Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Greenfield: Playing for Islam Against Ourselves
Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog ^ | Tuesday, July 30, 2013 | Daniel Greenfield

Posted on 07/31/2013 12:44:17 AM PDT by Louis Foxwell

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Playing for Islam Against Ourselves

Posted by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog
WWI was caused less by the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, and more by Germany and Austria Hungary's eagerness in courting the Muslim Ottoman Empire.

Before and during WW2, England and Germany both assiduously courted Muslim support in the Middle East. The Holocaust was one of the byproducts of this rivalry, as Germany courted Muslims by appealing to the genocidal impulses of the Mufti of Jerusalem, while England reneged on its agreements, and shut the door to Jewish refugees trying to Israel. The Holocaust would have happened regardless, but the death toll would have been lower without Islamic appeasement.

After the war nothing changed except the names of the players. The competition still went on with America and Russia taking England and Germany's seats at the table. Both sides cultivated patron Muslim countries, spent and lost huge sums of money on them, and then got a knife in the back for it, time and time again.

America made the fanatical House of Saud into its oldest partner in the region. In return the Saudi royal family nationalized American oil companies (for which the US government compensated the companies with taxpayer dollars) and then used that money to fund a global Jihad. 9/11 was only the topper on a poisonous cake that had been baking in the febrile heat of the Saudi desert for a long time, as petrodollars fed fanatical Islamic beliefs that had been growing steadily more arrogant and insane in direct proportion to the amount of wealth flowing in.

The USSR tried to export Communism, but had to settle for backing Egyptian dictator Nasser, despite his casual slaughter of domestic Communists. The heap of corruption in Cairo was considered such a great prize that both the US and the USSR competed feverishly for it. 

America betrayed England and France in 1956 by backing Nasser's seizure of the Suez Canal and forcing their withdrawal through economic blackmail; something that Eisenhower later admitted he deeply regretted. Nevertheless Nasser threw in with the USSR, which was willing to pile on the weapons exports.

After Egypt lost several wars with those same weapons, the United States finally won the bidding war for one slightly used alliance at a cost of only a few billion dollars a year and a blind eye turned to the persecution of Christian Copts.

It's still going on now. The same old courtship that has become the mid-life crisis of the West.

A flattering speech here and there. Loose immigration policies. Turning a blind eye to Saudi Arabia and Qatar's role in terrorism in exchange for more oil deals. The French government shaking its fist at a few rogue imams and then quieting down, hoping that the 5 million Muslims get the message, and keep the car burnings down on weekends. And then France begins promoting a Mediterranean alliance, just as Russia is promoting a Bosporus alliance-- as if Muslims would allow themselves to be ruled by non-Muslims for very long.

The Muslim world has a lot of oil and a lot of people, and Western governments want the former, while keeping the latter peaceable. And so they compete for Islam's favor with each other, with the newly resurgent Russia, which is back to its old ways of shipping weapons by the fleet, China, which is feeling its global oats and poking its head beyond its borders, and with other Western countries competing in the appeasement Olympics for a shot at lucrative oil and weapons deals, for commodities markets and sovereign wealth fund investment opportunities. And not least of all, they compete with other Muslims.

Before WW2 and during the Cold War, European nations competed with each other to win the favor of Muslim rulers, but today the remnants of the civilized world are competing for Muslims, against other Muslims. The big threat today is no longer Western, it's Islamic and while the old competitions were about forming alliances with backward Muslim countries against our enemy of the day; today the enemy of the day is Muslim. That phantom menace we call "Islamic Extremism" if we're feeling politically correct, and "Islam" if we're not.

If the old rivalries at least provided some rational justification for this gamesmanship, today we're holding up a sign reading, "We're nice. Please don't kill us." In theory we're competing to uphold "moderate" Muslim regimes against the Islamists who would otherwise take over by winning over  Muslim rulers and populations. Somehow this evolved into supporting any Islamists willing to run for public office as a hedge against the really bad Islamists who won't even stop shooting long enough to rig an election.

Our foreign policy is a debate between the realists who want appeasement, and the lunatics who think the natural outcome of every revolution is socialism, and even when it isn't (as in the case of Iran) they'll pretend it is anyway to avoid looking as stupid as they should feel. Of course there's always a third option. Stop competing. Stop feeding the sense of entitlement of an ideology that still thinks non-Muslims should always defer to Muslims. Stop bowing and scraping to them. Stop giving them weapons, visas and then wondering what happens when the bombs go off.

Once upon a time we competed against each other, today we're courting one side of the Muslim world's schizophrenic split personality, against the other side. 

We approach the two-headed hound of Islam, and then argue over which head we should pat first, to keep the beast from biting us. It's all one beast. And feeding scraps to one head or the other won't win us anything except more bites. The thing to do is to stop feeding the beast and stop believing there's more than one hound. It's all one animal. And it hates us. And it will go on hating us. And it will go on biting us as long as we let it.

We are no longer bidding for the Muslim world as an ally. We are bidding to prevent it from being our enemy. But the very people we are bidding for, already see us as the enemy. We are not going to change that with free weapons and speeches praising their enlightenment. By competing for their favor, we are only bidding against ourselves, and paying out to our enemies. By competing for their favor, we are only undercutting ourselves.


TOPICS: Government; History; Politics; Religion
KEYWORDS: civjihad; greenfield; islam; muslimbrotherhood; obamaforeignpolicy; sultanknish
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

Sultan Knish/Daniel Greenfield Ping List (notification of new articles).

FReepmail or drop me a comment to get on or off the Sultan Knish ping list.

I strongly suggest you visit the Knish blog. It is a fountain of valuable links, articles and more.

1 posted on 07/31/2013 12:44:18 AM PDT by Louis Foxwell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: arasina; daisy mae for the usa; AdvisorB; wizardoz; free-in-nyc; Vendome; Louis Foxwell; ...

There are no good Muslims, only enemies who seek our destruction. We have brought them into our seat of national power. We will clean house or it will get burned to the ground.


2 posted on 07/31/2013 12:47:49 AM PDT by Louis Foxwell (This is a wake up call. Join the Sultan Knish ping list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell

Pentagon may dump evangelist for insulting Islam

The Army is considering whether to rescind an invitation to evangelist Franklin Graham to appear at the Pentagon amid complaints about his description of Islam as evil, a military spokesman said Wednesday.

Graham, the son of famed evangelist Billy Graham, was to appear at the Pentagon on May 6 on what is the National Day of Prayer. He said he will be a guest of the Pentagon and will speak only if he’s still invited.

Army Col. Tom Collins said withdrawing the invitation “is on the table,” but no decision has been made. He said Army brass will have the ultimate decision on whether to pull the invite.

From 2010
http://olbroad.com/2010/04/page/5/


3 posted on 07/31/2013 12:58:05 AM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell

“and shut the door to Jewish refugees trying to [get to?] Israel”

I really wish Greenfield would get an editor, or at least a proofreader. His commentary is so spot on, but is habitually marred by oversights like this.


4 posted on 07/31/2013 1:42:01 AM PDT by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell
Before and during WW2, England and Germany both assiduously courted Muslim support in the Middle East. The Holocaust was one of the byproducts of this rivalry

I'm afraid Dan goes off the rails here.

Had you asked Hitler or the other architects of the Holocaust why they were doing it, I seriously doubt Islam would have come up.

Blaming Britain for the Holocaust because they kept Jews from emigrating to Palestine also doesn't hold much water. The actual death toll in the Holocaust was not enormous until well into the war, when the Nazis decided that expulsion of the Jews wasn't possible in wartime, so they'd just have to kill them instead. It's difficult to see how British control of Palestine had anything to do with that decision.

Had the British allowed unrestricted Jewish immigration into Palestine in the 30s, which would BTW have been a violation of various pledges to the Arabs, it's difficult to see how more than some hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million, could possibly have been accomodated, for logistical reasons.

Which would have helped, but would certainly not have been a sufficient refuge for the many millions affected by the Final Solution.

5 posted on 07/31/2013 2:16:37 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell
America betrayed England and France in 1956 by backing Nasser's seizure of the Suez Canal and forcing their withdrawal through economic blackmail; something that Eisenhower later admitted he deeply regretted.

Well, no.

Eisenhower did not support the seizure of Suez by the Egyptians, he opposed the Anglo/French/Israeli invasion of Egypt in response.

6 posted on 07/31/2013 2:26:45 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

The Pentagon fawns before those that bombed it.

That makes it useless for its original function
which was (long ago) the protection of the American people.


7 posted on 07/31/2013 3:44:49 AM PDT by Diogenesis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell

Liberals, atheists, and agnostics have, for years, perpetuated the canard that “Religion has caused more wars than any other factor.” In a sense they are correct, only the “religion” they should be referring to is ISLAM.

I had been long aware of this, and had managed to link islam to every war since the “Crusades”. My link to WW1, however, was a bit tenuous, having only had the activities of Lawrence of Arabia vs. the Turks as an example.

Dan has helped me by filling in the gaps in my knowledge of the period.

This man is AMAZING!

The liberation of Jerusalem by General Allenby (which in Arabic means “Prophet of God) is one of the most ironic coincidences in history.

Or IS it a coincidence?


8 posted on 07/31/2013 4:23:07 AM PDT by left that other site (You Shall Know the Truth, and the Truth Shall Set You Free...John 8:32)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
I really wish Greenfield would get an editor, or at least a proofreader. His commentary is so spot on, but is habitually marred by oversights like this.
_________________________________________________
I agree, but having a proofreader would be a full time job given the rapidity with which Greenfield cranks out his lengthy articles. It usually comes down to meeting a publishing deadline versus perfection. I will take the cake he bakes for us almost every day and make do without the frosting.
9 posted on 07/31/2013 5:13:55 AM PDT by iontheball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

What is the effective difference?


10 posted on 07/31/2013 5:26:50 AM PDT by Louis Foxwell (This is a wake up call. Join the Sultan Knish ping list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell

“.........By competing for their favor, we are only bidding against ourselves, and paying out to our enemies.”

They have won at least the Jizyah.


11 posted on 07/31/2013 5:35:33 AM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will. They ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Yet, in the flow of history, the difference is largely attitudinal and leaves the course of history unchanged.


12 posted on 07/31/2013 5:38:48 AM PDT by Aevery_Freeman (Behavior Insights Team Exigency Monitoring Executive (BITEME))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: left that other site

And yet, here in America, liberals & atheists are among the strongest allies for Muslims. In the public schools, for example, they clamor for muzzies to have their own dedicated prayer room but would scream bloody murder if Jews or Christians were given the same accomodation.

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend”


13 posted on 07/31/2013 5:42:34 AM PDT by elcid1970 ("The Second Amendment is more important than Islam.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell

Warring against nations has been the primary function of Islam since it inception by a Mohammed the mad warlord. The only peace with Islam comes at the point of subjegation. The thesis posed by FReeper, leftthatothersite, places Islam squarely in the center of every major hostility since Mohammed’s rampage. If not all certainly most.
Hitler bonded with the Grand Mufti over their mutual commitment to the extermination of the Jews. Hitler and Germany answered for that crime. Islam has never and persists in the extermination of Jewry today.
Watch this remarkable YouTube about the relationship of Hitler and the Grand Mufti.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_p4B0vN488


14 posted on 07/31/2013 5:43:47 AM PDT by Louis Foxwell (This is a wake up call. Join the Sultan Knish ping list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell

This would be a good thread to link this site:

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/

which well-covers the Hitler / Mufti relationship.


15 posted on 07/31/2013 5:49:38 AM PDT by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970

Yes.

And I notice from your screen name that you KNOW whereof I speak when I posit the historical reason for nearly ALL the global wars since the 7th century. ]:-(


16 posted on 07/31/2013 5:49:46 AM PDT by left that other site (You Shall Know the Truth, and the Truth Shall Set You Free...John 8:32)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

The DoD has to do what it’s told, D. Shaping national policy is civilian. Policy now is to go all in on Islam.

McChrystal didn’t, though. Neither did Ham or Gaouette.

Obama has replaced nuclear sub commanders with his people—slowly and quietly—who will NOT fire. Ditto for ship and jet leaders/admirals/generals. Our military branch leadership has been relieved, one by one.

The SEALS won’t cooperate, so they’re being butchered. Big mistake on 0bama/Holder/Jarrett’s part there. Huge.


17 posted on 07/31/2013 6:16:04 AM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970

In public schools, one week at least is taught on Islam, including the saying of prayers. Materials are copied on copiers.


18 posted on 07/31/2013 6:17:16 AM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

And that instruction will absolutely NOT include”

“If you’re what Muslims regard as an `infidel’, then they hate you and they want you dead”.


19 posted on 07/31/2013 6:25:49 AM PDT by elcid1970 ("The Second Amendment is more important than Islam.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
“Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians,” Hitler declared as he announced his own plans for genocide to his Supreme Commanders on 22 August 1939. “The world believes in success alone.”
I don't think Dan is off the rails at all. And what number do we reach to make the death toll enormous in the Holocaust? Just because they got more proficient by using gas and ovens doesn't mean that extermination not expulsion was what the Nazis wanted from the start. Hitler learned from the Turks and the massacre. He really learned from the way the west responded to them regarding the slaughter, which was total capitualtion and appeasement.
20 posted on 07/31/2013 8:41:43 AM PDT by freefdny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson