http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
I had a good long time to mull the state of the crazy world yesterday on the way back from Denver as the Packers were losing to Detroit at Lambeau for the first time since 1991, the surrealism mounts.
It seems very clear that Paris wasn't caused by some film or Global Warming.
Obama has called Global Warming the greatest threat to our future 22 times now ... apparently Bernie Sanders did the same in the Democrat debate over the weekend. Last Friday AM on ABC, BO said that "
ISIL is not getting stronger, we have them CONTAINED". Often one has to a wait at least a couple days for the idiocy of BO's statements to be completely clear ... not in this case.
I read the linked article prior to Friday, it is from the Atlantic, a "near left" publication, on par with the NYTs in left tilt, and was published in March of this year. Nothing surprising to me about Paris other than the fact that such attacks have been as infrequent as they have been -- anyone paying any attention has known what we were up against since at least the first World Trade Center bombing in '93. The choice is a very simple one "us or them" -- if we want to keep following the way of BO, they intend to have our women as concubines and our children as slaves ... but Global Warming is a bigger threat. Thus sayeth BO!
Everyone decries the violence in Paris, but am I the only one that remembers that if the "Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey's" had given even MINIMAL support back in '03, we wouldn't have this problem? Anybody paying attention knew who we were fighting in Iraq back in '03 -- the linked article covers it thusly:
In November (2014), the Islamic State released an infomercial-like video tracing its origins to bin Laden. It acknowledged Abu Musa’b al Zarqawi, the brutal head of al‑Qaeda in Iraq from roughly 2003 until his killing in 2006, as a more immediate progenitor, followed sequentially by two other guerrilla leaders before Baghdadi, the caliph.
In fact, we're not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We're facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world.
No acts of ours involves the rage of killers. And no concessions, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans of murder. On the contrary; they target nations whose behavior they believe they can change through violence. Against such an enemy, there is only one effective response: We will never back down, never give in, and never accept anything less than complete victory. (Applause.)
But, those in the thrall of "The Party" and it's media KNOW that Bush was all wrong and stupid, while BO is an infallible genius. We DID back down -- BO ceded Iraq to "The JV Team", destabilized Libya and weakly intoned of "Red Lines" in Syria. Without BO, ISIS would never have gotten territory and as the linked article points out, the doctrine of ISIS is the doctrine of returning the Islamic Caliphate and it **REQUIRES** territory --
To be the caliph, one must meet conditions outlined in Sunni law—being a Muslim adult man of Quraysh descent; exhibiting moral probity and physical and mental integrity; and having ’amr, or authority. This last criterion, Cerantonio said, is the hardest to fulfill, and requires that the caliph have territory in which he can enforce Islamic law.
The article does a good job in general of pointing out the obvious VERY "Islamic" roots of ISIL and the fact that their doctrines are very much in keeping with fundamental Islam -- and their goal is clear, they mean to defeat us and enslave us.
... the caliphate has continued to embrace slavery and crucifixion without apology. “We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women,” Adnani, the spokesman, promised in one of his periodic valentines to the West. “If we do not reach that time, then our children and grandchildren will reach it, and they will sell your sons as slaves at the slave market.”
The article gets a little long, but the important things for people that don't want to see their children and grandchildren as slaves of an Islamic Caliphate is that:
- Their goal is VICTORY, and unlike us, they believe in it enough to die for it. Do we care enough to die to prevent their victory and our grandchildren as slaves? Guess not.
- They are VERY MUCH Islamic, and THEY DON'T NEGOTIATE -- they don't send "ambassadors" nor even recognize other governments. Their motto is "win or die" -- even voting is a sin worthy of the death penalty.
- While they are certainly still a minority of Muslims, there are A LOT of Muslims that find their doctrine appealing -- the author tries to assert a non-violent fundamentalist version of Islam as an alternative, but one wonders if he was ever a young man -- the ACTION of ISIS is way too appealing for his alternative to win out.
I especially liked these two as telling on the fact that what ISIS is doing and the general reaction of scholars in trying to downplay it as similarly meaningless as what most of the doctrinal disputes of modern Christianity have degenerated into.
But Muslims who call the Islamic State un-Islamic are typically, as the Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel, the leading expert on the group’s theology, told me, “embarrassed and politically correct, with a cotton-candy view of their own religion” that neglects “what their religion has historically and legally required.” Many denials of the Islamic State’s religious nature, he said, are rooted in an “interfaith-Christian-nonsense tradition".
“Slavery, crucifixion, and beheadings are not something that freakish [jihadists] are cherry-picking from the medieval tradition,” Haykel said. Islamic State fighters “are smack in the middle of the medieval tradition and are bringing it wholesale into the present day.”
I found his closing paragraphs familiar to a lot of my thinking, and chilling. Contrast the meaning of being "personally involved in struggles beyond their own lives" with "voting to redistribute other people's money, or voting to force others to bake cakes for gay "weddings", or "voting for hope and change". "Especially when it is a burden" -- the essence of "having skin in the game", rather than voting to force others to do what you want.
I could enjoy their company, as a guilty intellectual exercise, up to a point. In reviewing Mein Kampf in March 1940, George Orwell confessed that he had “never been able to dislike Hitler”; something about the man projected an underdog quality, even when his goals were cowardly or loathsome. “If he were killing a mouse he would know how to make it seem like a dragon.” The Islamic State’s partisans have much the same allure. They believe that they are personally involved in struggles beyond their own lives, and that merely to be swept up in the drama, on the side of righteousness, is a privilege and a pleasure—especially when it is also a burden.
The author didn't think that ISIS was likely to execute terrorist attacks in western lands -- Paris seems to show that he was wrong on that.
All of a sudden, BO seems much happier "leading from behind" as France steps up attacks in Syria. Like a dog chasing a car, it is much more than a bit unclear what the objectives of France, the US, or Russia really are in Syria. France probably wants to kill ISIS and is largely OK with Assad ... which would seem to align with Russia. The US has declared that we want Assad gone, but how we prevent ISIS from filling that void is a mystery. It is obvious at this point how huge a mistake BO made in pulling the troops out of Iraq -- so even if Syria "miraculously" stabilizes under Assad or someone else, ISIS has a home in Iraq for the foreseeable future.
Once we were "One Nation under God, with Liberty and Justice for all". We saw ourselves as standing for important ideals -- a Flag, a Republic, a Constitution, we were exceptional, and hundreds of thousands died in preserving those ideas, because we knew they were not free -- from the Revolutionary War, to the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam. We answered the call again after 9-11, but the corruption in the soul of America that first reared it's ugly head in Vietnam came back with a vengeance.
We are no longer a nation under God. We no longer respect a Constitution, nor even generally realize the difference between a Republic and a "democracy". To the extent we have any ideals at all, they are those of Mizzou -- declared by some majority or court decree, and not to be questioned under threat of state or institutional sanction. The young of university age expect their views to protected from even discussion -- they have no interest in defending them verbally, let alone on a battlefield.
Those that have nothing to live and die for eventually find that someone else will tell them if they live, and exactly how they will live, because their masters don't share their lack of commitment.
The human condition is slavery -- to the Devil, the State, addiction, money, etc. I'm a slave too -- to Christ, praise be to God!
