The Al Qaeda Spring Is Here

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.


iraqMany of us declared the Arab Spring dead and buried. But the Arab Spring really came in two phases.

The first phase was the political destabilization of formerly stable Arab countries by liberals and Islamists. The second phase was an armed conflict by Islamists to take over entire countries.

These phases overlapped in some cases and the second phase has been underway for a while already. In Libya and Syria the first phase of the Arab Spring became the second phase. When protests didn’t work, the Islamists turned to force. When elections didn’t work for them in Libya, they turned to force for a second time. The Benghazi attack was arguably a collateral effect of Islamist attempts to take over Libya after a poor election performance that same summer.

Advocates of the Arab Spring promised that political Islam would lead to an end to Islamic terrorism, but armed Jihad and political Jihad are two phases of the same Islamic struggle. Now the shift to the second phase is complete. The real beneficiaries of the Arab Spring were always going to be those who had the most guns and cared the least about dying in battle. And that was always going to be Al Qaeda.

Libya and Syria’s civil wars had a ripple effect as weapons were seized and recruits assembled. The lessons of the Afghan wars should have made it clear that the Jihadists involved in those conflicts would not simply go home and live normal lives once the fighting was concluded.

Instead they would find other wars to fight.

The War on Terror was fed by veterans of those wars. So were a dozen more minor Jihadist conflicts that don’t normally make the news. Those conflicts produced their own veterans and spread the war around.

The Arab Spring was supposed to use “moderate” political Islamists to thwart “extremist” terrorists, but that was never going to happen. There is no such thing as a moderate Islamist. There are only Islamic activists more focused on one phase of the conflict. Like the distinction between the political and armed branches of terrorist groups, these distinctions are tactical. They are not ideological.

While the Muslim Brotherhood was running for office in some countries, it was waging wars in others.  While liberal foreign policy experts assumed that an Islamist group’s shift from violent to political tactics was a change in worldview, there was plenty of evidence that, like the Muslim Brotherhood, they were opportunistically working both phases of the conflict.

Even if the political Islamists had succeeded in taking over, their own internal conflicts would have boiled down to the same bloody civil wars.

Sunni and Shiite militias are fighting it out in Syria and Iraq. On one side are the Iranians and on the other are the Gulf Arabs. But even when both of the Islamists are Sunnis, violence eventually breaks out. The Islamists solidified their grip on power in Turkey and then began fighting among themselves.

The Nour Party stabbed the Muslim Brotherhood in the back making its overthrow possible. Various Islamist militias have been fighting among themselves in Syria. Al Qaeda turned on the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria and even the various Al Qaeda groups there have been shooting at each other.

It always comes down to a civil war.

In tribal societies, strength is the only virtue that matters. In Islam virtue comes from the willingness to kill over the pettiest things, beard length, pant length and whether a woman has to cover one eye. Those who are willing to kill and die for even the pettiest aspects of Islam show how strong they are. The details don’t matter. Like all of Islam, they are expressions of control.

Those who mandate the most control show the most strength.

That is why Maliki was never going to be able to really work with Sunnis or vice versa. Trust is based on kinship. Islam substitutes religious kinship for ethnic kinship, but the impulse is still tribal. And tribals can’t run a military. They can only raid in gangs. They can only make short term alliances that end in betrayal by both sides.

The Arab Spring was always going to break down into total war. Its second phase is an armed conflict for dominance between Islamists.

Egyptians understood what they were doing when they backed the military over the Muslim Brotherhood. It wasn’t just because of Morsi’s abuses or economic failures. They understood that keeping him in power meant a civil war, while forcing him out would avoid drowning Egypt in blood.

By backing the military, Egyptians may be able to avoid a conflict on the scale of Syria or Iraq. The fighting may be limited to the Sinai and the occasional bombing. Or Egypt may end in the throes of a bloody civil war anyway with armed gangs on pickup trucks raiding cities and towns.

Islam and Arab tribalism are inherently unstable. That instability is bottled up by authoritarian rulers.

In the first phase, the rulers were forced out. The second phase was pure instability. If Al Qaeda has its way the third phase will be a successful repetition of the original Islamic conquests that turned Islam into a worldwide religion by destroying all cultures and ideas in their path to create a blank slate.

The Middle East was shaped into artificial countries with historical names, but no historical authenticity. Every Arab ruler practices self-aggrandizement because his position has no real roots in the past. He has to assert his own total supremacy or be erased by another wave of instability. Like the Palestinians, he has to impose his own presence so forcefully that a mythical history comes to seem as if it were real.

The dream of the various Islamist groups, both Al Qaeda and not, is to remove the entire artificial set of national constructs and replace it with an Islamic system from the ground up. That is why they use the black flag of Jihad, rather than national flags. It is why ISIS made a show of demolishing border delineations between Iraq and Syria.

The first phase of the Arab Spring destabilized the national structures. The second phase is meant to eliminate them entirely. The core of the conflict is now Sunni vs. Shiite and Salafi vs. Salafi and even Al Qaeda vs. Al Qaeda.

It’s a war to decide the terms on which the Middle East will be further Islamized, Christians expelled, Israel destroyed and the West warred with.

This is what the Arab Spring was always bound to become. This is what its critics warned against. This is what Obama helped usher in by overthrowing Mubarak and Gaddafi.

This is not a war between tyranny and freedom or between moderates and extremists. It’s a war between Islamists to decide who will dominate the third phase of the Arab Spring.

The totalitarian genocide phase.

*

Don’t miss Daniel Greenfield on this week’s Glazov Gang discussing “How Obama Surrendered Iraq”:

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

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

  • truebearing

    Brilliant analysis.

    It should be clear to anyone reading Daniel’s breakdown of the dynamics of Islamic jihad that it will progress through violence and culminate in violence. If we choose to ignore or diminish the threat, we will fall to the scimitar.

    It almost sounds like their internecine fighting will take care of the problem, but it won’t. Eventually, the most powerful and ruthless will win. Those who aren’t killed will submit and the evil of jihad will be focused on the West, with hundreds of thousands of battle-hardened jihadis willing to die to defeat us. We need to put the Meccan Horse out to pasture and get a president who is on our side, not theirs, or we’re in trouble.

    Those who mistakenly think that barbarians like the Muslims can’t defeat advanced nations better think again. The Vikings were barbarians who believed that dying in battle was the path to Valhalla. They believed in the Norse religion which elevated fighting and conquest in a similar way to Islam. They slaughtered people, took slaves, and spread their influence over a wide area. Russia was named after the Swedish vikings who were called “the Rus.” The Danes and Norwegians raided France with impunity. Eventually the King of France gave a large group of Vikings the entire province of Normandy in return for defending France from other Vikings. Eventually, Wlliam the Conquerer, a descendant of Vikings, defeated the English and became the King of England. Barbarians can win against more sophisticated nations.

    The Vikings were brutal but they didn’t have a mandate to kill all of those they conquered. By Muslim standards, they were extremely tolerant. Another minor difference is that they didn’t have access to nuclear weapons. Obama wasn’t around to enable them.

    • BagLady

      “Those who aren’t killed will submit and the evil of jihad will be
      focused on the West, with hundreds of thousands of battle-hardened
      jihadis willing to die to defeat us.”

      You are right. Our future in the West depends on those who guard our borders. At the moment Jihadis are free to move backwards and forwards from the front line in the Middle East to the safety of London as an Human Right.

      The problem of Saudi funding is never addressed.

      Were the Vikings really barbarians, or was it all propaganda?

      • Daniel Greenfield

        The Vikings were not barbarians by the standards of their time. They did act barbarically at times, but that’s a confusion of the English language.

        We get much of our history of them from people who didn’t like them and wanted to use them as a bad example. And then we got a contemporary trend of mythologizing them for nationalistic purposes.

        So one distortion was overwritten with another.

      • truebearing

        The truth is that they were no more barbaric than those they raided, just better at it. The Dragon ships were engineering marvels, capable of crossing rough oceans but with an amazingly shallow draft that allowed them to travel up rivers great distances and attack places no one thought the could reach. They also had the most sophisticated navigational methods of that period.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      That is a rather important point.

      A conflict can become a prolonged killing field that destroys the morale and capacities of everyone involved… or it can provide the training ground for commanders and soldiers.

      It’s clear by now that Al Qaeda in Iraq falls into the latter category.

      As do many terrorist groups.

      Cultures with high birth rates and low value on human life are not going to be ‘broken’ by an extended conflict the way that Western cultures can be.

      • Boots

        Which is why our intervention in Iraq was a mistake. Since Viet Nam we haven’t had the political will to fight a war on the terms of the country we’re at. We had to do something to retaliate for 9/11 but a protracted war was a mistake… based on our societal ADD. To me it would’ve made more sense to use our special forces and technology to eliminate every Al Qaeda leader we could find and maybe a couple of thousand of their followers, declare victory, and let them know we know where they’re at. The winner of any war is simply those who’ve killed more of the enemy and broken more of their enemy’s things than the enemy is willing to lose. The Jihadis have a very high threshold and don’t even value their own lives.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Conflicts should be direct and destructive. We should not act as the policemen of the Muslim world.

          • truebearing

            We let the Left redefine “war” after our victories in WWII. They cheered the annihilation of Germany by the Soviets, but constantly criticized the use of atomic weapons the war with Japan, though Germany got the worst of it. The stronger we were, the more they used guilt to weaken us. obama is still doing it today.

            They undermined us in the Korean War and then the Vietnam War. Suddenly, war had to be humane, though they didn’t feel that way when communists were fighting N azis. Now we have to re-build nations we fight, adding exponentially to the costs of war.

            I haven’t heard the Left decry the scorched earth policy of the Muslims, however.

          • Judahlevi

            Duplicity is a given with leftists as are double standards.

            The key is to not let them get away with being the arbiter of historical ‘truth.’ Although many historians are leftists, there are others who are much more objective (Paul Johnson, etc.).

          • DB1954

            Liberal/Left/ Radical students and faculty no longer tolerate conservatives in history departments.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            I remember that after the TET Offensive, in Vietnam, the most “beloved newscaster” in the US, Walter Cronkite, declared the Vietnam War “unwinnable”. The rest of the media jumped onto the bandwagon.

            He made this declaration in spite of the fact that US forces had crushed a massive North Vietnamese invasion of the South, and basically left the North without a viable defense, had we decided to finish off the enemy.

            By the time I arrived in Vietnam, in 1968, about 1 in 3 of the men I knew would have shot Cronkite … and President Johnson, for that matter … on sight, if they had the chance.

            I have a nephew who served in Afghanistan, and he feels exactly the same way about Obama. He feels betrayed, having lost friends to “friendly fire”, when the ROE didn’t allow for our troops to have a round chambered in their weapons. Indeed, when he went on patrol with our “Afghan allies”, he kept the safety off, and his left hand was ready to chamber a round.

            My version of war … in the modern era … is to after an enemy, destroy his country and its infrastructure, and make sure that it doesn’t recover for several decades. In other words, victory, after which the troops come home to a parade …

          • Boots

            I absolutely agree… which why I would’ve approached from a punitive approach directed at the Jihadis and anyone supporting them… we were the original; victims in this and 9/11 was too large to ignore. Not only shouldn’t we be the policemen… no one will fix the problems between the Shiites and Sunnis and only fools get involved with them.

        • DB1954

          The mission was to remove Saddam Hussein. Congress authorized Pres. Bush to go to war to remove him. This was accomplished. Senators Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, and Bill Nelson of Florida, were among other Democrats who voted to authorize the war. The war was lawful and constitutional. You can draw the conclusion that it wasn’t wise, but I can make the case that it was. In any case, Barack Obama never takes responsibility for anything he ever does. Obama’s no-policy policy, his “leading from behind” has now proven beyond all doubt that Obama is a gross incompetent with absolutely no leadership skills whatsoever.

          • Boots

            I agree with you that it was lawful but reasonable people can disagree whether it was wise or not. While I’m a libertarian populist I don’t consider myself an isolationist loon. We have to engage the world and protect our interests. That said… my opinion… based on the current ADD nature of our population anything that’s going to last more than a couple of years will eventually become unpopular. Obama is incompetence combined with fecklessness. The only thing that will protect him in the history books is that liberal historians will gloss over his leadership failures while making him a civil rights hero for the advances of the gay community and the opening of the borders… and no matter how much pain the ACA causes they will frame it as the most significant social program of all time.

      • truebearing

        Primogeniture combined with an expanding population in Scandanavia resulted in a large number of males with no land or opportunity. They went “a viking” to make their name and fortune in the world, according to their religious beliefs and because they had nothing else to do. A similar situation exists in the dysfunctional Muslim countries. It is also operant in China, where the self-imposed shortage of females has swelled their army with aggressive, young men looking for a fight.

        I find it amusing that the Left adheres to Darwinism, except social Darwinism. They view humans as animals, but don’t understand how a warrior culture will result in better and more fierce warriors due to the survival of the most violent and ruthless.

        Islam is breeding a cult of warrior mutants who believe in destruction at all costs. Europeans and Americans believe in Ostrichism. Not a particularly good strategy for survival, much less victory.

    • Americana

      You can’t go lumping all the warring activities of the northern barbarians into one tribal onslaught w/a unified purpose. You can’t liken those waves of war in any way as identical to the Islamist onslaught, an Islamist onslaught by the way that is belied by the fact the Muslims can’t hold it together because no one leader has come forward who can remotely hold it all together to achieve this Grand Caliphate you keep talking about.

      • Volund

        I read one analysis of Viking raids as opportunistic.
        If they arrive at a port and notice strong defenses and a warlike people they trade. If they arrive at a port and notice the people are civilized, sophisticated, they raided.
        The so called good bacteria in your gut will do you in, if your body didn’t have 25% or more of the white blood cells there.
        Yet here we have all these other worldly peaceniks and hipster telling us we must unilaterally disarm one weapon system at a time.

        • truebearing

          They were opportunistic, and quite pragmatic.

      • Abdel

        And many Islamicists do not talk about a Grand Caliphate?
        They do not dream of the time of the rightly ruling 1st 4 Caliphs when the Islamic world was united and everything was good? Are you high?

        • truebearing

          She is either a troll or suffers from terminal denial.

          • Americana

            There is absolutely NO ONE who’s got the chops or the legitimacy to become the Caliph or drive these undisciplined wackos in one direction long enough to form a Caliphate, never mind hold one together for any length of time against the internecine infighting that’s bound to occur.

          • Drakken

            As ole Uncle Joe once said, quantity has a quality all its own. In other words if and when they have more bodies than we have bullets, we will be in real trouble.

          • Americana

            That might well be true, Drakken, but I’m counting on Muslims maintaining a holding pattern in their part of the world. It’s very, very difficult for any empire to hold itself together at long distances. Remember, the last time the Muslims conquered vast territories they were largely conquering smaller principalities and they weren’t using advanced weaponry. It was mano a mano battle each and every time and their mano a mano will be up against some rather intransigent foes, not the internally collapsed state of Iraq and Syria. Besides, no nationality refuses to bend the knee over the long term. NONE have done so, even if takes generations, the yoke is thrown off.

            Did you answer my question about why you contractors were told to stand down on your rescue attempt? I can’t remember which thread it was in which I posed that question to you.

          • Nagesh

            You may be overlooking the deceptive, insidious and non-violent nature of islam and jihad and the role that this plays in it’s war against humanity. After 1400 years of this, why do you think so many are still confused about islam. Also, the ‘good’ muslim (knowingly and unknowingly) plays a huge role in islam’s grand plan for you and me.

          • Americana

            I don’t believe there are any non-Muslims who are at all confused about Islam and the role of jihad. They certainly shouldn’t be confused if they’re reading enough news. Yes, they say they want to destroy us but their capabilities lie in individual terror attacks on the scale of 9/11 that affect our society SYSTEMICALLY. They can make us bleed economically but they can’t make us bleed in the way they’re making the Africans and the Syrians and the Iraqis bleed on a large national scale unless…

          • truebearing

            Iran will soon have nukes, if it doesn’t already. It is a good sized nation with large oil reserves and has alliances with China and Russia. It will soon control all of Iraq, with the blessing of Imambama. That is a pretty good start on a caliphate. Then it will pull Syria in, and then maybe Lebanon or Jordan.

            Turkey is becoming increasingly more radical. It has a large army and modern weapons.

            Don’t assume that no Muslim country has the ability to form a caliphate. It might take a lot of fighting, but someone will come out on top, and sooner than you might think.

          • Americana

            There will never be a long term nuclear-weaponized Iran. It simply won’t be allowed to happen.

          • truebearing

            You’re dreaming. Wake up.

          • Americana

            I believe in the backstop. Full stop. Besides, nope, you don’t want me to mention what the ‘besides’ indicates. This is simply not going to be allowed to become a reality.

      • Ahma

        “one tribal onslaught w/a unified purpose”

        In the time of Canute’s father the Danes literally built 4 or 5 forts with the purpose of housing, equipping and training warriors for the invasion of England.

        Come to think of it the various Viking armies with their leaders acted a lot like the jihadis. Sometimes they gathered together for large raids/offensives and other times they fought. think about the time of the Great Heathen Army.

        • Americana

          True, but the Norsemen never raided deep into the interior of England or elsewhere and maintained permanent bases like the Romans did. Their presence was always a superficial presence basically along the coastlines and shallowly inland to facilitate acquiring different materials and goods and resources and having access to farmland in more temperate climates. As for how the various cultures myths

          As for the Caliphate, it’s not within their militant grasp. It’s within their devotional blabbering and that’s about it. If push really comes to shove in that region, none of the legitimate governments are going to hold back.

          • truebearing

            They made it into Wessex and the Bershire Downs are in 871. The held York for fairly long periods. The controlled Scotland, Ireland, and made it into Wales. In 1012 they were used by the English king as personal bodyguards.

            The Vikings had a very big influence on the British Isles, France, Russia, etc. You can hardly call their presence superficial. William the Conqueror was a descendant of vikings.

          • Americana

            This is a better description of their effects on the different ancient geographic parts of the U.K. They didn’t control Scotland, Ireland and Wales. They controlled many of the outer islands in the region, islands which were of a suitable size to be conquered and maintained as conquered lands. The mainland U.K. wasn’t nearly so affected.

            http://www.transceltic.com/pan-celtic/celts-and-vikings-scandinavian-influences-celtic-nations

      • truebearing

        You missed the point, as usual, but the Vikings did have a unified purpose in as much as they believed in a religion that glorified war and rewarded dying in battle. They didn’t all attack the same countries, and they fought against each other, but that is no different from the Muslims. They, like the Muslims, were a war culture.

        I keep talking about the “Grand Caliphate? Only because the Islamists keep talking about the Grand Caliphate. Ever hear about the Ottoman Empire? Or the Umayyad Caliphate? That is what Muslims want to see restored. That is what the Quran teaches, but unlike the Vikings, the Muslims want a worldwide Caliphate, and world domination. If knew anything about Islam, you would know this. But then, you may be an Islamist apologist bent on obfuscating the truth. In other words, a lowly troll.

        In the Norse religion there is an apocalypse called Ragnarok, where the Norse gods fight the evil giants, gods, etc to the death of nearly all. Their Armageddon-like battle takes place on a massive plain known as Vigrid. The battle will end when the fire giants from the south burn the world with fire, killing nearly everyone.

        Sounds like a nuclear prophecy, doesn’t it? And who would be more likely to bathe the earth in fire than a bunch of religious sociopaths called Muslims? The Twelvers in Iran have beliefs directly in line with this outcome.

        Don’t despair, however. A kind and loving god named Baldur was resurrected after having been previously killed by Loki. He brought peace, happiness, and abundance to the new world. I know the Jesus-like similarities will comfort you.

        • Americana

          Per usual, you’d prefer to elevate your own thinking by immediately denigrating someone else’s thinking on a subject in order to sway the public opinion. However, it’s best in debate to simply let your presentation of your own facts and perspective to win the field without relying on preemptive prejudicial commentary.

          I do know that history as well as the Qu’ranic basis for the continuing pursuit of jihad. So, no, I’m not going to obfuscate about the blowhard imams and their equally blowhard bloodthirsty jihadists who are operating hand in glove for god knows what idiotic political purpose. The fact there are some imams who are preaching about the resurrection of the various Caliphates should give us strategic pause, however, there are several things mitigating against their reinstating the Caliphate(s) any time in the near future. First, they’ve got neither the militarist means to reinstate that Caliphate nor the personalities to hold such a Caliphate together. They also are facing a demographic issue of the split between the Shia and Sunni factions which is reflected in a new nationalism. Iran and her Shia simply won’t go down without a fight. I simply see no way for them to achieve an international Caliphate of ANY SIZE whatsoever, never mind the world wide Caliphate that is spoken about in hysterical terms as if it’s imminent. Is that Caliphate a theological aim of Islam? Sure. But it’s about as likely to occur as the Rapture (accompanied by the destruction of the entire world) predicted by Harold Camping. Should we remain aware and militarily prepared to tackle whatever the Muslim jihadists throw at us? Absolutely.

          • truebearing

            I believe you started the denigrating with your disrespectful choice of words and tone.

            Let me ask you something: why are you on FPM? You’re always complaining about the perspectives of the people here, or whining about how you’re treated. Why don’t you hang around on some liberal website instead?

          • Americana

            I’m engaging on several web sites that range from professional/private/invitation to public BBs. This is how a dialogue on the issues gets perfused through different groups. You don’t simply sit stewing in your own milieu for a decade. I’m not going to be labeled as this, that or the other simply because you consider yourself to be more conservative and you consider yourself to be more suited to present your perspective on FPM. How does that philosophical isolationism benefit anyone?

          • truebearing

            Then stop complaining. You chose to be here and I am not the only one who has problems with your viewpoint.

          • hiernonymous

            “I believe you started the denigrating with your disrespectful choice of words and tone.”

            Here are the opening words of your last three posts:

            “Another insane truther. You should all be in an institution named after Jesse Ventura.”

            “He’s either a Muslim or N azi troll, or insane (which I suppose is redundant).”

            “You idiot.”

            You claim to object to “disrespectful choice of words and tone.” Is the irony intentional or accidental?

          • Americana

            I ventura to say it’s the former. (It’s kind of fun to be handed the opportunity for such rotten quasi puns.) We were simultaneously vilified in two posts on another thread by you being accused of being me! Now that was funny. The point being that you, me, whoever was earning money by military analysis. (I guess I shouldn’t have mentioned the way the Allies handled the evacuation of civilians in the Far East as the Japanese overran the region.)

          • hiernonymous

            Can you post a link to the thread where I am you? Didn’t see that and not sure how I’d look for it.

          • Americana

            It was the Obama/Lindsey Graham thread. You posted on it once but you must have missed the implication of Zeezus aiming some comments at **me** when I hadn’t yet posted on the thread. Zeezus could only have been aiming his posts at you.

            http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/obama-and-lindsey-graham-agree-its-time-to-turn-to-iran-for-help/

          • hiernonymous

            You’re right, I hadn’t noticed that. Odd.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The fact there are some imams who are preaching about the resurrection of the various Caliphates should give us strategic pause, however, there are several things mitigating against their reinstating the Caliphate(s) any time in the near future.”

            We lose with every step that they take towards this delusional dream. It’s not enough to simply hope they don’t ultimately.

            At some point it if things get a lot worse it would probably be in our best interests to help install a caliph.

            Right now we should be supporting secular, pro-Western leaders that have the competence to hold their sovereign realms together.

            Mubarak seems like he was the best we could hope for and in the end look what happened to him. No thanks to us.

          • Americana

            Now I find this amazing that no one has commented on this point of yours yet, objective facts. This is an intriguing concept but I can’t fathom how you believe Western governments can influence Middle Eastern governments as far as nominating and choosing a new Caliph. (“At some point, if things things get a lot worse, it would probably be in our best interests to help install a caliph.”)

            Why is your idea so difficult for me to fathom? Because the person selected for Caliph will, of necessity, be anti-Western interests. So by instating someone as Caliph, we are automatically having to act against our own best interests. (No way would we be able to fool the Muslims into believing he’s their guy acting on their behalf.) The Middle Eastern countries involved would also have to concede territory so a Caliphate could be cobbled together for this Caliph. It may happen, and sooner rather than later, but it’s going to happen without our complicity or blessing.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “At some point it if things get a lot worse it would probably be in our best interests to help install a caliph.”

            If we support a leading candidate, that will help it stabilize sooner. That’s all it means.

            “Why is your idea so difficult for me to fathom? Because the person selected for Caliph will, of necessity, be anti-Western interests.”

            That’s a pretty naive statement. Of course they’re all anti-Western. Some more than others. Get it?

            “So by instating someone as Caliph, we are automatically having to act against our own best interests.”

            Only if you simplify everything. We’re always acting against our own best interests. We need the best compromises. The phrase “at some point” should indicate that I’m suggesting things could get a lot worse and at that point we need to be pragmatic.

            I’m in no way pro-sharia or pro-consolidation unless that consolidation favors us by helping to create a scenario where a large sovereign can be held accountable for the behavior of diverse groups of militants and terrorists.

          • Americana

            Yes, I got your gist that’s in your last paragraph above from your first post. But I still don’t see that as being the wisest course. It’s clear why you’d opt for it if worse comes to worse, but I can’t see a Muslim sovereign who’s going to care what anyone else in the world thinks about their actions. My persona hope is that nationalistic aims and their fratricide will take over and keep these Islamic states at smaller scales.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Yes, I got your gist that’s in your last paragraph above from your first post. But I still don’t see that as being the wisest course. It’s clear why you’d opt for it if worse comes to worse, but I can’t see a Muslim sovereign who’s going to care what anyone else in the world thinks about their actions.”

            We’ve managed to deal with the Saudis – not that well – but still… It would be like that but worse. But it would still be better than having an anarchic cesspool of jihadis roaming a massive region with hand carry weapons powerful enough to take down commercial aircraft and blow up financial centers.

            “My persona hope is that nationalistic aims and their fratricide will take over and keep these Islamic states at smaller scales.”

            It’s possible. I think we need to try to shape events on a constant basis. So what we “should” do can change daily and will probably change regularly for years to come. What I hope for and what I expect are not necessarily the same things.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            I think that the main danger is that so many Muslims believe, as a matter of fact, that a worldwide Caliphate is imminent. As long as they believe these things, they will take steps to make it happen.

            They’re somewhat like my fundamentalist Christian brethren who believe that accelerating Muslim attacks on Israel would also accelerate God’s timetable for the return of Christ. Right now, they hope that the US further disengages from the Middle East, making the Muslim path to conquest easier.

            The difference is that the latter merely talk about the soon return of the Lord (sometimes making some money, in the process), while the former are waging war to make their prophecies a reality.

    • Judahlevi

      I am not sure the “Viking” comparison to “Muslims” is a good one. The Vikings had a warrior culture and were courageous fighters – the Muslims are not.

      Even in Syria we are not seeing anything more than brutality when they have a prisoner at their mercy, not waves of efficient warriors assaulting cities. The same in Iraq.

      We spent billions trying to turn Iraqis into warriors and with their first test against ISIS they drop their weapons and run. ISIS itself is not much better only more brutal.

      Nuclear weapons will always have the potential to be a black swan event, but I am not sure we need to worry about the barbarian Muslim hordes at our gates. They are not warriors.

      • Daniel Greenfield

        The Arab Muslims have a ‘raiding’ culture. They’re not a match for a modern military and their organizations can quickly collapse under pressure, but underestimating the effectiveness of their raids is historically dangerous. They are most effective however when their enemies are divided and distracted.

        As the example of the Byzantine Empire reminds us

        • Judahlevi

          Historically speaking, I look more closely and recently at Israel’s wars with the Arabs. If any country should have barbarians at the gates, it is Israel.

          There may be a time when an ISIS turns on Israel after consolidation, but it will be another disastrous defeat for the Arabs when confronted with disciplined warriors and strategic genius instead of their own kind.

          You are right that we should never let down our guard and, if necessary, deploy maximum force to reduce the jihadist threat, but if they ever mass for conventional warfare – they are history.

          • DB1954

            IMO, the Iranians pose a somewhat more serious threat to Israel. No way the U.S. should help the Iranians neutralize the Sunni, ISIS, al-Queda threat. Let the rivers of Iraq run red with both Shiite and Sunni blood.

            These lunatics richly deserve each other.

      • Drakken

        It is not the raghead on the battlefield I worry about, they are a know quantity, I am worried about the raghead in one of our western cities who will blow himself up or open fire on a crowd. One way or another it is going to come down to the simplest of equations, them or us.

        • truebearing

          That is how they become most effective. Infiltrate quietly, build up significant numbers, then terrorize from within, while the host country is afraid to protect itself.

          How are things going in Iraq? Did all of the contractors get out?

          • Drakken

            The mechanic types are out, and the guns r us crowd is holding Ballad and flying the attack choppers. The US military is in the Green Zone and at Bagdad International, with their collective thumbs stuck up their arses. The Marine Commander in Charge of the MSG and the Army Commander recently sent to do God only knows what, are in a very nice pizzing and screaming match as to who is in charge and who cannot forget the State Dept hacks screaming about protocol. Everyone is in charge and no one is in charge, and that is the current FUBAR moment. No wonder nothing can get done anymore.

          • Americana

            OMG, Drakken, so the intention is to HOLD ONTO Balad Air Base? (I’ve got so many questions for you but I don’t want to ask them for security reasons.) Do you think the Iraqi army — backed by Iranian Quds troops — can get itself together in time to push back the ISIS forces to maintain a security zone around Balad that includes the eastern part of the country that includes Baghdad? (Of course, don’t answer anything if it’s a loose lips sink ships question.)

      • truebearing

        I didn’t intend to say that the Vikings and Muslims are identical, simply that a warrior culture that believes dying in battle is the highest honor is dangerous and capable of exercising considerable power and having great influence. They didn’t have the cultural tyranny that goes with Muslim aggression, in fact they assimilated quite easily.

        Their prowess on the battlefield was well earned. They served as the personal bodyguards to the Byzantine Emporers, known as the Varangian Guard, from the 9th to 12th Century. Normans and displaced Anglo-Saxon warriors became more numerous from the 12th to 14th Centuries. In addition to their prowess, they would die rather than break their oaths of loyalty, which made them the favorites of the emporers.

        Interestingly, the Vikings and Muslims did meet in battle numerous times, with the Vikings being used by the emporers at times when the battles were the fiercest. Greek and Arab historians alike reported their dominance and disregard for death. Some attributed the Viking’s ability to fight despite serious wounds to ingesting amanita muscaria mushrooms before battle. They were called berserkers. Others have theorized they used Wild Rosemary. Whatever they used, there were numerous stories of Vikings having arms chopped off but continuing to fight. Some historians suggest that the “berserkers” were simply mentally ill men who were brought along for battles but lived on the perimeter of society the rest of the time, but I doubt the emporers wanted psychotics in their personal guard..

        Maybe Scandanavians should find that recipe and start taking it before the Muslims take their countries over.

        • Wolfthatknowsall

          Consider also that both the Vikings and the Muslims believe that death in battle guarantees them a favored place in the afterlife.

    • rightrightright

      A vitally important difference is that the Vikings took on board that which was good in the countries they occupied. The Danes became Christian, recognised that the Anglo-Saxon system of governance was pretty advanced and maintained it, and became English speakers. The Normans behaved similarly, took French-speaking wives and became French speaking Christians.

      The Vikings possessed a pragmatic flexibility – a most special gift! – that married their appalling aptitude for violence to a rather peaceful, agrarian lifestyle. Islam is inflexible.

      They were prepared to learn. Although they could be as nasty as the Moslems (blood eagle, anyone?), their rampaging and slaving was not primarily excused by their religion the way every atrocity is excused by Moslems in the name of their religion.

    • Urimas

      Barbarians always win! It’s the law of entropy!
      How it works? Simple! A so called civiliazed society always has to pay for it’s military, while a barbarian society always IS the military! See?…

  • Mickey Oberman

    The first Arab spring plunged directly into winter – no Arab summer.
    It also awakened the nations of the world what Arab springs are all about and that it endangers them as much as it endangers the Arabs.

    In all probability the second Arab spring will do the same and probably be much more bloody.

  • stephencarter

    1st phase: destabilize Western-installed national institutions and nations; 2nd phase: destroy same; 3rd phase: totalitarian genocide against Jews and Christians and selected attacks on high-value targets in most Western states … And every step of the way the Left will misunderstand and misrepresent what’s going on, and deepen the West’s subordination. The Left must be destroyed before the West can truly even begin to fight. It’s pointless fighting as long as these cowards live among us.

    • BagLady

      …. or,

      1st phase: destabilize Middle East
      2nd phase: destroy same
      3rd phase: install puppet government

      Goal: control of assets

      • Wolfthatknowsall

        There’s just one problem to your analysis. If you want to “control” the assets, you’ve got to stay. The West never controlled the assets (I assume you’re talking about Iraq). I, for one, would like to be putting low-cost Iraqi oil … in the form of gasoline … into my car, once per week …

        It’s a d**ned inefficient way to run an empire, if you ask me …

        • Habbgun

          It’s even worse than that. The people who believe in no war for oil reject every other alternative energy source. We have to really on jihad for energy and we can’t disengage our resources from jihad. Then they lecture us about “reality”.

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

    The first step is to admit that there is a problem: Islam. Our leaders, both political and intellectual, have failed us. Wishing away the problem didn’t work. Until we can face the failure of their culture we will only compound the problem.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Denial isn’t just a river in… etc…

    • truebearing

      America’s symbol is no longer the Eagle. it is the Ostrich.

      • Teddi

        ..with Reggie sneaking up behind that Ostrich.

        • truebearing

          And BO was pretending to not see him.

  • JVictor

    We are witnessing the continuation of tribal wars that began in the 7th century being fought with the weapons of modern warfare. There is no such thing as “national pride” or “national integrity” when it comes to Muslims. They live with a mindset that there is only one “border” which is as far as they can impose their particular brand of Islam.

    The liberal media will excoriate the West, in general, and Bush, in particular, for wasting lives and dollars. Obama will be hailed as a hero for keeping our boys and dollars out of harm’s way. By contrast, any conservative leader would be brutalized for ignoring the tremendous human rights’ atrocities that are happening all over the Islam-dominated world. All the while, the real enemy, the unholy crusade of Islam (which is no different from Constantine’s unholy crusade which was also a push for one border), in all of its various claims to authority, will be ignored.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Unless Obama suddenly decides to intervene, in which case the media will suddenly love war again.

  • Hard Little Machine

    Rebranding. That’s what this is. Arab states have ALWAYS been unstable. We’re simply calling it by this name now. But as we look backwards we see wars in Yemen, in Sudan, in Algeria, in Somalia. We see Iraqis chemical weapons used on other Iraqis. Egyptian chemical weapons used on Yemenis. Libyan chemical weapons used in Chad. We see 3 or 4 coups in Syria and Iraq each. 30 years of savage civil war in Lebanon. A military takeover of Egypt.

    And that’s just in the last 60 years.

    Since the ‘state’ has never really meant much in the Arab world, what we’re witness to is the unraveling of each of those states into their tribal constituencies under a new brand. The brand of Allah. But in the mid term this will only be partially successful because no matter how violent these people get they’re still never going to be able to hold together a new ‘nation’. And then we start all over again under a new branding.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      The brand of Allah is transnational which does make it more internationally potent.

    • Americana

      To me, this is the more appropriate evaluation of the current situation. The attempt at regional Caliphates reflects that this is not the greatest worldwide extent of the Muslim world there has ever been that is being sought by these groups. It’s simply regionalism taken to another degree and in another direction. It may also be regionalism and tribalism and SECTARIANISM taken in a more natural direction than what the world powers decided post WW I and post WW II.

      What Daniel fears will happen is a long time in the future as I see it both in terms of military consolidation and nationalism quenched in pursuit of a greater Islam. But we ought to be exceptionally vigilant on Israel’s behalf because there is no telling what any military successes will spawn in terms of demonstrations and decisions about exercising Muslim military prowess to achieve the jihadist’s aim against Israel. Though I’m sure they will be so busy w/this “nation building” of theirs and maintaining friction across unstable borders for a decade that they are unlikely to be a military power that will direct anything in another direction. After all, they’ve got to contend w/exactly what everyone else has contended w/internal dissent and external military threats. Even w/genocide, they’ll be running into revenge warfare and they’ll be running up against national government’s for the foreseeable future.

      • Webb

        Who cares what Daniel fears will happen? What you personally should fear will happen is that they will castrate an infidel like yourself, sodomize you, and drag you through the streets. They don’t nation build because borders and nations mean nothing to them. They will however spread their faction’s brand of Sharia Law as far as they can in every direction. The Turks understood how to rule them.
        You don’t care a whit for Israel and are merely starting your customary troll-probing for the day in order that you can signify on and on about nothingness late into the night. I would love to turn you loose in the center of Gaza where you could start signifying to them for all of the 2 seconds you would last.

      • Daniel Greenfield

        They can’t really ‘build’ nations. Instead they leap from one conquest to the next using the resources of their latest conquest.

        The process can be surprisingly swift and devastating, as we are now seeing, though it also leaves them very overextended and vulnerable, e.g. revolutionary France, imperial Japan.

      • truebearing

        You think like Chamberlain. We all saw how well that worked. If he were alive today, you’d be trying to argue with Churchill.

        • Americana

          They’ll have a hard time castrating me and sodomizing me since I’m in the U.S. As for me lasting in Gaza, that kind of threat is pretty silly. I doubt very much that my present strategic thinking would differ significantly from Churchill’s given what the situation is but we’ll never know, will we? I’ve read Wild Bill Donovan’s biography and I’ve read all of Churchill’s ‘Winds of War’ and I see a lot of similarity to our thinking. But we are dealing w/an entirely different form of enemy so likening this present sequential war to our war w/Germany is fallacious to a large extent.

          As for me not caring about Israel, considering how many friends are there, I’d better care about it. The fact my opinion as to what’s to be done doesn’t coincide w/yours doesn’t make me out to be insincere or stupid. There are plenty of Israelis who agree w/me, both about the idiocy of attempting to revive the Balfour Agreement and the refusal to negotiate a two-state solution. You believe you can remain on the terrorist teeter totter forever. I definitely think differently. Eventually, we’ll see who’s correct.

          • Drakken

            How many times do you have to be told that there will never be peace with those goddamn muslim savages? Doesn’t matter if the arab muslim is in Gaza or Iraq, it is the same bloody thing. Giving them a another state to wage their jihadist tendencies is suicide. To make peace with a muslim, your going to have to killem all and let allah sortem out.

          • Americana

            That’s where we disagree because I don’t see that changing the situation all that much one way or the other. We may always have to maintain a war readiness stance but, if that’s the situation, then so be it.

          • truebearing

            That’s easy to say when the problem is relatively far away.

          • Americana

            That depends very much on the perspective one takes on what happens in those far away places.

          • Drakken

            What happens there, has ripple effects here, the muzzy bustards get stirred up here because of something that happens there, see how that works?

          • truebearing

            Why are you ranting about castration to me? My comment was about Chamberlain and Churchill.

            Here is a famous quote by Churchill on Islam. You tell me who he sounds more like, you or, the people on FPM trying to sound the alarm:

            Winston Churchill on Islam
            The River War | 1899 | Sir Winston Churchill

            “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.

            The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

            A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

            Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

            No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”

            – Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 [London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899]).

      • Drakken

        You ain’t been to Europe have you? The muslims are running amok all over the place and leftist want dialogue, open borders and coexistence with savages that want you dead. In caes you haven’t noticed, the average European is sick to the back teeth of the muslim invaders in their midst and we are but one egregious incident from going full on Balkans that will make a Serb blush with envy, and it isn’t a long time into the future, it is here and it is now.

    • truebearing

      You are ignoring history. Muslim caliphates in the past were some of the largest empires in history. To make the assumption you are making requires a substantial ignoring of history, not to mention a dangerous underestimation of the enemy.

  • BagLady

    They are coming like Whirling Dervishes down from hill countries. Nihilists each and every one of them.

    How, when and by whom this devil was unleashed is — and will continue to be for a very long time — a popular subject for debate.

    However, as I harp on about, it cannot have helped when GB announced that all members of Saddam’s Baa’th Party were to lose their jobs to Shias. That was the entire Sunni middle class stuffed. I found this decision extremely sinister at the time, since there could be only one outcome.

    The divide and conquer philosophy only works if it is controlled.

    The only hope now is to keep fingers crossed and, chances are, the factions you list will turn upon each other and implode.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Debaathaization was based on a false analogy with Hitler’s Germany. It assumed that the rest of the country was just fine and ignored the tribal element. But that’s a longstanding problem of thinking of every war in terms of WW2.

      • BagLady

        I remember the speech clearly and my sharp intake of breath. The future of the Middle East flashed before my very eyes.

        If I, as a lowly BagLady, could foresee the chaos that would ensure from such a proclamation, why couldn’t the ‘experts’ on the Hill?

        The answer seems simple to me. As an humble BagLady I accept my lowly status and bow to Clinton and Blair for their inside knowledge. However, I am tongue in cheek, simply because I have taken the trouble to move with the times and they have not. They continue with their 20th century propaganda, lying to the people and insulting our intelligence.

        Of course, if you replace the population with the illiterate poor it won’t matter. We won’t need Islam to turn the clock back hundreds of years.

        I feel quite sad sometimes on this site. There are so many posters who haven’t taken the trouble to move with the times and are happy to sign up to the party line.

        Perhaps too busy/lazy to think for themselves

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Because you’re not an expert. Experts assume that they already know everything and they based their response to a set of events based on their existing knowledge.

      • Mark

        The Germans resisted de-nazification to some degree if certain biographies are to be believed.

        In trying to translate if deBaathification would work in Iraq like de-nazification worked in Germany one should consider the degree of defeat and study the degree of resistance in post defeat Germany.

        Claus von Stauffenberg’s children were treated with utter contempt after the war. It shows that many Germans were not happy with defeat and were willing to do something about it. I have also read people clammed up about who was a N Azi member at the local level. There were other elements of at least passive resistance. I had though de-nazification was a 100% success. I don’t think it was 1005 anymore.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Germany just tossed denazification in the trash, a lot of the convicted war criminals were freed, because by then we were allying with them to fight the Communists, as we had allied with the Communists to fight the Nazis.

          It just did it slowly and carefully through civil authority.

  • Pepe Turcon

    “To bad the USA wasted the best opportunity right after 9-11 to truly fix the problem: they should have nuked them all from Tripoli to Teheran with enough nuclear power to switch them off for at least a Century. That’s exactly what Hiroshima did and the world had peace. Do it again!”

  • Gee

    Jordan is also in the target sights of ISIL. The commander of the ISIL was a jihadist that Odumba released.

  • Webb

    Right before the last time we invaded Iraq, I bet my young friend from Bulgaria a McNuggets Meal that we would not invade because we had learnt our lesson from Vietnam. He laughed at me and accepted my bet. Then he sat and laughed at me as he ate his McNuggets with relish. I knew it wouldn’t end well.

  • knightsman

    Most people do not understand that Islam is a form of government. It is very oppressive to any liberty that a people would or may want. Islam can only exist as a diametrically opposed force against the western culture. No peace.

  • Habbgun

    From the little I’ve been able to read about the Islamic past and its heyday when it might easily have crushed Europe it seems to me that Western governments were as bad then as they are now. The Moslems were not great soldiers but tended to be raiding self promoting “warriors”. Even the Moslem’s best organized military the Janissaries were made up of legionaries, seized as children from Christian households, brainwashed and then put in positions of civil and military responsibility. They were more reliable than Moslems from birth. The threat that Islam offered was divide and conquer and the ability to zero in on weak infidel leaders. Tamerlane converted to Islam after he sensed his Ottoman opponents were weaker than him and he could be a great Islamic force.

    Islam creates the conditions for its own defeat but it is a bloody and
    miserable process. Unfortunately it might very well be how it is
    defeated in modern times. The first group that takes up the anti-Islamic
    banner against the wishes of its own weak government will be the first
    group that becomes a new power. If they succeed others will follow. That
    means civil war among ourselves but the alternative would be absolute
    surrender.

    What seemed to destroy Islam was enough opponents toughened by war and contemptuous of their own governments who sought out leaders willing to take the fight to the enemy. I think this is just my own interpretation. I’d like to know where I am wrong. There are not a lot of good nonfiction sources or at least sources allowed to become well known. Many of the sources which describe conditions which we see in modern Jihad occur in fiction.

  • US_terrorism_N1_threat

    “Everybody’s worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there’s a really easy way: stop participating in it.” – Noam Chomsky

    • Guest

      Tell that to the arabs chumpsky

    • Daniel Greenfield

      That comes from the man who has spent a great deal of time lying about Communist terror.

  • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

    Question: Under the watch of Barak Obama Iraq is collapsing.. The Middle East is quaking in fear as radical Islamists have established a new homeland for Al Qaeda. Russia is massing troups on the Ukrainian border… Chinese ships are driving American ships out of the South China Sea and taking our nation economic hostage.. How do these events fit into prophecy?

    The answer to this question and many others can be found on my
    Bible Prophecy website: itshallcometopass.org

  • Daniel Greenfield

    If they weren’t executed by the Allies, the odds were good that they got out due to “poor health”.

  • De Doc

    When was Iraq ever really a stable Nation? Kurds to the North vying for independence for a long time and ever warring factions of Sunni and Shiites for centuries. The only reason peace was possible for extended periods was due to external colonial rulers (Turks, Brits) or brutal dictators like Saddam Hussein. The tribalism innate to these cultures simply was never factored during the peace process. Democracy escapes these people, when it must include a number of different ethnic and religious groups. I think Iraq will eventually splinter into its logical political factions, but not after a lot of carnage and bloodshed.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    The Arab Spring was supposed to use “moderate” political Islamists to thwart “extremist” terrorists,

    The only moderates and extremists that exists within Islam exist within the recesses of your unhinged neo-con mind, along with all those radical Muslim terrorists who are fighting to create a Caliphate, as opposed to making Islam supreme.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      That’s why “moderate” and “extremist” are in quotation marks.

      But you know that because you’re a lying troll and you deliberately cut out the next sentences that make that clear.

      “There are only Islamic activists more focused on one phase of the conflict. Like the distinction between the political and armed branches of terrorist groups, these distinctions are tactical. They are not ideological.”

      • ObamaYoMoma

        But you know that because you’re a lying troll and you deliberately cut out the next sentences that make that clear.

        Sensitive, sensitive, sensitive are we. You always try to suggest that I’m lying and that I’m a troll, followed by trying to assume my motivations, but as always not only are you wrong, you are the one lying because the sentences you reference are not the next sentence that you wrote.

        Moreover, to further clarify, I had not even read the sentence you reference yet, since I was in the process of reading your article and writing down my comments when I was interrupted and realized I would not be able to finish reading your article and so posted only what I had written so for.

        Nevertheless, the next sentence is not the one you deceptively reference, the next sentence is the following: There is no such thing as a moderate Islamist. and I know because it is also the last sentence that I read and in which I was also planning to comment on next had I not been interrupted.

        I was going to also point out too that the only Islamists that exist within Islam also exist only within the recesses of your unhinged neo-con mind. Of course there are no moderate Islamists, like there are also no moderate radicals, no moderate extremists, and no moderate terrorists because they wouldn’t be Islamists, radicals, extremists, and terrorists if they were moderates to clarify what you are saying.

        Indeed, when you use the term Islamist, it’s clear that you are talking about Islamists as opposed to mainstream orthodox Muslims, radicals as opposed to mainstream orthodox Muslims, extremists as opposed to mainstream orthodox Muslims, and terrorists as opposed to mainstream orthodox Muslims.

        However, your ludicrous characterizations are not only false, they are wrong. Since waging jihad in one form or another, either violently or non-violently, in the cause of Allah against all infidels to ultimately make Islam supreme is a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims and because Islam is a so-called religion that executes all apostates and all blasphemers, all mainstream orthodox Muslims in the world today are jihadists, i.e., Mujahideen (holy warriors), in one form or another, as opposed to so-called Islamists, radicals, extremists, and terrorists. Otherwise they are executed for being apostates and blasphemers according to the dictates of Islam.

        Again, Muslims are not terrorists, which is a euphemism for radicals, extremists, and Islamists, because all mainstream orthodox Muslims in the world are jihadists instead in one form or another, either violent or non-violent, and since they consist of only the mainstream of Islamic society, they can’t be Islamists, radicals, extremists, and terrorists.

        Furthermore, your sad attempt to give legitimacy to the fantasy based so-called Arab Spring was also ludicrous.

        So thanks for giving me further opportunity to comment on your absurdities.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          9 paragraphs to explain why you aren’t a lying troll in which you keep lying and trolling

          “Indeed, when you use the term Islamist, it’s clear that you are talking
          about Islamists as opposed to mainstream orthodox Muslims, radicals as
          opposed to mainstream orthodox Muslims,”

          Islamist is not a religion. It’s Islamic political activism. All Muslims who genuinely believe in the Koran are Islamists.

          But you know this because I’ve told you this before and you just keep repeating the same lies no matter how often you are corrected.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Islamist is not a religion. It’s Islamic political activism. All Muslims who genuinely believe in the Koran are Islamists.

            Otherwise, they would be executed for apostasy. Right? Thus, why needlessly call them Islamists instead of what they actually are, mainstream orthodox Muslims? Indeed, why are you needlessly sensationalizing mainstream orthodox Muslims as being Islamists? To you it might mean political activism, to most people, however, it means so-called radical and extremist Muslims as opposed to so-called moderate Muslims. Why confuse people any more than they are already confused? It’s already too complicated for most.

            But you know this because I’ve told you this before and you just keep repeating the same lies no matter how often you are corrected.

            It’s not lying to point out when you are wrong or being idiotic. Indeed, when you needlessly say that Muslims are Islamists, it may make you feel like you are being more sophisticated, but in reality you are just adding to the confusion. By the way, before you moonbats hijacked the term, the word Islamist referred to a scholar who dedicated his career to the study of Islam, until they were discredited by Edward Said.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            It is lying when you deliberately ignore the quotation marks around “moderate” and “extremists” and the context of the sentence to launch the same smear.

            Again.

            It is lying when no matter how often I correct you, you go on telling the same lie again.

            But that’s because you’re a lying troll.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            It is lying when you deliberately ignore the quotation marks around “moderate” and “extremists” and the context of the sentence to launch the same smear.

            I didn’t ignore them. Indeed, I read and responded to what you wrote in the context you intended.

            It is lying when no matter how often I correct you, you go on telling the same lie again.
            But that’s because you’re a lying troll.

            You are not only delusional, you are deliberately deceptive as well. Not to mention that you’ve never corrected me on anything, and pointing out when you are wrong, which is quite often, isn’t lying. In any event, I’m the one who has had to correct and school you on numerous occasions, and you still have a lot to learn.

  • gid4

    Maybe we should have split Iraq into 3 countries – a Sunni country, a Shiite country and a Kurdish country. It seemed like a very radical idea, but look at the current situation – could it be worse? Iraq’s borders were created by colonialists anyway.

  • James Foard

    It’s a war between Islamists and our JudeoChristian civilization to decide who will rule over the next millennium. We had better get our act together, and that mighty soon, otherwise our great, great grandchildren will be living under dhimmitude. Personally, with the election of Obama, that to me signaled the failure of democracy, and during his tenure the failure of democracy to stand up to Islam. The concept of a righteous King, sort of in the King David style, is looking more and more appealing to me. Democracy is a sacred cow that only works for a virtuous and informed people, not this apathetic Kim Kardashian fanatic bunch of Ba’al worshipers. I would not rule out a coup, similar to what happened in Egypt.
    Disclaimer to any liberal trolls reading this: My opinions do not represent the views or opinions of any of the writers at FrontPage magazine. I am merely a commenter.

  • gerry d welder

    Is the Obama State Department Following Shariah Law Over U.S. Law in Refusing to Acknowledge Meriam’s Kids’ Citizenship?

    “For the U.S. State Department to accept this ruling (the same ruling that sentenced her to torture and then death), it would have to accept Sudan’s interpretation of Shariah law. That appears to be exactly what is happening, and it’s outrageous.”

    http://aclj.org/united-nations/is-the

    -

    LiveLeak.com – Fitna the Movie (New Version 4-4-2008)

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=216_1207467783

  • gerry d welder

    Egyptian Magazine: Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrates Obama Administration

    by John Rossomando • Jan 3, 2013

    http://www.investigativeprojec

    “An Egyptian magazine claims that six American Islamist activists who work with the Obama administration are Muslim Brotherhood operatives who enjoy strong influence over U.S. policy.”

    -

    Obama Releases 5 Of The Most Dangerous Taliban Commanders …

    http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=22365 – View by Ixquick Proxy – Highlight

    Jun 2, 2014 …

    -

  • gerry d welder

    The Islamization of American Schools – Books by Abdullah Al Araby

    http://www.islamreview.com/ store/ index.php/ books-by-abdullah-al-araby/ the-islamization-of-american-schools.html

    -

    The key to understanding what is unfolding and how it will effect you and your family, is not what you believe but what they believe.

    The sooner people wake up, before it gets too powerful, the sooner it can be dealt with.

    -

  • gerry d welder

    Still Report #281 – Is Obama a Sunni?

    http://youtu.be/JdtD7qf5btQ

    -