[Louis Foxwell]

Front Page mag - A Project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center

Daniel Greenfield Ping List Notification of new articles.

I am posting Greenfield's articles from FrontPage and the Sultan Knish blog. FReepmail or drop me a comment to get on or off the Greenfield ping list.

I highly recommend an occasional look at the Sultan Knish blog. It is a rich source of materials, links and more from one of the preeminent writers of our age.

FrontPage is, a basic resource for conservative thought. Lou

[Louis Foxwell]

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.To get on or off the Greenfield ping list please reply to this post.

[euram]

All of the objections about a temporary ban on visas issued to Muslims comes from the open borders crowd. These people don’t care or aren’t concerned about the safety and security of Americans. Lindsey Graham and many of the others are always wanting to send Americans to die in wars that have no benefit for the US.

[Gen.Blather]

I read an interesting argument.

Islam is a military philosophy. An Islamic person is considered a soldier at war with all that is not Islam. If they leave the -faith- they become apostate. The penalty for apostacism is the same as it is for desertion under fire for soldiers; death.

There is nothing wrong with stopping enemy (by their definition) soldiers from entering your territory.

[silverleaf]

Lindsey Graham asked, “How do you go to any of these countries and build a coalition when your policy is simply because you’re a Muslim you can’t come to America?”

Linseed Graham adds fuel to the fire and spreads hate against our country when he misstates the positions of prudent Americans who call for background checks on people who immigrate here from countries (and ideologies) with whom we are at war. Thanks to comments like Linseed’s, yet another American may be kidnapped and beheaded by an angry radical

He is a small blustering fool who is damaging US national security. WTH doesn’t SC get rid of him?

[Mr. K]

I dont care if it does

[grania]

And we should care because the coalition to "fight ISIS" is doing so well?

All banning the migration would do is leave more targets for Russia to disintegrate, rather than ISIS spreading their cancer globally. Seems like a win-win.

But I know nothing.

[Travis McGee]

Banning Muslim immigration is national and cultural defense.

"Refugees" are the tip of the jihad spear. "Hijra" migration is the opening phase of jihad. Any Muslim who dies in Hijra is promised the same reward as if he died in violent jihad.

Link in image:

[Jan_Sobieski]

Lindsey, if your logic is correct, we should bring in all of our enemies to build coalitions...that’ll teach us!

[MasterGunner01]

First and foremost we must get control if immigration by ENFORCING CURRENT LAW.
1. All employers must e-verify that prospective employees are here legally, Scofflaws are prosecuted and fined.
2. Track down and deport all those who have overstayed their visas.
3. Wash Social Security numbers against IRS files to find duplicate and fake users of SSNs. Track down, arrest, and deport those with phony ID. Go after employers if they knowingly employed these people.
3. Have a legal immigration moratorium on all countries until American immigration policy is up, running, and WORKING.

[arthurus]

Perhaps ISIS can be weakened by bringing most of their fighters into Europe and America????

[AllAmericanGirl44]

Excellent article. His line about the mystical pretense that Islam is Christianity mispelled, is point on!
I have to include the Pope on that one.

[Billthedrill]

While I agree with the basic thesis of the piece, I think Greenfield has grossly oversimplified the situation. In my personal opinion, this "coalition" is not actually worth very much. Principal players such as Russia and Great Britain may be addressed with bilateral arrangements - the reason 0bama is so dedicated to the maintenance of the coalition is that it fosters the illusion that we're actually doing something.

But players such as Saudi Arabia are in a rather different position. Everything Greenfield says about the social strictures of that theocracy is true; however, the war against ISIS is only one issue among many, and the value we derive from the internal struggles in that country, i.e. the royal family against the Wahhabi mullahs, yields intelligence assets and strategic considerations such as control over the price of oil that prove advantageous in pursuing such a war.

The maintenance of a coalition has bitten us before. It was that factor that led Bush The First to call off the drive into Iraq during the first Gulf War when the lurid (and very misleading) pictures of the "Highway Of Death" made it clear that such a struggle was likely to be bloody - it was - and offensive to the Arabic players in that coalition - it wasn't, necessarily. A decade later we finished that job with another coalition.

This does not mean that collective security has no application in this arena. What it does mean is that a highly unconventional war, which it is (ISIS actually has to hold territory instead of mere terrorism) calls for unconventional methods. Grand coalitions are inherently difficult to manage and go up in difficulty geometrically as a function of size. Let's limit this one to the serious players. All IMHO, of course.

[GOPJ]

When Obama gave his speech, the first Muslim country he mentioned in the coalition was Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia bans all religions except Islam. No churches are allowed in Saudi Arabia. Christmas parties are targeted with police raids. Converting to Christianity is punishable by death. Non-Muslims are entirely banned from some Saudi cities and the legal system discriminates against them.

Democrats and lowlife liars like Lindsey Graham and his soul mate John McCain just make it up. Muslims in countries like Saudi Arabia need us more than w need them.. they would NOT leave the coalition if we showed some backbone.