September 2, 2015

"These men are not human. They only think of death. They take drugs constantly. They seek vengeance against everyone."

"They say that one day Islamic State will rule over the whole world."

109 comments:

Michael McClain said...

Would they issue marriage licenses to gays? Should their religious bigotry be applauded?

Zeb Quinn said...

Eh, they're just the JV team.

rhhardin said...

Notice the inclination to say they're not human.

It's as if being human is a social construction.

It's amazing how language reveals stuff.

Say that treating babies as human teaches them to be human becomes a possibility.

Scott said...

Is mainstream Islam truly silent about the atrocities of ISIS, or is it that the objections of their leaders go unreported?

Khaled Mhd Abou el Fadl wrote a great book on the rudderlessness of Islamic scholarship that made it vulnerable to extremism. But his seems to be a voice in Islam that isn't being heard.

In the news business, "it leads if it bleeds." ISIS provides very attractive atrocities. Maybe it looks bigger than it is.

Roughcoat said...

They are human. All too human. But also evil.

Roughcoat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roughcoat said...

Maybe it looks bigger than it is.

Tell that to the Assyrians and Yazidis who are fighting for their survival.

Full disclosure: I am working with the Assyrians of Iraq to fight IS.

bbkingfish said...

I thought he must be talking about the aptly-named Club for Growth.

Michael K said...

" ISIS provides very attractive atrocities. Maybe it looks bigger than it is."

This is all part of a strategy to attract young adults who have had their minds influenced by the teachings of Gramsci, the Marxist philosopher.

Gramsci stated that bourgeois cultural values were tied to folklore, popular culture and religion, and therefore much of his analysis of hegemonic culture is aimed at these. He was also impressed by the influence Roman Catholicism had and the care the Church had taken to prevent an excessive gap developing between the religion of the learned and that of the less educated.

Richard Fernandez has explained the attraction of ISIS and the cultural attacks on the west.

The British Daily Mail has an article headed by a picture showing ISIS gunman Seifeddine Rezgui “with his AK47 – casually passing abandoned inflatables as a group of men keep their distance behind him”. Rezgui isn’t even holding his weapon at the ready. He knew the men only 10 yards behind him wouldn’t sprint the distance to tackle him.

He is walking with the confidence of a wolf among sheep.

One commenter wondered what Someone was doing while this ‘tragedy’ occurred. “How come there was an alarm raised, carrying that machine gun, it was obvious to the onlookers in the picture. Somebody could have prevented another tragedy in the name of this perverse and ancient religion.”


Who is that "somebody?"

The NYT article calls the process enticing the lonely. The other phrase for it is filling the emptied. ”She felt as if she finally had something to do,” Callimachi wrote.

The West is filled with millions of people like Alex, all of them waiting for Someone. They are the product of a multi-decade campaign to deliberately empty people of their culture; to actually make them ashamed of it. They were purposely drained of God, country, family like chickens so they could be stuffed with the latest narrative of the progressive meme machine. The Gramscian idea was to produce a blank slate upon which the Marxist narrative could be written.

Too bad for the Gramscians that the Islamists are beating them to the empty sheets of paper.


It explains a lot about this phenomenon.

Scott said...

@Roughcoat: Thank you for your service. With all due respect, though, yours might be "the view from the emergency room." My point was that if there is a mainstream moderate Islam, then it needs to have a higher profile against extremism. If it exists, is it their own fault that nobody is hearing it, or the media's?

The Drill SGT said...

The Romans had a term for these a$$holes:

Communes Hostes Gentium

enemies of all mankind

The BubFather said...

Scott said
"In the news business, "it leads if it bleeds." ISIS provides very attractive atrocities. Maybe it looks bigger than"

The mainstream would only care about the atrocities when one of their own has his head sliced off on a video

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

There was a Kliban cartoon from the 1960s published in Playboy magazine.

The scene is an Arabian sex-slave auction and some guy is pumping one of the girls right then and there, in front of everyone.

Caption: Just browsing.

You're apparently supposed to infer that the guy in charge had beforehand demanded to know: "Just what the hell do you think you're doing?!"

I have an old book on how to draw cartoons with something like 10,000 colloquial expressions listed that might be worked into a cartoon.

"It was like that when I got here," for example.

AllenS said...

Before you know it, these ISIS son of a bitches will be aborting babies and selling their parts.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

Actually, now that I think about it, the joke would be funnier if the guy in charge was asking "May I help you?"

Maybe I got it wrong.

James Pawlak said...

IN RE JIHADII CAEDITE EOS NEVIT ENIM DOMINUS QUI SUNT ELUS

Roughcoat said...

Scott,

Well said, and I agree.

Just wanted to put in a word--from the emergency room, as you aptly describe it--for the Christians and non-Muslims in the area who are fighting literally for their very lives ... fighting to prevent their own genocide. Most people, and quite understandably, are not aware of the desperate nature of their struggle. It's as if the Warsaw ghetto uprising is unfolding before us but on a far greater scale. Although I can say that the Assyrians and Yazidis have better odds than the doomed Jews of Warsaw. They are fighting well and effectively. Even so ...

Anyway, thanks again for your comments.

Annie said...

My point was that if there is a mainstream moderate Islam, then it needs to have a higher profile against extremism. If it exists,

'If'it does, it is pretty darn silent...except for the Kurds. Though I have also seen stories from the ME where Egypt is taking them on. Rich places like Qatar have been exposed as ISIS middleman. Others, like the Saudis, Iranians, etc. are known backers of terror. So where else would this 'moderation' come from?

Looking back over it's 1400 year history, islam has no moderating force. I doubt it is going to start moderating now. It has spread by the sword and will continue to do what it has always done because that is what their 'screed' tells them to do.

Quran 8:12 – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them ”

Greg Hlatky said...

How bad can they be? At least they're not some county clerk in Kentucky.

Big Mike said...

ISIS men take women from towns they've conquered and sell them for sex slaves. American feminists do nothing, say nothing (note that this article is published in a British newspaper). Their attention is focused on a "campus rape culture" that turns out to be a farrago of lies.

ISIS men entrap gay men and throw them off rooftops. In America the attention of gays is focused on Christian bakers who wish to decline to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

ISIS destroys ancient temples and irreplaceable art objects, and on American campuses the history and fine arts professors say "oh, dear." If they say anything at all.

If American feminists were serious about the rights of women, they'd flock to the gun ranges, learn how to shoot, and go to Iraq to fight with the Shingali's "Sun Girls brigade." But they won't. Or they'd pressure the Obama administration to send more arms and trainers to the Yazidi and the Kurds, but they won't. Too much like work. More fun to accuse a boyfriend of rape after he dumped you.

If American gays were serious about the rights of gays, they'd stop their foolish and self-fomented "war" on Christians and engage in a real fight with Muslims. But they won't.

There is nothing to respect on the modern American left.

Mac McConnell said...

"They say that one day Islamic State will rule over the whole world."

They will.

Roughcoat said...

Big Mike,

Excellent.

Bobby said...

Scott,

"My point was that if there is a mainstream moderate Islam, then it needs to have a higher profile against extremism. If it exists, is it their own fault that nobody is hearing it, or the media's?"

Not to be pedantic, but we can't really explore your question without understanding your definition of "mainstream moderate Islam." We'll just likely end up being ships passing in the night, talking about two different concepts and not really having a real discussion.

Bobby said...

Big Mike,

I agree with you. For me, though, it's more of a problem across the American landscape (and indeed Western Civilization): unless it affects us personally and directly, we don't think it's our problem to care about, much less do anything about.

If just half the Americans who routinely "thank [me] for [my] service" against the "greatest threat to America's future" were willing to do more about it than just say it, I'm convinced we'd have more than enough elements of national power to neutralize the threat. But too many Americans are apathetic.

William said...

Genghis Khan used terrorism as a weapon of war. He would commit a number of atrocities on a conquered population and leave the rest of the people to flee for safety in neighboring cities. The stress that these refugees placed on the resources of those cities made them that much easier to conquer or pay tribute to the Mongols. I read somewhere that Jordan now shelters over a million refugees. They are living in tent cities. This is more likely to undermine Jordan than the ISIS state. I also note that the Mongols who never mastered the technology of baking bread were able to conquer the largest amount of territory of any empire in the history of the world.

Bobby said...

William,

Ah, but Genghis had stirrups, recurved composite bows and siege engines, which were the PINNACLE of military technology!

And I maintain that if Hulagu Khan had not been called back for the kurulkai, the Middle East and Central Asia would be better places today. MUCH better places today. Instead, we got Ain Jalut and Berke Khan, and the descent into the current mess was set in place.

Rusty said...


There is nothing to respect on the modern American left


No there is not. Modern American liberalism looks a lot like good old fashioned fascism.

SteveR said...

The lady at Whole Foods says "Coexist"

William said...

Well, on the bright side, one notes that Egypt was able to enlist an army of castrated males and that this army was able to defeat the Mongols. The liberals may yet surprise us.

Michael K said...

"There is nothing to respect on the modern American left."

It is a fantasy world that ignores reality and supports fools like Sanders who has never done anything but politics in his life,

I wonder if Trump is a trojan horse or if he got tired of the fools he met on the left and decided to change sides.

I guess we'll find out one day.

Look at HuffPo to see empty of thought that world is.

With the deal now seemingly safe from congressional torpedoing, Obama has both notched one of the most significant nuclear non-proliferation agreements in history and cemented a foreign policy legacy of robust diplomatic engagement. Whether that legacy turns out sterling or sour will be determined well beyond the end date of his presidency.

Yes, it certainly will be.

n.n said...

It sounds like the Islamic State is "planning" something. I wonder if their health care plan covers prophylactics and abortions.

Robert Cook said...

"Genghis Khan used terrorism as a weapon of war."

War is terrorism.

Drago said...

Cook: "War is terrorism."

That poor, poor Mr. Hitler.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

If I had sex slaves I think I'd be really nice to them.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

Frankly, anymore these days I don't know that I'd have all that much use for a sex slave.

Sometimes I think maybe a sports massage therapy slave would be a good thing to keep around the house.

J. Farmer said...

@Mac McConnell:

"They say that one day Islamic State will rule over the whole world."

They will.


Well, thank goodness nobody is being alarmist. ISIS controls slivers of territory through Iraq and Syria. They're not even capable of taking over either of those two states, let alone the world. They are only able to thrive in areas where state control has broken down (e.g. Iraq, Syria, Libya_. An attempted incursion into Lebanon was quickly rebuffed, and Lebanon is not exactly the poster child for a well functioning centralized state.

I have no doubt that life for the people under ISIS control is horrific. Rape and sexual enslavement were used as instruments of war for decades in the various conflicts in Central Africa. Mass rape followed the Japanese seizure of Nanjing, not to mention the procurement of women from occupied countries for use as "comfort women" by Japanese soldiers.

Drago said...

J Farmer: "Rape and sexual enslavement were used as instruments of war for decades in the various conflicts in Central Africa. Mass rape followed the Japanese seizure of Nanjing, not to mention the procurement of women from occupied countries for use as "comfort women" by Japanese soldiers."

Plus, the Crusades.

Michael said...

Drago

Good point about the Crusades. Can't forget them. Not to mention the Contras.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

Achilles threw a great big hissy fit because Agamemnon snatched away Briseis while she was still prime rapey rape material, and who could blame him?

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

I'm guessing that history is kind of silent on whether conquering homos got all the tail they could handle.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

Just imagine the incentive you'd have to fight to the bitter end if the invasion force were, like, 100% homo.

tim in vermont said...

They are only able to thrive in areas where state control has broken down

A few EMPs over Europe and the US and see how long state control is maintained. It is far easier to destroy than to build. You liberals just take a free society as a given, when historically it is vanishingly rare.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

There was a golden moment in Mad Men when Don Draper was all pissed at Sal because he didn't put out for a gay client.

The beauty was in how Draper didn't attribute to homosexuals any sort of discrimination when it came to sex, categorically and without exception.

J. Farmer said...

@Michael K:

Whether that legacy turns out sterling or sour will be determined well beyond the end date of his presidency.

"Yes, it certainly will be."

That's true of any president. South Korea's transition to a high-income democratic country helped rehabilitate Truman's reputation. Neoconservatives used to make that point with the hope that their foolish Iraq adventurism would receive a similar historic reevaluation.

tim in vermont said...

What amazes me is the pass that Hillary is getting on the refugee crisis she created from Libya.

tim in vermont said...

“First, brava! This is a historic moment and you will be credited for realizing it,” he wrote in the August 22, 2011 memo to Clinton. “When Qaddafi himself is finally removed, you should of course make a public statement before the cameras wherever you are, even in the driveway of your vacation house. You must go on camera. You must establish yourself in the historical record at this moment. The most important phrase is ‘successful strategy.’”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419931/nr-exclusive-blumenthals-e-mail-hillary-spinning-qaddafis-fall-joel-gehrke

J. Farmer said...

@tim in vermont:

"It is far easier to destroy than to build. You liberals just take a free society as a given, when historically it is vanishingly rare."

I'm not sure if that "you" is aimed at me, but if so, I am not a liberal. Besides that, my entire point is exactly the opposite of taking a "free society as a given." National cohesion and the institutions that support it are built up over long periods of time. That is precisely why regime change in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya has been such an unmitigated disaster. And also why comparisons to post-war Germany and Japan are so inept.

Todd said...

J. Farmer said...
@Michael K:

Whether that legacy turns out sterling or sour will be determined well beyond the end date of his presidency.

"Yes, it certainly will be."

That's true of any president. South Korea's transition to a high-income democratic country helped rehabilitate Truman's reputation. Neoconservatives used to make that point with the hope that their foolish Iraq adventurism would receive a similar historic reevaluation.
9/2/15, 1:02 PM


Well, whether or not is was "foolish" the "Great and Powerful ZerO" made damn sure rehabilitation for that will never come to pass. I hope history remembers it always...

Scott said...

"Not to be pedantic, but we can't really explore your question without understanding your definition of 'mainstream moderate Islam.'"

Okay, my understanding of mainstream moderate Islam is the kind practiced by 203 million Muslims in Indonesia. There have been isolated incidents of terrorism, but clerics and the government have been staying ahead of it. Islam there is not a monolithic state religion.

J. Farmer said...

@Todd:

The Bush administration negotiated a status of forces agreement with Iraq that included the withdrawal of US soldiers from Iraqi cities by the end of June 2009 and from all Iraqi territory by the end of 2011.

"We will not accept any memorandum of understanding if it does not give a specific date for a complete withdrawal of foreign troops," national security advisor Muwaffaq al-Rubaie told reporters in the holy city of Najaf.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/iraq-pullout-timetable/2008/07/08/id/324458/

Coupe said...

The thing about being whacked-out on drugs - it will only get you so far. The stories about ISIS being whacked-out make sense to the west, as who else would be fighting for land in a shit-hole place on Earth.

Don't fall prey to the propaganda. The people running ISIS are very adept, and can pull victory out of what looks like defeat. This means the leadership are very smart cookies, and not whacked-out on drugs.

They create a battle plan, they execute it, and they win. Mostly because the cities they take over have no military force.

It would be like U.S. Soldiers going into Reno and taking over. The police and civilians would all flee.

You don't need to be whacked-out for that - Bah!

Robert Cook said...

"That poor, poor Mr. Hitler."

A baffling non-sequitur. I assume you're trying for arch irony, but it's a total fail.

Todd said...

J. Farmer said...

9/2/15, 1:17 PM


And your point is what exactly? We were (and sometimes still are) told that Obama is the greatest XXXXXX (speech writer, negotiator, orator, intellect, etc.). You telling me that if he thought Iraq was worth saving, that he could not have found a way? From before he was President he has wanted to walk away, conditions on the ground be damned. Ignoring that belittles any point you are trying to make.

As an aside, I also would not have agreed to leave service men in country if they would no longer be under my control but that is what diplomacy and negotiations are for. Obama wanted to cut-and-run and would have grasped any justification to do so. Do you think for one instance if he actually wanted to stay, we would not still be there AND have control of our own troops?

Robert Cook said...

Obama did did try to negotiate an extension of the date by which time our forces would be withdrawn...but he wouldn't agree to the Iraqis' demand that all US soldiers be subject to Iraqi law if they committed crimes while stationed in Iraq. If this was a sticking point for the Iraqis, one must assume they had good reason to insist on it.

Of course, Bush hadn't won the war, however much his supporters want to believe it (and continue to assert that it is so). The clusterfuck in the Middle East was really detonated by our invasion, as useless and unnecessary as it was illegal, a war crime.

J. Farmer said...

@Todd:

"We were (and sometimes still are) told that Obama is the greatest XXXXXX (speech writer, negotiator, orator, intellect, etc.)."

That may well be, but I've never said it and never believed it.

Do you think for one instance if he actually wanted to stay, we would not still be there AND have control of our own troops?

No, I don't think that. The Bush administration wanted a residual troop presence, and they couldn't get it. The biggest sticking point in the SOFA negotiations was immunity from local prosecution for US troops. The Iraqi public was wildly against this, and the parliament would not approve an agreement that included immunity.

The most proximate cause of the rise of ISIS was the collapse of the Syrian regime. A small residual force in Iraq would have no bearing on this, and in fact the interventionist were annoyed that the Obama administration wasn't doing more to hasten the regime's collapse.

Roughcoat said...

The Mongol conquests were in large measure, perhaps primarily, attributable to their firm grasp and skillful practice of the operational art. They were masters of war on the operational level many centuries before the concept of operational-level warfare was conceived, when the theory and practice of war was limited to strategy, grand tactics, and tactics.

Mostly, they were in the right place at the right time in the right set of circumstances to achieve military success. Their society and culture was ideally suited for developing a military system that could take maximum advantage of those circumstances.

Their secret weapon, over and above the recurved bow, which was in common use throughout Asia, was the Mongolian horse (not a pony, btw). One of God's greatest creations. If there is a planetary catastrophe that wipes out a great percentage of life on earth, two animals will survive and even thrive in the post-apocalyptic world: the cockroach, and the Mongolian horse.

In a way, they were lucky: the stars were briefly aligned in their favor and they took the bit in their teeth and ran with it. When circumstances changed and the stars shifted in their courses, they fell, and fell hard.

Bobby said...

Scott,

Okay, so we use Indonesia-style Islam as the definition because that's at least a standard that we can visualize, thanks.

Honestly, I would say that Americans aren't really in a good position to know what's being said inside the Muslim community, i.e., when they are speaking to themselves in their home nations. And this isn't just the fault of the media- there's something of a language barrier preventing us from knowing what's going on in the Muslim countries. The vast majority of Americans consume the vast majority of their news in English; to the extent that it's other languages, I'm guessing (going purely by number of speakers in the US older than five) it would be Spanish (35M), then Chinese (2.6M), Tagalog (1.5M), French (1.3M), Vietnamese (1.3M), German (1.1M) and Korean (1M), none of which have significant Muslim populations and therefore are unlikely to be reporting on Muslim affairs in any greater share of their news stories than the English stations. There are 845k Arabic speakers, 397k Farsi speakers, 356k Urdu speakers, 250k Punjabi speakers and 222k Hebrew speakers in America (recognizing that most American Punjabis are likely not Muslims but Sikhs, still they would likely be reporting on affairs back in Indo-Pakistan- same for the Hebrew-speaking Jews). All of this is to say that with- at most- barely 2M Americans watching news that is geared toward reporting on what is happening inside the 1.6-billion worldwide Muslim community, well, the fact is that whoever is endorsing this brand of Islam versus that brand is going to have a very hard time getting across to an English speaking audience.

That our media chooses to report on the violent branders might be a function of (as you hypothesized) "if it bleeds, it leads" and our sensationalist news culture in general. Or it might be a reflection of Muslim opinion leaders (who are overwhelmingly Arab and Persian, despite those two groups only totaling one-fifth of Muslims worldwide) generally adopting more radical strains of Islam than do, say, Indonesians or Malaysians (I don't have any evidence to corroborate relative rates of radicalism, but suspect it to be true).

I can tell you that there are definitely Muslim leaders who are trying to advance the message of "moderate" Islam-- think of El-Sisi calling on the Egyptian clerics to promote a reformation this past January. Or King Abdullah II of Jordan, who deployed troops to patrol alongside US Army Soldiers and Marines in Afghanistan and has been quite active in the fight against ISIS. Or President Ibrahim Keita of Mali, who has been quite active in wooing Muslim religious leaders in an effort to fight off the radicals. I could go on. That these incidents (any of which can be found with a Google search) are almost never picked up by the mainstream media is something I'm not really in a position to explain. Nor can I really say what percentage of Islam is represented by the "moderates" versus the "radicals," just that we don't seem to get the complete story in America.

Drago said...

Cook: "A baffling non-sequitur. I assume you're trying for arch irony, but it's a total fail."

I don't expect irrational conspiracy theorists and totalitarian apologists like yourself to understand much of anything.

Drago said...

Cook: "The clusterfuck in the Middle East was really detonated by our invasion..."

LOL

Narcissistic Policy Disorder. And in this case, it's terminal.

tim in vermont said...

The clusterfuck in the Middle East was detonated by Bill Clinton's reckless missile attack on Afghanistan.

tim in vermont said...

Not to mention Bill Clinton's policy of regime change in Iraq.

But liberals can't remember anything inconvenient to their argument.

Robert Cook said...

"Not to mention Bill Clinton's policy of regime change in Iraq."

Bill Clinton didn't invade Iraq.

And who says I supported Bill Clinton or his actions as President? He was just the predecessor to Bush, as Obama is Bush's successor; they're all of a kind. As will be Obama's successor.

J. Farmer said...

@tim in vermont:

I would say that a lot of the current problems in the modern middle east have their origins in the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire following its defeat in WWI and its subsequent carving up into nation-states by the Allied powers. MacMillian's Paris 1919 is a pretty good primer on the subject. Fromkin's A Peace to End All Peace covers the issue more centrally. In my opinion, the US decision to enter the war in 1918 was the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of the republic.

I agree with you completely about Bill Clinton. And it's worth remembering that the neoconservatives were cheering on his military adventurism every step of the way. They had detested George H.W. Bush, who they accused of being too cautious and not sufficiently deferential to Israel. I supported Bush in 2000 precisely on the grounds of humble foreign policy, no nation-building, no world's policeman, etc. Of course that was all jettisoned after 9/11, and we have spent the last 15 years fumbling from one strategic blunder after another.

Robert Cook said...

"The clusterfuck in the Middle East was detonated by Bill Clinton's reckless missile attack on Afghanistan."

That was a criminal act, but that, in itself, did not detonate the middle east clusterfuck. Rather, our interference in the region over many years created the circumstances that led to the formation of al Qaeda, (helped along by our funding and training many of its later members to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan). Our invasion of Iraq (and Afghanistan...and drone bombings in Pakistan and throughout the region) poured (and continue to pour) gasoline on the fire.

Rusty said...

I have it on good authority that it is a waste of time to have compassion for the people ISIS enslaves and kills. That they hold no threat to western civilization.ISIS. Not the dead people.
I forget right now who told me this.

Robert Cook said...

An review by a former military officer of Ron Paul's new book on the folly of militarism and perpetual war. Possibly apt here.

mikee said...

A pet peeve of mine, which is well fed in ISIS stories:

A tragedy is when a character with some noble virtue still fails because of a human flaw.

An atrocity is when evil men intent on evil acts commit evil acts.

ISIS commits atrocities, not tragedies.

J. Farmer said...

@Rusty:

How does ISIS threaten "Western civilization?"

Drago said...

Cook: "An review by a former military....."

Oh great. Now they are claiming Ron Paul is Clausewitz!!

And did you know that the key state to emulate militarily is Switzerland!

Yes, Switzerland.

I'd be hard pressed to come up with a more analogous nation state in terms of financial/economic/geo-political concerns to our own than Switzerland.

Peas in a pod baby, peas is a pod!

Ron Paul: Flight Surgeon Strategist!

J. Farmer said...

@Big Mike:

What are you doing personally, or what are you recommending that the American government do to stop the human suffering in North Korea? Or Sudan? Or Somalia? Or Eritrea? Or Equatorial Guinea? Or Turkmenistan? Or Uzbekistan?

About half a million children die every year from malaria. About 20,000 people die a day from malnourishment. What are you doing, and what do you want the government to do, to stop this?

Is it only death caused by ISIS that you are so self-righteously moralistic about stopping?

Michael K said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael K said...

"Obama did did try to negotiate an extension of the date by which time our forces would be withdrawn...but he wouldn't agree to the Iraqis' demand that all US soldiers be subject to Iraqi law if they committed crimes while stationed in Iraq. If this was a sticking point for the Iraqis, one must assume they had good reason to insist on it."

This is so foolish and ignorant that words fail me. I especially like your slur on US military who gave Iraqis "good reason to insist on it."

I have explained the Iraq invasion else where and do not expect foolish leftists and lunatic big L Libertarians to pay attention.

Bush's mistake was to place Bremer in control of the country. That was a disaster. Jay Garner is not Lucius Clay but he was a much better military governor of Kurdistan.

Big Mike said...

@J Farmer, when I wrote my last line, you were one of the people I was thinking of. I couldn't help but notice that it was all what can Big Mike do, never how could we fix things. If you want to sit on the sidelines and kibbutz expect to be ignored.

J. Farmer said...

@Big Mike:

"@J Farmer, when I wrote my last line, you were one of the people I was thinking of. I couldn't help but notice that it was all what can Big Mike do, never how could we fix things. If you want to sit on the sidelines and kibbutz expect to be ignored."


Your last line was, "There is nothing to respect on the modern American left." I am not on the left, so I don't think you actually know much about me. Nonetheless, your comment was cheap. I don't think, and I've never said, that it's the job of the American government to fix the world's problems. Where in the Constitution is the federal government empowered to be world policeman/social worker?

If you read my comment, it was not "all what can Big Mike do." My first sentence started, "What are you doing personally, or what are you recommending that the American government do..." And I'm still waiting for an answer.

p.s. I don't think "kibbutz" was the word you meant to use.

J. Farmer said...

@Michael K:

"Bush's mistake was to place Bremer in control of the country."

I am actually shocked that that was the conclusion you draw from the Iraq debacle. One of the best, most succinct arguments against an invasion of Iraq was made by former Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney, who, in 1994, correctly predicted the likely outcome of an invasion. The problem with Iraq is that you can't have a very well functioning nation-state when you don't have a coherent nation. See post-Tito Yugloslavia, for example.

The question remains. Bush wanted a long-term residual force in Iraq, and he signed SOFA that explicitly rejected that. Why?

Rusty said...

Blogger J. Farmer said...
@Rusty:

How does ISIS threaten "Western civilization?"


Think about it. It'll come to you.

Robert Cook said...

"This is so foolish and ignorant that words fail me. I especially like your slur on US military who gave Iraqis 'good reason to insist on it.'"

It may feel good to write a string of words like "foolish" and "ignorant" and a "slur on US military," but it does not refute my statement.

Obama tried to sell this failure to negotiate an extension to stay as good news--"American troops are coming home!" but it was a defeat for him.

Big Mike said...

@J Farmer, clever of you to post a response after your betters had gone off to bed. Taking your points, such as they are, in reverse order, yes, the correct word is "kibitz." Damn Microsoft and autocorrect. The one word is Yiddish and the word they corrected it to is Hebrew. I know the difference and should have caught it.

As to what Big Mike does, or did, I am content with the thought that there are Americans alive today who wouldn't be without the work I did. Let me know when you can say the same, you worthless putz.

I think you missed the point of my comment. The point of my comment was that women who run around looking for men to hate on for no good reason, but could care less about the horrific fate of Yazidi women, are contemptible. That is so self-evidently true as to be indisputable. Ditto for homosexuals who will not lift a finger for homosexuals being hanged in Iran or thrown off buildings by ISIS. People who complain about not getting their single sex wedding cake need to contemplate what would happen to them in a world run by ISIS and decide whether they would last long in that world.

You turned it into something different, deliberately I think. Should the US be the world's policeman? There are two parts to that question. First, does the world need a policeman? I would answer in the affirmative. How about you? If you feel otherwise then there is nothing further do discuss. But you'd be wrong. I've heard lefties spit out the phrase "Pax Americana" like it's a bad thing. But it's actually worked well in the grand scheme of things. If you want to live where people sit on their hands while women are being sold into slavery, I think you're living in the wrong country. That's not who Americans are, thankfully.

The second part is whether the US is the best choice for the job. Again I'd answer in the affirmative. Who else could be trusted? Certainly not the UN! The UN's multinational peacekeeping mission in Rwanda was an utter failure. You could ask the Bosnians in Srebrenica about the safety provided by the Dutch troops serving as UN peacekeepers in Bosnia. Except you'd have to have a séance, because the Serbs made threatening noises, the Dutch, being Dutch, ran for their lives, and the Serbs killed every man and raped every woman they could find. French troops serving as UN peacekeepers in the Central African Republic raped and marauded and were ordered to leave. According to Amnesty International their replacements from Rwanda (Rwanda!?!) have been no better. Perhaps the Russians could be the world's policemen? How's that working out for Ukrainians?

And finally, when you have the same commenting style as hardcore lefties, when you take umbrage at things written by conservative commentators like Rusty and Michael K and, yes, Big Mike, but seldom at comments by ARM or Cookie; I'm going to call you what you obviously are. If that displeases you, then that's Too. F*ck*ng. Bad. Deal with it, sonny.

J. Farmer said...

@Big Mike:

As to what Big Mike does, or did, I am content with the thought that there are Americans alive today who wouldn't be without the work I did.

People who refer to themselves in the third person are douches.

"First, does the world need a policeman?

No. Because there is no coherent legal system at the world level in which being a "world policeman" even makes sense. Also, a world policeman is incompatible if you believe in borders and national sovereignty.

If you want to live where people sit on their hands while women are being sold into slavery, I think you're living in the wrong country. That's not who Americans are, thankfully.

About 30 million people live in slavery today. There is very little the US can do to stop this.

And finally, when you have the same commenting style as hardcore lefties, when you take umbrage at things written by conservative commentators like Rusty and Michael K and, yes, Big Mike, but seldom at comments by ARM or Cookie; I'm going to call you what you obviously are.

I don't take "umbrage." I disagree with them, and I say where and why I disagree. I have said many times that I advocate a non-interventionist foreign policy and why I believe that. And if you consider yourself a conservative, I must say that you are advocating an extremely unconservative foreign policy. If you presumably believe that we need a small government and that government is not the solution to our problems, how do you reconcile that with your belief that the government can and should solve the world's problems?

And as far as the world's problems are concerned, you never actually answered any of the questions I originally asked you. Care to take a stab?

J. Farmer said...

@Rusty:

Blogger J. Farmer said...
@Rusty:

How does ISIS threaten "Western civilization?"



"Think about it. It'll come to you."

In other words, you can't answer my question, because you don't know what you're talking about. ISIS can't even takeover Iraq or Lebanon, but they threaten Western civilization. This is threat inflation on steroids.

Rusty said...

J. Farmer said...
@Rusty:

Blogger J. Farmer said...
@Rusty:

How does ISIS threaten "Western civilization?"


"Think about it. It'll come to you."

In other words, you can't answer my question, because you don't know what you're talking about.


What does ISIS represent?
I'll make it easy for you.
What does ISIS want?

Big Mike said...

I don't take "umbrage."

Bull***t

I disagree with them,

True that.

and I say where and why I disagree.

Are you lying to me, or to yourself?


I have said many times that I advocate a non-interventionist foreign policy and why I believe that.

But the rest of us are standing on the table to tell you that you are wrong. As in not right. As in real human beings really do care about one another. That sort of thing.

Now toddle off and try to do something useful with your life.

J. Farmer said...

@Rusty:

Just because a fringe group spouts BS propaganda doesn't mean you actually have to buy into it. Abu Mosa said that ISIS will "raise the flag of Allah in the White House." Am I worried about that happening? Absolutely not. They can want world domination all they like; they have no chance of getting anything like it. Again, they cannot even dominate Iraq. This is yet another case of America getting itself scared shitless over a minuscule threat that has barely any means of harming us.

J. Farmer said...

@Big Mike:

"Bull***t"

No, Michael. I am actually perfectly capable of disagreeing with someone without feeling anyway about them personally. Maybe one day when you grow up, you will understand this phenomenon.

"As in real human beings really do care about one another. That sort of thing."

About 20,000 people die everyday from malnutrition. I presume from your nom de plume that you are well fed. So what are you doing to alleviate this? Should we conclude you are indifferent to this suffering?

Todd said...

J. Farmer said...
@Rusty:

Just because a fringe group spouts BS propaganda doesn't mean you actually have to buy into it. Abu Mosa said that ISIS will "raise the flag of Allah in the White House." Am I worried about that happening? Absolutely not. They can want world domination all they like; they have no chance of getting anything like it. Again, they cannot even dominate Iraq. This is yet another case of America getting itself scared shitless over a minuscule threat that has barely any means of harming us.
9/3/15, 11:21 AM


At one time, so was Hitler, so was Genghis Khan, so was Pol Pot, etc. All large destructive groups start out as small destructive groups. When do you want to stop them, when they are small or when they are large?

How hard is it really, to destroy a chlorine plant? Or an oil refinery? Small groups can do much mayhem especially if their main goal is to do mayhem.

Big Mike said...

No, Michael. I am actually perfectly capable of disagreeing with someone without feeling anyway about them personally.

Then why don't you?

Maybe one day when you grow up, you will understand this phenomenon.

I'm 70. I've understood your type for years. You cannot be rationally debated with because you live in a fantasy world unaffected by realities and at best willfully ignorant of the lessons of history. One cannot negotiate with you because you will not negotiate in good faith. You can only be held in contempt. So I hold you in contempt.

About 20,000 people die everyday from malnutrition. I presume from your nom de plume that you are well fed. So what are you doing to alleviate this? Should we conclude you are indifferent to this suffering?

Typical sophomoric reasoning from a person of your type. I'm well-fed so therefore other people are hungry? An intelligent person would recognize a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and not associate it with his comment handle. People are starving because the green geeks have put laws on the books that ethanol should be mixed into our gasoline, instead of the corn being used to feed humans. People are starving because of leftist dictators (Chavez and Maduro being the latest examples). People are dying of malnutrition because green geeks are fighting fang and claw to stop golden rice. The US can feed the hungry when people like you get out of the way. The US can alleviate suffering, but only after people like you get out of the way.

Big Mike said...

@Todd, the Germans themselves said that if they had been met by a brigade of Marines when Hitler marched his Wehrmacht into the Ruhr, they'd have marched back out as fast as they could travel. But the isolationists were riding high in the US, and the French and British were scared to appear "provocative." So millions of people died.

J. Farmer said...

@Todd:

Do you want to go to war with North Korea? They could begin artillery attacks on Seoul today and kill tens of millions of people. You're making a slippery slope argument in which every threat has to be assessed on the mere possibility that it could, at some unknown future date and time, morph into a huge threat. ISIS is surrounded by powerful militaries: Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Gulf states, Turkey, Israel, etc. It would be a foolish waste of resources if US foreign policy operated on the presumption that every threat must be treated as a major threat. How do you take into account risk and proportionality given finite resources.

The 9/11 hijackers managed to exploit a small set of security vulnerabilities and commit an act of mass murder. But virtually everything we have done in the decade and a half sense then has been a foolish overreaction. The Al Qaeda that existed on September 12th, 2001 has been completely wiped out. All of our subsequent targets--Taliban, Iraqi insurgents, vaguely defined Islamist militants--have been textbook examples of mission creep and threat inflation. We don't need to waste our time, money, and American lives on these stupid wars that get us nothing but even more headaches down the road.

J. Farmer said...

@Big Mike:

Your response is characteristically incoherent.

"I've understood your type for years."

You don't know anything about me, and your pretense to knowing my "type" is pathetic.

"One cannot negotiate with you because you will not negotiate in good faith."

I've posed multiple questions to you, and you've responded twice with long, yammering posts that have nothing to do with the questions asked.

"I'm well-fed so therefore other people are hungry?"

No, that is not at all the point I am making. My point is quite simply this: since you are not doing anything proactively to stop world hunger, should we assume you are indifferent to the suffering of the starving. I don't believe that, but that seems to be the logical conclusion from your moralistic browbeating. You want to draw some conclusions about people's morality because they don't think we need to fight ISIS; should we therefore draw conclusions about your morality if you don't want to attack regimes in places like North Korea, Eritrea, Turkmenistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.

One could just as easily turn your point right around on you. For example, take the issue of religious liberty with the florist and bakery owners. I support their right to not sell their goods to anybody they choose for any reason they choose (race, language, national origin, religion, etc.). However, it would be illogical to say, "how dare you worry about some Christian baker when there are Christians being killed in other parts of the world."

You seem to be very internationalist in your world view, which, again, seems like an odd position for someone who considers themselves a conservative. I, on the other hand, am a nationalist. I believe that Americans should privilege other Americans ahead of people from other nations. Similarly, I would assume that you privilege members of your family to strangers. Is this in many ways unfair? Sure, it is. But the world is unfair. We have to accommodate ourselves to that. A million Bangladeshis would have their lives massively improved if they moved to the US. Do you want to do that? I don't.

Self-righteous moralizing is a terrible way to formulate policy. Conservatives used to understand this, and they rightly criticized liberals for doing it.

Bobby said...

Big Mike,

"French troops serving as UN peacekeepers in the Central African Republic raped and marauded and were ordered to leave." (Bold added for emphasis)

This would be news to the French troops who are still in Bangui and elsewhere in the CAR both as part of and separate from MINUSCA.

Yes, there have been allegations of abuse charged against the French troops, and many are likely true (though the majority of allegations of MINUSCA misconduct appear to be levelled against the Burundi, Cameroon, Moroccan and Congolese peacekeepers).

But the charges against the French military are confined only to those relatively few soldiers who committed the child abuse and should not be used to tarnish the French mission writ large any more than if a Leftist brought up isolated incidents like the Steven Green Mahmudiya rape-killing or the Hamdaniyah incident as proof positive that the US military committed widespread criminal abuse of the population in Iraq. This would not be true and it would not be fair (although I expect Robert Cook to disagree), any more than it is true of our French colleagues.

None of this should be taken to indicate that I believe UN peacekeeping to be glorious and magnificent, but I do think there is absolutely a time and a place for NATO, UN and even African Union peacekeeping when/if they are capable of deploying. The US military is FAR too small and we are WAY too overstretch to do the ENTIRETY of global peace enforcement duties -- this is an all-hands on deck effort and we need everyone to contribute, wherever they can.

Todd said...

J. Farmer said...
@Todd:

Do you want to go to war with North Korea? They could begin artillery attacks on Seoul today and kill tens of millions of people. You're making a slippery slope argument in which every threat has to be assessed on the mere possibility that it could, at some unknown future date and time, morph into a huge threat. ISIS is surrounded by powerful militaries: Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Gulf states, Turkey, Israel, etc. It would be a foolish waste of resources if US foreign policy operated on the presumption that every threat must be treated as a major threat. How do you take into account risk and proportionality given finite resources.

The 9/11 hijackers managed to exploit a small set of security vulnerabilities and commit an act of mass murder. But virtually everything we have done in the decade and a half sense then has been a foolish overreaction. The Al Qaeda that existed on September 12th, 2001 has been completely wiped out. All of our subsequent targets--Taliban, Iraqi insurgents, vaguely defined Islamist militants--have been textbook examples of mission creep and threat inflation. We don't need to waste our time, money, and American lives on these stupid wars that get us nothing but even more headaches down the road.


I would rather not but it might not be avoidable. They are working on nuclear weapons and are working on delivery systems. They have only been restrained to date due to the threat of retaliation via overwhelming force (machines and people). It is simpler to have a "conflict" with sane opponents. Sane opponents have a desire to survive. They may want what you have (people, property, etc.) but they also want to be around to enjoy the fruits of that conquest. Not so with ISIS and their ilk. They are out to control the entire population of the world and if that is not achievable, end it all. They believe they are doing "God's will" and as such either gain here on earth or later in the afterlife. That "72 virgins" things was not a neocon invention. In that regard, ISIS and other fanatical Islamists are not "sane" actors that can be negotiated with or bargained with or reasoned with. We will either have to hit them so often and so hard as to make even the thought of engaging us impossible to entertain or we will all be killed or subjugated. There is NO middle ground. These are the facts now what do YOU want to do about it?

Al Qaeda that existed on September 12th, 2001 has been completely wiped out.

And I just bet that many a British soldier wrote just such a thing in letters back home to England just before there was a United States.

J. Farmer said...

@Todd:

"We will either have to hit them so often and so hard as to make even the thought of engaging us impossible to entertain or we will all be killed or subjugated. There is NO middle ground."

We will all be killed and subjugated? What are you talking about? ISIS attempted an incursion into Lebanon, and it was quickly rebuffed. The only place it has been able to operate successfully is in areas were state control has broken down (e.g. Syria, western Iraq, Libya). ISIS can rant about global conquest all they want. They have no conceivable means to achieving anything even remotely close to it. Again, it can't even take over Iraq. Boko Haram is another radical sunni group operating in Nigeria and parts of Chad and Camaroon. Their ideology also includes a global Islamic caliphate. Do we need to destroy them, too, to prevent this genocide/subjugation? This is ridiculous scaremongering.

"These are the facts now what do YOU want to do about it?"

No, they are not the facts. ISIS is easily containable by security forces in the region, who have a much bigger stake in this than we do. I don't want to do anything about ISIS, because it's not a significant threat to the US and not worth our energy. The Taliban, another group the US military was unable to defeat, sucks for the Afghans, but they can't really do anything to us. So I'm not interested in trying to fight them.

It was a figure of conservatism no less than Ann Coulter who correctly pointed out that unfettered immigration is a far bigger threat to the US than ISIS: "If you don't want to be killed by ISIS, don't go to Syria."

Rusty said...

J. Farmer said...
@Rusty:

Just because a fringe group spouts BS propaganda doesn't mean you actually have to buy into it. Abu Mosa said that ISIS will "raise the flag of Allah in the White House."

Not at all what I'm talking about.



Am I worried about that happening? Absolutely not. They can want world domination all they like; they have no chance of getting anything like it. Again, they cannot even dominate Iraq.


They are dominating Iraq.



This is yet another case of America getting itself scared shitless over a minuscule threat that has barely any means of harming us.


I don't think America is "scared shitless". I think Europe is. So, in that sense, ISIS has already won.


What does ISIS want?

Todd said...

J. Farmer said...

9/3/15, 1:51 PM


I believe that we have had this conversation before. ISIS is just the current manifestation of fanatical Islam. It has been raging for decades and it has made its goals clear. Why do you deny that what they say they want is what they want? As I noted earlier, they don't need to out tank and out man us. They simply need to continue to mount a gorilla and attrition and terrorist war against us. They will do this until we relent or they do. There is no peace with fanatical Islam, period.

They may not (this year or next) succeed in global conquest but that is OK for them. They are playing the longest of long games. What specifically happens today or tomorrow does not matter to them. They have made that clear.

How many sub-stations do you think they need to take out in major areas to instill panic? How many subway stations? How many mega-malls? A lot less than you think. They can live without MTV and E! and Starbucks. Many Americans don't think they can. That is their edge. They are using our freedoms and our technology and even our believe that everyone just wants to get along, against us.

None of this is a secret. Their goals and intentions have been very clear. They preach death to America and death to the west in Mosques all over the world, even here in the US. Why don't you believe them and why don't you want to take them seriously? How many more Ft. Hood shootings, or coffee house shootings or destructions of girl's schools will it take for you to believe them? If they are so easy to ignore, so JV, why are they still out there?

J. Farmer said...

@Rusty:

Europe is scared of a refugee/migrant crisis. I think they are foolish for trying to absorb so many people from North Africa and the Middle East. If Europeans are scared that ISIS is going to start attacking them and seizing territory, then they are foolish. Again, ISIS can want global domination all they want. But motive is not all there is when it comes to judging risk. Ability is much more important, and on that score, in terms of most of the world, ISIS is pathetically weak.

ISIS poses a challenge for the Middle East, and those countries are going to have to deal with it. ISIS poses no significant risk to us, and we shouldn't waste our resources trying to stop them.

Big Mike said...

@Bobby, my information differs from yours. Can you point me to a link? I'm not saying you're wrong -- you generally have your facts in order. But I could use some enlightenment on this issue.

For myself, the stain of Srebrenica wipes out all of the good that any UN peacekeepers have accomplished anywhere. But I have a soft space in my heart for Bosnia for personal reasons.

J. Farmer said...

@Todd:

"Why don't you believe them and why don't you want to take them seriously?

Who said I do not believe them? This is where we seem to keep getting tripped up. I'm perfectly fine accepting that they want what they say they want. I earlier referenced Abu Mosa's statement about wanting to "raise the flag of Allah in the White House." I believe he wants to do that. I don't take them seriously because I don't believe they have any remotely possible chance of achieving anything remotely close to that. There' s a big difference between wanting something and actually being able to achieve it.

"If they are so easy to ignore, so JV, why are they still out there?"

One more time. They have been able to operate in vey limited circumstances. Specifically, in places with no effective state control. They're most significant gain was a result of the collapse of state control in Syria. This collapse has been fomented by the Syrian regime, and bizarrely there are American interventionists today who want us to do more to destroy Assad's forces, despite the fact that ISIS is among their main enemies.

Big Mike said...

@J Farmer, you've been answered in full. You just don't like the answer. Pity.

J. Farmer said...

@Big Mike:

You don't even seem to understand the questions, let alone answer them in full.

Let me say, on a point, I agree with you. The Srebrenica massacre was a horrific crime. More than 8,000 Muslim Bosniaks killed. But let me ask you another question and see if you dodge it. If you're 70 now, you would've been in your thirties during the latter half of the 1970s. How did you feel about Ford/Kissinger providing diplomatic and military support to Suharto to invade East Timor and get at least 100,000 people killed?

Todd said...

J. Farmer said...

9/3/15, 2:13 PM


Also, you keep saying ISIS and I am saying fanatical Islam. Today a large group of them go under the name ISIS, yesterday it was something else as it will be different tomorrow. The name any of these groups picks in unimportant just as it is insisted that this group or that group has nothing to do with Al Qaeda. The press is arguing over whether some members of a pack of rabid dogs is called Fido or Spot. Who cares? We know the pack is dangerous and needs to be stopped.

You are being far too narrow in just focusing on ISIS in ME. That is a problem repeated by you and others, being too narrow and refusing to see the big picture. The name does not matter, the ideology does. It has always been the ideology regardless of what one specific collection of adherents calls themselves today.

Fanatical Islam is attaching societies around the world, constantly and everyone seems to be afraid to say so. They would rather say "Oh, that is just one small group in that area called ISIS or Boko Haram or Pakistani Taliban or Talaban or whatever." and not to worry cause the locals have them contained. Sorry but that an't so and the fact that these groups are still out there still killing is proof enough for me. Again, I ask when will it be enough for you? Never?

J. Farmer said...

@Todd:

You seem intent on trying to convince me of something I have already conceded. I don't deny that there are radical Islamist groups that exist in the world. My point is that they do not pose a significant threat to us, and we don't need to be militarily intervening in foreign countries to protect ourselves from them.

Todd said...

J. Farmer said...
@Todd:

You seem intent on trying to convince me of something I have already conceded. I don't deny that there are radical Islamist groups that exist in the world. My point is that they do not pose a significant threat to us, and we don't need to be militarily intervening in foreign countries to protect ourselves from them.
9/3/15, 2:44 PM


So then the answer to my question Fanatical Islam is attaching societies around the world, constantly and everyone seems to be afraid to say so. They would rather say "Oh, that is just one small group in that area called ISIS or Boko Haram or Pakistani Taliban or Talaban or whatever." and not to worry cause the locals have them contained. Sorry but that an't so and the fact that these groups are still out there still killing is proof enough for me. Again, I ask when will it be enough for you? Never? is never.

Though I truly think I am right and you are wrong, I hope that it never comes to pass that I can say "I told you so".

J. Farmer said...

@Todd:

Radical groups cause problems all over the world. You don't protect yourself by going on an impossible mission to eradicate radicalism. We cannot defeat this problem anymore than we can defeat murder and burglary. You take steps to secure yourself and to mitigate the risks. I don't think engaging in stupid military adventures that exacerbate the problem is a very good solution. About 2% of the terrorist attacks that have occurred in Europe are from Islamic militants. The threat of violence from Islamic militants is rather geographically contained. The threat from Islamic terror in America is exceedingly small. It is not so small in Nigeria. But that is why I live in America and not in Nigeria.

Rusty said...

. If Europeans are scared that ISIS is going to start attacking them and seizing territory, then they are foolish.

No. Thay are afraid ISIS is already in europe. They don't need to attack. They only need impose a fear of attack and then do what they are already doing.

J. Farmer said...

@Rusty:

Ethno-nationalist separatist groups commit more terror attacks in Europe than Islamic radicals. Europe is correct to be worried about the effects of unfettered immigration into their continent, though. I've been following the rise of UKIP in Britain for the last 10 years. It's not my call, but if I was a European, I'd be virulently opposed to the EU and to the importation of North Africans and Middle Easterners into that continent. Unfortunately, most of the European professional media and political class is as deluded in their convictions regarding multiculturalism and diversity-is-strength nonsense as those on this side of the pond.

Rusty said...

No. Thay are afraid ISIS is already in europe. They don't need to attack. They only need impose a fear of attack and then do what they are already doing.

And once they've done that they've already begun the process of altering the host culture.

"Ethno-nationalist separatist groups commit more terror attacks in Europe than Islamic radicals."


cite?

J. Farmer said...

@Rusty:

cite?

From EUROPEAN UNION TERRORISM SITUATION AND TREND REPORT 2014 (link below)...

After an increase in 2012 (219), the number of terrorist attacks in 2013 fell below the number recorded in 2011 (174). As a result of terrorist attacks, seven people died and nine were injured in the EU in 2013. Attacks using firearms were most frequent in France, and those aiming at criminal damage in Spain.

■ As in previous years, more than half of the total number of attacks (84) were claimed by, or attributed to, separatist terrorist groups: 58 in France, and 26 in Spain. After an increase in 2012, the number of separatist attacks decreased significantly compared to previous years, from 110 (2011), to 167 (2012), to 84 (2013). The number of bomb attacks decreased considerably, from 91 in 2012 to 31 in 2013, but the number of attacks with firearms remained stable.

■ The number of attacks by anarchist or left-wing terrorist groups increased from 18 in 2012 to 24 in 2013, thereby ending the downward trend observed in previous years. EU Member States that reported such attacks are Greece, Italy and Spain. The number of attacks in Greece increased significantly to 12 in 2013, after decreasing from 6 (2011) to one in 2012. A significant change was noted in the modus operandi: whereas in previous years arson was the most frequently employed attack method, in 2013 this was bombings.

■ No attacks explicitly classified as religiously inspired terrorism, right-wing terrorism or single-issue terrorism were reported by the EU Member States in 2013. However, two persons were killed in the UK in two separate terrorist attacks, one motivated by religious extremism and the other by right-wing extremist ideology.

■ Almost 70% of the attacks targeted the business sector and private properties in 2013. The proportion of attacks against government facilities continued to decrease.

https://www.europol.europa.eu/content/te-sat-2014-european-union-terrorism-situation-and-trend-report-2014

Todd said...

J. Farmer said...

It's not my call, but if I was a European, I'd be virulently opposed to the EU and to the importation of North Africans and Middle Easterners into that continent. Unfortunately, most of the European professional media and political class is as deluded in their convictions regarding multiculturalism and diversity-is-strength nonsense as those on this side of the pond.

9/3/15, 4:10 PM


On this we can both agree. This is not only a "condition" that afflicts the "elites" in Europe but also those here in America. They give no thought to the rates of illegal immigration, the failure to assimilate and the burdens placed upon the culture and infrastructure (social and material) as a result of this lawless, unfettered influx.

Bobby said...

Big Mike,

Be glad to provide the link -- the French Ministry of Defense maintains a website in support of Operation Sangaris, which has a multitude of information about the French military deployment to Central African Republic. Much of it is in French, but there's enough English that you should have no problems navigating the site. Basically, France has 930 troops deployed to CAR: 900 for Sangaris, 20 for EUMAM (EU Military Advisory Mission), and 10 with MINUSCA.