“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas

Wednesday, December 09, 2015

We created ISIS, now we have to kill it

Good grief! ISIS is setting up a shadow "government" in Libya just in case they get kicked out of Syria and Iraq.
Does everybody understand what happened here? The US decided that we would assist the "Arab Spring" by getting rid of dictators Saddam Hussein, Mubarak in Egypt, Qadaffi in Libya, and Assad in Syria and we left a vacuum for ISIS and/or Iran to fill. There's no way in the world any of the above mentioned evil dictators would have allowed these ISIS rabble to operate in their countries for 5 seconds.  
But for our short-sighted, idiotically naive belief that the Muslim world would be better off without strongman dictators, ISIS would not even exist. Now they're going to have a nation state in what was Libya.....which comes with unrestricted ocean access. 
The U.S. is the Dr. Frankenstein who created the ISIS monster. How much blood and treasure will we now have to spend to kill it?


Bill said...

We did not f-ing "create ISIS!" 7th Century wannabes did.

Did we f-ing create al-Qaeda, the Moslem Brotherhood, Boko Haram, al Shabab, Fatah, Hamas, PLO, Black September, etc.?

I will charitably assume you meant to say abandoning a relatively stable Iraq in 2011 allowed al-Qaeda to be resurrected and metastasize.

Ed said...

I'm not saying we deliberately created ISIS, but it was easily predictable that a radical Islamic terror group would quickly fill the void left behind our deliverance of the middle east from its dictators.

We toppled regimes left and right, or allowed them to be toppled, knowing full well what would happen.

Whether it was by our active participation or our passivity, what difference does it make? But for our involvement, ISIS would not be the power they are today.

You cannot deny that we play a roll in almost every eventuality in the middle east, including this one.

david said...

I agree with Ed on this one. While we did not create ISIS we set the lab conditions for their growth. It is yet another example of mirror imaging our thoughts, values, etc onto another country. We assume a country wants freedom, democracy, etc. or whatever. And this may be true on some level. What we never take into consideration is their capacity to adapt or absorb such ideas. Most of these countries don't have the same conditions which allowed these ideas to take hold another countries such as the U.S.

Time for a reprinting of the book "The Ugly American".

Ed said...

Yes, while our intent was not the rise of ISIS, it was our short-sighted fantasy of a modern, democratic middle east that gave rise to it.

No dictator worth a damn would allow an outfit like ISIS operate in their country. They would have been slaughtered in the crib.

In my opinion, getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the beginning, but then Obama, who thinks he farts rainbows, hatched the ludicrous Arab Spring idea and this is what we ended up with.

Now we have to kill it.

Isaac A. Nussbaum said...

excerpted from:
Tuesday, December 08, 2015

“It's not "moderate" Muslims who need to take the lead in ending terrorism. It's the U.S. foreign-policy makers, whose daily atrocities make targets of Americans at home.”

(Author, Sheldon Richman, keeps the blog Free Association and is a senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society.)

Ed said...

Yeah, I don't agree with the notion that but for the US foreign policy failures in the middle east, there would be no world-wide terrorism. Their Koran commands them to do what they are doing, but I'll allow that it takes the shape that it does, partly because of our ham-fisted attempts to bring our brand of 21st century democracy to the 7th century third-world that is ill-equipped to use it.

Isaac A. Nussbaum said...

Excerpted from:
By Eric Margolis
December 11, 2015

“What we call ‘terrorism,’ a mindless, empty term, is really blowback, a reaction from our meddling in the Mideast and South Asia.”

Ed said...

Isaac, you can post quotes from all the nutjob authors you read, but that doesn't make their argument and yours, any more truthful. This would be happening regardless of our continued meddling in their affairs.....I'm guessing ever since the creation of Israel, the die was cast the lead inevitably to Muslims blaiming the West's meddling for all their troubles.

Isaac A. Nussbaum said...

A great many people ... well educated, knowledgeable, informed, influential and articulate people ... agree with Margolis. Whether they are right or you are I will leave to others to decide. It is, however, hard to take seriously anyone who speaks of Muslims as a monolithic block of people who all think and act alike.

Ed said...

Isaac, the holy book of Islam commands Muslims to convert infidels, enslave them, or slaughter them. Where are the moderate Muslims protesting in the streets, kicking out the radical imams who preach hatred of the West and advocate sharia conquest? I see the occasional one on TV, but the rank and file Muslims among us sit quietly as this stuff happens.

If terrorism were being conducted in the name of any other religion, the 99.999% who aren't radical would be turning in the few who are. But that isn't happening with Islam.

Explain that if you please.

Isaac A. Nussbaum said...


The short answer is no.

The Qur'an does not teach that "infidels" should be killed, taxed, or converted as a matter of principle.

You have to understand that Islam basically began in conflict. When Mohammed established the first Islamic state in Medina, he regarded the Jews as allies, and concluded a treaty with them. Only when they violated the treaty and sided with the Muslims' enemies did the Prophet change his policy toward them. It is possible that this hadith is a reflection of the tensions between Muslims and Jews in Medina. However, bear in mind that Islam accords special status to both Christians and Jews.

The Qur'an makes reference to different groups of non-Muslims. First, the Qur'an recognizes the natural diversity of humanity, "O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things)." (Qu'ran, 49:13)

There is also the recognition that human beings are religiously and ethnically diverse, "For, had God so willed, He could surely have made you all one single community; however, He lets go astray him that wills [to go astray], and guides aright him that wills [to be guided]; and you will surely be called to account for all that you ever did!" (Qur'an, 16:93)

source: http://religion.answers.wikia.com/wiki/Does_the_Koran_say_to_kill_infidels

Isaac A. Nussbaum said...

Excerpted from “Does Islam Say: ‘Kill The Infidels’?”

We know the Quran orders believers to fight in combat against those who are the oppressors, aggressors and terrorists and those who are assaulting and killing the innocent men, women and children. But it gives out clear orders - NOT TO Fight against those who are not fighting against you...


There is not such a meaning in the Quran, ordering or even permitting the Muslims to ever attack innocent people whether they are Christians, Jews, or any other faith for that matter.

Combat is only ordered against those who are attacking or killing the innocent Muslims or fighting against the established Muslim state.


The word used most often in Quran, that is so often mistranslated as kill; slay; or slaughter is not jihad, it is Qital and if you look to the Arabic, you will quickly understand this word in today's usage would clearly be combat.


Scholars of Quran tell us the verses dealing with this topic are specific and not intended to imply a general meaning for just anyone to decide to go around combating non-Muslims. The early Muslims had been driven out of their homes and turned out into the desert to starve. After finally, relocating in Medina, verses came in Quran instructing them to make hajj (pilgrimage) back to Makkah. Finding their way blocked and after several years of making agreements and treaties that the others continually broke, the Muslims were at last, told they could now fight in combat against the tyrants who had so horribly mistreated and abused them in the past. However, this would only be acceptable to Allah if they remained within very specific limitations. The word "Qital" in Arabic in this instance refers to "combat" rather than what some have used "kill" because the word "kill" is far to general, while the word "combat" appropriately describes what is intended by the usage in this passage.

Isaac A. Nussbaum said...

TOM QUIGGIN, September 2, 2010

It is frequently argued by pundits and so-called terrorism experts [Ed leaps to mind] that Islam condones the killing of infidels and that it is the duty of all Muslims to kill infidels. Leading figures in al Qaeda, such as Ayman al Zawahiri, often make the claim that it is permissible to kill Jews and Christians as well as Muslims who are not “true believers.” In support of this position, we frequently are presented with the Surah from the Quran which states:

“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans (infidels) wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Surah 9:5)


The problem with all of these statements is one of context. Serious and knowledgeable scholars of religion are aware of the fact that quotations are frequently presented out of context so as to make it appear that a position is being advocated, when clearly it is not. Before you can understand any concept in religion, it is necessary to understand the context of what was said and when it was said.


As for the Quran, the same problem occurs. The Quran does in fact make the above statement about killing infidels, but the Surah itself is more of a history lesson referring to the time when the city of Mecca was under attack during the time of the Prophet Mohammed himself. The fighting did not directly involve Jews or Christians as it was a local contest between the followers of the Prophet Mohammed and others. The Surah is discussing the strategy necessary for dealing with the polytheists of the time. Incidentally, the city of Mecca was taken without a battle being fought and no one was reported killed: infidels or otherwise. The Surah that follows also states that:
“If one amongst the pagans ask you for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of God; and then escort him to where he can be secure.” (Surah 9:6)

(source: http://globalbrief.ca/tomquiggin/2010/09/02/the-killing-of-infidels/ )

Isaac A. Nussbaum said...

Good advice from arguably the last hope America had … and pissed on. Oops, I mean passed on. Hell, both are correct.

Sputnik News, December 24, 2015

The best strategy the United States could pursue in Syria might well involve pulling the plug on the whole operation, although walking out of there “would give every neocon a heart attack,” former Republican congressman Ron Paul asserted in the latest Liberty Report.

Paul’s argument is simple:

Syria “is so messy, [the US strategy] isn’t working. Why don’t we wise up? Why don’t we leave before it gets much worse? Let somebody else get bogged down. Besides, it’s costly and we are not getting any benefits from this,” Paul observed.

(source: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/12/no_author/make-every-neocon-pass/)

Ed said...

Let's assume for a second that regime change is in the best interests of the US, and that the interest isn't purely humanitarian....which it is, then our only strategy would have been to fully arm and support the rebels, that is if we could have been able to distinguish the rebels from future ISIS militants....which we couldn't.

That said, regardless of what we think of Assad as a humanitarian, the US interests are best served with stability in the middle east, even if that stability is achieved through brutal dictatorships.

The stupid "Arab Spring" never existed except in the fractured, Utopian mind of Obama, nobody else.