The candidates and the Paris attacks
This is the sort of reasoning we get regularly from Trump supporters:
Events in Paris today show once again why we need Trump, Trumps wall and Trump’s willingness to act. Carson can pray for them but I want my president to KILL them, stop them, eliminate them (the terrorists).
So, Carson is the one who prays and Trump will talk tough. In actuality, here’s all that Trump has written or said so far in response to the Paris attacks:
My prayers are with the victims and hostages in the horrible Paris attacks. May God be with you all.
Compare and contrast with Ben Carson’s statements:
Ben Carson brought his trademark soft-spoken resolve to Orlando, Florida on Friday, telling reporters after a speech at a Republican Party event that if he were president he would ‘destroy’ the ‘global jihadist movement’ behind the still-developing mass killings in Paris.
‘There are those out there who have a thirst for innocent blood, in an attempt to spread their philosophy and their will across this globe,’ Carson said during a brief press conference…
Asked how he would handle the threat of violent Islamists if he were elected president, Carson became even more soft-spoken than normal.
‘I think America’s involvement should be trying to eliminate them completely,’ he said. ‘Destroy them!’
Carson’s press conference came shortly after his chief Republican rival, billionaire Donald Trump, abruptly canceled his own press conference, leaving reporters in the same room scratching their heads.
Both men spoke at the ‘Sunshine Summit,’ a cattle-call for GOP White House Hopefuls organized by the Republican Party of Florida.
DailyMail.com asked Carson how he would persuade Americans that if a Paris-style attack were to hit the United States, his calm, low-volume style wouldn’t hold him back from mounting a vigorous and energetic response.
‘I would say strength is not determined by the number of decibels in your voice,’ Carson responded.
And if he held the Oval Office, he predicted, ‘I think that will be very apparent to people very quickly.’…
Carson’s response was more detailed, and possessed of a hushed intensity voters seldom see from the medical legend.
He launched into a litany of pledges, representing his willingness to commit American resources wherever Muslim radicals strike.
‘Think about this on a global level,’ he urged.
‘I would be working with our allies using every source known to man ”“ in terms of economic resources, in terms of covert resources, overt resources, military resources, things-that-they-don’t-know-about resources, in an attempt not to contain them, but to eliminate them before they eliminate us.’
‘You have to recognize,’ he lectured softly, ‘that the global jihadist movement is an existential threat which is very different than anything that we’ve faced previously.’
Asked whether he would consider committing the U.S. military in what amounts to a religious war, Carson said he would.
‘Boots on the ground would probably be important,’ he explained…
Carson also broke with Obama on the thorny question of accepting refugees from war-torn Syria, parrying a question about whether he would send them back to the Middle East if he wins the White House.
‘I would not allow them to come in the first place,’ he said.
‘If we’re going to be bringing 200,000 people over here from that region,’ Carson mused: ‘If I were one of the leaders of the global jihadist movement, and I didn’t infiltrate that group of people with my people, that would be almost malpractice. Of course they’re going to infiltrate them.’
In another post, I’ve already linked to Ted Cruz’s excellent statement, but here’s the link again.
Of the three, I have no idea why anyone would think it’s only Trump who understands, and only Trump who will act. Carson and Cruz understand full well, and state it powerfully. There is no foundation for the idea that only Trump gets it, and yet I see that repeated over and over all around the blogosphere from people who support Trump. It’s become a cult of personality, pure and simple.
[NOTE: I assume that other candidates will issue statements soon. I also assume we’ll be hearing more from Trump on it.]
ADDENDUM at 8:00 PM 11/14: I’m still awaiting a statement from Trump. The only thing I’ve seen is his observation (which I share, by the way) that if more Parisians were allowed concealed carry, there probably would have been less bloodshed. Then he asked for a moment of silence.
Carly Fiorina tweeted earlier today: “I mourn with you. I pray with you. I stand with you. America must lead in the world. We must wage & win this fight against Islamic terrorism.” Take note of the last two words, those of you who keep asserting none of the candidates other than Trump ever use that phrase.
This is Marco Rubio’s very clear statement of a war between radical Islam and Western civilzation:
Jeb Bush says much the same thing without quite as much detail:
]
The following is what Carly said FIVE hours before the attacks in Council Bluffs:
In response to question about ISIS, Fiorina noted that Obama uses politics to decide military action. Carly will listen to the military and her decisions will be based on military goals rather than political goals. I think she mentioned this in a debate, but this next point bears repeating. Obama always uses the false choice fallacy when describing military options. For him, it is either do nothing or full scale war. Carly noted that a leader knows when to act (Obama waited too long in Syria) and many months ago the US could have armed certain Mideast allies to fight ISIS and it has wholly failed to do so.
She took a question on the national debt and flipped it to outline the top threats to our country. Climate change is not on the list of threats. The current Administration puts it at the top. Short term threats are the border and ISIS. She will fix both. Medium term threats are Iran and Russia. Long term threats are the national debt and China. Growth in the economy along with cutting spending will fix the debt problem.
Neo said:
“Of the three, I have no idea why anyone would think it’s only Trump who understands, and only Trump who will act.”
I’m not sure Trump understands the threat Islam poses for Western Civilization at all. As Neo said, we’ll probably hear more from Trump and hopefully then we will know whether he understands the threat Islam poses to Western Civilization.
Noe writes: “Of the three, I have no idea why anyone would think it’s only Trump who understands, and only Trump who will act. … It’s become a cult of personality, pure and simple.”
Sure, and Trump = Obama = …., etc.
I know that you dislike populism, right or left or middle. And LIVs make up a goodly chunk of populists. And thus they remain ignorant, or unmoved by the rational appeals you make, as well as the facts you adduce.
Can’t you tune him out for a while?
The reason Carson, and Cruz, give detailed reasons why Islamic terrorism must be defeated and why it is an existential threat is because they speak from first principles. They have a consistent worldview. Trump does not. He has no central guiding set of principles, only a fly by the seat of your pants and shifting pragmatism.
Good point Chuck. I would add Carly. See above.
Humanity is a bunch of headless chickens. Don’t expect too much.
Carson remember is the only one who would not support a Muslim for president unless they don’t believe in Sharia law and recognizing the tendency for Muslims to lie to advance their cause
I have seen Hillary in person three times in four months. If I could see her today, this is what I would say:
You were a complete f*!cking failure at State. You are an epic liar. You incompetently exposed our secrets to our enemies. You are a grifter and bribetaker of historic proportions. You enable your cheater husband to humiliate you in public. And you are annoying as hell. Given all that, you have the gall to think you can be president. Quit before you get indicted. Leave us alone.
Cornhead:
“Obama always uses the false choice fallacy when describing military options. For him, it is either do nothing or full scale war.”
More than that, he asserts a false choice between either doing too little, ad hoc, and too late (which can be worse than doing nothing) or a “full scale war” taboo that’s derived from the Russian/Left/Democratic false narrative of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
The false narrative of OIF has been a primary Democratic political device. It’s sunk in as the assumed cornerstone premise of their foreign policy position in domestic politics and, worse, their approach to real foreign affairs.
The false narrative of OIF made prevalent in domestic politics and made creed for the Democratic approach to foreign policy decision-making is patient zero for current events.
The false narrative of OIF also holds sway over the Republicans – eg, the GOP candidates’ weak response to the Kelly “knowing what we know now” hypothetical that effectively stipulated the Russian/Left/Democratic false narrative of OIF.
Yet on the facts, the decision for OIF was right on the law and justified on the policy.
In opposition to the truth of the matter, the prevalent view that the decision for OIF was wrong has consequentially pushed America down the wrong path in our foreign affairs.
As such, correcting our corrupted foreign policy requires a public relitigation of the decision for OIF.
Cleaning up the mess starts with digging down to the foundational premise level and setting the record straight on the bedrock grounds of the decision for OIF. With the perspective on OIF corrected at the premise level, then Republicans can reexamine every piece of corrupted foreign affairs under President Obama, including and especially his decision to disengage and withdraw from Iraq and the consequences of that error.
Naturally, as soon as Democrats sense the truth of the matter taking hold, they’ll switch from asserting the false narrative of OIF to deflecting the critical threat to their cornerstone premise by recasting the issue and/or changing the subject.
Nonetheless, Republicans must doggedly complete the public relitigation of the decision for OIF.
Once they’ve flipped the zeitgeist at the premise level, now standing on the foundation of the corrected narrative of OIF, then Republicans can move to discredit every politician who promoted the false narrative of OIF and reject every harmful decision that has been justified by the false choice of “either do nothing or full scale war” (Cornhead).
See the explanation of the law and policy, fact basis of the decision for Operation Iraqi Freedom.
https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/2015/11/14/carson-and-cruz-first-presidential-candidates-to-speak-out-on-paris-slaughter-say-no-syrian-refugees-to-america/
Carson gets it.
I don’t see any of the candidates having a firm grasp of the threat.
Carson states that he would “‘destroy’ the ‘global jihadist movement’”
OK fine. How would he do that? “‘I would be working with our allies”…
Stop. What allies? Merkel? Hollande? The Saudis? Iran? Virtually every western country is in profound denial as to the source of Islamic terrorism. And in the UN, Russia and China have repeatedly and consistently blocked passage of effective international sanctions against the terrorist supporting rogue nations.
Anyone who refuses to identify the source of Islamic terrorism as Islam’s fundamental tenets is perpetuating the problem of Islamic terrorism.
You cannot defeat a murderous enemy by half measures. Fighting ISIS, al Qaeda, etc. while leaving the rogue nations like Iran and enabling nations like Saudi Arabia and Qatar unopposed is “counting coup”.
Islam is an expansionist, totalitarian ideology wrapped in a facade of religious pretense.
Islam’s fundamental tenets are totally antithetical to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.
End all Muslim immigration into the West.
Deport ALL Muslims.
Taqiyya and Murana, Islam’s approved doctrines of lying and deceitful behavior toward the infidel make impossible reliably determining which Muslims are actually peaceful.
Plus, it is logically impossible to be a Muslim and also claim to support the US Constitution. They are fundamentally in opposition. Denial as to Islam’s inherent nature is how ‘moderate’ Muslims resolve that quandary.
Any candidate unwilling to face these truths will be, to the degree of their denial, ineffective and thus perpetuate the terrorism.
Isolate and quarantine ALL Muslim nations and their populations. Deny them travel in the West. Use military force to disarm all Muslim nation’s of any nuclear arms.
Credibly threaten with military retaliation ALL of Islam’s shrines and holy sites for ANY Islamic terrorist attacks. Credibility is established with actions consistent with ones words.
Use Islam’s doctrines against them by denying Islamic terrorists entrance into paradise. Pigs are unclean in Islam. Any Muslim who is ‘contaminated’ at the time of their death cannot enter paradise.
Issue hollow point ammo containing dried pig’s blood to all personnel actively fighting jihadists.
Execute all convicted terrorists by stripping them naked, castrating them and then drowning them in an acrylic vat of pigs blood. Upload the videos to a special website to confirm the ultimate fate of all captured jihadists.
Use their own beliefs against them to create real leverage by convincingly threatening what the jihadists truly value.
You don’t win a gun fight with a knife.
Unapologetically “rinse and repeat” until their will to resist is shattered. Totalitarian ideologies, by definition, proclaim “that there can be only one”.
Let the one left be “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Nothing less is acceptable.
Correction: ‘Murana’ should be Muruna.
What you said Geof can’t be said by a candidate.
A candidate MUST say we will work with allies otherwise a drumbeat of, “unilateral action” by liberals
I would say that none of these candidates nor any of the free world’s “leaders” fully understand Islam. They are all concerned with cutting as many heads off the hydra as possible. However, Islam itself is the beast, and it will continue to spawn jihadists until it is utterly destroyed.
The “moderates” we always hear so much about are enablers of the violent jihadists. Here is a website that aggregates the surveys of Muslims worldwide, performed by mostly liberal orgs like Pew, Gallup, et al:
Muslim Opinion Polls: A “Tiny Minority of Extremists”?
It shows that pretty much everywhere, including the US, the % of Muslims who support violent jihad and hold beliefs that are totally incompatible with modern, Western values range from a significant minority to sizable majorities, including terrorism, the imposition of sharia law everywhere, “honor” killings (of women, of course), the refusal to assimilate in their host country, and much, much more.
Islam declared war on not-Islam over a millennium ago. What’s different now is that we allowed them to expropriate our investment in developing their oil resources, which gave them the power to extort trillions of dollars from the First World and use it for waging war. Otherwise they’d still be tending their herds of goats and not threatening the entire planet.
Unless we understand that and are willing to fight back all-out, balls-to-the-wall, we will eventually succumb due to their huge procreation rates, their fanaticism, and their belief that sacrificing themselves for Allah is the highest honor, especially when they can take lots of innocent kafir with them.
Islam is far more dangerous than even Communism, whose adherents are, at bottom, realists who don’t want to die, which is what allowed the strategy of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) to be an effective deterrent to nuclear war.
In contrast, the ayatollahs and many imams believe that the return of the 12th Imam is imminent, ushering in Islam’s version of End Times, and believe it is their duty to prepare for his arrival. Obama has just given these fanatics $150 billion to buy or produce nuclear weapons. The MAD strategy won’t work this time, because they’re joyfully willing to die for Allah.
I’m one of the “rational, sensible, moderate” conservatives that some of Neo’s readers love to hate, so it may come as a surprise to hear that I strongly support Geoffrey Britain’s statements:
“Islam is an expansionist, totalitarian ideology wrapped in a facade of religious pretense.
Islam’s fundamental tenets are totally antithetical to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’
End all Muslim immigration into the West.
Deport ALL Muslims.”
We need to start with a constitutional amendment recognizing that Islam is not a religion, does not recognize the separation between church and state, and is inherently working towards the violent overthrow of the US government. As such, constitutional protections do not apply. Go from there.
Is this possible? I think that many people would support such an amendment, and that state constitutional conventions would build momentum that the left-wing media would find hard to stop.
WITH MALICE TOWARD SOME.
The Hellbirds/462nd Bomb Group/58th Bomb Wing/ 20th Air Force…CBI and West Field at Tinian Island.
My Dad’s outfit. I LOVE the Group Motto.
Cornflour:
The greatest con of Mohammed was to characterize his racket as a religion. If I were smarter and knew more about Islam I could legally break it down as an unreligion. But the easiest thing to see is how it ACTS every single day. Here in Nebraska the Catholics aren’t out to kill the Lutherans.
Any predictions on the questions at the Democratic debate? Is it even possible that either candidate will be asked directly about Obama’s plan to speed up the Syrian refugee plan? Would Shelob even agree to show up if such a question were planned?
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/11/11/texas-grand-jury-takes-just-9-hours-indict-106-twin-peaks-biker-cases/
Waco 2 update for those that ignore the traitors within.
All neo-neocon readers have my permission to share and repeat my HRC rant as long as you credit me.
My hope is that Hillary sees it in 48 hours.
Every assertion is true.
Baklava:
“What you said Geof can’t be said by a candidate.”
Right.
The simple end-times, zero-sum ‘clash of civilizations’ approach is preferred by the proximate enemy as well as some nation-state competitors (eg, Russia) who promote an alternative world order. But it’s practically unrealistic and a political non-starter for us.
However, consistent with my comment at November 14th, 2015 at 10:55 am, a GOP candidate corrective that is politically viable is switching off the “full scale war” taboo that Carly Fiorina criticized, according to Cornhead.
That taboo, which is derived from the false narrative of OIF, is generally restricting the American range of action in the War on Terror.
What’s past is prologue. If the taboo remains in place past the Obama administration, it will continue to aversely influence American range of action – and the range of action for our allies who labor under the same taboo – moving forward, even under a Republican president such as Fiorina. Then the resulting practical shortcoming in the face of the enemy will fuel more accusation of GOPe weakness and complicity.
Establishing necessary preconditions and premises is vital for taking correct action.
If you want US leadership of the West to more vigorously prosecute the War on Terror again, then it’s incumbent on you and your favorite GOP candidates to advocate the paradigm of OIF. Set the record that on the facts, the decision for OIF was right on the law and justified on the policy.
Fiorina et al need to establish that knowing what we know now, OIF was the correct choice by the President, and that knowledge restores the range of action for the President to prosecute the War on Terror moving forward.
My opinion remains the same as stated I believe a couple of months ago.
Cruz is the only truly grown man in the room.
He’s the best thinker, steady, the most intellectually principled, and the most intellectually acute and nimble of them all; though Fioria has admirable qualities of focus and concision, and Rubio, speaks well.
Cruz’ very strengths and virtues – he does not seem to be the type to panic, or go off half cocked either – are probably part of the reason he fails to attract a following with the emotionalists which now make up so much of the electorate who manage to bring this crap down on their own heads.
And some wonder how someone like me, and there are many others, can shrug?
Payback is coming ISIS: Obama has just authorized operation “You’ve Got A Friend” with joint strike team John Kerry and James Taylor…
Geoffrey Britain Says:
November 14th, 2015 at 11:04 am
I agree with every single word of that. If you ever run for office, you’ve got my vote.
Alas, our entire political class ranges from unserious to outright treasonous.
We the people are on our own. Lock and load.
Complaints that Carson doesn’t have a plan are absurd. As a candidate, he should not have a Plan about Islam. He needs a determined, principled conviction, which he has. That is all.
Islam is evil. Islam is not a religion, though the believers of its ideology worship it religiously. Muslim prayers are not prayers in the sense Christians understand prayer. Muslim prayers are recitations from the Koran, in arabic.
Islam is evil.
Islam is everywhere.
Fly Emirates!
Forget it, Neo–its ChinaTrump.
Cornhead:
“My hope is that Hillary sees it in 48 hours.”
While you’re at it, share this, too:
Recommendation: How to talk about your Iraq vote (advice to Hillary Clinton).
If you have a connection with the Fiorina campaign (you stump for her here a lot), I’d appreciate you sharing with Fiorina my comments at 10:55 am and 12:40 pm.
In addition to the reasons already stated, Fiorina adopting the position of setting the record straight on OIF and upholding the paradigm of OIF would:
1. Differentiate her from the pack on the national security front with a distinct and substantial position that shows off a grasp of the relevant law and policy that apparently eludes most Republican policy ‘experts’ on the subject.
* I’ve actually debated/corrected a Congressional GOP foreign-policy legal counsel who fundamentally misinterpreted UNSCR 1441. He mistakenly believed that, according to UNSCR 1441, enforcement was triggered by UNMOVIC demonstration of WMD that matched the intel rather than UNMOVIC confirmation of noncompliance with UNSCR 687, which in fact, UNMOVIC confirmed and ISG corroborated.
2. Inform the American people that, contrary to the prevalent misrepresentation, our most consequential global undertaking of the 9/11 era as leader of the free world was right. That she understands that the misrepresentation of the Iraq intervention led us off course with disastrous consequences not just for Iraq but from the greater harm broadly resulting from (self-)handicapped American leadership. Under her leadership, American leadership will be set right again.
* Of course, the implicit or explicit contrast is that the Democrats – such as Clinton – who’ve famously misrepresented the Iraq intervention are guilty of the compounding harms resulting from undermining the Iraq mission. Any Republican whose support wavered on the Iraq mission is guilty to a lesser extent, too.
3. Related to 2, with the American people listening appreciatively, speak directly to our military – most of all our Iraq veterans – and inform them that contrary to the devaluing misinterpretation of their service and sacrifice in Iraq, she is affirming that their mission was legal, justified, vital, and honorable … and successful until the mission was compromised by present leadership.
From Robert Gates’s book, Duty:
No other Republican candidate is taking this tack.
If Fiorina does it right, it would provide her a significant boost on the national security front, which is a forefront issue. It would compel the other GOP candidates to follow her lead and knock the Democrats off their footing, all to the good for our nation and the West at large.
Eric:
I have zero connections to Carly’s campaign. I’ve just seen her twice and Power Line published my reports.
She really, really needs new material and she needs to get out front on ISIS. Maybe she will be on TV on Sunday. Maybe she’ll do my rant! I give her permission!
Correction: Three times.
Cruz/Webb 2016!
“What you said Geof can’t be said by a candidate. A candidate MUST say we will work with allies otherwise a drumbeat of, “unilateral action” by liberals” baklava
I’m well aware of just how politically incorrect is my analysis and prescriptions. I’m recommending ‘radical surgery’ as indispensable. There’s no doubt of the political crucifixion that would result for any candidate who spoke the full truth.
But so what? That only matters if someone places personal aggrandizement over love of country. It’s fine for someone to say I’m running for President because I believe that I have the best vision and sufficient qualifications for the job. But if a candidate truly loves this country then any mortal threat to it has to rank above personal ambition. Thus, awakening the public to the true nature of the threat has to be of greater importance than any other consideration.
Which by the way is exactly what Trump has done with illegal immigration. For all his manifest flaws and questionable attributes, on the problem of illegal immigration he is the ONLY candidate who has expressed the needed solution. Because ‘securing the border’ is NOT enough because its too little, too late. He’s the only candidate who has managed to elevate the discussion beyond the Left’s false narrative of “no one is illegal”… and he’s done that because of his ‘beyond the pale’ political incorrectness and willingness to state the plain, bald, uncomfortable truth.
So too with Islam’s mortal threat to the West. Nothing less than the full, unadulterated truth will be enough.
And when American liberals experience their own coming ‘Terror in Paris’ their tune will change quickly. And that is when they will be ready to hear the truth.
Eric:
Concerned Veterans for America might have a video of Carly in CB. The focus was the military and vets.
“Muslim Opinion Polls: A “Tiny Minority of Extremists”?
It shows that pretty much everywhere, including the US, the % of Muslims who support violent jihad and hold beliefs that are totally incompatible with modern, Western values range from a significant minority to sizable majorities” geokstr
From the link:
The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015):
19% of Muslim-Americans say that violence is justified in order to make Sharia the law in the United States (66% disagree).
The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015):
25% of Muslim-Americans say that violence against Americans in the United States is justified as part of the “global Jihad (64% disagree).
Firstly, I would point out that 19% of the 3 million Muslim Americans is 570,000 violent terrorists who are already here…
Secondly, how many of that 64-66% are practitioners of Taqiyya? How many are only sympathetic to those inclined toward violence and who will condone it, rather than confront it?
There’s a reason for the near total absence of anonymous Muslim voices on the internet condemning the violence. But there’s plenty of Muslim Americans condemning ‘Islamophobia’…
Neo– Thanks for posting Ben Carson’s comments on ISIS because I never heard them anyplace else. Whether this “blackout” is intentional or not, I can only suspect.
We’ve missed the Haj for 2015, but I’m thinking a small nuclear device detonated at 2,000′ over Mecca during the Haj next year might send a powerful message.
Cornhead:
“I have zero connections to Carly’s campaign.”
Oh well.
Cornhead:
“She really, really needs new material and she needs to get out front on ISIS.”
Like I said, taking my recommendation would set her apart. No other candidate is relitigating the decision for OIF despite that the actual casus belli for OIF is a straightforward fact pattern.
For the Left, apology is confession, right? By cravenly running away from the issue, Republicans have effectively shamed themselves, validated the Democrats, and unjustly devalued the service and sacrifice of our Iraq veterans.
If not for Fiorina, my recommendation is available for any other Republican candidate or (unlikely) any Democratic candidate for that matter.
Development then advocacy of a sufficient course against ISIS – as well as the other shifting, morphing AQ affiliates who’ve been strengthened from the weak-horse position adopted by our current President – is undermined as long as the false narrative of OIF remains the underlying premise.
It’s like the advice that judges give to nervous young lawyers who are new to the courtroom: Lay the foundation, then make your case.
Setting the record straight on the ‘why’ of OIF is a vital piece for laying the foundation that will enable Fiorina et al to make the case for a sufficient course against ISIS et al.
Geoffrey Britain,
See http://lettertobaghdadi.com/.
Pretty scary, eh, Geoffrey? I first saw that page several years ago, and there are others sites as well that show similar results of other polls and surveys.
It’s often said by the left, taqiyyah specialists like CAIR and well-meaning but ignorant RINOs, that the jihadists are only a tiny minority of Muslims. So what? If we assume only 2% of them are actively engaged in violent jihad at any given time, that’s still 20 million. That has to be right up there with combined forces of all the non-Muslim countries with the biggest armies.
And they’re conducting guerrilla warfare, hiding under the hijabs of civilians, while our Rules of Engagement make it difficult to even fight back. And we send billions in aid to some of their terrorist organizations like Hamas and the “moderates” in Syria. At least we didn’t subsidize North Viet Nam back in the day when we were fighting them. With enemies like us, who needs friends?
I’ve never read Burnham’s “Suicide of the West” (1964) but I’ll bet it describes our attitudes and actions towards Islam to a “T” if you substitute Islam for Communism.
By the way, here is the link to the home page for the “Minority of Extremists” page, aptly called “The Religion of Peace.” About halfway down, they have a long running list of every Muslim atrocity resulting in deaths in only the last 30 days, with archives that go back to 9/11/2001. It adds up to hundreds of attacks, with many thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of injuries every month, and a similar list could probably be compiled for 20 years prior to our 9/11, which is when we first started to notice these psychopaths.
Muslims are the belligerents in nearly every violent conflict on the planet, and account for almost all the terrorism.
Rubio’s put out a short video re Paris: This Is a Clash of Civilizations. Either They Win or We Win.
A little off-topic, but let’s not forget that it was only a few months ago that a Muslim terrorist tried to kill all the passengers on a French train.
If he’d succeeded, the loss of life would have been comparable to yesterday’s attacks.
Thanks again to Spencer Stone, Alek Skarlatos, and Anthony Sadler.
Eric @ 2:42,
Patently untrue in almost all of its assertions. A sop to western ignorance and an excellent example of Taqiyya. It all but claimed that Islam is a “religion of peace”…
Eric, here’s Carly’s website address:
https://carlyforpresident.com/meet-carly
They have a place where you can e-mail her. I suggest you contact her with an outline of why the OIF narrative is important and links to your research and writing. Can’t hurt. Heck, maybe you’ll become an advisor to her campaign. Good luck.
Trump also tweeted:
Trump also caused a furore on the Left and in France with this comment:
Any of the GOP candidates would be better than Obama or Hillary in combating islamic terrorism.
JJ,
Thanks.
I’ve had zero success e-mailing presidential candidates so far, including the President’s brother and the President’s wife, but yeah, it can’t hurt to try another one.
A reasonable question is, we invaded Iraq in 2003 and we left Iraq in 2011 – so much has happened and changed since then – so why is setting the record straight on the decision for OIF urgent, let alone relevant today?
Cornhead’s summary of Fiorina’s remarks points to the relevance:
“Obama always uses the false choice fallacy when describing military options. For him, it is either do nothing or full scale war.”
The “full scale war” taboo is used by the President and likeminded folks to summarily reject sufficient action in the War on Terror. The taboo is derived from the prevalent false narrative of OIF as the image for “full scale war”. It’s a powerful image – the same false narrative of OIF opened the door to the White House in 2008 and the Democrats/Left continue to refresh it as axiom.
Therefore, setting the record straight on OIF at the premise level is key to freeing the American people and politicians, including Republicans, from the taboo in order to restore the American range of action necessary to lead the War on Terror.
That is an urgent and relevant hook for setting the record straight on the decision for OIF today.
Folks like Geoffrey Britain are passionate about prosecuting the War on Terror and frustrated with the current restrictions on American action in the War on Terror. Yet his particular solution call is unfeasible.
I recommend investing his passion in my solution call in order to break the taboo that’s restricting the American range of action in the War on Terror. It wouldn’t satisfy him entirely, but helping to restore the American range of action in the War on Terror would be a tangible contribution to real and urgently needed progress.
Eric,
My solution is premature not IMO unfeasible. At this time, only a small minority of Americans would even give it serious consideration. Once we experience enough pain, once the inherent nature of the threat is no longer deniable, then its time will come.
Making the case for OIF is indeed important but… as far as widespread acceptance is concerned, it is also premature. I agree however that attacking the left’s meme in our lawful actions against Iraq is best mounted now.
And when American liberals experience their own coming ‘Terror in Paris’ their tune will change quickly. And that is when they will be ready to hear the truth.
I’m looking forward to seeing all these traitors burn. Ironically, we won’t have to lift a finger and it’ll be the Left’s own allies doing the punishment. Even lazy moderates sitting on the fence won’t have much to say about that, one way or another.
JJ,
Done.