Lion of the Blogosphere

Obama and ISIS

As reported in the NY Times, Obama is now considering military strikes on ISIS, and is reneging on his previous policy that the United States “would not intervene militarily until Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki stepped down.” The justification is a “humanitarian crisis.”

This explains why world leaders don’t take Obama seriously. He doesn’t stick to what he says. If he previously said that United States wouldn’t do anything unless al-Maliki steps down, then we should stick to that. Even better, we should be arming the Kurds who have always been friendly to the United States and have been more effective at fighting back against ISIS than al-Maliki’s crappy army. In fact, the humanitarian crisis may exist because the Kurds were forced to retreat after they ran out of ammunition, so if we had been arming the Kurds as we should have been, there wouldn’t be a crisis. Declaring our support for an independent Kurdistan and providing them with military aid would be a fitting punishment to al-Maliki for refusing to step down.

My observation is that Shiites, Arab Sunnis, and Kurds cannot live together peacefully unless there’s a dictator with a powerful secret police like Saddan Hussein to enforce the peace. Why don’t liberals like Obama understand that obvious truth? The answer is that they are committed to the dogma of multiculturalism. They believe that Europe and the United States should let in hordes of immigrants and that they will live happily with the native population because diversity will make us better and not worse. Liberals also apply the same dogma to foreign countries like Iraq. Liberals can never admit that different peoples might be better off living separately.

Another bit of dogma that liberals believe is that Islam is a religion of peace. Evidence to the contrary, such as the existence of al-Qaeda which believes in violent jihad, is written off as being a very tiny tiny number of people who don’t understand the true meaning of the religion. Of course secular liberals in the West who have never even read the Koran understand the true meaning of Islam a lot better than Muslims from al-Qaeda who spend years studying Islam in the Madrassa.

I think that the success of ISIS demonstrates that a much higher percentage of Muslims believe in the jihadist version if Islam than liberals realize. I think it would be impossible for ISIS to successfully occupy and run such a large amount of territory if their viewpoint wasn’t supported by at least a 10% minority of the population, and maybe a lot more than 10%. Also, we see that ISIS has been attracting thousands, maybe even tens of thousands, of volunteer fighters who are willing to die for their belief in jihadist Islam.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

August 7, 2014 at 2:24 pm

Posted in International

31 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Excellent post, although I do often hear liberals blaming violence in the Middle East and Africa on colonialism, which forced different kinds of people to live together. That’s inconsistent with their pro-multicultural outlook in the West, but they never feel the need to square these inconsistencies, because they’re intellectually lazy.

    Also, elections held in the ME show a very high percentage of Sunni Muslims accept the ISIS view of Islam. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Hamas in Gaza both came to power through fair elections.

    Hepp

    August 7, 2014 at 2:43 pm

    • Studies show liberals have very little loyalty and commitment to their own group. So they’ll always blame their own group first. In the ME and Africa they blame their own. In the US they blame their own. So in a way they are being consistent. It’s not rationally consistent but it’s emotionally consistent.

      PS: Of course diversity causes conflict. But Africa and ME already had different ethnic groups squabbling before colonialism. In fact, Africa and the ME were much more peaceful under colonialism than they had been previously or since.

      destructure

      August 7, 2014 at 8:31 pm

    • ISIS is holocausting the Christians…

      Shawn

      August 8, 2014 at 8:23 pm

  2. ” Of course secular liberals in the West who have never even read the Koran understand the true meaning of Islam a lot better than Muslims from al-Qaeda who spend years studying Islam in the Madrassa.”

    Ha! Good one. Comforting to know the libs have it all figured out for us. If somehow the (hate the term, but for lack of a better one) cultural marxists don’t lose power–and soon–our millenia-old civilization is toast. Heady times we live in.

    Benelli_Bang

    August 7, 2014 at 3:22 pm

    • Yes, “cultural Marxist” is a really bad term, because Marx wrote about the problem of workers being ripped off by capital owners, which has nothing to do with any trendy social issues endorsed by modern-day leftists.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      August 7, 2014 at 3:53 pm

      • “Cultural Marxist,” while not exactly accurate, is nevertheless a very useful term because you know immediately what it means, as it pulls together many strands of Progressive lunacy: extreme feminism, gay rights, anti-white immigration policies, anti-white-male-ism, all that rot.

        peterike

        August 8, 2014 at 10:02 am

      • It’s unfair to Karl Marx to attach his name to crap he never wrote about or endorsed.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        August 8, 2014 at 1:31 pm

      • Why so measured lion?

        As far as I can tell NO ONE who uses “Marxist” as a term of abuse has ever read Marx or has any idea what he’s talking about.

        pequenino

        August 8, 2014 at 5:36 pm

      • And, of course, the USSR was quite anti-homo. But its anti-Semitism is greatly exaggerated. It also had a very low crime rate. And 24 years on, it’s not clear that Russia is any better off than it would have been.

        pequenino

        August 8, 2014 at 6:12 pm

      • Those trendy social issues are a mainstay of applied communism which originated with Marx but evolved. Hence, cultural Marxism (and China’s murderous Cultural Revolution). Liberal success in enforcing those trendy issues is necessary to enforce a non-military (de facto consentual) communist state. Absent their enforcement, culture and family remain as natural social forces that resist disenfranchisement and dis-empowerment. What the cultural Marxists wish to eradicate are the foundations of group power. This was attempted in communist Russia by force, but didn’t succeed to the point that was required because it was by force and not consent. Culture wasn’t degraded thoroughly enough in Russia for communism to last. The non-violent method of liberalization will be much more permanent.

        Jon

        August 9, 2014 at 1:12 am

      • “And 24 years on, it’s not clear that Russia is any better off than it would have been.”

        Tens of millions were murdered under communism in Russia. I’m sure that the families of those imprisoned and murdered might disagree with your generous view toward the communists. Perhaps you aren’t sure if Germany is better out from under Nazi rule, either. Go play in traffic.

        Jon

        August 9, 2014 at 1:15 am

      • Jon

        You don’t know what you’re talking about and I address everything about communism in this blog post.

        http://eradica.wordpress.com/2014/05/06/old-and-new-gods/

        eradican

        August 11, 2014 at 4:02 pm

      • The Soviet Union was dissolved against the will of the majority.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_referendum,_1991

        eradican

        August 11, 2014 at 4:12 pm

      • Another thing to consider is that the Soviet Union and the Islamic State aren’t doing anything different than past empires but because they existed in the modern age we have records of their actions.

        eradican

        August 11, 2014 at 4:30 pm

    • “our millenia-old civilization is toast”

      Right. Civilization is fragile. The places ruled by ISIS fanatics in northern Iraq (Mesopotamia) had more enlightened people running the show 3,000 years ago than in 2014.

      Sal Paradise

      August 7, 2014 at 4:51 pm

    • It’s an insult to Communism tyrants to compare them with modern Progressives.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      August 7, 2014 at 6:13 pm

    • “Gramscists” would be a better term. It was the Italian Marxist activist Antonio Gramsci who came up with the idea of focusing on culture instead that on economics

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci

      Zeno

      August 8, 2014 at 2:38 am

  3. “My observation is that Shiites, Arab Sunnis, and Kurds cannot live together peacefully unless there’s a dictator with a powerful secret police like Saddan Hussein to enforce the peace. Why don’t liberals like Obama understand that obvious truth? The answer is that they are committed to the dogma of multiculturalism.”

    Unfortunately that’s true for much of the Right as well. The premise of the Iraq war was that once the evil dictator was toppled, democracy would paper over these minor differences and we would have a United States of Iraq. Some liberals and establishment Republicans can look at a place like (the former) Yugoslavia, and see that different groups can’t live together, but they seem unable to take that lesson home to the US. Because…American exceptionalism. Unfortunately President Obama seems to have successfully repealed American exceptionalism, and it’s unlikely to come back.

    Mike Street Station

    August 7, 2014 at 3:58 pm

    • It’s because of the american melting pot, old chap. Except we’ve progressed beyond that into glorious multiculturalism.

      Glengarry

      August 8, 2014 at 4:57 am

    • American exceptionalism?

      Vomit.

      The US isn’t and has never been anything like Yugoslavia or Iraq, both of which were phony countries made up at the end of WW I. There is no homeland of any American ethnicity in America. There never has been. Every ethnicity is represented everywhere just in different numbers as always has been. But then there was this thing called The Civil War—650000 people dead. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWpGJI1H17s&index=4&list=PL0973EDBDE1F0EB3F

      pequenino

      August 8, 2014 at 5:45 pm

  4. This explains why world leaders don’t take Obama seriously. He doesn’t stick to what he says.

    I doubt he’ll take serious action against ISIS. He only attacks Muslim dictators who were pacified American clients; Gadhaffi, Mubarak; enemies of the Muslim Brotherhood; and those who will almost certainly be replaced by someone worse; Assad.

    My observation is that Shiites, Arab Sunnis, and Kurds cannot live together peacefully unless there’s a dictator with a powerful secret police like Saddan Hussein to enforce the peace.

    We should have put in an Iraqi Christian dictator and left. The tyrant would employ “human rights violations” to control the citizenry, which we don’t want our military to directly handle, and we could have kept him bought off to be our client.

    Liberals can never admit that different peoples might be better off living separately.

    And differently. Democracy can’t flourish in states where voters are more homicidal than military strongmen.

    I think that the success of ISIS demonstrates that a much higher percentage of Muslims believe in the jihadist version if Islam than liberals realize.

    Their incompatibility with civilization is beyond doubt. It is now well past time to deport Muslim immigrants from America, Europe and Israel.

    That includes Western citizens, Israeli Muslims and the removal of all Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza. Israel should also start arming Arab Christians to found independent, Muslim free, states for both moral and strategic reasons. A Syriac Christian state would have a population of 6 million and provide a buffer between Israel and the emerging Al-Qaedastan in Syria and Iraq.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    August 7, 2014 at 6:12 pm

  5. The middle east has never really recovered from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. A few hundred years of instability is not unexpected following the collapse of an empire. At the end of WW I England and France redrew the maps of the Middle east and created the countries you see today.

    The Ottoman Empire was the Caliphate. The head of the Empire was the head of Islam. Islam and the government were one in the same.

    The French and English colonial powers installed western style secular governments. The Muslim Brotherhood was started by some intellectuals, mostly in Egypt, who studied in the west and were shocked by what they considered the immorality of Western culture, especially what they saw as the immoral behavior of western women. They decided that the only way save their countries from the same immorality was to reestablish Islamic government.

    Recruiters for groups like Al Qaeda or ISIS will stress the immorality of Western civilization and the need for Islamic government to reestablish morality and fight corruption of the current governments.

    The Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic groups fought for control of the government both through elections and by revolution in countries throughout the Middle East. Until recently they were brutally put down dictators. Al Qaeda came up with the strategy of staging terrorist attacks against western targets as a way of gaining credibility in the Middle East.

    In response to 9/11 the US invaded Iraq and overthrew one of the dictators that had held the Islamist in check. Al Qaeda couldn’t overthrow the Iraqi government, but the US did it for them. The contagion has spread throughout the region. The dictators are falling and chaos follows. We are only beginning to see the fallout from the Iraqi invasion.

    MikeCA

    August 7, 2014 at 8:49 pm

  6. What really unsettle liberals about the rise of ISIS is that it was presaged by Syria’s revolution and brutal put down by Assad. The fact that the West was on really bad terms with Syria frustrates the usual anti-American crowd because as hard as they try they’re not able to pin the blame for the Syrian crisis on the west in any shape or form. For once the only explanation for Syria and ISIS is that Muslims are indeed a violent and intolerant bunch.

    Rol

    August 7, 2014 at 9:05 pm

  7. I don’t see why it would be a bad idea to cut up Iraq into three pieces: Shiite Arab, Sunni Arab, and Kurd.

    AsianDude

    August 7, 2014 at 10:23 pm

  8. The optics look bad but are we really losing when the Arabs fight each other? After all, we are becoming an oil exporting country.

    Curle

    August 7, 2014 at 10:48 pm

  9. Arming the Kurds seems like a surefire way to tick off our NATO ally Turkey.

    The Reluctant Apostate

    August 7, 2014 at 11:48 pm

  10. Who pays for Team America World Police?

    Answer: Americans. The US spends more on its military than all other countries combined. It’s a joke.

    pequenino

    August 8, 2014 at 5:30 pm


Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 258 other followers

%d bloggers like this: