November 20, 2015

"Malian special forces have entered the Radisson Blu Hotel in Mali's capital, Bamako, to end a siege by gunmen...."

"The hotel says 138 people remain inside. The gunmen stormed the US-owned hotel, which is popular with foreign businesses and airline crews, shooting and shouting 'God is great!' in Arabic."

57 comments:

hawkeyedjb said...

Whew! Luckily, this had nothing to do with Islam!

Quinn Satterwaite said...


Did you notice that the hostage takers were applying a religious test pretty effectively?

Fabi said...

Religion of Peace!

Bobby said...

You all may remember Mali's President, Ibrahim Boubacar Keita (yes, a Muslim), for taking part in the January world leaders march in Paris following the Charlie Hebdo massacre (the one which dozens of other wnational leaders attended, but not ours- although at least Kerry showed up with James Taylor a little later). For about four years now, Mali's Muslim majority has been engaged in a rather intense conflict with the Mouvement National pour la Liberation de l'Azawad, which itself has become dominated by IS and Al Qaeda affiliated Islamist terror movements.

Tank said...

Repeated for emphasis:

Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.

- Hillary Clinton


No comment needed.

==============================================

When I first heard about this, I thought, "prolly the Amish, or maybe the Mormons."

Nah!

David said...

The hotel is a Raddison.

Roy Jacobsen said...

Damn those militant Lutherans. I'm betting this was orchestrated by a cell of the extremist Church Basement Ladies group.

Malesch Morocco said...

Just another "setback"

Fabi said...

The NYT online headline reads 'Mali Hotel Attacked By Hostage Takers'.

I'm not fucking kidding. Just some random non-affiliated hostage takers -- nothing to see here.

Rick said...

at least Kerry showed up with James Taylor a little later

We should have sent James Taylor to this march also, less embarrassing.

Fen said...

Time to grief my liberal friend on FB for not drenching their profile in the Malaysian flag...

mikee said...

Last night I heard Hillary repeat that the naming of terrorists as radical Muslims elevated their status from the mere murderers they are.

That explained everything about this recalcitrance to name the enemy by the Dems.

Hillary and Obama and Dems want to make terrorism solely a law enforcement issue, rather than recognize that it is pure Clausewitz - war being an extension of politics.

They cannot say that there is a political angle to Muslim terrorism, or they lose the ability to claim that terrorism is a law enforcement issue, rather than one to be solved militarily.

Hillary and Obama and the Dems can do that, and think that, and say that, but they are wrong.

ISIS and al-Queda are using violence for political ends, not hiding dead bodies in the woods like mere serial killers. To deny that is to deny reality.

rehajm said...

Zeke Emanuel said this morning he has stayed at that hotel several times.

The luck.

Bobby said...

Fen,

"Time to grief my liberal friend on FB for not drenching their profile in the Malaysian flag."

Flag of Mali. Malaysia is a different country, about 7500 miles away or so.

Birkel said...

When will those Methodists learn?
/sarc

Sebastian said...

Just a bunch of jihadis.

Not very successful.

Good thing there's no mastermind involved.

Curious George said...

Hey Aaron Rodgers, do you know what was yelled by Muslim Turks during a moment of silent for France at a soccer game versus Greece?

Allahu Akbar and boo.

So fuck you. Go back to trying to play football well. Because you've sucked lately.

gspencer said...

It's too bad the lessons are coming with so much death.

But slowly more and more of the civilized world is learning about Islam.

1400 years of Islamic conquest and still so many remain clueless.

Michael Fitzgerald said...

Clearly the answer is to admit 30,000 Malians into our country.

Larry J said...

The gunmen stormed the US-owned hotel, which is popular with foreign businesses and airline crews, shooting and shouting 'God is great!' in Arabic."

Hillary! Clinton: "Just a coincidence. They could be a bunch of Mormons for all we know. Damned Mormons!"

grackle said...

For about four years now, Mali's Muslim majority has been engaged in a rather intense conflict with the Mouvement National pour la Liberation de l'Azawad, which itself has become dominated by IS and Al Qaeda affiliated Islamist terror movements.

Readers, when they refer to a Muslim “majority” as if there was a significant number of non-Muslims in the population realize that Mali is 90% Muslim. Islam has no real competition in this country.

Internal spats between Muslims are mildly interesting but ultimately trivial. One Muslim group wants to take over power, the other Muslim group wants to retain power; however, Sharia rules life in Mali after a brief flirtation with a secular government and freedom of religion. That will not change no matter which Muslim group eventually dominates. Muslims in general seem to be allergic to freedom. Wherever Muslims hold sway freedom disappears.

At least we won’t have Muslims in the news for terrorism carefully described as “Frenchmen,” with no mention of their Muslim/Arabic-derived names, as we have witnessed in France lately.

eric said...

This happened because of an offensive YouTube video. We will capture this perp and make him pay!

Michael K said...

This workplace violence is getting serious !

Lyle Smith said...

God is greater not God is great... there's a difference

Did you know that non-Muslims aren't allowed to visit Mecca because non-Muslims are too unclean for such holy places?

Bobby said...

Grackle,

No.

Readers, since 2003, Ibrahim Boubacar Keita's Rally for Mali party has been a full member of Socialist International. It's not an Islamist party.

Because the country is 90% Muslim, one has to look beyond just religious schisms to ethnic (and now sectarian) divides to understand the civil war there- the different ethnic groups (Mande, Tuareg, Fula, Voltaic, etc.) are using violence to compete for political power in a multi-ethnic state (back to Clausewitz, right?). The Islamist parties have taken advantage of these schisms to advance their agenda, much as AQI did with the Sunni Arabs in Iraq from 2003-2007 (when we co-opted the Sunni tribes with the Awakening and the Sons of Iraq). The French have been there for years, backing the very same cats that we would have backed if our foreign policy were not screwed up.

Again, as with so many things, a single variable equation tends toward oversimplification.

Roughcoat said...


The JV team strikes again.

DanTheMan said...

>>Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. HRC

The logic is simple here. If you slaughter innocents, then you are not a Muslim, even if you claim to be.

So, by this same logic, there are no Christian murderers, rapists, robbers, thieves, or liars.

Wouldn't it be fun for somebody to ask her if she agrees? And wouldn't it be fun if I won the lottery three times in a row? Both are equally likely.

Achilles said...

Hillary isn't proud of Muslim enemies.

Bobby said...

The HRC quote is being (perhaps intentionally) misquoted. She said, ". . . the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people." (Bold added for emphasis).

Obviously, with 1.6- to 1.8-billion Muslims on the planet, anyone taking just a cursory view of the world would see that it's quite obvious that we don't have 800 to 900 million of Muslims committing violent military, paramilitary or terrorist attacks (although these are not the only forms of "violence" and, just my guess, Hillary probably wouldn't so quickly brush off American men for the Muslim male rates of "violence" committed against women across the planet...)

And saying "tolerant" is absurd, unless you define that word so minimally that it doesn't have much utility.

Michael McClain said...

Religion of peace.

Drago said...

Uh-oh!

More muslim trouble for the lefts beloved China-model.

Of course, the muslims are only causing trouble in China due to the long history of western Christian white male patriarachal oil-grubbing Cheney-ite colonialism.

We definitely need another ### campaign stat!

Anonymous said...

Unexpectedly!

Youths of unknown origin have attacked for unknown reasons!

I'm curious: do only imbeciles become Democrats? Or does being of the political left require one to turn off one's brain?

Anonymous said...

Bobby said...

The HRC quote is being (perhaps intentionally) misquoted. She said, ". . . the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people." (Bold added for emphasis).

There are actually peaceful and tolerant Muslims out there. Ayaan Hirsi Ali for one. Whens the last time Hillary, or anyone else of the Left, had anything to do with her, other than fight to shut her up and / or hut her out?

So fine, Bobby. But, you know what? The vast majority of Germans from 1937 - 1945 were peaceful and tolerant people, who just wanted to live their own lives. What % of their population was in the military / SS? What % of those were "shooters", rather than paper pushers?

What's the difference between a German who worked in a war materials factory in 1942, and a Muslim who goods to a "radical" mosque, or donates to a Salafist or Wahabi "charity"?

What's the difference between a German who looked the other way while Jewish businesses were destroyed, and their Jewish neighbors were dragged off to the camps, and a Muslim who knows that there's a violent extremist cleric at the mosque near by, but does nothing to stop him?

Sorry, the full context does not save Hillary's quote. Esp. since neither she, nor anyone else on the left, is actually doing anything to support Muslims who actually ARE peace loving and tolerant, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Anthony said...

I just saw Hillary Clinton on TV saying this is a result of a Geena Davis movie from 1992.

Bobby said...

Gregg,

"Sorry, the full context does not save Hillary's quote."

I didn't say it did, and if you re-read my response, you will see that I reject the "tolerant" bit out of hand. So then, why take it out of context? Like why snip it right at the part that makes it out as bad as it can? I think we both know why.

"What's the difference between a German who worked in a war materials factory in 1942, and a Muslim who goods to a "radical" mosque, or donates to a Salafist or Wahabi "charity"?

What's the difference between a German who looked the other way while Jewish businesses were destroyed, and their Jewish neighbors were dragged off to the camps, and a Muslim who knows that there's a violent extremist cleric at the mosque near by, but does nothing to stop him?
"

These are very good questions, and unfortunately I do not have the answers to what percentage of Muslims are supporting extremist charities versus those that are not. However, given the dispersed nature of Islamic hawzas versus the centralized nature of the Nazi state, it goes without saying that the percentages are going to be much, much, much lower for Muslims versus Nazis. Additionally, bear in mind that we have dozens of documented instances where American Muslims did not turn a blind eye and in fact informed on extremist Muslims planning terrorist acts. I can post it again, if you'd like.

Jupiter said...

Bobby said...

"Again, as with so many things, a single variable equation tends toward oversimplification."

Actually, Bobby, the single variable of Islam seems to account for the phenomenon pretty well. Got Muslims? Got terror! But granting, for the sake of argument, that you have a more nuanced understanding of things, so what? Have you got a special, secret plan?

"Half of the Paris terrorist squad were known to U.S. intelligence for months and had been 'watched' or placed on no fly lists." Daily Mail

Doesn't seem to have cramped their style much. Maybe understanding your enemy is not so important as killing him. Or at least not letting him into your country.

grackle said...

Grackle, No. Readers, since 2003, Ibrahim Boubacar Keita's Rally for Mali party has been a full member of Socialist International. It's not an Islamist party.

I’m just going by the comment which said:

For about four years now, Mali's Muslim majority has been engaged in a rather intense conflict with the Mouvement National pour la Liberation de l'Azawad, which itself has become dominated by IS and Al Qaeda affiliated Islamist terror movements.

They may be a member of “Socialist International” but if they are dominated by al Qaeda they are an Islamic party.

One group of Muslims in power wants to retain that power, another Muslim group wants seize that power. Internal spats. Who will win? Doesn’t matter. Whoever wins you can count on them to want to live under Sharia and to hate Westerners, especially Americans.

But Muslim apologists are fascinated with nuance. They nuance the hell out of everything but the Muslims just keep murdering us.

Jupiter said...

And as for the claim that Hillary! was misquoted, this is from her twitter;

"Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism."

Bobby said...

Jupiter,

"But granting, for the sake of argument, that you have a more nuanced understanding of things, so what? Have you got a special, secret plan? "

Well, if I did, I couldn't share it with you, because it would be classified. Those of us who are actually fighting what you all call "the greatest threat to America's security" can't actually share the details with those of you who don't actually want to participate in that fight- or who think that commenting about it on blogs is enough to satisfy 'doing your part.'

"Doesn't seem to have cramped their style much. Maybe understanding your enemy is not so important as killing him. Or at least not letting him into your country."

The US Government doesn't have the resources (nor the inclination nor the legal framework) to take action every time on every single threat we identify everywhere in the world. As a matter of policy, threats to Americans are prioritized over threats to American interests, and in the latter case, where possible, we share the intelligence with appropriate regional or national alliance partners and let them do with it what they want. Having the apparatus to strike everywhere all the time would be absurdly more expensive and, last I checked, people were calling for deficit reduction and lower taxes, so I'm not sure where the funds would come from to plus up national security to that level. To say nothing of lacking the necessary legal framework which, even now, the French are unlikely to grant us.

Not everything is the fault of America, you know.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Got Muslims? Got terror!

Most other terrorist ideologies are extinct or severely endangered..

Bobby said...

Grackle,

"They may be a member of “Socialist International” but if they are dominated by al Qaeda they are an Islamic party. "

Ah, that was either an error in my phrasing or an error in your reading. The "which itself has become dominated by IS and Al Qaeda affiliated Islamist terror movements" was meant to be attached to the previously named, Mouvement National pour la Liberation de l'Azawad (MNLA), not Ibrahim Boubacar Keita's Rally for Mali party. I'm not an expert on the English language, so I thought the "itself" tracks to the more recent noun (MNLA) over the previous Rally for Mali, but perhaps that is not grammatically the case?

In any case, now you know: Ibrahim Boubacar Keita's Rally for Mali is a Socialist, not an Islamist party, and that's partially why they're engaged in such a visceral fight with the Islamists: because, as many conservatives on this blog understand, Godless Socialism and Islam cannot co-exist.

Bobby said...

Sammy,

"Most other terrorist ideologies are extinct or severely endangered."

This is quite true. The Anarchist and Marxist terrorists, each of whom took turns as the bane of the Western world, are both practically negligible today. Eco-terrorists are slightly more prominent, but still quite negligible, really. Separatist terrorists are still in place in much of what we used to call the Third World, sometimes overlapping with and sometimes separate from ethnic and nationalist terror movements, but each of these is generally isolated to a particular geographic location with little connection to a broader international movement. The narcotraficantes remains a significant problem, but again tied to specific geographic locations. In the US, since 2002, domestic right-wing extremist terrorism has in fact accounted for more deaths than Islamist-inspired terrorism, but as I pointed out on the other thread, I believe this is more a reflection of the enormous effort that we put in combatting Islamist terror- if we dropped those CT and AT efforts down to the level that we use against the right-wing extremists, the death toll of Islamist terrorist kills would skyrocket.

Bobby said...

Jupiter,

"And as for the claim that Hillary! was misquoted, this is from her twitter;

"Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism."
"

Wow, you know what, man- you're right! I'm going to walk back my misquote charge. I was referencing a CNN article sent to me, posted here but when I look at it again, that was a quote from JANUARY 2015! (Apparently, she's not very creative in her messaging).

For me, the lack of "the vast majority of" context means she's taking it out of the statistical realm and putting it forward as a general statement which, as Roughcoat demonstrated on the other thread, automatically implies that it has to beat the "relativity" test. That is, saying someone is "smart" necessarily indicates you're applying them relative to their contemporaries, and saying a religion is "peaceful" means you have to compare it relative to other religions (at least, other major religions, anyway). And no way I'm arguing that Islam is the least peaceful of the world's major religions- expended way too much blood and sweat to believe otherwise.

I mean, HRC will come back with something like "well, I was implying that not all Muslims are neither violent nor intolerant" but that isn't the point. You're correct on the phrasing and I retract my charge that she's being taken out of context.

Jupiter said...

Bobby said,

"The US Government doesn't have the resources (nor the inclination nor the legal framework) to take action every time on every single threat we identify everywhere in the world."

But somehow, the US Government does have the resources (and the inclination, and the legal framework) to import boatloads of "refugees" who openly profess their adherence to the terrorist ideology known as Islam.

Maybe the problem is in that "inclination" item.

"In the US, since 2002, domestic right-wing extremist terrorism has in fact accounted for more deaths than Islamist-inspired terrorism ...". Interesting choice of time frame, that. Anything interesting happen in 2001? And who exactly are these "right-wing terrorists? People who aren't happy with the way the US government goes about indulging its inclinations?

Anonymous said...

Bobby,

You apparently missed this, so I'll ask it again:

There are actually peaceful and tolerant Muslims out there. Ayaan Hirsi Ali for one. When's the last time Hillary, or anyone else of the Left, had anything to do with her, other than fight to shut her up and / or shut her out?

You wrote:
However, given the dispersed nature of Islamic hawzas versus the centralized nature of the Nazi state, it goes without saying that the percentages are going to be much, much, much lower for Muslims versus Nazis.

You actually have that exactly backwards. The dispersed nature of Islamic hawzas means it's a lot more likely that your average Muslim has donated to a terror supporting "charity". Whereas the centralized Nazi state usually did its dirty work, not waiting for the locals to "take care of" the problem.

More you:
Additionally, bear in mind that we have dozens of documented instances where American Muslims did not turn a blind eye and in fact informed on extremist Muslims planning terrorist acts. I can post it again, if you'd like.

Wow! whole "dozens"! How many have left to join ISIS / et. al? How many have supported / excused / justified Islamic terrorism?

Bobby said...

gregg,

"There are actually peaceful and tolerant Muslims out there. Ayaan Hirsi Ali for one. When's the last time Hillary, or anyone else of the Left, had anything to do with her, other than fight to shut her up and / or shut her out?"

I don't know, bro. I know very little about American domestic politics, given that I've lived overseas for the vast majority of my adult life and my focus is on international security. I mean, I could probably research it and give you an answer, but nothing I've said today or ever should be construed as being for the sake of defending Hillary Clinton, Democrats or the Left, especially with respect to them being fair and/or even-handed in how they implement some very classical liberal values, because I see as much hypocrisy (maybe more) in their actions as I do with the conservatives. I'm not the least bit interested in defending her reputation. Sorry if I don't conform with the binary coded "you're either ALWAYS with us or you're against us" standard that so many commenters here seem to embrace.

Bobby said...

Jupiter,

"But somehow, the US Government does have the resources (and the inclination, and the legal framework) to import boatloads of "refugees" who openly profess their adherence to the terrorist ideology known as Islam.

Maybe the problem is in that "inclination" item.
"

Don't really know, the "why" is for those of you involved in domestic politics to answer. Nor am I now or have I ever taken a position on whether we should or should not be sponsoring Syrian refuees or, for that matter, what the right allocation of budgetary resources is between, say, national security versus educating the children or sheltering the homeless or anything else.

I would point out, however, that the Center for Immigration Studies estimates that in the first five years in the US, each refugee will cost $64,370 (12 times what UNHCR estimates it costs for a refugeee in a neighboring country). You could triple that sum, resttle 30,000 refugees, and it would cost $5.793-billion USD total-- FAR less than the budget resources required to have a national security apparatus capable of "tak(ing) action every time on every single threat we identify everywhere in the world." (For comparative purposes, DOD alone spends close to $50-billion USD per month). In other words, it's not an apples to apples to comparison.

exhelodrvr1 said...

I thought Al Queda was neutralized?

Quaestor said...

There are actually peaceful and tolerant Muslims out there. Ayaan Hirsi Ali for one. Whens the last time Hillary, or anyone else of the Left, had anything to do with her, other than fight to shut her up and / or hut her out?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a peaceful and tolerate woman, however she is not a Muslim, she's an atheist. As such Ms. Ali is considered an apostate and must travel with armed guards to protect her from observant Muslims.

Lydia said...

She said, ". . . the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people".

No, Hillary did not add that "vast majority" -- from the full transcript of the speech posted on the Council of Foreign Relations website:

Online or offline, the bottom line is that we are in a contest of ideas against an ideology of hate, and we have to win. Let’s be clear, though. Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. The obsession in some quarters with a clash of civilization or repeating the specific words radical Islamic terrorism isn’t just a distraction. It gives these criminals, these murderers, more standing than they deserve. It actually plays into their hands by alienating partners we need by our side.

She did, though, go on to say this:

Our priority should be how to fight the enemy. In the end, it didn’t matter what kind of terrorist we called bin Laden. It mattered that we killed bin Laden. But we still can’t close our eyes to the fact that there is a distorted and dangerous stream of extremism within the Muslim world that continues to spread. Its adherents are relatively few in number but capable of causing profound damage, most especially to their own communities, throughout an arc of instability that stretches from North and West Africa to Asia.

Jupiter said...

Bobby said...
"I would point out, however, that the Center for Immigration Studies estimates that in the first five years in the US, each refugee will cost $64,370 (12 times what UNHCR estimates it costs for a refugeee in a neighboring country). You could triple that sum, resttle 30,000 refugees, and it would cost $5.793-billion USD total-- FAR less than the budget resources required to have a national security apparatus capable of "tak(ing) action every time on every single threat we identify everywhere in the world." (For comparative purposes, DOD alone spends close to $50-billion USD per month). In other words, it's not an apples to apples to comparison."

Bobby, I am having a hard time following your argument. Are you trying to suggest, that since it is expensive to kill Muslims overseas, we should import them and kill them here? Surely not. What then? And by the way, the UNHCR is a pack of lying scumbags who should be bombed, not quoted.

Jupiter said...

Bobby said...
"...if we dropped those CT and AT efforts down to the level that we use against the right-wing extremists, the death toll of Islamist terrorist kills would skyrocket."

Are you talking about what goes on in the US, or overseas?

Bobby said...

Jupiter,

"Are you talking about what goes on in the US, or overseas?"

US only. I thought that was made clear by my introductory clause of "In the US".

Bobby said...

Jupiter,

"Bobby, I am having a hard time following your argument. Are you trying to suggest, that since it is expensive to kill Muslims overseas, we should import them and kill them here? Surely not. What then? And by the way, the UNHCR is a pack of lying scumbags who should be bombed, not quoted."

No. To recap, I noted that the USG does not have the funds, inclination or legal framework to take action on every intelligence find everywhere in the world every single time- I said that to do so would require a massive budgetary increase. You said- somehow thinking this was a retort?- but we did have money to resettle refugees (I'm guessing that you assumed I was pro-Syrian refugee; I'm not). My point: the cost of resettling three times as many refugees as the White House is discussing (at three times the estimated expense) would be one-tenth of what the DOD alone spends in a single month, and would add next to NOTHING to our ability to action on every intel report everywhere every single time. In other words (apparently I have to spell out every detail for you): there's good reason to oppose resettling the Syrian refugees in the US; doing it on budgetary concerns to have the capability to strike on every intel report across the globe is not a good one, because you will have to come up with another ~$150B-$200B a month to get that capability and I don't see how you would do that without giving up on deficit reduction and/or raising taxes. A better strategy might be to provide that intelligence to regional and local partners who can do with it what they will... Which is our current approach.

Also, UNHCR's point- if you re-read it you will better understand it- is that we can provide for Syrian refugees for one-twelfth the cost if you keep them in one of Syria's neighboring countries. In this instance, UNHCR is supporting the argument that Syrian refugees should not be imported to the US or Europe, or even outside of the Middle East. But you're so reflexive that you didn't realize what they were saying and went after them. Which works- if you want them being imported into the US.

Jupiter said...

Bobby said ...
"In other words (apparently I have to spell out every detail for you): there's good reason to oppose resettling the Syrian refugees in the US;"

We're on the same page there.

"Also, UNHCR's point- if you re-read it you will better understand it- is that we can provide for Syrian refugees for one-twelfth the cost if you keep them in one of Syria's neighboring countries."

I'm fine with that as well, although I don't think that is really UNHCR's point. It may be a point you are making with their figures. Their "point" is that my government has a responsibility to assist their clients, which I reject.

This is a law blog. The legal point, which I am at pains to make, is that the rather limited text of the Constitutional amendment, "The Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", has somehow been turned into the bizarre idea that any ideology which calls itself a religion gains complete legal immunity thereby. If the Crips decide, tomorrow, that they are a religion, does that mean that we must all cease regarding them as a plague, and instead regard their presence in our communities as a delightful instance of "diversity"? Of course not. We are confronting an enemy who, more or less by accident, is in a position to exploit a peculiar interpretation of our founding documents. We will not defeat that enemy if we do not repair that breach in our defences.

BTW, I did see your retraction on the Hillary quote. Duly noted, and points awarded. I am not sure I could be as honest in admitting my own (numerous) errors. Which is to say, perhaps you are the better man. Perhaps.



grackle said...

Ah, that was either an error in my phrasing or an error in your reading.

Well, it was definitely NOT an error of my reading. Previously offered by the commentor:

For about four years now, Mali's Muslim majority has been engaged in a rather intense conflict with the Mouvement National pour la Liberation de l'Azawad, which itself has become dominated by IS and Al Qaeda affiliated Islamist terror movements.

Here is my reaction:

One group of Muslims in power wants to retain that power, another Muslim group wants seize that power. Internal spats. Who will win? Doesn’t matter. Whoever wins you can count on them to want to live under Sharia and to hate Westerners, especially Americans.

I’ll leave it to the readers to decide who is in error.

Bobby said...

Jupiter,

Yeah, I don't have a position on whether we should or should not allow Syrian refugees to immigrate to the US, or how many should be let in, so there's really nothing there for me to comment on.

Grackle,

"One group of Muslims in power wants to retain that power, another Muslim group wants seize that power. Internal spats. Who will win? Doesn’t matter. Whoever wins you can count on them to want to live under Sharia and to hate Westerners, especially Americans."

Incorrect, but I get it what happened here- due to my poor phrasing, you thought I said that Ibrahim Boubacar Keita's ruling Rally for Peace party had become dominated by Islamists, and you ran with it. That is not the case, as I pointed out in my last response to you. So let me be more clear: NO, Rally for Peace is NOT trying to impose Sharia law on Mali- if they wanted to do that, they would have done it already as they are in power. On the contrary, Rally for Peace is fighting the Islamist parties in Mali BECAUSE they prefer the French-derived secular law and Socialist policies to the strict religious laws and policies of the Islamists (in fact, some French law imposed during the colonial period actually remains legally in force!). This is why the French are backing them so heavily, this is why we should have been backing them along time ago if we had a halfway-decent foreign policy. Sorry if my poor phrasing caused you to misunderstand the situation, but you are sorely mistaken if you believe that whether Rally for Peace, MNLA, or the Islamists win, we "can count on them to want to live under Sharia"- that is not true, Rally for Peace is trying to impose Socialist, not Islamist, policies. I don't know how to make that any more clear for you.