The Truth About The Islamic Supremacist Movement, AKA "The Arab Spring"
Robert Spencer goes all realism on Obama's ass at PJM:
The Qur'an and Islamic law direct Muslims to wage war against and subjugate the "People of the Book" (cf. Qur'an 9:29)-that is, primarily Jews and Christians-not if they behave badly by supporting Israel or Middle Eastern dictators, but simply because they are not Muslims.But the White House and State Department not only do not acknowledge this fact-they have done all they can to deny and obfuscate it. The one cardinal proposition that accepted analysts must repeat is that the present conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims have absolutely nothing to do with Islam; indeed, Obama administration officials are expressly forbidden to link Islam with terrorism, as if Islamic terrorists weren't busy linking the two on a daily basis. The errors of analysis and wrong decisions that cost lives all follow from this initial false premise.
About six months ago a State Department official contacted me privately and told me about State employees who had been assigned to study the life of Muhammad, with an eye toward putting together a positive portrayal of the prophet of Islam that would presumably win more Muslim hearts and minds by going out with the United States government's seal of approval. The officials who began studying the earliest Muslim sources about Muhammad, however, were astonished as they came face-to-face not with a seventh-century Gandhi, but with a figure of war and rapine who appeared to justify the worst allegations of the "Islamophobes" that the Obama administration has so roundly excoriated. Needless to say, the puff piece on Muhammad did not appear.
This disconnect from reality was reminiscent of what is said about State during the Iranian Revolution: that while the Ayatollah Khomeini was bringing about the toppling of the shah and the establishment of the Islamic Republic, only one of his books could be found anywhere in the State Department, and no one had read it. No one thought the rantings of an obscure fanatic who for years had been exiled to far-off France were important.
This was the willful blindness that killed Chris Stevens, and is the real scandal of Benghazi. The politically correct fantasies that characterize the Washington establishment's views on Islam and jihad not only make for bad policy; they also kill. Clearly what happened in Benghazi was part of a coordinated, carefully planned series of jihad attacks-in all the controversy over what the White House knew and didn't know, it has also been forgotten that jihadis stormed the U.S. embassy in Cairo on the same day. That raises the question: What did the Muslim Brotherhood know, and when did it know it? And the related question: Why is the Obama administration continuing to cultivate warm relations (and shower money upon) the Morsi regime in Egypt, without undertaking even the most cursory investigation into the possibility of its involvement in those attacks?
From the beginning of the "Arab Spring," I said repeatedly that it was not a democracy movement as the Western press and the White House were claiming, but an Islamic supremacist takeover that would result in the creation of Sharia states far more hostile to the U.S. and Israel than the Arab nationalist regimes they were supplanting. This assessment was greeted with the usual scorn, but Benghazi shows who was right and who was wrong and how desperately the foreign policy establishment in Washington needs a very thorough housecleaning.
Oh man I know I know I know I know.
I couldn't believe it when the media was saying, "Yay! The bad socialists are getting kicked out! Things can only improve from here on out!"
And it is true, they were bad socialists. They were not democratic. They were brutal to their own people who were protesting.
But bad socialist regimes that get overthrown in the Muslim world tend to get replaced by religious extremists, who are all, "We're sick of this secular @#$, it hasn't been working, let's start a Caliphate!"
Bad socialists tend to be generally ok, but sometimes psycho to their own people, and not much of a threat to us.
Muslim extremists tend to be generally psycho and sometimes ok to their own people, and more of a threat to us.
Why would anyone think this is an improvement!
"Yay, they got rid of an Egyptian leader who didn't do 100% of the things we wanted but generally didn't start with us, and replaced him with the Muslim Brotherhood! Huzzah!"
NicoleK at October 18, 2012 2:09 AM
The problem with letting an Islamic led government get in place, is that it you never can get rid of it. An example is the 2009 Presidential Election. You know Ahmadinejad was supported by a majority of the Ayatollah's.
Jim P. at October 18, 2012 6:23 AM
I think of them as they think of me. Someone to be forced to go along with my agenda, subject to extra taxes, second class citizens to whom it's my duty to lie, and people who should get out of my country because their presence offends me. I'm just going by their book.
They're lucky I'm too lazy to do jihad on them. And have bacon to live for.
MarkD at October 18, 2012 6:38 AM
We should have an over/under on how many years until Egypt wages open war on Israel. I saw a quote from a movie in print today, and it seems apropos:
This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.
I R A Darth Aggie at October 18, 2012 6:46 AM
Islamic women in the news: "My daughter in law isn't a whore, so I cut her head off":
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/18/afghan-woman-beheads-daughter-in-law-for-refusing-prostitution-police-say/?hpt=hp_t3
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at October 18, 2012 10:19 AM
> This business will get out of control. It
> will get out of control and...
Gen. Beringer.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 18, 2012 6:24 PM
There is a factor in that is how fast Iraq gets nukes and who is in the White House. If Obama is in the White House and Iran doesn't have nukes, Egypt will attack.
If Romney is in the White House and Iran doesn't have nukes, Egypt won't attack. If Iran has nukes, and Romney is in the White House Egypt will attack with Iran playing the nuke standoff shield for Egypt.
The question is if and when Israel will use their nukes, and on who?
Jim P. at October 18, 2012 7:20 PM
Aw shit, I was wrong.... it was Admiral Painter.
That was a good movie, too. Sincerely good breezy adaptation of a breezy book.
(I was thinking of "How about screwed up? We did all that and he broke in again... Kid says your computer called him.")
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 18, 2012 8:45 PM
Leave a comment