If We Want to Beat Al Qaeda, We Have to Stop Arming It

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


isisObama’s call for $500 million to arm and train Syrian Jihadist fighters couldn’t have possibly come at a more inappropriate time as Al Qaeda in Iraq menaces both countries.

It wasn’t the Iraq War that made the Al Qaeda affiliate so dangerous. In 2008 it specialized in suicide bombings. It wasn’t marching on Baghdad with an army behind it.

The Arab Spring destabilized the region while money, weapons and recruits poured into Libya and Syria. Obama’s regime change war in Libya led not only to the takeover of entire Libyan cities by Al Qaeda, culminating in the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, but to an Al Qaeda affiliate seizing much of neighboring Mali. Libyan terror training camps also led to an attack on the Amenas gas plant in Algeria.

Three Americans were killed in that attack bringing the US death toll from Obama’s Libyan War up to seven.

But that was last year. This year it’s the Syrian Civil War that turned its local Al Qaeda affiliates into breakout Jihadi stars seizing entire cities and terrorizing the region.

Obama’s solution is to direct money intended for counterterrorism partnerships to terrorists in Syria.

This may be one of the worst ideas that he has ever come up with. Attempts to control the flow of weapons likely played a role in the Benghazi attacks. NATO forces enforcing an arms embargo on Libya had been told to ignore Qatari weapons shipments that were meant for “moderates”.

Instead they went to Al Qaeda.

Obama and Kerry, not to mention Graham and McCain, believe that weapons can be directed to “moderate” Syrian groups and that by arming the “good” terrorists, we’ll stop the “bad” terrorists.

But there are no “good” terrorists. Promises of delivering weapons only to “pre-vetted” groups are worth as much as Obama’s assurances that Al Qaeda was on the run and that ISIS is only a jayvee team.

Kerry met with Ahmad al-Jarba, the President of the Syrian National Coalition. Al-Jarba said that $500 million wouldn’t be enough and demanded more weapons. Meanwhile Al-Jarba was feuding with Ahmad Tohme, the Prime Minister of the SNC’s fictional government. Tohme had attempted to disband the Supreme Military Council over corruption charges while firing the head of the Free Syrian Army.

None of this really matters because the SNC is a puppet regime with many puppet masters and no puppets. The Syrian front men for the Saudis, Qataris, the Muslim Brotherhood, Turkey and other factions are constantly firing each other. Their Free Syrian Army is a label stamped on a bunch of Islamist militias, many of whom openly support Al Qaeda.

Four out of five of the FSA’s front commanders had demanded to work with Al Qaeda last year. Parts of the FSA joined the Islamic Front and seized the FSA’s weapons warehouses taking anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons. The FSA fighters fled. Earlier ISIS had seized USAID items intended for the FSA.

After these embarrassments Obama was forced to temporarily suspend aid to the Free Syrian Army.

A senior Al Qaeda terrorist who answered to Ayman Al-Zawahiri was a leading figure in the Islamic Front through Ahrar al Sham, which operated alongside the FSA, until he was killed in an attack by ISIS. Ahrar al Sham had a powerful role in the Supreme Military Council through Deputy Chief of Staff Abdel-basset Tawil.

The FSA, to the extent that it exists, consists of bearded Salafist fighters and commanders in the field and “moderate” leaders in suits in Qatar and Turkey who usually never set foot in Syria. They obtain weapons and money from the West for Jihadists who are much less camera friendly.

Groups such as Liwa al Ummah choose to affiliate with the FSA even while they continue fighting alongside the Al Nusra Front. Experts label some Syrian Jihadist groups as moderate and others as extremist, but the “moderates” and “extremists” fly the black flag of Jihad and fight for an Islamic state.

Pre-vetting the groups means nothing because names like the Free Syrian Army or the Supreme Military Council are only fronts for outside interests. Even the names of the individual militias are often meaningless because new groups and new umbrella groups are constantly being created and dissolved.  Fighters and commanders move from one group to another taking their weapons with them.

Keeping track of the various pseudonyms used by the commanders is already a full time job. It is often impossible to tell whether two Jihadist commanders with the same pseudonym are even the same person. Figuring out the relationship between various groups means depending on intelligence from those groups and various activists on the ground who all have their own alliances and agendas.

No meaningful vetting is possible under these circumstances and supplying weapons to “pre-vetted” groups is as good as supplying them to Al Qaeda. Supplying weapons to pre-vetted groups only  means that it will take longer for those weapons to reach Al Qaeda through barter, alliance or capture.

And even if the weapons don’t end up with Al Qaeda, they will go to Salafist groups that share its goals. The difference is that those have not yet officially declared war on us. That same false sense of security led to the murder of four Americans in Benghazi.

We should not be arming any Islamic militias. We certainly should not be arming Salafi Jihadis who wave the black flag of Jihad. That would be more foolish than anything that Carter did in Afghanistan.

And even if we could control who the weapons went to and even if the Free Syrian Army were moderate, prolonging the Syrian Civil War only makes Al Qaeda more dangerous. Some have said that the best scenario is for both the Sunni and Shiite sides to go on bleeding. But the Syrians and Iraqis are not Americans. They have a much higher birth rate and a much lower regard for individual life.

A prolonged conflict will not break them. It will however train them.

Iran and Iraq bounced back from a much more devastating war to become serious threats.  Conflicts in the region are training grounds that make enemies more dangerous, not less. The longer the fighting goes on, the more fighters will be recruited and the more competent commanders will emerge.  And no matter how the fighting ends, many of those fighters and commanders will go on to other wars.

Afghanistan produced many of the Al Qaeda fighters and commanders who became a threat to the United States. The Arab Spring wars are producing a new generation of fighters. Their expertise will lead to multiple terror attacks and wars around the world. There is already concern about Muslim settlers in America, Europe, Canada and Australia who have gone to fight in Syria returning to the West.

The longer the conflict goes on, the more of them there will be. Prolonging the fighting by aiding the Sunnis is a mistake that ultimately helps Al Qaeda, not to mention Hezbollah, become more dangerous.

The myth of a moderate alternative to Al Qaeda that we can create with weapons shipments is an appealing fiction. The FSA couldn’t stand up to the Islamic Front. It certainly can’t stand up to ISIS. And there is no need for it to do so. The opposition fighters all want the same thing. They only disagree on who will have the upper hand. That is why Al Nusra fought against ISIS before kissing and making up.

The forces of the Sunni opposition have much more in common ideologically and culturally with each other than they do with us. Their common goal is a Sunni Islamic state built by the Jihad.

We can’t win by supporting them. We can only lose.

*

Don’t miss Daniel Greenfield on The Glazov Gang discussing Obama’s catastrophic foreign policy:

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

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

  • truebearing

    Obama’s policy in Syria is equivalent to a Fire Commissioner trying to put out a massive confluence of forest fires by dumping huge quantities of gasoline on the “good fires,” but is unable to identify a single “good fire.” Obama is always choosing to help the good guys, and they always end up being Islamists.

    It is hard to deny Obama’s pigheaded determination to arm Islamists. He’s certainly been consistent in his enabling of various Islamist groups, whether it is the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda in Libya, and in Syria. He all but guaranteed that Iran will become a nuclear power, if they aren’t already, but he wouldn’t send airpower to slow down and degrade ISIS while it was at its most vulnerable months ago.

    The “Obama is a moron” theory fails to explain his doubling and tripling down on aiding Islamists. He is privy to intelligence we never hear about. He knows full well what is going on, and well before we see the consequences. He refuses to take any action that is unmistakably in the best interest of the Untied States, but takes frequent action that clearly benefits the Islamists.

    As long as Obama maintains his strategic passivity, the Islamists will rage unchecked…fueled with our money and weapons. Obama is the Meccan Horse.

    • Larry Larkin

      It doesn’t take much to work out what the obamessiah is up to. He is an out and out supporter of the desire of the islamic world to acquire another caliph.
      Without a caliph they can’t go on an offensive jihad to place the entire world into dar al islam.
      So he goes as far as he thinks he can go, and each time goes a bit further, only pulling back as a deception when he gets caught doing it.

      • Americana

        Pres. Obama is as desperate as any other recent American President to figure out what the Islamic world is up to and how it can be handled. The fact the Muslims are an unpredictable (or totally predictable, depending on one’s POV) hot potato is the issue. It’s not his familiarity w/Islam from his childhood in Indonesia. I was a child in England and the only thing I remember about the Catholic Church there was that they used really nice incense. I’m so tired of this deception bulloney and the taqqiya business… It’s so Manchurian Candidate Meets The Simpsons it’s not funny.

        • mikrophone

          Islam is evil and its fonder Muhammad was a paedophile promising Muslims virgins and slave boys to fight any non-Muslims. The goal of a real Muslims (ISIS and other terrorist groups) to get the virgins and slave boys in Islamic heaven. Also endless penis and women with butts the size of a whole neighbourhood. I know cause I came from an Islamic country. It is stupid and evil and only idiots follow this religion. I never in my life meet a smart Muslim because you have to be really dumb to follow a paedophile.

        • Wolfthatknowsall

          If Obama was “as desperate as any other recent American President to figure out what the Islamic world is up to”, then why all the fund-raisers, golfing trips, and vacations? If I were desperate to make sound policy to deal with a threat, and I were president, I would spend countless hours meeting with the national security team and experts on the threat of Islam, in order to come up with a rational policy of how to deal with them.

          The very fact that Obama doesn’t do this is proof that he is detached from reality, not serious about the Islamic threat to the world, or both. The other possibility … that he favors the enemies of America … tend to lend credibility to the Manchurian Candidate theory.

          “Barack? President Obama? Barack Hussein Obama?”

          Then everything goes bright, and he “knows” what he must do …

          • Americana

            If you spent a depressing 10 hours a day in consults over such issues as a nuclear Iran, would you voluntarily spend your other 14 hours in a depressed state just to prove you’re serious about the issues? No. Why do that? I’d say he’s switching off the alarm button on the nuclear clock when he’s out on the links…

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Why would you “voluntarily spend your other 14 hours … to prove you’re serious …?” Because the issue is vital to future of the United States, and the West. That’s what the people allegedly elected him to do, and this is the task that he is failing.

            He shouldn’t try to prove that he is serious. He should be serious. The trouble is, he’s not …

            If he doesn’t want to be serious about this issue, he should resign the office.

          • JackSpratt

            You suffer with myopia!

          • Daniel Greenfield

            What is the basis for these 10 hour daily consults on Iran?

          • Webb

            He is nothing but a tool of Jarret, Rhodes, et al. Golf is his reward for prostituting himself to read the speeches they write from the teleprompter. That’s precisely why he isn’t in the situation room — so that he won’t know anything other than what they write for him to parrot. He’s out on the golf course until they need to call him in to read the teleprompter.

          • JackSpratt

            “The other possibility … that he favors the enemies of America .”
            This! A long history of.

        • Evermyrtle

          He is desperate, alright, but to see that the trouble between us and the rest of the world continue to grow.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Go back to the sinking ship of England/UK and await further orders – like SURRENDER to Islamofascists.

        • Pete

          How do you know the incense was really nice? Where did your family go to church?

          Did you got to church in the U.S.?

          • JackSpratt

            He was just trying to sound smart-ass while being naive.

          • Pete

            I am looking for a discrepancy. I might not always see it (not smart enough or not knowledgeable enough) or there might not be one, but I want to test what they say.

            I am not sure I believe them. I can think of 2 possible discrepancies. I want to see what they say. They will probably demur.

        • Drakken

          Obummer is certainly desperate, and not serious. You can always could on Obummer to fu**up a wetdream and always back the wrong folks, things will get worse while the amateur is in office. If you want to know how this idiot in chief is running things, look no further than Rice and Jarret, anything they touch is guaranteed to be wrong.

        • JackSpratt

          You suffer with myopia.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Islam is really quite predictable. Its next step has been predicted by any number of people under Obama.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            This is why a President gives up his private life when he takes office. He should be serious about his job, and the dangers to the nation. If he can’t or won’t do this, he should resign.

          • fiddler

            Don’t hold your breath. He is a clever lawyer and his “legal” moves in my opinion are like strategy on a chessboard. He likes to stay one step ahead of reactions by opposers. He relishes power and plays the FBP status to the hilt, especially with reactionary PC media advocates ready to stomp on criticism (Rice on 5 channels was just such a calculated “move”). After he is out of office, there will be a litany of litigation to follow this man for years, and much moping up do if indeed we can survive the remainder of our “sentence” with him at the helm.

            “When the unrighteous rule, the people groan…”

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Believe me, I’m not holding my breath!

            A man of honor who had created the mess Obama has might resign. Obama won’t. I believe … wholeheartedly … that he has purposely created the mess, in the first place. To him, his “presidency” is quite successful.

  • http://loganswarning.com/ Christoper Logan

    Very true, and if we want to defeat Islam in America we need to become energy independent, end all Muslim immigration, and ban Islam.

    • Evermyrtle

      There is only one way to defeat Al Qaeda and that is to put GOD at the head of the country and for our people to put HIM first inour lives. We forget that HE is the CREATOR and gave us rules to live by so that we could progress and have EVERYTHING that we need. Hr has already given us the energy we need, we have millions of gallons of oil/gas beneath our soil. All we have to do is turn to HIM and HE will bless us in every thing that we need, it won’t be a problem for HIM to put this energy to use.

      Instead of putting GOD at the head we want to take control and rule in HIS place. Many of us are fantastic egoists and think we can run things without HIM and the more we shove HIM aside and take charge the more we will lose control. We are not gods as we like to thing, we are only imperfect men struggling to live without HIM, it won’t work. We must return to HIM or we will loose it all.

      1 Peter 1:24-25
      24. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass.The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
      25. But the WORD OF THE LORD endureth forever, and this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

      1 Peter 2:11-14
      11. Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;
      12. Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by our good works, which they shall behold, glorify GOD in the day of visitation.
      13.Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the LORD’S sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
      14. Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of then that do well.
      15. For so is the will of GOD, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
      16.As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of GOD.

      GOD’S people are looked down as evil, destroyers of progress. We can feed these evil ideas or we can resist and live for HIM, that is the right of every living soul on or in the universe.

      • fiddler

        You know that this is a one person at a time thing. America is a post-Christian nation. America is a mission field. The harvest is ripe but the laborers are few. We have an administration that, well, is hostile to people of faith; that laments, incredibly, when people want to assert personal conscience into the arena of what is human. By that I mean forcing people to pay for procedures they cannot in good conscience support. I am dismayed at the utter stupidity of how we got here (uninformed, lazy voters). The biggest contributor to this mind-set is a “media” that has sold itself to dispense deceit, half truths, or, by its silence lies by omission; and in concert with a centralized directive. These all need a heart turn-around. They don’t realize they are all being duped by the god of this world.

  • Lanna

    Become energy independent, close our borders, quit supplying money and weapons to Islam….they are not freedom fighters, they are not moderates, and they are not compatible with civilized people! How dumb can politicians be?

    • Wolfthatknowsall

      Very dumb, indeed …

      • Pete

        I read where ISIS claimed support in a southern Jordanian town. I gave it little thought I though is was a handful of scattered sleeper cells of a dozen or so each.

        I was wrong. It is thousands. We could have a much larger war soon.

        http://debka.com/article/24044/

        Jordanian Bedouin hoist Al Qaeda flag in Ma’an – 104 km from Eilat. US, Israeli forces on the ready

        • Drakken

          War is coming Pete, one way or another. It always does.

          • Pete

            What is scary is Isaac Asimov’s novel Foundation and its description of psycho-history. No one would call it that today. Currently it has a new name and it is studied. Anyone elected to the Congress or to the Presidency that does not study is a fool.

            Learned way back in the day that you can model the outbreak of war with a Poisson distribution. Ditto for the end of wars.

            My regret is that I did not steal a book on fitting statistical distributions and warfare 30 years ago from a small library. It is just not in me to steal. But I knew no one would read the book. It just was not that type of library. It was a library for an “Applied” English department. So yeah it was a department n the humanities, but these people were no schlubs. They were the real McCoy.

            The author looked at warfare not as a construct of the West or industrial society or anything that is cool among the Peace movement. They went all the way back to the stone age. They looked at the people of Papua New Guinea as analog for the stone age and considered if their fighting could be considered war. then they built up from that.

          • DVult

            What’s the name of the book?

          • Pete

            I wish I knew. I was browsing the books in the library killing time and somehow found that one. It started out by trying to define warfare as opposed to squabbling between individuals or small tribes. So it mentioned the tribes Papua New Guinea as a concrete example, because they are the people who most resemble the stone age that we could get data on. It was a small book of 100 to 200 pages. It mentioned the Chi-squared distribution and was published before 1988.

            It smacks of cliodynamics (or Isaac Asimov’s psycho-history). War has an interest in us as Trotsky used to say. So I would study if from the standpoint expressed by that book. In a stats book I used in college they model war with a discrete Poisson distribution.

            I would rather engineer my way out of problems, but if not…

          • JackSpratt

            Exactly Drakken, and the number one cause of war is appeasement. An the number two cause of war is weakness, or perceived weakness.

          • Pete

            I have used the word conflag to describe what is happening. The word has a visceral meaning to me.

            A person could consider that I am stupid, maudlin or histrionic.

            All I have is Open Source intelligence, my brains and the wisdom of people like Drakekn, blert and others.

            If the Jordanian King has sever problems, people will be asking WTF Obama was doing for 6 years.

            Me, at this point I don’t care. I just want to make money. Why should I care if people didn’t listen for so long

        • Webb

          Jordan has a lot of towns and cities that support Al-Qaeda. This is an extremely dicey situation and the kingdom is in very real danger of being overthrown.

          • Pete

            “For now, King Abdullah is conferring urgently with his army and intelligence chiefs on how to suppress the Islamist revolt in Ma’an without it spilling over into other Jordanian towns, especially Salt, Irbid and Zerka, which have large clusters of Al Qaeda followers.”

            debka.com/article/24044/

            1. Salt
            2. Zerka (Al Zarqa; Zarqawi’s hometown “the surname “al-Zarqawi” translates as “one from Zarqa.”
            - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zarqawi)
            3. Irbid
            4. Ma’an
            5. How many more?

    • http://batman-news.com chuckie2u

      Dumb enough to make millions off of all their undeclared wars.

      • JackSpratt

        Don’t get stuck on stupid.

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

    While I agree we shouldn’t be funding our enemy, it is not clear that a prolonged conflict won’t be funded by Saudi and other Sunni interests. A prolonged conflict, with its danger to us and allies, might not be preventable.

    Do you think a prolonged conflict with greater Iranian involvement could increase internal opposition to the Iranian regime?

  • http://www.GodAuthoredBible.com geneww1938

    Follow the money … The major leaders of the Shadow Government or New World Order are officers, board directors and major owners [through funds they control] of the world’s war machinery. War has nothing to do with “the rights of the victors and victims”! They make money … win or lose!
    The same is true for industries of pharmaceuticals, health care, insurance chemicals, oil… These leaders set-up think tanks and pay lobbyists to develop and write the legislation and agendas to maximize their own wealth, profits, power, fame and lascivious lifestyles.
    Sadly, our politicians sell their souls to these lobbyists and fronts of the shadow government. Name one legislator who penned any piece of legislation! It is done by lobbyists. No power, profit … fame derivative yields no legislation or media news.

    • WesternCivilization

      Thank you, geneww1938, for fleshing out the answer to the question I posed in an earlier post.

      The acknowledged and predicted perils of political democracy have manifested in America for generations, compliments of entrenched, life-tenured incumbents who do “follow the money” and who are impassioned and motivated by it – and by the power and money it brings them.

      How else to explain that millions upon millions of dollars are garnered for each and every election and re-election bid for a job that pays rank-and-file members of the House and Senate $174,000 per year?

      • JackSpratt

        Nothing like hyperbole and conspiracy!

      • bigjulie

        And it is a constant source of amazement to me…they all retire as multi-millionaires!

        • WesternCivilization

          They groom and strengthen their political ties and connections while in office – and capitalize on them when – and if – they leave – not to speak of their luxurious retirement and benefit packages which they have voted for themselves.

          They will never vote for term limits – a glaring failure of those who crafted the Republic and who were aware of the dangers of both political democracy and of the creation of an entrenched elite political class.

          If a “do-over” were possible, strict term limits and States’ rights guarantees with teeth – including an orderly mechanism for secession – going far beyond the weak protections afforded by the Bill of Rights would be essential goals and priorities.

          Too late, too smart. The Founders must be turning in their graves.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The Founders would have been surprised we lasted this long.

          • WesternCivilization

            I strongly suspect you are right – and least taken by surprise would be those who were anti-Federalists and especially among them George Mason of Virginia who warned explicitly of the latent and portentous threats to freedom and liberty.

            The test of time and history has proven that their reservations were warranted – it took very little time for the balance of power to shift dramatically – and irretrievably – away from the States.

            Perhaps theirs was “hope against hope” – perhaps, less charitably, it was a cruel experiment, almost certainly doomed to fail – but if, despite all of its recognized shortcomings, it somehow would manage to succeed, then it would become an unprecedented gift to posterity – and if it were to fail, the calamity likely would occur long after they had departed, Exeunt, stage left.

  • Hard Little Machine

    It must become their Vietnam. Drag them down in an unwinnable unending war that simply feeds a few million people into a death machine. Let it go on for 15 years.

    • JackSpratt

      You have a misconception of the Viet Nam War.

  • WesternCivilization

    Thank you, Mr. Greenfield. for your cogent, timely and much needed discussion.

    We are left to ponder at least two issues:

    1. The senior American military must be aware of these issues – they are the ones who ultimately will be responsible for managing the American response to the ongoing war with islam – both on foreign and eventually on American soil.

    The senior military brass must know the sheer madness of it all. Could they possibly be so blind that they follow this effete, clueless and inane emperor with no clothes and lead America to oblivion?

    2. When things don’t make sense, when the pieces of the puzzle don’t fit, then there is something missing – either missing information or what information is available is not being given its proper due – or a combination of both – pace Frank Plumpton Ramsey.

    What is missing here? Is it money? Who is profiteering or expected to profit from the consequences of these clearly misguided and disastrous policies?

    • liz

      Maybe what’s missing is simply the recognition that Obama is a radical Muslim Communist. In that light everything he does makes sense.
      Why our military and other leaders don’t acknowledge this and act accordingly – as in stage a coup- is beyond me.

      • WesternCivilization

        In this same vein, we don’t know – we can’t know – what the senior staff is thinking – or planning.

        Whatever they are doing – or not doing – there is one thing for certain: They are not telling.

        What remains is to heed the caution and advice of Eric Arthur Blair, better known as “George Orwell”, who noted in his 1944 Essay Arthur Koestler, commenting on the latter’s 1940 work Darkness at Noon, that “All revolutions end badly…” and quickly noting that why they go badly in each specific instance is the key issue.

        For America, this means that should there be a coup, there will be consequences – and it will end badly - at least in some, after the fact discovered, aspects.

        Many revolutions are followed by the emergence of a demagogue.

        Could America possibly do worse than it does now with a race-card playing, inane and shameless montebank emperor with no clothes at the helm, one who seeks to arm those whose aim it is to destroy us?

        • liz

          That’s the $64,000 question – COULD we do any worse?
          Or rather, which would be worse – the consequences of a coup or the consequences of letting a traitor remain in power? Great choices.

          • WesternCivilization

            Correct on all counts.

            The looming and large question mark, the great unknown, is just what the consequences would be – and just who would occasion them and under what circumstances.

            Without the answers to these questions, we cannot answer the first one – weighing one alternative against another is simply not possible – unless anything and everything would be better than the “status quo” – which nobody of sound mind would argue.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          It’s also important to remember that the trajectory of a government is ultimately determined by the reaction of a people to it.

          • WesternCivilization

            While that is certainly so – the extent of the people’s ability to react meaningfully, to dissent – whether actively or passively – is especially abridged and circumscribed – most especially in the face of a determined, C3I resources and ordnance vastly superior central government empowered and emboldened with an obedient and dedicated military – one which is prepared to act without reserve to forcefully and vigorously stifle them.

            The world has witnessed this before and recently.

            Moreover, even short of manifest force, the central government has acted with alacrity and audacity to use its regulatory mechanisms – including oversight and enforcement – to chill if not to effectively eliminate it perceived enemies – both real and nascent.

          • WesternCivilization

            While that is certainly so – the extent of the people’s
            ability to react meaningfully, to dissent – whether actively or passively – is
            especially abridged and circumscribed – most especially in the face of a
            determined, C3I resources and ordnance vastly superior central government
            empowered and emboldened with an obedient and dedicated military – one which is
            prepared to act without reserve to forcefully and vigorously stifle them.

            The world has witnessed this before and recently.

            Moreover, even short of manifest force, the central
            government has acted with alacrity and audacity to use its regulatory
            mechanisms – including oversight and enforcement – to chill if not to
            effectively eliminate it perceived enemies – both real and nascent.

    • bigjulie

      I believe that His Highness has pretty much purged the senior military ranks of patriots and replaced them with obsequious ass-kissers, for the most part. Our entire military will have to be rebuilt, else they will become a police force (those that don’t desert outright) to keep the rest of us in line. Don’t forget Barky’s call for a “civilian security force” at least as large and powerful as our standing military. That was in a campaign speech in July of 2008.

      • WesternCivilization

        Thank you for these very important points and considerations,

      • Daniel Greenfield

        A lot of generals are political to begin with and this admin’s push for conformity has made it much worse.

        • bigjulie

          It is true, according to my father, who was nearly a career military man and a commissioned officer. It begins at the rank of colonel and you only go higher if you have the requisite political skills, the more skilled you are, the higher you are likely to rise.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      1. The brass follow orders. Overt sabotage of a policy usually comes from the CIA/State and they like this policy.

      2. Ideology causes people to do senseless things, but there’s also plenty of money changing hands.

      Look at the number of retired generals, diplomats who work for the Saudis or other Gulf states directly or indirectly.

  • joepotato

    I’ve always said that Diablobamasama and Killery were complicit in the Benghazi murders… The USA has been betrayed by the elected humps that were supposed defend the nation from all enemies… aka congress…

  • tamara williams

    All developed nations were born out of good reasoning and sound judgments. I wonder why is it not so when it is about Islam? Islamic immigration will connsume everything.

    • Evermyrtle

      Islam will be the final straw that will bring JESUS CHRIST back for HIS people. If HE does not come the world will destroy itself.
      Matthew 24:22, Mark 13:20

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Islam isn’t composed of actual nations.

  • WesternCivilization

    In many ways, this is Déjà vu all over again -

    Past American administrations have armed Taliban forces in Afghanistan in its war with the Soviets. Those same weapons are now being deployed by the Taliban against US forces.

    Toppling Saddam Hussein must figure among the most disastrous blunders of all time – it unleashed the genie from the jihadist bottle – taking the wraps off of Iran and freeing it to pursue its path toward nuclear hegemony, regional dominance and global jihad.

    And then there was… Gaddafi in Libya

    And then there was… Mubarak in Egypt

    What is next?

    • Pete

      “Past American administrations have armed Taliban forces in Afghanistan”

      The Soviets withdrew February 15, 1989.
      US aid stopped about September 30, 1991.
      The Taliban originated around 1991/1994

      We did not arm the Taliban.

      “Gulbuddin Hekmatyar received operational, financial and military support from Pakistan” – wiki

      We gave money to to Pakistan and they disbursed it to the mujaheddin. So indirectly we supported Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a monster, who received more aid than other groups, and others. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar however was not Taliban.

      Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was given the lion’s share of support by Pakistan because he had no tribal support and the Pakistani ISI felt that they could control him. The U.S. acquiesced to Pakistani distribution of military aid, because they insisted and we had to physically go through their country. It was an either or situation. Either we fought the Soviet Union by proxy and played by Pakistanis rules (option A / red pill) or we did not fight and cede the battlefield to the USSR (option B / blue pill).

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
      Charlie Wilson’s War by George Crile.

      • WesternCivilization

        For Pete’s sake - please re-read – or carefully read – the wiki citation you rely upon and which you sally forth, which reads, in pertinent part,

        The Taliban movement traces its origin to the Pakistani-trained mujahideen in northern Pakistan, during the Soviet war in Afghanistan. [Emphasis added]

        • Pete

          Not buying it.

          Saying the Taliban are a 100% outgrowth of the mujaheddin of the 1980s is like saying the Republican part is a 100% outgrowth of the whigs.

          It was because the mijaheddin that the U.S.. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Britain, China and Pakistan supported were fractious and unable to defeat until 1992 the USSR puppet government of Mohammad Najibullah and after its’ fall were still fractious that the Taliban came into being (backed to the hilt by Pakistan).

          “In the beginning the Taliban numbered in the hundreds, were badly equipped and low on munitions. Within months however 15,000 students arrived from the madrassas in Pakistan.[48] The Taliban’s first major military activity was in 1994, when they marched northward from Maiwand and captured Kandahar City and the surrounding provinces, losing only a few dozen men”

          • WesternCivilization

            You have cherry-picked and niggled at the citation you brought forward which by its own words fails to support your frivolous and trifling, indeed petty, argument against the established and essential fact – which is what is at issue here - that the US armed those forces that fought the Soviet Union and which self-same forces – by whatever name and in whichever incarnation – are later at war – now with the US.

            I now take the advice of Friedrich Nietzsche who, in his Thus Spake Zarathustra, wrote:

            “The one thing worse than insisting you are right when you are wrong – is insisting you are right when you know you are right.”

            You’ve been nit-picking cherries, Pete…and most unsuccessfully at that.

            Now you can go fish!

          • Pete

            - that the US armed those forces that fought the Soviet Union and which self-same forces

            ” Within months however 15,000 students arrived from the madrassas in Pakistan”

            The 15,000 form the madrassas are NEW people, people the U.S. did not support during the 1980s. They formed the bulk of the Taliban. You do not here the word Taliban in the news concerning people fighting the USSR or it’ proxy before 1990. Different decades get it? of course not.

            That is unless as toddlers and 9 year olds we were equipping I them so they could go across the border.

            Personally, I think you are trolling here.

          • WesternCivilization

            First, Pete, you display your ignorance.

            Second, ignorance is very frequently accompanied by arrogance.

            Third, after showcasing your ignorance and your arrogance you race to the gutter: baseless name-calling.

            Poor soul: Now everybody knows about you, Pete.

          • Pete

            I have posted at this forum for a a few years. So yes, people here know me.

            You are a newbie with a mere 160 comments. I see you have eased into playing tag team with Americana. So now people know you.

            Have nice day.

          • Kathy

            Pete – trolls usually have the most comments. Judging from the number you make I’d guess you don’t have to go home because your still living in mommy’s basement.

          • Pete

            That is your opinion.

            See who makes what comments, who tangles with who. If they do tangle see if they kiss and make up or agree to disagree. time will tell.

          • Evermyrtle

            To see how one’s posts are appreciated and rated check the scoring, looks like Kathy and Western Civilization are both doing quite well.

          • Pete

            WesternCivilization wrote:

            “In many ways, this is Déjà vu all over again -

            Past American administrations have armed Taliban forces in Afghanistan in its war with the Soviets”

            the U.S. stopped funding the mujaheddin on September 30, 1991.

            The U.S. did not fund the Taliban. The Taiban came into existence about 1991 but did not really get going with a full head of steam until 1994.

            Read the books “Charlie Wilson’s War” and “The Looming Tower: to see if you want to back WesternCiv’s comment in full. Parts of what he says is good. But if parts of his comment are good and parts are not, you have to ask yourself a question. Was it done out of ignorance or malice.

          • Pete

            Westen Civ as of 6:46PM Eastern had 164 comments. Around mid morning he had around 60. How many comments did he have yesterday? Zero?

            What makes me suspicious is that I corrected one item in his post just one. I backed it up. He took offense. He considered it a loss of face or maybe he is a troll.

            Let me ask you a question. When you heard news reports in the 1980s by Dan Rather or other news anchors, when you read Time or Newsweek or other print media, did you ever hear the term Taliban?

          • JackSpratt

            Yeah, TOO well. I remember how the Moonbats (nutjobs) at lewrockwell.com use to flood this forum.

          • Pete

            There a ways one person can run up the count of plusses/ up votes

            I guest votes do not mean as much as votes form accounts. Votes from Disqus accounts while not foolproof are a little more involved in inflating voting.

          • Pete

            I used a search term to see if Western Civ has posted before today.

            +”WesternCivilization” site:frontpagemag.com

            It drew a blank. either i used the wrong terms, google does not pick up posts or the spiders or other programs that google uses will not pick up the posts until tomorrow.

            I use this to find one person’s post like drakken’s who does not have an account. I value their insight but unless i search for their posts I miss some. The post here and on LWJ. SO I have used the technique to find posts before regardless whether an account is locked or they do not have an account.

          • truebearing

            That doesn’t necessarily mean they are right.

          • hiernonymous

            On a partisan site, the bulk of upticks are given to those posts that confirm the reader’s bias, not the post that displays the soundest reasoning. Pete and I don’t generally see eye to eye politically, but he generally supports his reasoning well. He is certainly correct about the Taliban not existing during the Soviet war. The Taliban movement was not simply another group of Soviet-era mujahideen.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            “On a partisan site, the bulk of upticks are given to those posts that confirm the reader’s bias,”

            Keep telling yourself that

          • hiernonymous

            I will. I’ll tell you, too. Head over to an extremely liberal site and you’ll see essentially the same comments with the vote ratios reversed.

            Bubbles exist on both sides. Are you so deep inside your own that you deny it exists?

          • Kathy

            Although Pete & I may not see eye to eye on everything. I must say I misunderstood his initial comments & have to apologize for my nasty comment here.

          • Pete

            No problems at this end. Water under the bridge already.

          • Moa

            Pete is correct.

            The mujahideen were created by President Carter though Zbigniew Brzezinksi.

            The Taliban are the creation of the Pakistani ISI after the Russians left Afghanistan.

            The mujahideen (eg. Northern Alliance) and Taliban are arch-enemies.

            The details matter. Sorry, but Pete appears to have a better grasp on them than you do.

          • JackSpratt

            Absolutely!

          • truebearing

            You forget that the Northern Alliance and the Taliban were bitter enemies. Pete is right.

          • truebearing

            You seem to garner an extraordinary number of guest votes…more than I’ve ever seen on FPM, percentage wise. I’ll bet it makes you feel good to manipulate the voting, even if it is phony.

          • Pete

            You can manipulate voting. It is not that hard.

        • JackSpratt

          LMAO at Wiki citation. Yeah, that’s worth something huh. Anyone can put crap on Wiki. Are you really that stupid?? Toppling Saddam INsane is neither here nor there in relation to todays dilemma. We should still have troops in Iraq and it should/would still be stable. Of course it wasn’t a blunder, and of course you favor the appeasement of 5 attacks on Bill Klinton’s watch, 6 when you count the 9/11 attack, which was a direct result of his 8 year policy of Islamaofascist appeasement. And NO, we know empirically that there is/was no U.S. weaponry left from the 1980′s, today being used by the terrorists. Except for the weaponry that Odumbo has transferred to them in the last 2 or 3 years. Trying to get that weaponry back was in all likelihood what Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi for. Either that or tranferring more weaponry to them. The Islamofascists use Soviet/ChiCom Bloc weaponry almost exclusively.

          It is clear that Odumbo is either an Islamist or stupid as a board. He supported the so-called Arab Spring and the Muslim Brotherhood, e.g., he supported the terrorists. And he’s been arming them.
          Saying that Iraq was a blunder, aside from being stuck on stupid, is saying that it wasn’t the world’s business that Saddam was murdering his own citizens by the 100 thousands, Had rape rooms and torture chambers (NO we’re not talking about waterboarding, which isn’t torture at all). Saddam would laugh at that meager annoyance as being called troture. Was paying $25K per to terrorists for kiling Jews. Had WMD’s (most of which were shipped to Syria) A stash was just found in Iraq by ISIS, who knew where to find them. And Saddam had his WMD program ready to be reconstituted at any time. English Intelligence found that Saddam was shopping for Yellow Cake too. And yes, after Joe Wilson’s scurrilous lies, rechecked and found their intel go be sound.
          You sound like a big L Libertarian Moonbat. Are you a PaulBot?

        • hiernonymous

          The Taliban did not exist during the Soviet war. The article you cite argues that the seeds of the movement can be found in Pakistan in that era. The merits if that argument are irrelevant here; the identifiable beginning of the Taliban is in Mullah Omar’s recruitment of a group of students during the Warlord era.

      • Moa

        Correct.

        The US did not arm or support the Taliban. The Taliban are the poodles of Pakistan.

        The US under President Carter followed the advice of Zbigniew Brzezinksi and created mujahideen via the CIA six months before the Soviets invaded. The Soviets were baited into a trap by the underhanded and dishonest Democrats (who falsely claim to be “anti-war”).

        The mujahideen are the enemy of the taliban, which is why the Northern Alliance was still fighting the Taliban on 9/11 – and why Al Qaeda took out mujahid Shah Masood days before 9/11 (because otherwise the mujahideen could attack Al Qaeda and the Taliban).

        Obama hired Brzezinski to formulate his foreign policy. Which is why the US has “flipped sides” on the War on Terror and is arming Sunni groups to fight Iran. The results are not going to be good – but the evil Democrats see the chaos as an opportunity to advance their One World system. Engineer chaos and then swoop in to fix it, and the people will give you much power to do this. This is the same reason the Democrats have engineered the chaos on the southern border of the US – in order to pass their agenda.

        • JackSpratt

          Very on the mark comment! World socialist government is the ultimate aim…the utopia. Domestically, the left has been using blacks and more recently mexicans and hispanics (legal and illegal) as a vehicle to undercut our nation and its Constitution.

    • truebearing

      The mujaheddin were made up of various factions tyhat fought each other after the Soviets withdrew. That alone makes your argument wrong.

  • Jane Doe

    Greenfield has been spot on with this subject from the beginning

    • Daniel Greenfield

      thank you

  • Sharps Rifle

    Great essay! One point, and I suspect you’ll agree with me: Obama doesn’t want to beat al-Qaeda, nor ISIS. His policies have made that clear since 2009.

  • Webb

    Obama is going to be the first Nobel Peace Prize winner to preside over the use of tactical nukes on the battlefield, and strategic nukes on the centers of Islamic power — like Mecca, Medina, Damascus, and Tehran. Sunni or Shia or offshoots make no difference. Since Islamists can’t be managed they’re going to have to be destroyed. Tiny Israel will not engage in a war of attrition with them or it will soon be destroyed. The precedent has been set. Since it was deemed too costly to defeat Japan with conventional warfare, the decision was made to nuke it into submission, and it worked splendidly. And in the modern case of Islamists, everyone realizes it’s impossible to defeat them with conventional warfare, so plans are being settled right now as to how best to use nukes on them to permanently neutralize them as a threat to Western Civilization.

    • Wolfthatknowsall

      I t kind of makes sense, because Alfred Nobel invented dynamite …

      • Webb

        Excellent point! Plus, it’s more of the the kind of poetic justice G-d deals out where the muslim president of hope is forced to nuke all stripes of Islamism in order to save himself from being crucified by one side or another for being moderate.

        • Wolfthatknowsall

          When it comes down to war, there is little wiggle room for moderates!

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Obama would be more likely to nuke the south to increase his approval rating

    • Drakken

      You give Obummer far too much credit and have faith in a man who is doing everything he can to support these sub human vermin at our expense. Never ever has there ever been such a feckless, weak and useless president as we have now.

      • Webb

        Exactly. Others will have to do it all for him, but I’m betting he’ll be president in order to absorb the full brunt of the poetic justice G-d dishes out to his enemies. He’ll be shaking and drooling and soiling himself, utterly incapable of punching the red button, but it’ll get pushed and he won’t be able to blame it on anyone else, which will destroy his mind and he’ll end up like the evil little guard in The Green Mile.

      • Webb

        Although he would soil himself and spaz out, someone would punch the red button for him. But he wouldn’t be able to make the blame stick on anyone else, which would destroy his mind and he’d end up like the evil little guard in The Green Mile.

      • bigjulie

        Whoa, Drakken…he is of inestimable use to the world wide caliphate…and I think, purposely so!

  • 11bravo

    Stop all muslim immigration to the west now! Kick out all the rich oil shiek’s kids from our universities. Let them live in their own caliphate now. Let the commies deal with them.
    The US should frack everywhere and drive energy prices through the floor. Russia will go broke too, and the Chi-coms can deal with the muzzie craziness.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Stopping immigration is crucial or we’ll be dealing with a much bigger problem soon

      • 11bravo

        For the life of me I can’t figure out why it always has to be military might to defeat enemies, or make (cough) friends comply with some of our wishes.
        We could stop illegal immigration in its tracks with the slightest bit of pressure on Mexico. Dump the TSA, tell foreign countries if they want to fly in and out of here they better get with the security issue pronto.
        A multitude of things could be solved with out firing a shot.

  • Gee

    We all know how it turned out for the Indians when the US played Cowboys and Indians. Now if the US started playing Cowboys and Muslims there would be a good result

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Why is defeating AQ so critical for paranoid neocons? The jihadists that comprise AQ are not any more radical or less radical than the millions of Muslims that have migrated to America for the nefarious purposes of mass Muslim infiltration and eventual demographic conquest.

    As a matter of fact, the Islamic totalitarian world relative to the Western infidel world is exceedingly backwards and dysfunctional, and as such can never hope to defeat the Western infidel world through military force. However, through mass Muslim infiltration and eventual demographic conquest of our societies, they most certainly can defeat us.

    Indeed, unless something drastic happens, several European countries will become Muslim majority countries in the second half of this century through demographic conquest. Hence, mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage, because it is really non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad for the nefarious purposes of mass Muslim infiltration and demographic conquest, represents an exponentially far greater threat for the infidel west relative to AQ and its ilk.

    Indeed, the only reason we in the infidel west still remain vulnerable to violent jihad attacks here on our home front is because of the presence of millions of Muslims stealth and deceptive jihadists living in our midst. Send them back from whence they came and then without any Muslims living here in our midst, jihad in any form, either violent or non-violent, will become impossible. It’s common sense.

    • Webb

      That’s easy to agree with, but I also think we need to use cruise missiles liberally to destroy their bridges, dams and electricity generating plants, so that they can’t manufacture anything (not that they would or could) they could use to get very far away from where they were born.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        You mean instead of rebuilding them like GWB did, bomb their infrastructure? Well they can’t even produce their own oil without Western infidel assistance. Hence, I’m not too worried about them somehow morphing into an economic powerhouse someday that will be able to threaten us militarily sometimes in the future. It’s simple: ban and reverse mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage because it is really non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad, and then isolate the Islamic totalitarian world. They only represent a threat to us to the extent that we interact and interface with them. Meanwhile, if they want to wage jihad against themselves, then let’s egg it on.

        • JackSpratt

          When GWB was in office, in other words at the start of the official Terror war, or at least from the time we finally became engaged in it, there was obviously hope that all of Islam wasn’t insane, and could be brought into the 21st century, but we have come, through experience, to know that isn’t so. Now we know they have to be destroyed to the last ragheaded neanderthal.

          • Stosh777

            Not necessary. As you and others point out, Islam is both a fatalistic and triumphalist cult. Treat them as the Romans treated the Jews 2000 years ago. Half the Muslim world would apostatize immediately, seeing that Allah couldn’t even protect his holiest shrine. The rest would be thrown into a state of confusion lasting centuries. Might need the occasional mop-up operation, as the Romans did with Bar Kochba.

      • Wolfthatknowsall

        An interesting … and potentially fatal … flaw in Islam is the rampant fatalism in their “faith”. If they shoot a rifle at an enemy (no matter whether they worked hard to become marksmen) and miss, it’s the will of god. If their weapon malfunctions (no matter whether they take proper care of them), it’s the will of god. If their bomb goes off early and kills only them, or doesn’t detonate at all, it’s the will of god.

        When the day comes when we go after them with our own WMDs, they will cry “The will of god”, as they die.

        Even on 9/11, the incredible set of circumstances set out in the movie The Path to 9/11 … and just try to figure the statistical probability of everything working perfectly to make the Towers go down (which is the source of all the conspiracy theories), was “the will of god”. The aircraft that failed, “the will of god”. On the day that the Clinton Administration failed to kill OBL because Margaret Albright warned the Pakistanis that cruise missiles would traverse their country, it was “the will of god”.

        This fatalism could be used against them in a “fatal” way.

        • Jack Diamond

          Inshallah. When things are allowed to go well for them, with strings of victories, the ranks swell. It is the Time of Jihad, blessed by Allah. When things go badly, with defeat, their fatalism leads them more easily toward resignation and acceptance. Weakness, division and resignation was the condition of the Muslim world for most of the last 300 years. They need to be returned to that condition.

          • JackSpratt

            They are still in that condition mentally as well as socially, but today they have modern weaponry to do their murdering with.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            And when they return to that condition, that … also … will be the “will of god”. Inshallah …

    • Wolfthatknowsall

      Now, that is something we can completely agree on. I know several Muslims … and there were none in my hometown, several years ago. These people “love” America, but they instantly hate it whenever America takes action against people who want to kill us. Common sense, indeed.

      All of them are ticking time bomb waiting to explode on the good ole USA.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        Now, that is something we can completely agree on.

        Good.

        I know several Muslims

        Not really, as Muslim are forbidden from being friends with infidels, and any Muslim doing so would be guilty of blasphemy, which in Islam is a capital offense.

        These people “love” America, but they instantly hate it whenever America takes action against people who want to kill us.

        Actually, Muslims hate all infidels, including American infidels. Which is why they never ever assimilate and integrate no matter where it is they migrate to in the infidel world, as that would entail Muslims having to become infidels. Meanwhile, morphing into an infidel for a Muslim would be another capital offense.

        Instead, Muslim immigrants just like clockwork always form Muslim enclaves that in time inevitably morph into Muslim no-go zones ruled by Sharia (Islamic totalitarian law), that are in effect tiny Islamic statelets within the larger host infidels. In Europe, for instance, there are literally thousands of Muslim no-go zones sprinkled throughout Europe.

        • Wolfthatknowsall

          Once again, we are completely in agreement.

          I was a tenured professor in a university, and when these fellows took one of my classes, they were forced to have contact with me (not that they enjoyed it).

          They were primarily Iranians, and they would always speak about the greatness of America, until President Bush made this or that attack in the muzzie world. At that time, they would speak about us as a colonial power, no better than the British or French.

          I put an end to this by telling Muslim students that … if they hate America … they shouldn’t be here. Go to school in their own country, and don’t look for breaks from me on test scores.

        • JackSpratt

          All of that is true, but it doesn’t diminish the absoute need to fight and vanquish al Qaeda. If we don’t, it won’t matter about the muslim infiltration, it will already be a done deal.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            You can’t vanquish hydra-headed jihadists. They will simply vanish and then reappear elsewhere where the heats off. AQ is many things, suicidal isn’t one of them. In any event, they can never hope to defeat us militarily. However, through mass Muslim infiltration of our societies and demographic conquest, the Islamic totalitarian world most certainly can defeat us.

            Indeed, the threat to us via mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage, because it is really non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad, is exponentially far greater relative to AQ and its ilk. In fact, if we ban and reverse mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage, then jihad in America, either of the violent variety or the non-violent variety, becomes literally impossible.

          • JackSpratt

            “AQ is many things, suicidal isn’t one of them.”
            Huh? It’s their primary murdering tool. It’s their modus operandi. They have to be destroyed….and yes all of Islam has to be destroyed. They have deemed it so.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            They have to be destroyed….and yes all of Islam has to be destroyed. They have deemed it so.

            While I don’t agree with you on the threat posed by AQ, not to mention enabling Iran by targeting specifically AQ alone, I do agree with you, however, that eventually the Islamic totalitarian world must be destroyed. Since Islam is a very totalitarian and rabid ideology that like Nazism and Communism before intends to make itself supreme at all our expense, as opposed to being just so-called religion, we have no other choice but to destroy that ideology before it destroys us, and thus there are only two ways to go about it:

            1) to kill all Muslims until there are no more Muslims and hence no more Islam. An extremely violent, incredibly messy, and very bloody way to go about it.

            2) to render the Islamic totalitarian world defenseless and in total abject poverty to make it incapable of waging jihad aggressively, then by total and complete isolation. Since Muslims are incapable of producing anything on their own thanks to Islam, in a matter of a few generations Islam would become discredited in that society.

            Of the two available viable options, I prefer the latter over the former although it is far riskier because I don’t like the idea of all that blood, all that gore, and all that violence. The only other option, of course, is to bury our respective heads in the sand.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      “Why is defeating AQ so critical for paranoid neocons?”

      9/11

      I believe your pals were handing out candy that day.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        We are not at war with AQ, we are at war with the Islamic totalitarian world because the Islamic totalitarian world is waging jihad perpetually against all infidels and all infidel states throughout the world to ultimately make Islam supreme. Moreover, because no single infidel state can solve their individual jihad problem alone, then any comprehensive solution to our collective jihad problems will have to be cooperative in nature involving all infidel states acting together in unison to destroy Islam utterly, which would inevitably be very violent and very bloody, or otherwise by rendering the Islamic totalitarian world defenseless, in total abject poverty, and incapable of waging jihad aggressively, and then by isolating it totally.

        Chasing hydra-headed jihadists in the deserts and mountains of the Middle East is just another exercise in futility and would inevitably be another fool’s errand as before, as AQ will just fade away and re-materialize elsewhere when the heat is off. AQ is a lot of things, but suicidal it’s not. Not to mention that such an exercise in stupidity would only help out the Syrians and Iranians with their quest for nuclear weapons at the same time.

        In any event, now I know why you are so obsessed with AQ and primarily mostly AQ.

  • kevinstroup

    Neither the elites who have never served in the military, nor their children, will every have to face them in combat. So they want it to be a fair fight.

  • Kathy

    Exactly, we arm a group, change their name & then demonize them. Repeatedly, it’s an ongoing pattern.

    • Pete

      Uhm right, sure whatever,

      Read the book “The Looming Tower” by Lawrence Wright

      The Muslim Brotherhood got started in the 1920s, Al Zawahiri’s group that combined with Usama’s group to form Al Qaeda was formed before the Russian invaded Afghanistan.

      “Nonetheless, Zawahiri’s underground cell began to grow – it had 40 members by 1974.” p 47

      • Kathy

        In this case I’m not referring to the Muslim Brotherhood. I’m referring to groups such as the Mujahideen, Muslim Syrian rebels, etc. Groups we’ve backed & armed then labeled terrorists.

        The US has never declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group or demonized them. How our government is supporting them & what should be done is a different discussion.

        • Pete

          You said:

          “we arm a group, change their name & then demonize them. Repeatedly, it’s an ongoing pattern”

          You must mean in the first instance the mujaheddin in the 1980s in Afghanistan.

          You can consider a few different what ifs in regard to Afghanistan.

          As an aside you can consider that we were foolish to support them. I would say it was a case of fool me once. So I would consider it a mistake perhaps but not one as incredibly stupid as supporting rebels in Syria now. that is a case of fool me twice.

          The 1st what if is if we did not support the mujheddin, it could be argued that the Russians would have won. in the time preceding the arrival of the 1st Stingers the mujheddin were leaving the battlefield in defeat. they were discouraged. The soviets were that close to winning. This was in the time period of 1984 to 1986.

          The president of Pakistan at the tie was afraid that the Russians would invade Baluchistan. The pretext for it would not be hard to manufacture. Baluchistan is a restive province with an independence movement. What would the Russian have gotten? A warm water port on the the Indian Ocean with a secure land link to it. That would be the port of Gwadar. the one the Chinese are using now.

          The 2nd what if is that the U.S. left in 1991 after defeating the USSR. What we did not do is help a backwards country that had been at war for 12 years. If we had done some civil reconstruction like the marines advocate (Step 0 in preventing insurgency/war) maybe there would have been no Taliban.

          I was initially wanting to arm the Syrian rebels in the 1st year and or two of the rebellion. I thought there were moderate Syrian rebels or that they were strong enough to hold their own against Al Qaeda. it can be argued if they are moderate or whatever. It really cannot be argued that they are strong enough to hold their own against Al Qaeda. IMO they are not. Therefore it is useless to arm them. However much I want to arm rebels to overthrow Assad, who we owe great deal of comeuppance> IMO it is not worth the potential fallout. It is best not to really arm anyone and let our enemies kill each other.

        • Pete

          You said:

          “Exactly, we arm a group, change their name & then demonize them. Repeatedly, it’s an ongoing pattern”

          You must mean in the first instance the mujaheddin in the 1980s in Afghanistan.

          You can consider a few different what ifs in regard to Afghanistan.

          As an aside you can consider that we were foolish to support them. I would say it was a case of fool me once. So I would consider it a mistake perhaps but not one as incredibly stupid as supporting rebels in Syria now. that is a case of fool me twice.

          The 1st what if is if we did not support the mujheddin, it could be argued that the Russians would have won. in the time preceding the arrival of the 1st Stingers the mujheddin were leaving the battlefield in defeat. they were discouraged. The soviets were that close to winning. This was in the time period of 1984 to 1986.

          The president of Pakistan at the tie was afraid that the Russians would invade Baluchistan. The pretext for it would not be hard to manufacture. Baluchistan is a restive province with an independence movement. What would the Russian have gotten? A warm water port on the the Indian Ocean with a secure land link to it. That would be the port of Gwadar. the one the Chinese are using now.

          The 2nd what if is that the U.S. left in 1991 after defeating the USSR. What we did not do is help a backwards country that had been at war for 12 years. If we had done some civil reconstruction like the marines advocate (Step 0 in preventing insurgency/war) maybe there would have been no Taliban.

          I was initially wanting to arm the Syrian rebels in the 1st year and or two of the rebellion. I thought there were moderate Syrian rebels or that they were strong enough to hold their own against Al Qaeda. it can be argued if they are moderate or whatever. It really cannot be argued that they are strong enough to hold their own against Al Qaeda. IMO they are not. Therefore it is useless to arm them. However much I want to arm rebels to overthrow Assad, who we owe great deal of comeuppance> IMO it is not worth the potential fallout. It is best not to really arm anyone and let our enemies kill each other.

          • Kathy

            The underlying problem is that we no longer know who we are really backing & if we do we have an even more serious problem within the “leadership” of our government. Supporting or not supporting groups in the Middle East is more than likely a no win for the US either way.

            More importantly what is the foreign policy goal of the US under the Obama administration? As you pointed out supporting the Mujahideen was done for very good reasons. Was it the right decision at the time? Yes. Now we have alienated our historical allies in the Middle East, what are we doing? What is the agenda?

            I have too many questions about what is really going on to support backing anymore rebel groups.

          • Pete

            I am not for backing the Syrian rebels. As I have stated 2 maybe 3 ties I was for it back in 2012. I have since changed my mind.

            We owe Assad for assisting Al Qaeda in getting to Iraq to kill Americans.Getting rid of Assad might very well mean Al Qaeda taking charge of Syria at least for a while. I do not like that possibility. Best they both bleed.

            - But even if there are some moderate Syrian rebels, they are not numerous enough or strong enough to fight Al Qaeda as judged by Al Qaeda man handling of them.

            - That and there are reports that the moderate really are not all that moderate.

            - Then there is the Obama factor of pizz poor leadership. So I rather stay out and let the MB, Al Qaeda and the Shia kill each other.

          • Kathy

            I think we had an initial misunderstanding of each others viewpoints. We may take different paths of drawing our conclusion but I’d say in the end we agree. And, I admit when I’m wrong so I have to apologize to you for my troll comment.

    • JackSpratt

      Not much of a thinker are you!

  • http://batman-news.com chuckie2u

    The U.S. has played all ends against the middle to maintain some control over the OIL. Muslims are Muslims and in the end they have the same objective to spread their religion into every country on the face of the earth. Handing anyone of them weapons for whatever reason will mean those weapons are pointed back at the U.S. It is past time to get out of the Middle East and let the tribes fight it out.

    • JackSpratt

      Hey FPM, why don’t you moderate my friggen comments!!!!

    • JackSpratt

      FPM is eating my comments again, but part of my comment was addressing your ignorance. The muslims aren’t just on the march in the middle east, they are on the march in Europe, Asia, Africa, Indonesia, the Philippines, EVERYWHERE!!! They are sworn to own the world, Their ungodly “religion” demands that they kill all infidels. Wake up!!

  • Moa

    This is Zbigniew Brzezinksi’s work.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski

    He was the advisor to President Carter to had the CIA arming the Afghan mujahideen six months **before** the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Basically they laid a trap for the Soviets.

    Brzezinksi judged that creating the mujahideen (who would become Al Qaeda, and are NOT the Taliban) was less of a threat to the US than the Soviet Union – so destroying the Soviets was better than the threat from Islamists.

    This is a cowardly way of waging war, but the Democrats love it. They get to preen moral superiority as being “anti-war” while they fund barbaric forces to achieve their ends.

    Obama hired Brzezinksi as a foreign policy advisor. Guess why the strategy Obama has to defeat Iran looks so similar to the strategy Carter used in Afghanistan? its the same dude behind it.

    Again, the US is too cowardly to fight Iran directly, so is using Sunni/Muslim Brotherhood jihadis to fight Iran-Syria-Hezbollah axis. This is why the US has been giving them weapons and money.

    Brzezinksi doesn’t care how many civilians are killed. They want Iran entangled and the World desperate for the US to intervene and stop the carnage. In this way the Democrats can advance their One World Agenda.

    It is not the neocons we have to worry about, but the far sneakier, hypocritical and Democrats and their planners like Brzezinksi.

    • Kebert Xela

      Al Qaeda was the brainchild of an Egyptian Muslim and originally composed of Arabs. Osama bin Laden fought alongside Arab Muslims not funded by the CIA but by sources in the Islamic world. The rhetorically coherent self-serving ‘progressive’ lie about the CIA funding the Afghan rebels being the CIA funding completely unrelated groups with very different objectives than those fighting simply to remove the Russians from their soil is tiresome. It would be convenient for the ‘progressives’ if it were true but it isn’t. The Northern Alliance is not the Taliban is not Al Qaeda.

      • Daniel Greenfield

        “Osama bin Laden fought alongside Arab Muslims not funded by the CIA but by sources in the Islamic world.”

        That is an important point that can’t be repeated often enough.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      The bigger issue is Brez’s Green Belt strategy which began as anti-Communism, but ended up giving us Islamist Iran.

  • FrontandCenter

    Unfortunately we have been supporting our enemies for far too long. It seems like we’ve been doing it for so long we cannot imagine not doing it. Yes, let us do give 500 million big ones to “vetted” “moderate” rebels so they can send it right back at us via airmail.

    “How Washington Funded the Taliban”
    http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/how-washington-funded-taliban

  • Uncle Jay

    I looked at the picture at the top of the page and found something interesting. The flag on the left, in center of the white dot is the word “jews.” I wonder if these idiots carrying the flag know this.

    • Texas Patriot

      Uncle Jay: I looked at the picture at the top of the page and found something interesting. The flag on the left, in center of the white dot is the word “jews.” I wonder if these idiots carrying the flag know this.

      Who knows, Unk? I think it’s a fair assumption that they probably know what their own flag says. The question is, how do you know what it says? Do you read Arabic?

    • hiernonymous

      I read Arabic. It says no such thing. The center word is “rasuul,” which means messenger. The short version of the shahada is “[there is] no God but God, [and] Muhammad [is] the messenger of God.”

      There is something odd about the center dot,but it is only that the words read the second half of the shahada from bottom to top instead of top to bottom.

  • JackSpratt

    You’re a nitwit and an appeaser. You should be cannon fodder. As an aside, we were fighting the Soviets in Viet Nam. It was a de facto war with the Soviet Union and the ChiComs.

    • Texas Patriot

      JS: You’re a nitwit and an appeaser. You should be cannon fodder. As an aside, we were fighting the Soviets in Viet Nam. It was a de facto war with the Soviet Union and the ChiComs.

      Actually I’m more of a student of Jesus Christ and Sun Tzu. It’s true that I don’t like war, and think it’s usually a horrible and unnecessary waste of human blood and treasure. As Jesus said blessed are the peacemakers, and I agree with that. But you can only appease so much before it becomes a matter of life and death. So when it comes down to the unavoidable necessity of war, I’m very much about winning in the most efficient and expeditious manner possible. As Lord Nelson said, “Never mind about tactics. Just go straight at ‘em.”

  • Daniel Greenfield

    “and now you want us to fight Al Qaeda when we should be fighting ISIS which is now morphed into The Islamic State?”

    Your comment makes zero sense.

    We should be fighting terrorist groups that are at war with the US.

    • Texas Patriot

      DG: Your comment makes zero sense. We should be fighting terrorist groups that are at war with the US.

      But you think that calling them all “Al Qaeda” makes sense?

      • Daniel Greenfield

        They are the next phase of Al Qaeda. ISIS was always the Al Qaeda endgame. Create a core movement and then set up affiliates around the world. Then set up the Caliphate.

        This was what every expert was going to happen all along.

        • Texas Patriot

          It’s a fascinating situation, and none of it would be possible without instantaneous worldwide communications. Marshall McLuhan would be enthralled.

  • Softly Bob

    No sane person anywhere should ever be arming any Muslim. Period.
    These throwbacks are not smart enough to develop their own weapons, so why give them any? You wouldn’t give a razor blade to a two-year-old and you wouldn’t give a serial killer an axe, so why would you give a Satan-worshiping Saracen any weapon at all?
    These retards believe that all science is to be found in the Q’uran, so let them have their science. Let them attack the infidel with swords and spears, riding their camels into the sunset as the Sun drops into it’s muddy swamp.
    Oops too late for that. They already have their AK-47s and their rockets. We should not be giving them any more.