Posted on 07/13/2012 8:22:16 PM PDT by Sir Napsalot
Well, now at least the debate is in the open and we can see just how questionable are the talking points of those who claim the United States has nothing to fear from Islamists.
The New York Times publishes an article with the promising title of “Fast-Changing Arab World is Upending U.S. Assumptions,” yet sadly, the article shows that certain assumptions are not changing at all. Indeed, are not even discussed. To summarize the article’s thesis: before Obama’s election, the United States thought that pro-American regimes were good and radical Islamists were bad — but now we know better.
For decades, Obama’s predecessors supported a number of Arab governments, including those in Egypt and Tunisia but not Syria. Obama put the emphasis on engaging Syria, but did not directly challenge the Egyptian and Tunisian governments until uprisings began against them in January 2011. Then he threw those two under the bus as fast as possible. But that policy did not apply to anti-American Syria, which he abandoned only in August 2011 after four months of full-scale revolt and massacres far more intense than those which made it abandon the Egyptian and Tunisian governments during the first week of demonstrations.
AdvertisementWhat makes the effort to talk seriously about the Middle East nowadays so frustrating is that the “mainstream” debate, as illustrated by the Times article, devotes no space to suggesting the following: perhaps the rapid rise of Islamists might be bad for the United States, and the outbreak of violence from Salafist groups, two armed cross-border attacks on Israel, or other events suggest that the threat had been underestimated. ....
(Read the rest)
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
Islamists in power reduce terrorism because they subjugate, enslave you so slaves are controlled so “peace” prevails and terrorism becomes unnecessary.
BTW you may want to drop byhttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2490938/posts?page=3582#3582
As soon as the last Christians are slaughtered in Egypt the NY Times will brag that the muslims have ended terrorism.
Yes - it worked so well when a guy named Neville thought the same thing about the Nazis - give them their way and all will be just fine. Islamists make the Nazis looke like a benevolent brotherhood.
It's akin to folks saying, "If we can only stop Romney, and leave the current regime in place, it will be better for all of us".........
This is it! This is that dream I kept having as a boy! The one where I was hollering and nobody heard. At some point along the way I fell asleep and never woke up...
but that they plan unending warfare until they prevail or are wiped out?
—
Depends on which sect - Sunni or Shiite wins the internal argument.
Sunni’s want to rule the world, the ruling Iranian Shiites want to bring every living human to Paradise ... last two standing Shiites are obliged to bring eachother to Paradise ... naturally, the Iranians need nukes to bring this vision off ...
—
or
As soon as the last Pyramid (as recently called for by leading Islamic autority) is destroyed in Egypt, the NY Times will brag that the muslims have ended tourism ...
The NY Slimes also loved Joe Stalin and Soviet Communism. Pulitzers were given for stories about how Soviet Communism was a model for the world to follow. Even while mass murder happened under their noses.
bumping the thread.
bookmark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.