Conservatives don’t fear ISIS; the Left will reap the whirlwind

sgberman.com ^ | 11/22/2015 | Steve Berman

[lifeofgrace]

President Obama thinks Republicans are scared of the Islamic State.  We are not.  But we’re terrified of Obama’s policies, the New York Times editorial board and the liberal narrative they are spouting.

The president said the Islamic State "can't beat us on the battlefield so they try to terrorize us into being afraid."  The Left’s response to being bullied to is be foolhardy, call Republicans fear-mongers, and deny responsibility for the entire situation.

The New York Times editorial board took Obama’s side Sunday, in a piece titled “The Price of Fear.”

History will always be kinder to those who are resolute and brave. Like the Japanese-American soldiers of World War II, whose response to injustice was to fight overseas, defending democracy with their lives. Or the leaders today who have been calm in the crisis, willing to see and to say what the mob does not. People like the governor of Washington State, Jay Inslee, who has urged open doors for Syrian refugees, citing the Japanese-American internment as a disastrous precedent. “We regret that,” he said. “We regret that we succumbed to fear.”

What the Times editors call “bullying cowardice” is nothing of the sort.  Comparing Syrian refugees to Japanese internment is a burning straw man (and beneath professional journalism—more in line with George Takei).  We were in a declared war with Japan, having suffered genuine military attacks in Hawaii and on our west coast.  A better comparison would be American resistance to admitting Jewish refugees after World War II.  We refused to accept them in large numbers, yet Jews (in general) share American values of liberty and free speech.  The same cannot be said of Syrians.

It isn’t solely fear that drives 92 percent of American voters to “regard radical Islamic terrorism as a serious threat to the United States.”  It’s the fact that the Paris killers, at least one of whom posed as a refugee to gain entrance to Europe, and whose leader boasted of his ability to slip and and out of Syria with ease, yelled “Allahu Akbar” as they slaughtered innocents.  The same cry is heard in Israel as Palestinians, stymied in their ability to import suicide bombs, stab Israeli citizens in increasing violence.  That’s not the “new normal” in Israel—it’s every day for the last 15 years.

Jonah Goldberg quoted Allahpundit:

Rather than face this unthinkable truth, Obama seeks to change the story line so that he is the noble and besieged martyr fighting the forces of reaction at home, rather than the hapless and bumbling nutty professor who let the world go to Hell on his watch. “Sanctimony over refugees is Obama’s way of restoring his own moral superiority over people who’ve been complaining for years, entirely correctly, that his Syria policy is FUBAR and has contributed to the disaster,” as Allahpundit writes.

Obama would like to think of ISIS as a bunch of unemployed drunk 18-year-olds with fake IDs at a dive bar frequented by sailors.  They know that on any given night half the patrons at that bar can beat the living entrails out of them, sober, drunk or half-blind, but they go there anyway.

A sixth degree Ninjutsu black belt having a drink with his Navy SEAL friend has nothing to fear.  A piss-drunk teenage idiot who messes with him possibly doesn’t know who he’s dealing with, and therefore the right answer for the Ninja is to walk away from a fight.

This is why Obama called ISIS the “JV” and "a bunch of killers with good social media."  We could easily beat ISIS with boots on the ground and the determination to win—at a cost of some military casualties and foreign civilians.

Back to the dive bar analogy.  If the piss-drunk kid decides he wants the Ninja’s wallet, or to go home with the SEAL’s girlfriend, that’s really a different story, especially when he decides to call five of his friends.  Then the right move is the wipe the pavement with all of them.  But the Left says “hey, these boys are just acting out, and bystanders might get hurt, so let them go.  They’re not worth it.”

Obama’s solution would be to allow 18-year-olds with fake IDs into the bar, while banning SEALS and bouncers.  This is why it’s been reported that 75 percent of American bombing missions return with their ordinance intact due to the White House’s strict rules of engagement and ban on any collateral or civilian damage.  The Obama administration is micro-managing the so-called war on ISIS in a way that makes Nixon’s Vietnam look like Patton’s Battle of the Bulge.

But then the drunk boys will multiply as they call their friends, “hey, the badass Navy SEALS aren’t allowed to touch us.”  And innocent people will get mugged, and their girlfriends will be raped.  And the emboldened drunk teens will spread out to other bars and attract more kids to their rampage using Twitter and Snapchat.  Then it will be just accepted that certain places are just dangerous.

The president doesn’t want attacks like in Paris and threats that have shut down Brussels to become the “new normal.”  But what else could it be when terrorists are embedded with Syrian migrants who are spreading out into the West like baby spiders ballooning in the wind.

Have we learned nothing?  Do we really think that our political leaders should be given a pass simply because they occupy high office?  After years of being spectacularly wrong about ending the Iraq War, the “Arab Spring,” Libya, Syria, and ISIS, should the public continue to believe the Obama narrative that America leading from behind is in the world’s best interests?

Conservatives have not succumbed to fear of ISIS, but we greatly fear the price we’ll pay if we fail to fight.  If our government continues to underestimate the ability of radical Islam to attract people who want the power and notoriety of fighting for their cause, we will reap the whirlwind of increasing “random” violence.

They sow the wind, And reap the whirlwind. The stalk has no bud; It shall never produce meal. If it should produce, Aliens would swallow it up

Hosea 8:7

That price may be okay to the Left, who don’t mind “acceptable losses,” but if blood is to be spilled, better we spill it on far away shores, using our trained warriors, than on our shores, and our innocents.

[FrankR]

Actually, it’s the liberals who, by action and word, who promote “submitting” to the radical Islamic terrorists, while conservatives are arming themselves for the inevitable confrontations with terrorism on our soil.

If the worse happens, the libs will be scrambling for someone to protect them, as ISIS is not in the habit of checking your voter registration card before they behead you.

The ones converting to Islam in hopes it will grant them some immunity who are the cowards, they are cowing to the demands of the terrorist, which won’t help them a bit in an all out war.

There are no “safe zones” from terrorism. They will sacrifice ten of their own just to kill one American. Life means very little to those people.

So libs, your “sucking up” will be all in vain in the end. Radical Islamist terrorist are blindly and hopelessly driven by a sick, cultish, ideology and no a out of coddling is going to change that fact.

[MNJohnnie]

Its easy to talk smack about the Syrian, when you know they will not live in thier elitest Gated communities the Leftists NY Times Editors, and their ilk, live in.

Real easy solution here. You want the Syrians so badly Leftists? How many of them are YOU personally hosting?

[BobL]

I think most here are TERRIFIED at what the Republican Party has become...and hope to hell that Trump can fix it.

[Jeff Head]

Obama and his ilk and supporters are quislings. Obama is acting more like he wants to be the Caliph of the west.

His statements about this situation are geared at getting the people in the United States to somehow accept this cancer amongst us, where we will ultimately be sickened and destroyed by it.

[DJ MacWoW]

Did You Know?

The Current FReepathon Pays For The Current Quarter's Expenses?

Donate And Keep FR Running

[Peter ODonnell]

I think that we will have to go further than just wiping out ISIS. We will need to examine the long game being played by established Islamic states and take action against that long game, otherwise, all that will happen is that we will appear to destroy ISIS in one or two locations but something just as bad will immediately spring up somewhere else and a year or two later, we will be dealing with them, using the same endless supply of martyrs to the cause of a global caliphate.

So the question is, how do we interfere with the long game and make that change into full co-operation? It will be a combination of threat, force, quarantine, selected rewarding of those who comply, and changes to immigration policy over the long term. Otherwise, we will lose this longer war even if we defeat ISIS.

[AlaskaErik]

I went to Afghanistan so I wouldn’t have to fight the enemy on American soil.

[Twinkie]

Thank you. My father, a Southern farm boy, went to N.
Africa, Italy & Germany in WWII, hoping they could avoid
having to fight the enemy on American soil. They beat
Hitler back; but the Japanese were still kicking. If
Truman hadn’t had the guts to use the atomic bomb on
Japan; as a hardened combat veteran, Daddy would have had
to go into the invasion of Japan. I sure don’t knock
President Truman for his decision to use what he had at
his disposal to end that war. - Daddy would not believe
that at this point, I’d be having to do target practice;
but I am.

[keats5]

That would indeed help solve this dilemma. Just as we used to do, line up host families for every refugee family. As they become available and sign papers indicating they will take full responsibility for the needs (and deeds) of the refugees, the refugee family is granted their VISA to enter the country.