At war with (fill in the blank)
Meanwhile, the candidates of the left stick to the “see no Islam, hear no Islam, speak no Islam” line with regard to terrorists. Hillary Clinton did a mighty convoluted dance during the debate last night:
When moderator John Dickerson asked Clinton whether she agreed with Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R., Fla.) statement that the Paris attacks show “that we are at war with Radical Islam,” Clinton said she would use a term other than “Radical Islam.”
“I don’t think we’re at war with Islam,” she said Saturday. “I don’t think we’re at war with all Muslims. I think we’re at war with jihadists.”
“He didn’t say all Muslims,” Dickerson said. “He said, ”˜Radical Islam.’ Is that a phrase you don’t [use]?”
“I think you can talk about Islamists who clearly are also jihadists,” she said. “But I think it’s not particularly helpful.”
Sanders did her one better by blaming terrorism on climate change. How does he manage to unite such disparate elements? Easy-peasy:
Climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism. If we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say, you’re going to see countries all over the world, and this is what the CIA says, they are going to be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops, and you are going to see all sorts of international conflict.
That this particular conflict goes back over a thousand years, and that a country such as Israel, faced with the same challenges as the Arab countries in terms of climate, manages to keep its clothed and fed citizens from strapping on suicide belts in Paris, is conveniently ignored for the sake of the left-pleasing narrative that Sanders (not a stupid man) is only too happy to mouth.
Hillary Clinton—also not stupid–does something more, to put a phrase on it, nuanced. Let’s take a closer look at what she does here (and a small kudo to moderator John Dickerson, who attempted to call her on it). First she tried approach number one, distort what the opposition actually said and then object to that rather than to what they actually said (this, by the way, is a very favorite ploy of Obama’s, and relies on believing the electorate is too stupid to follow what you’re doing):
JOHN DICKERSON:
Secretary Clinton, you mentioned radical jihadists.
HILLARY CLINTON:
Yes.
JOHN DICKERSON:
Marco Rubio, also running for president, said that this attack showed– in– the attack in Paris showed that we are at war with radical Islam. Do you agree with that characterization, radical Islam?
HILLARY CLINTON:
I don’t think we’re at war with Islam. I don’t think we at war with all Muslims. I think we’re at war with jihadists who have–
Dickerson, to have everlasting credit, nips that in the bud:
JOHN DICKERSON:
Just to interrupt, he– he didn’t say all Muslims. He just said radical Islam. Is that a phrase you don’t–
Clinton is a little disfluent here—perhaps she didn’t expect to be called on it by a member of the MSM. But here’s where the nuance comes in:
I– I think that you can– you can talk about Islamists who– clearly are also jihadists. But I think it’s– it– it’s not particularly helpful to make the case that– Senator Sanders was just making that I agree with that we’ve gotta reach out to Muslim countries. We’ve gotta have them be part of our coalition.
If they hear people running for– president who basically shortcut it to say we are somehow against Islam– that was one of the real contributions– despite all the other problems that George W. Bush made after 9/11 when he basically said after going to a mosque in Washington, “We are not at war with Islam or Muslims.
By using the word “jihadists,” Hillary is using a word that many Americans don’t understand and that has become synonymous with “terrorist” in their minds. It represents a middle line that she thinks will not offend her base (that’s one of the things she means by “helpful”) and yet will represent toughness on terrorism to the moderates she also hope to attract. However, she’s making no sense about appealing to the Muslim world as allies, because “jihadi” is a term they understand in a more generic way and “jihad” is a mostly positive and generic concept in Islam that means “the act of striving to serve the purposes of God on this earth.”
What’s more, those potential allies know full well that what they are fighting is a radical wing of Islam that encourages and supports terrorism. They have been the victims of it, too. Note also how she manages to sneak in that idea that someone is trying to say we’re at war with Islam itself (something no Republican candidate is saying).
Just to clarify: jihadi terrorists are Muslims. They follow certain Islamic precepts and Koranic verses and interpret them in such a way that it justifies and even dictates what they are doing. There are many Muslims and Muslim clerics who disagree and condemn them, but there are many who fully agree and support them, even to the point of inspiring and guiding them. There are mosques known for this; these are real Muslim mosques, and these are real Muslim clerics. There is no question whatsoever that this represents a sizable wing of the Muslim religion, and that another sizable segment of Muslims not actively involved in it nevertheless applaud and justify these activities.
This has been crystal clear for a long time. This represents a disagreement within Islam, but it is wholly within Islam and of Islam. And the people to whom it doesn’t seem “helpful” to say so are, for example, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, because their constituents will not allow it and they are happy to oblige them.
[NOTE: Please compare to the statements of the Republican candidates on the Paris attacks. I’m adding this video of Ted Cruz, which I hadn’t yet seen yesterday but is very impressive.]
If you need to spend all the money on big social programs, you can’t allow big chunks of it to be wasted on the military. So, it follows that we must allow no need for a robust self defense. And, there is no need if we don’t really have enemies. These are just misunderstood victims that we haven’t apologized to enough and haven’t talked to enough.
1. I loved Bernie’s answer attributing the rise of ISIS to so-called global warming. It disqualified him as president and at the same time proved this global warming stuff is completely NUTS.
2. We need a different way to talk and deal with Islam. GWB called it the Relgion of Peace because we obviously can’t defeat an entire religion.
We need to be way tougher with Muslim countries. First impose the oil tariff suggested by blert. ISIS and AQ gets money from UAE, Qatar and SA. The Sauds are pumping at full capacity to kill our fracking industry and are doing a good job of it.
I don’t think Islam is a religion at all. What religion is in the killing business? Religion is just a cover story.
We need to say to Islam that you need to completely reform yourself. No more inbreeding. No polygamy. No more killing.
Islam, as it currently stands, is incompatible with Western values. No migration and no visas. We quarantine them in the ME.
Over at Power Line a highly recommended comment pointed out that the Left can never condemn Islam basically because they agree with its critique: All the world’s problems were caused by white Christians.
Finally, with Hillary as president we have no idea if her decisions would be in the best interest of the United States or of the Muslim countries that donate to the Clinton Foundation. That’s why she is disqualified. She’s a criminal out for herself.
I think this whole discussion follows the biblical mote in the eye / plank in the eye discussion. Yes, theatrical terrorist attacks are emotionally rewarding to chaw over and make a fist and swear vengeance or fealty or renew vows to the current buzz-word (terrorism caused by climate change) but the fact is that the chaos enveloping the West is directly attributable to the actions of one man and his henchmen.
It’s bad enough when when people can’t conclude a public gathering without a few choruses of Death to America but it is so much worse when the refrain is echoed by the fellow who is supposed to be the leader of the West.
Everything – the chaos in Libya, Iraq, Kurdistan, Syria, the invasion of Europe – was set in motion by the superior wisdom of Barack H. Obama. You can rail all you like about radical Islam or jihadist Islam but there is nothing new about all that, not in the last 1500 years. It was the complaisance and cowardice of western elites that have made it a threat and it was the active encouragement and connivance of Barack H. Obama that have made the USA the weak horse in opposing it.
Nolanimrod:
Barack is immune from impeachment and won two elections. Right now the number one thing is to defeat Hillary.
Cornhead, I agree pretty much with everything you said in your first comment, but this is the *ahem* money quote:
Cornhead Says:
November 15th, 2015 at 3:53 pm
Finally, with Hillary as president we have no idea if her decisions would be in the best interest of the United States or of the Muslim countries that donate to the Clinton Foundation.
I do not think that anyone in DeMedia is seriously pointing out that more politicians than just Clinton are living off of Muslim money (although some of the donors are at odds with others of the donors), and do not dare castigate Islam in any way whatsoever.
This includes both parties, by the way. I don’t have numbers on anyone, but I would doubt that Trump, Carson, or Cruz have any financial incentives to continue the Islamization of the White House.
Rubio’s “radical Islam” is far too close to stating that Islam itself is inherently radical. Clinton and Sanders, as agents of the Left, do not want the West rediscovering its gonads.
“What’s more, those potential allies (Muslim nations) know full well that what they are fighting is a radical wing of Islam that encourages and supports terrorism.” neo
Clarification: those potential allies are NOT fighting a “radical wing of Islam” because of fundamental disagreement with that ‘wing’. They are fighting to retain their power. Their sole disagreement is to tactics, they are fully aligned with Islam’s strategic goal of global dominance. They prefer the knife in the back of “stealth jihad” to a foredoomed, direct confrontation with the West.
“Just to clarify: jihadi terrorists are Muslims. They follow certain Islamic precepts and Koranic verses and interpret them in such a way that it justifies and even dictates what they are doing.” neo
Au contraire! Jihadi terrorists follow the dominant verses that abrogate the earlier peaceful verses. The doctrine of abrogation is universally accepted by Islamic clerics. Jihadi terrorists are NOT ‘interpreting’ those verses, they are diligently following plainly spoken theological imperatives.
The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule.
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”
Exactly how does one read that and obtain multiple ‘interpretations’?
“There are many Muslims and Muslim clerics who disagree and condemn them” neo
Really? I must have somehow missed “the many” anonymous Muslim voices on the internet condemning the constant violence of the ‘radicals’.
Those Muslims who claim to disagree or quietly state disagreement are either in profound denial as to the fundamental tenets of the ideology they embrace OR they are practitioners of Taqiyya and Muruna.
The only thing I really want to read about Hillary is her obituary. Preferably one dated November 16, 2015.
Geoffrey Britain:
Why did you say “au contraire”? There is nothing in what I wrote that disagrees with what you wrote. Did I say that the terrorists follow some precepts that are not in the Koran? Did I say they follow precepts that have been discredited by the Koran? No. I said they are in the Koran and part of Islam.
I am well aware that the later more militant parts of the Koran are said to override the earlier ones. However, the terrorists’ interpretration of those verses in terms of what they are required to do about them in the world is still subject to debate in the Muslim world. There is a very sizable number of Muslims who agree with them, and a very sizable number who disagree, and all are Muslims. And yes, you have somehow missed their voices. I’ve seen and heard their voices. They are also represented in polls, if you believe polls. If you’re interested, this is a good starting point, but there’s plenty more.
And yes, the goal of the religion is to dominate the world and bring everyone to it. The disagreement is about tactics (and which tactics are specifically supported by the Koran), which is actually what we’re discussing here when we discuss support of terrorists in the Muslim world.
AesopFan
The crazy thing we are on the verge of energy freedom from OPEC. We are only short 7m BOPD. Nothing.
Build KXL, crank up nat gas and let fracking go at $70 bbl for WTI and we are completely disaccociated from those gangsters. And we export LNG to the EU and screw Putin.
Cornhead,
“GWB called it the Relgion of Peace because we obviously can’t defeat an entire religion…
I don’t think Islam is a religion at all. What religion is in the killing business? Religion is just a cover story.”
I agree that Islam is an expansionist, totalitarian ideology wrapped in religious pretense.
I disagree that it cannot be defeated. The Nazi’s and Soviets were ideological. I’ve frequently outlined what it will take to defeat this ideology. On the other hand, the Left being an internal threat most probably will take a civil war.
“We need to say to Islam that you need to completely reform yourself.”
It is theologically impossible for Islam to internally reform itself or to be externally reformed. Reform would take acceptance by Muslims that Allah is NOT the Qu’ran’s author. That acceptance would implicitly declare that Muhammad was either a congenital liar or insanely deluded. In either case, Islam’s theological foundations collapse.
Finally, with Hillary as president there is no doubt whatsoever that her decisions would NOT be in the best interest of the United States. Not at least if we define best interests as congruent with “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.
“the fact is that the chaos enveloping the West is directly attributable to the actions of one man and his henchmen.” nolanimrod
Partially true but notably incomplete. Purportedly, 51% of the voters elected that traitor twice. Actions have consequences.
“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.
It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.
The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.
The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool (and/or mendacious traitor). It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president”. Vé¡clav Klaus (former Premier of the Czech Republic)
neo,
“I am well aware that the later more militant parts of the Koran are said to override the earlier ones.”
They are NOT “said to override the earlier ones”. They are universally agreed to override them by every authoritative Muslim cleric. Which is necessary to resolve the mutually contradictory Meccan and Median passages.
“However, the terrorists’ interpretration of those verses in terms of what they are required to do about them in the world is still subject to debate in the Muslim world.”
Quran (8:12) — “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip [smallest part] of them”
Again, exactly how does one read that and obtain multiple ‘interpretations’ of that representative passage?
Again, given Islam’s unambiguous tenets, the very sizable number of Muslims who disagree with the ‘radical jihadists’ are either in profound denial as to the fundamental tenets of the ideology they embrace OR they are practitioners of Taqiyya and Muruna. Logically, no other explanation for that dichotomy is possible.
“yes, you have somehow missed their voices.”
With the caveat that I wasn’t referring to organizations, I’m delighted to learn of it, citations please.
“They are also represented in polls, if you believe polls.”
Since I’ve often linked to those polls, I’m well aware of them also. In general I accept them as at least roughly accurate with the caveat that the approved Islamic doctrines of Taqiyya and Muruna make impossible determining the sincerity of those expressed views.
My argument is NOT about peaceful Muslims of which the majority are not violent but do obviously condone the violence. My argument is that there is no such thing as a ‘radical wing’ of Islam.
There is only radical Islam and those devout enough and fanatical enough to follow its clearly expressed tenets.
“These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.” Recep Tayyip ErdoÄŸan , Turkey’s Prime Minister since 2003 commenting on the term “moderate Islam”
Interesting discussions. I think we know too little about the innermost aspirations of most Muslims. Sure, there are Muslim dominated regimes which who do not overtly–emphasize overtly–support external terror. Some rather harshly suppress Islamic extremists internally as well; obviously to hold their own power. However, many of them are one coup away from becoming terrorist controlled regimes. Iran is obviously an example. Iran also demonstrates that once Islamic Extremist have control, the whole nature of the nation can change. If there are any moderates in Iran, they are helpless.
The West would be wise to remember that “so called” allies can morph into something decidedly different very quickly.
I read a very informative article by Graeme Wood in “The Atlantic” entitled “What ISIS Really Wants”. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/. The article has been criticized by some scholars; and particularly Muslim scholars, for allegedly implying that an ISIS like entity is an integral element of Islamic ideology. I am not qualified to evaluate the validity of the analysis; but, one point is rather demonstrably true, and it is chilling. This postulates that ISIS intends to establish a Caliphate and will fight to control territory on which to base it. Thus, any power vacuum is an opportunity to be seized. This logic explicitly condemns Obama’s abandonment of Iraq, and his general passiveness toward the regional threat; actions which virtually ceded a territorial base for ISIS. The West in general–and hopefully that includes Obama– is awakening some what belatedly, and one can hope not too late.
The concept of taqiyya is dear to Hillary’s heart. And indeed she has practiced it well for decades. She feels no conflict, for instance, between rabid feminist diatribes and personal knifing of women used by Bill; because any lie is justified that results in power for the Clintons and/or their branch of the Democratic Party. She is not mentally ill, confused by age, or a victim of Bill’s – she is a fully vested participant in ongoing evil. I fear Hillary as president as much as I detest Obama’s performance in office. Her deviousness and malign hatred of mainstream America are impossible to overstate.
Also, I enthusiastically endorse vanderleun’s Hillary Obituary concept. No one on the planet is more immediately in need of atonement and reconciliation before G-d.
GB has already called Neo on her “There are many Muslims and Muslim clerics who disagree and condemn them (jihadis)”.
Yeah, there are many if many means a handful.
The answer is inescapable: Islam is a totalitarian ideology pretending to be a religion. That pretense has enabled it to strike the soft underbelly of every Diversity-honoring Western (and previously Christian) country.
Islam is a malignancy. Like a cancer spreads by individual cells that become colonies called metastases, Islam spreads as well.
There is only one way to cure a cancer, and that is to kill the last cancer cell. Metastases can metastasize. They must be eradicated. Period.
Curing cancer is tough on a patient. Chemo toxicity can be formidable, but it is a price that must be paid for cure. We as nations in whom the Islamic cancer is growing must be similarly willing.
Otherwise, Islam can be confined to where it is.
It is a radical revision of thinking, but it is not avoidable. There is no alternative. Turkey cannot become part of the EU, for example. Borders must be borders. “Papieren bitte.”
Not what most are comfortable reading or thinking about.
Frog:
GB called, and I answered.
All evidence is that there are many Muslims who are against terrorism, not just a handful.
I don’t really care to defend Muslims per se. I care about truth, and what I say is the truth as best we can determine it. It has nothing to do with how we must fight, or the fact that (and I agree with this) the religion as a whole must change or it is part of the problem. But facts are facts, and I will speak out when they are distorted or misrepresented.
Once again (as I wrote in my response to GB), take a look at the evidence. Now, you might look at it and say it’s all lies, but it’s the only evidence we have, and it supports what I’m saying. Nothing except your own opinion supports what you are saying.
See this and especially this. There’s lots more in that vein.
Are you advocating killing all Muslims?
Good discussion. I especially appreciate Geoffrey Britain’s truthful posts about Islam.
Dennis:
See my response.
Hillary and Bernie truly represent their constituents. Just like the spoiled children at Mizzou, Yale, etc. the Dem candidates can’t call things what they really are.
This should be obvious by the obeisance they pay to the Black Lives Matter shakedown.
Arguing about the fanatics versus the moderates of islam or about who believes this or who believes that is futile, and detracts from a goal of unconditional surrender. All must experience the wrath of the champions of civilization until ‘moderates’ begin slaying fanatics by the hundreds of thousands, including clerics, in order to survive the superior power of the “great satan”. Until then all are targets without mincing with limp wrists about my oh my, collateral damage.
Let allah sort them out. The safety of our granchildren is paramount. Put the fate of their granchildren in their ‘moderate’ hands.
Mrs.Clinton: “What I need to make(cough)clear is that I would be every bit as weak, mendacious, irresolute as President Obama in addressing these misunderstood islamists…errrr.. Muslims.”
It seems I might be wrong about Hillary being confused by age, with Huma Herself bandying those words about. I would be very happy to have been wrong. A dazed confused senile whatever Hillary is a Hillary all the more likely to get her ass whupped by our candidate. Even better, she may be forced out of the race, and who would replace her? Bernie, Elizabeth, Joe? Happy days for our guy or gal to run against “hands-on” motormouth Biden, or against any of an oleaginous handful of flat-out socialists.