Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.To get on or off the Greenfield ping list please reply to this post.
Posted on 01/21/2016 12:16:21 PM PST by Twotone
A report by the Tony Blair Faith Foundation found that the Syrian rebels were mostly Islamic Jihadists and that even if ISIS were defeated there were 15 other groups sharing its worldview that were ready to take its place.
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
Would be interesting to waterboard Caliph Baraq and find where he truly lies on the curve.
i wouldve expected something a little more “co-existish” from the Blair Faith Foundation (gag)
The stand in pretending to be BHO2 is not who you have to worry about. It is that bitch, Valerie Jarrett, working with the Muslim Brotherhood.
That was my take on the mentioning of the Blair foundation.
Tony Blair, along with George Bush was a big excuse maker for Islams involvement in the 9-11 attacks. - Tom
Good article.
Yep. A good article. And it leads one to the unhappy conclusion that we will not have peace while Islam exists. It cannot be reformed, it must be destroyed. And that means that religious freedom cannot be extended to religions that want to destroy every other religion. We’ll need to have a constitutional amendment to ban Islam in this country, ban mosques, burkas, whatever. Muslims must be told to leave.
What you said. I love to read history as is shows how universal problems were addressed in the past. At some point, someone has to take out the trash. It’s a dirty job but someone has to do it.
Erdogan To Take Control Of OIC. https://t.co/QhGsanyWxr I did not know this. A new 10 year plan?
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.To get on or off the Greenfield ping list please reply to this post.
In the sense that the author means this, perhaps not. It does, however, require a determination to allocate sufficient resources, open the rules of engagement to effect offensive military operations, and followup afterwards to see that the basement doesn't flood again. That is by necessity an activity easily categorized as imperialism politically and so becomes advantageous for the weak-willed and opportunistic to score political points by short-changing. 0bama's withdrawal from Iraq is a case in point.
The difference between ISIS and the others is crucial militarily: their "insta-Caliphate" must take and hold territory. That is a conventional operation that forces them to compete with states with more and better developed resources on grounds disadvantageous to their asymmetric warfare model. It forces them to go toe-to-toe with the Russians, for example, which is not a winning proposition for any small state.
Coexistence with a Caliphate is not impossible - the West managed it nicely for a couple of hundred years after the last Ottoman army was ejected from central Europe. By force. And it had been over a thousand years of such force, so that coexistence was perhaps a historical anomaly that led contemporary observers to be a little more sanguine about than the full history justified. But the Caliphate we are considering under Ottoman control was one that had been harnessed, forced to submit to a Sultan. The one ISIS and the other current crop of Islamic militants has in mind is a far earlier model in which the secular political concerns of the Sultan do not supersede the unceasing jihad. Truth be told, the world has spent more and bloodier centuries under that model than it has under quasi-coexistence.
Were it not for the vast transfer of oil wealth over half a century the threat would be far smaller. And that hegemony is now breaking up - the upshot of this is likely to be a return to a smaller distributed jihad because those cost a lot of money, but it is also likely to trend toward the unstable; indeed, the insane level of violence exhibited by ISIS reflects the instability inherent in a desperation to get all it can now while it has the resources. That, as I said, forces it to act like a conventional state and make war after that pattern. It is here that they are most vulnerable, but maintaining a lasting victory is likely to be a long, expensive, and painful undertaking.
Founded in 1969 consisting of 57 member states, the organisation states that it is the collective voice of the Muslim world. It was set up as result of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the Caliphate after World War I left a vacuum for a pan-Islamic institution. Losing the Six-Day War in 1967 provided the incentive needed where leaders of Muslim nations met in Rabat to establish the OIC on 25 September 1969.
Obama and his 57 states...
Nazi, Communist and Islamist societies just happen to be living nightmares for the rest of us.
IMHO big gigantic huge war is inevitable. IMHO within a year or so at most.
If so, it will be before November. And it will not be a conventional war. Your enemy is not overseas or in another country.
I agree on both points.
VJ runs Obama.
Huma runs Hillary.
The Brotherhood has their Democrat bases covered.
Who do they ownn in the GOP-e? John McCain?
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.