, would be in this present fix.

        • truebearing

          Wrong. Obama made a point of projecting not only weakness, but worse, a clear sympathy for the Islamist agenda. Obama even lost the option of bluffing because of his feckless foreign policy. The Muslims knew he would do nothing, so they ran amok.

          The Left’s nonsense about Bush being a great recruiting tool for Al Qeda was proven spectacularly wrong by none other than Obama himself, whose presidency has been the halcyon days of recruiting for not only Al Qeada, but any Muslim group on a murderous mission. The absence of US power has exponentially increased the number of jihadis. It would be nearly impossible to find a president who could aid the enemy as well as Obama has. Certainly no president before him has even come close.

          • Americana

            Pres. Obama may have some sympathy for the worst aspects afflicting failed Muslim societies like Somalia and so on, but he certainly doesn’t have any sympathy for ISIS. The Islamists know that the U.S. — as a WHOLE COUNTRY — is reluctant to reengage in something we are unable to solve using our country’s resources and perspectives. After all, we’ve already spent over a trillion dollars trying to give Iraq a shot at what we’ve got and we failed at doing so because the Iraqis failed. This jihadist push was coming down the pike regardless of what happened in any specific nations in the Middle East because there are Muslims who don’t want secular Islam and there are large numbers who do want secular Islam.

            I watched a couple of movies this past weekend and it was interesting to see the American foreign policy at play in those films. One was ‘Parkland’ about the assassination of Pres. Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald, his assassin; the other was ‘Capt. Phillips’ about the U.S. merchant marine captain who was skippering a cargo ship that was hijacked. The reality of Oswald’s character and his motivations viz Russia and himself…. Ugghh, what a pathetic man. In contrast, Capt. Phillips was a compassionate and sensible man who recognized the hopelessness of the Somalis who’d kidnapped him. Watch them both, they’re fascinating films.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            “but he certainly doesn’t have any sympathy for ISIS.”

            That must be why he waited until the last minute to bomb them.

          • Americana

            There are any number of reasons why Pres. Obama waited until there was a perfect storm of a humanitarian crisis (the Yazidis) and ISIS territorial gains in close proximity. You’re certainly not going to list any of those possibilities but you should be aware of at least this one — Holding off rendering any assistance forced the Iraqi government to replace former PM Nouri al-Maliki and make a more rational choice for Prime Minister. There are several aspects of the conflict that hinged on Iraqis recognizing just exactly what they were up against w/their policy failures and their refusal to abide by American demands. Besides, there are many American military who are saying don’t reenter the Iraqi conflict in any fashion.

          • truebearing

            Obama has tons of sympathy for Muslim causes. He upended Mubarak in Egypt — a long time ally in the war on terror. He did the same to Khaddafi, another enemy of the jihadists. He ignored the pleas from the Iranian pro-democracy movement, but released billions to Iran, after ending sanctions, virtually ensuring a nuclear Iran. He has given Muslim Brotherhood operatives access and input to our anti-terror apparatus. He refused to call Hasan’s mass shooting terrorism. He armed Al Qeada in lIbya, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and Al Qeada and ISIS in Syria. He then ignored the rise of ISIS when they were the most vulnerable and least costly to stop. Need I list more ways in which Obama has enabled Islamists?

            He ignored the many months of Christian persecution in Egypt under Morsi, including church burnings, rapes, killings, and even crucifixion of Coptic Christians — not a word from Obama. The same thing happened in Syria, where Obama was providing weapons to those who were wiping out one of the oldest enclaves of Christianity in the world.

            The only reason he has made any effort in Iraq is because his poll numbers are dropping so low over his illegal immigration scheme. He’s even losing blacks it has gotten so bad. He needs to boost his numbers somehow so he can claim a significant number of Americans are backing his illegal, unconstitutional, seditious scheme.

            No, Obama has sympathy for Obama, and Muslims. Being a Muslim himself, when he feels sorry for Muslims he is felling sorry for himself. It’s that malignant narcissism rearing its ugly head, yet again.

          • Americana

            Pres. Mubarak was on the way out and everyone knew it. You act as if all an American President has to do is wish something would remain the same and it will make it so. Mubarak was dead in the water just as Gaddafi was. There was a horrible confluence of reciprocal resistance movements once each of the resistance movements began to gain adherents but they were long overdue and were coming regardless of what the U.S. did and, more importantly, what each of these governments did.

            Please, don’t let’s reprise why Major Nidal Hasan’s mass shooting was called “workplace violence” instead of treason or murder or I’ll have to go get those Army JAG statements all over again. When Pres. Obama armed any of these Muslim resistance movements, there were legitimate secular fighters within their ranks and it was impossible to tell what the percentage was of jihadi sympathizers from those secularists. Even now, as the U.S. and France get ready to arm the Kurds, they don’t have a clear answer as to what that will produce as fallout. What, you think all the Kurds are fine upstanding Muslims without any Kurds that might turn around and present a problem in two years, in four years? All I know is Pres. Obama is not worried about his poll numbers since he’s in his last term. He’s worried about making the right choices for the U.S.

          • Drakken

            Your support and defense of this administration in the face of blatant facts is truly astonishing in your utter stupidity of it all. Keep believing in those rainbows and unicorns honey, they actually might come true if you believe hard enough.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            Her position is the islamic-fascist propaganda talking point that islam has been hijacked by a TMOE.

          • Americana

            For a supposed high-ranking contractor, you’ve got about as much interest in military and political interactions as a nebbish. You made an absolutely ludicrous case as to you personally hearing U.S. military orders for Benghazi that proved there was a smoking gun scenario of betrayal instead of just systemic failure of our Rapid Response Forces deployments. You claimed you knew that the U.S. failed to resupply the Israeli army w/ammunition and failed to pay the Israelis $225 million to refurbish the Iron Dome anti-missile system when the RESUPPLY and the $$$ APPROPRIATION WERE ALREADY DONE DEEDS, you don’t know the Moro jihadis have signed a peace treaty w/the Philippines and on and on… I’m beginning to wonder about your **situation** and your **connections,** Drakken.

          • Drakken

            Your problem is that you talk to much and listen to goddamn little. Maybe if you open your goddamn ears and listen instead of talking out of your azz you just might learn something. So PI signed a peace treaty that means jacksh*t to the Moro’s, they will be at again shortly as the Moro’s resupply and off to the races again after a pretense or 5. Because Obummer gave money and parts for Iron dome doesn’t mean he let them into the prepositioned stores carrying everything else, the devil is always in the details shortbus which you without fail, always continue to ignore.

          • Americana

            You’re one voice among many, Drakken, whose viewpoints I ingest. You’re not the most important voice and you’re not the most well-informed voice among those to whom I listen. You’re an American contractor. You’re not a historian of the region nor are you interested in more of the political minutiae of the ins and outs of Muslim interactions. The fact you’re an American contractor on the ground in Iraq is the sum total of value-added points to your perspective. Yes, the devil is in the details and if the Israelis felt the U.S. had shortchanged them on the resupply and reequipping of every part of Israel’s arsenal, we’d be FLOODED w/news stories in the MSM (yes, that MSM) about the failure of the U.S. to resupply Israel.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Obama went on insisting that the only solution to Al Qaeda could come from Iraqi unity right up until the threat of Yazidi genocide forced him to commit to air strikes.

    That’s because Obama and the Marxist totalitarian left apparently are dumb enough to believe their own propaganda in that they stupidly believe in PC multiculturalism, while forgetting at the same time that it is intended to destroy unified countries from within via balkanization. Getting the Shi’as of Iraq to unify with the Sunnis of Iraq is like getting Hamas to unify with Israel. It will never happen no matter what until one side destroys the other side.

    Terrorism apparently isn’t the only thing you are confused with and obsessed on at the same time Daniel. Nevertheless, it’s ISIS ethnically cleansing the Yazidi infidels and not AQ. So wake up and smell the coffee.

    By the way, there hasn’t been a genocide, at least yet. So let’s not jump the gun and jump to conclusions please, as there is too much hype as it is already.

    Indeed, with respect to ISIS, I hear constantly that ISIS members are beyond extremists and that they are extremists on steroids instead, because somebody alleges that even AQ claims that they are too extreme.

    I even heard one commentator earlier today say that what is happening in Iraq is unprecedented and then claimed that the word extreme doesn’t go far enough to describe ISIS. He then said, indeed, we are no longer talking about “radical Islam”, instead we are talking about “psychotic Islam.”

    Man oh man, does ICIS – who you confuse as being AQ – represent some sort of enormous gargantuan threat to all of mankind or what, and never mind the fact that the actions taking place in Iraq today has not only been happening for almost the past 1400 years perpetually, but is actually par for the course as far as Islamic totalitarian society is concerned. People need to read the biography of Muhammad. ISIS is just mimicking the greatest Muslim that ever lived.

    Meanwhile, all this hoopla in Iraq is keeping everybody’s eyes averted away from the real threat, and that is the threat from mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage for the nefarious purposes of mass Muslim infiltration of our societies and for eventual demographic conquest. Indeed, it’s the Islamic totalitarian world’s version of the Cold War.

    So while all of you guys attention is averted while advocating chasing down hydra-headed jihadis that you guys ignorantly conflate as being terrorists, non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad is manifesting full steam ahead totally unhindered throughout the infidel world because you guys are totally obsessed with waging war against terror, as opposed of the real culprit, which is mainstream orthodox Islam and in which is the only kind.

    • PatnTrucks

      You are right. I checked the US Census of 2010 and noted our mussie pop in the USA is .6% of one percent. How much that is representational in different US cities concerns me – like Dearborn Michigan for one, mussie pop of 47% (I think). Now when the local Dearborn sheriff arrests Christians for handing our the Gospel of John at an Arab Fest, I’m very worried. It wasn’t an Islam Fest, but from the rapid feral-like mussie children throwing things at the Christians in one YouTube video it could be Gaza! Little bastards are taught to hate all things un-muzzie here in the USA! So we wonder where home-grown terrorists come from? Intolerant mussie parents teaching the hatred.
      I’d rather take all of the mid-east Christians, Kurds or Yizdis than ONE mussie here in the USA. I read that the UN decides which country gets the latest band of refugees, regardless of desire of the victimized country. Why not put muzzies in other muzzie countries rather than the West?

      • IslamDownpressesHumanity

        The Kurds in the Mid-East ARE muslim, except for the Yadizi who are presently being slaughtered. The Jewish Kurds have made aliyah.

  • Pete

    Iraq: Sadrists ‘threaten PM with Saddam-like trial’

    http://www1.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Politics/?id=1.0.2016272149

    So the circus continues (not that we don’t have a 3 ring circus in D.C.).

    Why we did not discredit and eliminate the egotistical Sadr is a mystery.

    He ranks with Malikia and ISIS as a problem for Iraq.

    Muqtada al-Sadr is a pig of a man. The earth noticeable precesses with every step he takes.

    • Drakken

      We had the opportunity to eliminate that POS and the useful idiots in the State Dept nixed that plan, and this is what we get. Next time this POS gives a sermon in their biggest mosque in Basra, drop a MOAB on the place.

      • Pete

        I don’t think a MOAB is big enough.

        It couldn’t possibly cover the surface of his immensity.

        • Drakken

          Oh fear not good friend, an 80,000 pounder really does wonders for urban renewal.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            Damn, is that how much a MOAB weighs?

          • Drakken

            They start at 20,000 lbs and work their way up. The Russians have made one that is 100,000 and have tested it.

          • UCSPanther

            I’ll give it to the Russians: They sure know how to think big.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            Wow, Fat Man only weighed 10,000 lbs. I can only imagine what a 100,000lb MOAB would do. I don’t think there any bombers that can carry anything like that though. What would Russia use to deliver 100,000lbs of MOAB? Cargo plane of some type?

          • Drakken

            They modified a Antonov 124 and somehow made it work, where they dropped it is now a lake.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            The USSR apparently created a one-off monster based on the Antonov 124 called the Antonov 225, I wonder if the Antonov 225 is what you’re referring to.

    • http://www.apolllospeaks.com/ ApolloSpeaks

      Al-Sadr may be the next Ayatollah Khamenei (supremo) of the Islamic Republic of (southern) Iraq.

      For more on al-Sadr click http://www.apollospeaks.com and read the postscript to my Hurt Locker piece.

      • Pete

        I like Sistani a whole lot better than Sadr. Although I do not see eye to eye with Sistani he does seem somewhat wise although he does not have western mores.

        If Sadr replaces Sistanis we might as well rename Earth as Silverback World

        At that point if you are male you have a harem, you are dead or you are youngling growing up to challenge silverback soon with your AK 47.

        • IslamDownpressesHumanity

          Ayatollah Sistani is the guy who stated all kuffar are najjis (unclean) that’s you, that’s me. Along with dogs and I like dogs a helluva lot more than I like any muslim.

          • Pete

            I get that. Still as far as ayatollahs go he is better than there rest.

            Sadr is saying kill the Americans and taking Iranian money to do so.

            As far as I know Sistani is not saying kill the Americans at all or as often as Sadr.
            Sistani see America as throwing out Saddam and leaving at some point with Shia having political rights so he was not the fire breather that Sadr was.

            What is really disgusting about Sadr is that he is a coward of a fire breather. He knows how to scuttle to Iran like a crab when the going gets tough. i have seen braver tribal leaders of the Sunni Awakening.

            Now saying Sistani is better than Sadr might not being sang much. It might be saying Sadr is 0 and Sistani is > 0.

            I do fear that when Sistani dies things will get worse. Sadr will move his fat @zz in.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            “He is better than the rest”. That’s kinda like saying Goebbels or Mussolini was better than Hitler. Or Khameni is better than Khomeni. The fact is, they’re ALL BAD.

          • Pete

            Did he call for killing Americans stationed in Iraq?

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            He calls kafirs unclean (and thus untermenshcen). Yeah he’s a regular humanitarian isn’t he?

    • Daniel Greenfield

      We should have absolutely crushed him, but then he lined up kids as human shields… etc…

  • Pete
  • Americana

    Australia’s PM announces new travel bans in hopes of preventing Australian Muslims joining ISIS after the Twitter feed of an Australian Muslim w/terror-convictions in Australia shows his son holding a severed head. Hopefully, every country will figure out ways to maintain bans against returning jihadis.
    ________________________________________________________________________

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-28659330Australian PM announces new

    The Australian government is planning to restrict its citizens from travelling to certain countries to try to contain terrorist activities.

    It will strengthen laws to target home-grown terrorists and radicalised Australians who fight with terrorist groups overseas.

    Between 150 and 160 Australians are said to be fighting with militants in the Middle East, according to reports.

    The move comes after Indonesia banned the Islamic State jihadist group.

    Australian security agencies will now have an additional A$630m ($580m, £348m) over the next four years to boost operations, according to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

    Prime Minister Tony Abbott told reporters that the new measures would “make it easier to identify, to charge and to prosecute people who have been engaged in terrorist activities overseas.”

    • Drakken

      The problem isn’t jihadist leaving western countries, it is the jihadist coming back to reap havoc in western countries, and the only way your going to stop these savages is by killing them, anything less is an exercise in futility.

      • knowshistory

        a sensible society would encourage its peaceful muslims to go jihading away from home, then never, ever let them return. but a sensible society would never have allowed a muslim to contaminate its land to begin with. if 1400 years of genocide, robbery, lies, slavery, pedophilia, and aggression isn’t enough, what would be?

        • Drakken

          One way or another the muslims will be fleeing for their very lives from the infidels wrath.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            The alternative is a new worldwide islamic Dark Ages with the only question being how moderate it will be.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            You’ll have to deal w/the collaborators and apologists of islamic-fascism as well, and they are legion.

          • Drakken

            The left are sheep, they will be too cowed to offer much resistance when push comes to shove.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        I don’t think so. If they come back to the infidel world and start waging violent jihad over here, it would be incredibly counterproductive for them. Since the sole purpose for them being here in the first place is for mass Muslim infiltration of our societies and for eventual demographic conquest, i.e., non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad.

        If they start waging violent jihad over here, well it won’t be very long before all Muslims will find themselves being deported back to the Islamic totalitarian hellholes they came from, and their non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad would also go right along with them.

        The Islamic totalitarian world can’t never hope to defeat the infidel world via violent jihad, but via non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad, they very much can defeat the infidel world. Indeed, the threat emanating via non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad is exponentially far greater than the threat emanating from violent jihad.

        • Drakken

          Once these inbred muslim savages go out and have their jihadist fun in a foreign land, they will come back and commit their nice little jihad here, it is that simple. The question of overt or covert jihad is now moot, they are the same and will have to be dealt with the good old fashioned way if our western civilization is to thrive and survive.

    • Webb

      Hopefully at least one will return to slit your stupid throat.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      Utterly absurd. The Australian Prime Minister has been reading too many writers like Daniel who are totally obsessed with terrorism and only terrorism, even though terrorism isn’t even a manifestation of Islam, and as a result the good Prime Minister obviously believes that terrorism represents the scope of the threat, and never mind the fact that like most Republicans he also hasn’t learned a damn thing from GWB’s ill named so-called “war on terror” that inevitably turned into one of the greatest fiascos ever in American history.

      I hate to rain on the good Prime Minister’s parade, but all Muslims in the world are jihadists in one form or another, either violent or non-violent, according to the dictates of Islam, and that means that all Muslim immigrants in Australia, just like everywhere else also, are jihadists too.

      Now, with the exception of a few rare violent jihad attacks here and there in the infidel world, Muslim migrants, i.e., stealth and deceptive jihadists, don’t wage jihad violently for obvious reasons having to do with the fact that if they did, it wouldn’t be too long before they would all be deported back to the Islamic totalitarian hellholes they came from, with the result being that their stealth and deceptive jihad would go down the drain.

      In other words, waging violent jihad, when the sole purpose of their stealth and deceptive non-violent jihad in the first place is for the nefarious purposes of mass Muslim infiltration of our societies and for eventual demographic conquest, is exceedingly counterproductive in the infidel world. Thus, the likelihood of Muslim jihadis returning back from Iraq to wage violent jihad in the infidel world is rather unlikely, because it would be incredibly counterproductive.

      Perhaps the good Prime Minister ought to stop focusing only on terrorism and start focusing on mainstream orthodox Islam instead, because mainstream orthodox Islam is the real culprit here.

      • Americana

        (OBAMAYOMAMA) “,,,even though terrorism isn’t a manifestation of Islam….”

        Who writes this stuff for you?!$#$!#$!$#!@$ You are without a doubt the most confused anti-jihadist there is bar none.

        • ObamaYoMoma

          Who writes this stuff for you?!$#$!#$!$#!@$ You are without a doubt the most confused anti-jihadist there is bar none.

          Okay then according to you what exactly makes Muslims terrorists in your eyes? In other words, according to you, exactly why are Muslims terrorists?

          • Conniption Fitz

            Continual raping, murdering, bombing, burning, beheading, crucifying, slicing, dicing, warring, hating, oppressing, raging, genocides… that terrorism enough for you?

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Continual raping, murdering, bombing, burning, beheading, crucifying, slicing, dicing, warring, hating, oppressing, raging, genocides… that terrorism enough for you?

            What an overly emotional response. Indeed, you emote just like a leftist, because deep down inside you are a leftist. In fact, you’ve had a conniption fit, an overly emotional conniption fit!

            Nevertheless, moonbat, Muslims don’t target innocent civilian infidels because they are terrorists, as that is a very false and bogus analogy. They do it because “total warfare” is specifically proscribed for them per the dictates of Sharia and because murdering innocent civilian infidels in cold blood is the weak underbelly of infidel society.

            Apparently, you are unaware, but all mainstream orthodox Muslims in the world are jihadists in one form or another, as waging jihad, which is a holy war waged by ALL MUSLIMS against ALL INFIDELS in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam and its followers supreme throughout the world, is a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims, including women and children.

            By the way, none of the crap you listed in your overly emotional tirade is even remotely extreme or radical in Islamic totalitarian society, while it is to you because you don’t have the first fricking clue about Islamic totalitarian society, but all those things nonetheless are rituals and long held traditions in Islamic totalitarian society. As they have been occurring pretty much continuously ever since the earliest days of Islam.

            So, of course, like a moonbat you react emotively since you are a complete and utter ignoramus when it comes to Islam. Indeed, with the exception of what you have read in newspapers and on blogs, you otherwise don’t know a damn thing about Islam. Yet, you have the audacity to insult someone who forgot far more about it than you will ever come close to knowing. Give me a fricking break you moron!

          • Conniption Fitz

            Actually, I’m just listing acts of Islamists (not just ISIS) reported in the news since Obama’s Arab Spring began.
            Your accusations and name calling aimed at me (and your other comments I’ve read) are more leftist than my list of the actions of Islamists around the globe. Looks like you projecting your own MO on me. Which is definitely a leftist characteristic.
            Yes, I do know a lot about Islam. Islam is as Islam does.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            According to your unhinged emotional tirade yesterday, Muslims are terrorists because they do all the things you list. Therefore, according to you that makes them terrorists. At least in your mentally incompetent mind and according to your extremely myopic worldview.

            Thus, since you obviously react to the actions of Muslims emotionally like a loon as opposed to rationally like a mature adult, because they murder innocent civilian infidels in cold-blood that makes them terrorists in your extremely narrow mind. However, that is a very false analogy, as Muslims don’t murder innocent civilian infidels in cold-blood because they are terrorists. Instead, they do it because they only employ “total war” tactics per the dictates of Sharia and also because murdering innocent civilian infidels in cold-blood is the weak underbelly of infidel society.

            Indeed, you are such an expert on Islam that like an unhinged loon you conflate what is actually violent forms of jihad as somehow being terrorism because Muslim’s victims most of the time happen to be innocents, while also at the same time you are utterly oblivious to non-violent stealth and deceptive forms of jihad that are manifesting right under your nose, and which is also astronomically far more prevalent relative to violent forms of jihad and in which also represents an exponentially far greater threat for the infidel world at large.

            In other words, despite your absurd claims, to the contrary you are a complete and utter ignoramus when it comes to Islam, and a legend in your own unhinged narrow mind.

            By the way, moonbat, Islamists, i.e., radical Muslims, just like moderate Muslims as well, only exist within the dark recesses of your unhinged mind, as they are a myth. There are only mainstream orthodox Muslims because there can only be mainstream orthodox Muslims, and if you understood Islam you would already know that.

        • ObamaYoMoma

          Who writes this stuff for you?!$#$!#$!$#!@$ You are without a doubt the most confused anti-jihadist there is bar none.

          Okay then according to you what exactly makes Muslims terrorists in your eyes? In other words, according to you, exactly why are Muslims terrorists?

      • Conniption Fitz

        Ha – Islam is just one long raging, murderous jihad – http://www.thereligionofpeace.com

  • tickletik

    The solution is just as delusional as all the other options. If ISIS is sweeping away the Kurds and the Iraqi government, what chance would a smaller country have. Especially since those smaller countries will be gobbled up by Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Russia, etc etc.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      A smaller country like… Israel?

      Size didn’t help Iraq. A country needs to be stable so it’s not in a constant state of civil war.

      • Pete

        Size did not help China after the 1830s

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Bigger countries are harder to run. If you don’t have an effective government, it falls apart much more faster than a manageable territory.

      • tickletik

        My rebuttal to you is to paraphrase an aphorism about an Israeli General who asked an American General why West Point doesn’t teach Israel’s victories in its classrooms on strategy

        “We don’t use the Israeli victories as lessons because those victories are supernatural in nature”

      • IslamDownpressesHumanity

        Have any of Israel’s loyal islamic citizens ever been convicted of being complicit in Israel’s endless islamic terrorist attacks?

  • William James Ward

    There is no hope for Iraq but there will be help against ISIS and
    it’s murderers, they must be destroyed to contain the vileness
    and evil of the societies. The atrocious acts horrify normal people
    and they are so repugnant sanity demands the end of those
    monsters, air is to good for them and they must not be allowed
    to share our Planet unless placed dead and underground.
    William

  • WTFUAMERIKA

    He’s incapable of seeing reality. Correction. He’s too stubborn too see it.
    He has a Christ complex. The man is sick.

  • Dyer’s Eve

    All under the worst swear word of them all; Islam. I’m currently reading ‘Why I am not a Muslim’ by Ibn Warraq. A wonderfully direct, cogent, educational and informative book (my second reading of it, and it won’t be my last). When I read articles like this (here), I can only nod in understanding, yet shake my head at the appalling reality of it all. And it is appalling… all of it.

    • IslamDownpressesHumanity

      He’s a good speaker as well. His presentation at Spencer and Geller’s Summer Nights for Human Rights in Southern California was excellent.