Archive for the ‘Islam-Radical Islam’ Category
Can’t Two Things Be True? The Iraq War Was a Mistake. It Was Also a Mistake to Abandon Iraq to ISIS.
They were both wrong. Both their policies were disastrous for U.S. interests.
The verdict is in on George W. Bush’s decision to oust Saddam Hussein.
We found no WMD program, no nuclear weapons program under Saddam in Iraq – the pretense for going to war. As thuggish a dictator as he was, he turned out to be a bulwark against Islamic extremism.
He was no threat to the United States. He was actually an asset.
Saddam hated al Qaeda and the Islamic radicals as much as we do. He did a superb job at killing them.
This is why W’s father, George H.W. Bush made the decision in Operation Desert Storm to push Saddam out of Kuwait, back to Baghdad, and to leave him there.
Reagan also understood Saddam’s value.
He was a counter to the even worse Iran — which is why we sided with Saddam in the Iran-Iraq War.
We had an alliance with Incredibly awful Joseph Stalin against the even worse Adolf Hitler.
Not that Saddam was even close to as bad as these fellows.
But in 2003 W Bush made the decision to go to Baghdad to get rid of Saddam, and set up a flimsy replacement government that needed a permanent U.S. presence to survive.
Dumb decision to replace Saddam with this un-serious government.
We’d be far better off with Saddam still in place.
But even dumber is Obama’s decision to abandon Iraq to ISIS.
Obama compounded one mistake with an even worse blunder.
Pulling all U.S. forces out of Iraq suddenly and completely left a power vaccum that was filled by ISIS.
Obama is doing the same in Afghanistan.
Just about everyone agrees we had to go to Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban and hunt down bin Laden.
But we’re now leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban – which no doubt will also become a safe haven for ISIS and every other fanatical Islamic group.
Two years ago, Obama thought it was a great idea to arm rebels in Syria in the hope that they might overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad – another Saddam-like strongman dictator.
The problem is these rebels included ISIS and other fanatical Islamists.
Obama claimed he thoroughly vetted the rebels and was only arming “moderate” Islamic rebels.
Are there any “moderate” Islamic guerrilla rebels?
If you believe that, I have horse-racing bet portfolio I’d like you to invest in.
Now Obama is bombing ISIS in Syria, who he used to think it was a good idea to arm.
Meanwhile, ISIS is riding around in U.S. tanks with U.S. rockets and weapons beheading people.
Obama also thought it was a great idea to help the Islamists get rid of the dictator in Libya Muammar Gaddafi. So now Libya is in a state of anarchy and terrorists are using the former U.S. Embassy as their headquarters.
Obama also sided with the Muslim Brotherhood against U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak – another strongman dictator. But at least he was a friend of the U.S. and not out to erase Israel from the map.
The good news in Egypt is that the Muslim Brotherhood has since been thrown out by the Egyptian military. So we have another Mubarak-style regime in Egypt, no thanks to Obama.
But that’s good for the United States.
The truth is Democracy doesn’t work in Islamic countries — at least not those that take the Koran seriously.
Sharia Law and democracy are incompatible.
If you have a vote in these countries, you will have one election one time.
If Saudi Arabia had an election, al Qaeda or ISIS would likely win. We don’t like the corrupt Royal Family that runs Saudi Arabia. But they’re better than the alternative.
We don’t like Assad, but he’s better than what would replace him. We certainly did not like Saddam or Gaddafi. But look what we have now. These countries have become Jihadist Wonderlands.
George W. Bush made one mistake. And it was a biggie – the Iraq War.
He should have just left Saddam in place. Saddam was a “managaeble problem,” to borrow the words of Obama.
Actually, he wasn’t the problem. Turns out he was a pretty good solution to radical Islam, which he hated.
So Bush made a big strategic mistake. Huge.
But Obama has taken the wrong side in literally every conflict in the Middle East. Not once has he chosen the correct side.
He sides with Hamas over Israel. He sides with the Muslim Brotherhood over Mubarak. He sides with “moderate elements” of the Taliban over Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan.
There are no “moderate elements” of the Taliban.
Obama has spent much of his Presidency trashing the Iraqi government — I guess as a way to justify America’s exit from Iraq.
As a result of Obama’s policies , ISIS now controls an area of Iraq and Syria the size of Indiana.
As flawed as George W. Bush was, do you think this would have ever happened if he were still President?
The entire Middle East is now in flames now because of Obama. We have no friends in the Middle East anymore, except Israel – who Obama constantly trashes.
Is Jordan a friend?
It doesn’t matter much because they’re in the process of being overrun by ISIS.
For what it’s worth, George W. Bush assembled a coalition of 48 countries to take on Saddam — the misguided venture though it was.
Barack Obama has persuaded a grand total of nine countries(including the great nation of Albania) to join his coalition to take on ISIS.
Great Britain and Germany have said “no thanks” to Obama’s idea of bombing ISIS in Syria.
That’s how much confidence our allies have in Obama.
Barack Obama makes Jimmy Carter look like Winston Churchill by comparison.
Yes, Saddam was a brutal tyrant. Brutal dictatorship is what’s required to rule in that part of the world.
The Shah of Iran was the best we could hope for in a place like Iran. He was tough, but at least he was an American ally, propped up with the help of the CIA.
Hosni Mubarak in Egypt was certainly no Jeffersonian Democrat. But he was an American ally and wasn’t going to eliminate Israel.
Saddam was an especially ugly tyrant — almost on the level of what Idi Amin was in Uganda. He would shoot a general on the spot in the face for disagreeing with him, or for no reason at all. His kids had their own rape rooms. He used poison gas to the kill about 20,000 Kurds.
But it turns out he wasn’t much of an immediate threat to the U.S. We were unable to find his weapons of mass destruction or his nuclear bomb program. Turns out he hated al Qaeda and these terrorist groups as much as we do because they were a threat to him. So he killed them.
Ronald Reagan sided with Saddam over Iran in the Iran-Iraq war because he saw Saddam as a counter to the even worse Iranian regime. We supplied Saddam with weapons, including WMD, so he could fight Iran to a stalemate.
We would be better off if Saddam were still in charge of Iraq.
Turns out Bush the elder was right not to go to Baghdad in the first Iraq war to take out Saddam.
He understood the value of keeping Saddam in place, as bad as Saddam was.
Bush the son had this crazy idea that we could spread democracy throughout the Middle East.
How did that work out in Egypt when Obama got rid of Hosni Mubarak, only to have the Muslim Brotherhood win the election?
Fortunately, the military has since reasserted control over Egypt.
That’s what happens when you allow the vote in these Middle East countries.
You get one election. And that’s it.
So Bush the son made the wrong call. He should have just let Saddam sit there as a counter to Iran and a bulwark against al Qaeda and the radicals.
The question is: What do we do now?
Clearly Nouri al-Maliki and his government are not up to the job. Of course, any government in the Middle East that is remotely friendly to the West is doomed without U.S. and Western support.
Obama blew it by not getting a “Status of Forces” agreement with Maliki. Obama did not want a “Status of Forces” agreement.
Obama wanted no U.S. military presence in Iraq at all.
If we had left a residual U.S. military force there of 10,000 well-trained troops (including Special Ops) plus drones and air power, we certainly could kill off ISIS without much trouble.
If you leave a power vacuum, someone’s going to fill it. So that’s what ISIS is doing. ISIS sees the opportunity, and they’re taking it.
We will certainly see the same scenario play out in Afghanistan once we’re completely out of that country.
We can’t let ISIS and al Qaeda take over Iraq, or much of it. We can’t let them get control of an entire nation state so they can launch more 9/11-style attacks (or worse) against America and the West.
We need to go back in there and kill them.
That’s now going to be a lot more expensive than if we had gotten a “Status of Forces” agreement so we could have had a military presence in place.
And we need to install a tough pro-Western Shah of Iran-style dictator to run the place. Most likely we will need to prop up this dictator with a permanent military presence.
In other words, forget democracy if you want to bring some semblance of civilization to a place like Iraq and eliminate these terrorists. We’ll need to run Iraq much the same way the British Empire ran India and Hong Kong.
We need to do the same in Afghanistan. If we’re going to have some semblance of civilization, sometimes we need to impose it.
I doubt we’re up for that. Nor will this happen with Obama at the helm. But that’s what’s required at this point.
The Boston Marathon bomber events present problems to the liberal worldview on three policy fronts:
Skeptics of the Marco Rubio “Gang of Eight” immigration bill being put forth are not opposed to immigration.
America is a nation of immigrants.
The Boston Marathon bombers show the need to control immigration — to make sure new immigrants have assimilated into American life, to have actually become Americans. We want to make sure those who have green cards and who become U.S. citizens actually like America.
The older brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, said that he did not have a single American friend, did not understand Americans.
Who were his friends? Clearly, not Americans.
Not only do we need to secure our borders. We need an immigration policy that allows the rate of immigration to be at a level where we can be reasonably be sure new immigrants are truly ready to be Americans, understand what makes America special and different from the rest of the world.
We want people here who love America.
2) Gun control
The Boston Marathon bombers showed how much murder and mayhem can be caused without guns. The al Qaeda magazine Inspire published an article titled “How to Make a Bomb in Your Mom’s Kitchen” that details how to make a powerful bomb with a pressure cooker — apparently the inspiration for these two young men.
Tim McVeigh and company blew up a federal building, killing 168 people and injuring more than 800 with a bomb made out of fertilizer.
This week, we saw the incredible devastation caused by the blowing up of a fertilizer plant in Texas. An entire community leveled. We still don’t know the number of dead and injured from that event.
So there are many ways to kill a lot of people without guns.
Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.
Guns aren’t evil. But some people are evil . . . and will find a way to kill you if they want to.
3) Radical Islam
The liberal-left were praying the Marathon Bombers were tax protesters or Tea Party types. But no. Predictably, the bombers were radical Islamists.
Salon magazine published a truly disgraceful article titled “Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American.”
But the truth is there is something about the Islam religion that fosters violence.
Islam is not like other world religions. We don’t fear Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, or Christians.
We don’t fear Mormons, Scientologists, or Astrologers.
But there’s something at the heart of the Islam religion that is very dark.
Islam is the world’s most belligerant religion, the most warlike religion.
Certainly, not all Muslims are violent. I have some Muslim friends who are wonderful people who love America.
But I would argue that these Muslim friends of mine fall into the category of nominal Muslims. Much like nominal Christians consider themselves to be Christians but don’t actually go to church regularly, these nominal Muslim friends of mine are clearly not subscribing to the entire Muslim program.
In Muslim countries, we continue to see women stoned for adultery and lesser sins. We see Muslim converts to Christianity put to death.
Can Muslims who actually subscribe to Sharia Law ever actually assimilate to America?
Those who subscribe to Sharia Law (Islamic Law) believe those who do not convert to Islam must be put to death.
There is no such thing as religious freedom (or freedom of any kind) under Islam.
Sharia Law is incompatible with liberty — just as Nazism and Communism are incompatible with liberty and our Constitution.
Jesus Christ never told us to kill non-Christians — just try to convert them . . . through persuasion.
Islam believes in conversion through threat of the sword.
Hence Islam’s infatuation with beheading non-Muslims.
Jesus told us: “By their fruits we shall know them.”
The fruits of Islam have been poisonous.
Not much good has come from Islam. What scientific discoveries has Islam produced? What great works of art or literature? Who in their right mind would ever want to live in an Islamic country?
Every Islamic nation is an economic and human rights disaster.
With the exception of a few oil billionaires and sheiks, most people who live in these oil-rich Islamic countries live in abject poverty — on a sub-human level that makes the South Bronx look prosperous by comparison.
There is clearly something deeply barbaric about the Islamic religion — at least the pure Islamic religion.
The savage and ultra-violent nature of Islam presents a big problem for those (like Marco Rubio) who want a more relaxed path to U.S. Citizenship. We don’t need people here who hate America. We want people here who love America.
Hopefully, these jerks will get plenty of time in Leavenworth to think about this.
Is this Obama’s Abu Ghraib? Or is it still Bush’s fault?
A fascinating discussion in 2002 between Newt Gingrich and the recently departed Christopher Hitchens concerning the war on Islamic terror
This discussion, soon after the 9-11 attacks, between Newt Gingrich and the late Christopher Hitchens is fascinating on many levels.
Hitchens died from cancer last week.
Hitchens was a mixed bag — a staunch atheist and left-leaning on economic issues; but hawkish in the war on Islamic terror and pro-life. He was a terrific writer and extraordinarily articulate, whether you agreed with him or not.
I have had quite a few drinks with Christopher over the decades. He was very funny, intellectually honest, and a very good guy. We disagreed on about half the issues, and were in agreement on about half the issues.
Always worth listening to.
And, of course, Newt is always equally interesting.
So pour yourself a glass of wine, sit back, and enjoy this discussion.
This is why Western Civilization is better, much better. And it’s why we must defend Western Civilization against these sadistic savages.
GLOBAL POST: An analysis of video obtained by GlobalPost from a rebel fighter who recorded the moment when Col. Muammar Gaddafi was first captured confirms that another rebel fighter, whose identity is unknown, sodomized the former leader as he was being dragged from the drainpipe where he had taken cover.
A frame by frame analysis of this exclusive GlobalPost video clearly shows the rebel trying to insert some kind of stick or knife into Gaddafi’s rear end.
Notice how they are yelling “Allah Akbar!” while engaging in this barbarism. So they are doing this in the name of their sicko, bloodthirsty religion.
Here’s the frame by frame analysis of Gaddafi being sodomize with a stick or knife, probably a knife. Let’s hope these savages are tried for war crimes.
Also, do you remember how Hillary Clinton joked about this sadistic killing?: “We came, we saw, he died.”
Hillary thought this was just hilarious. Yes, Gaddafi was a brutal dictator who killed many. He deserved justice, possibly ultimimately death, after a trial. But what civilized person can possibly think this is humorous?
She should immediately apologize and resign as Secretary of State.
What a sickening embarrassment she is.
This is no foreign policy victory for the U.S.
It’s another victory for barbarism.
CNBC: Front-runner Rick Perry stumbled during the Republican presidential candidates’ debate on Thursday when asked what he would do if he got a 3 a.m. call alerting him that the Taliban had gotten nuclear weapons from Pakistan.
“Well obviously, before you ever get to that point you have to build a relationship in that region. That’s one of the things that this administration has not done,” the Texas governor replied at the debate in Orlando, Florida.
Perry made a reference to recent U.S. military accusations that Pakistan’s intelligence service was backing Afghanistan’s Haqqani insurgent group in carrying out attacks against U.S. targets, including the American Embassy in Afghanistan.
Then he talked about the importance of improving relations with India, Pakistan’s neighbor and nuclear rival.
“So to have a relationship with India, to make sure that India knows that they are an ally of the United States. For instance when we had the opportunity to sell India the upgraded F-16s, we chose not to do that … The point is, our allies need to understand clearly that we are their friends, we will be standing by there with them,” Perry replied.
“Today, we don’t have those allies in that region that can assist us if that situation that you talked about were to become a reality.”
The answer raised doubts about Perry’s foreign policy expertise in the region where the United States has been at war for a decade.
Candidate Rick Santorum, who has gained little traction in the race for the Republican nomination to challenge President Barack Obama in 2012, said Perry had failed to answer the question about the Taliban obtaining nuclear weapons.
“Working with allies at that point is the last thing we want to do. We want to work in that country to make sure the problem is defused,” Santorum said.
CBS: The hopes for Palestinian statehood received a one-two punch at the
United Nations on Wednesday with President Barack Obama saying no to statehood without direct negotiations and the French president proposing a time table to restart the talks, giving the Israelis and Palestinians one year to reach an agreement.
“Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the UN. If it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now,” President Obama said.
Obama said in public what he is also saying in private — that a Palestinian state can only be achieved by the Israelis and Palestinians going to the bargaining table and tackling the hard questions that face them. But he stopped short of directly calling on the Palestinians to drop their plan to seek statehood recognition from the UN Security Council.
Palestinian Ambassasor to U.S. pledges that the new Palestinian state will be “Jew-free.”
DAILY CALLER: During a breakfast briefing hosted by the Christian Science Monitor on Tuesday, Palestinian Ambassador to the United States Maen Rashid Areikat reiterated his call to create a Jew-free Palestinian state.“Well, I personally still believe that as a first step we need to be totally separated, and we can contemplate these issues in the future,” he said when asked by The Daily Caller if he could imagine a Jew being elected mayor of the Palestinian city of Ramallah in a future independent Palestinian state. “But after the experience of 44 years of military occupation and all the conflict and friction, I think it will be in the best interests of the two peoples to be separated first.”
Last year, Areikat made a similar statement during an interview with Tablet magazine. Asked whether it would be neccessary to transfer and remove “every Jew” from a future Palestinian state, Areikat responded “absolutely.”
“I’m not saying to transfer every Jew, I’m saying transfer Jews who, after an agreement with Israel, fall under the jurisdiction of a Palestinian state,” he said then. “I think this is a very necessary step, before we can allow the two states to somehow develop their separate national identities, and then maybe open up the doors for all kinds of cultural, social, political, economic exchanges, that freedom of movement of both citizens of Israelis and Palestinians from one area to another. You know you have to think of the day after.”
Here’s what Glenn Beck says about this whole fiasco
BARACK OBAMA SPECH TO UN: “And friends of the Palestinians do them no favors by ignoring this truth, just as friends of Israel must recognize the need to pursue a two state solution with a secure Israel next to an independent Palestine,” President Obama said at the UN.
“That is the truth. Each side has legitimate aspirations – and that is what makes peace so hard. And the deadlock will only be broken when each side learns to stand in each other’s shoes. Each side can see the world through the other’s eyes. That’s what we should be encouraging.”
When this man got up to go to work that day, I’m sure he thought it was just like other day. He kissed his wife and kids goodbye, got his doughnut, coffee, and newspaper. He then got on the subway and went to his office in the World Trade Center, having no idea of the horror that awaited him in a matter of minutes.
This happened to 3,000 others who also thought this day would be a lot like every other work day.