Replies

Nobody wants this. But the course of action now has, or will soon be chosen for us. We did not enter Iraq in ‘03 for clear, entirely justifiable purpose, in my view. Yes, there was wide consensus, but I myself was never entirely convinced of the need for action. I have always thought of the mideast as sort of a pinball table, in the sense that any form of instability was more likely than not to lead to intensified Islamization. Just because that is and was the way the table was tilted.

I believe that view has been borne out. Chaos from whatever cause, whether internal or external, just leads to intensified Islamic radicalization in these nations. This has been borne out in Syria, Iraq, and Libya. Libya is completely underreported at this juncture and is rapidly disintegrating into total Islamoanarchy a la ISIS butchery. It has *not* appeared to have done so in Egypt, which is ironic, as Egypt was in fact the birthplace of the Muslim Brotherhood. Maybe in the passage of time since the 20’s the Egyptians have come to realize their rejection of the MB in the right course of action. We can be thankful for same, if that is so. Meanwhile, trade Egypt for Turkey. Egypt maybe *should* have gone more radical, but instead, Turkey, former strong ally, has now moved towards radicalism.

I think one of the things we in the US are absolutely oblivious to is that ISIS is very much aware that any non-radical Muslims in the Mideast who are tired of Islamic radicalization are headed to the abbatoir as we speak, every bit as much as Jews and Christians. This will be a purification slaughter even more rigid than the Nazis attempted. The West is not ready for this.

I myself believe that ISIS is now the spearhead of radical Islam and I believe that over time, it will acquire powerful following. This is phenomenally dangerous to us, the US, and we damn well better wake up and smell what is coming. It would be one thing if we had leadership in this country that had the capability of discerning this threat. We do not. Our
leadership actually welcomes it. There is no measuring the threat potential of this naive, even traitorious attitude towards radical Islam, but I believe it takes no rocket science to see where this is headed. We are dealing with folks who are very fervent believers in wars of annihilation. Of course, we in the US will wake up to it late, if ever, or never. Complacent spoiled fools that we are.

Wars of annihilation should only be fought when an opponent will never ever stop trying to kill you, when you can never come to terms.

Suppose hypothetically that you represent western civilization. One day, you can’t take it anymore. So You put your weapons down, and say “I’m done, no more blood.” Islam would run you down and gut you alive. You I expect would never do that, but that is what the governments of western civilization are letting happen. One of these days, we’re going to wake up to the news that one or several major cities have been nuked and a terrorist organization is taking credit. It won’t matter who is in charge then, or the state of our foreign policy. The only reaction to it, I expect we won’t take, should be to utterly destroy islam and remove it from the face of the earth. I will never advocate genocide, but in these circumstances I feel it would be an appropriate response. I could never feel like it was right, but these people cheer in their streets when 3,000 innocent civilians are killed (yes, their women and children). They are all for killing us all. It’s a shame, but their actions should be met with overwhelming, utter, annihilation.

Islam has never stopped, not once, not ever in the history of Islam have they stopped trying to kill. The crusaders got it. We won’t, not until we see it firsthand.

I also would like to point out that the phrase you used. “Radical Islam”, is bull. There is no radical islam, ISLAM IS RADICAL, it is a symptom of the holy texts they believe in, a symptom of the environment they live in, and a symptom of misplaced anger and hate for made up wrongdoings.
Their way of life, and sharia law are flawed deeply into the fabric of their culture and society. It has not changed much for islam in 5,000 ycears. We ould be an interstellar space faring civilization and islam would still be there, the same as it was yesterday, the same as it is today.

Under previous names, ISIS was based in Iraq during the reign of Saddam Hussein, before our invasion, though it was going by different names then. It had a base in the north where Saddam used the group to attack the Kurds and it had a cell in Baghdad - the cell that decapitated a Catholic nun and so on there... well before the US invasion. It used using the same network as al Qaeda’s in Europe to plot ricin attacks in Europe - recall the police raid where the British police officer was slain and the group had manufactured ricin cream intended to be smeared all over public access areas. The group under an earlier name also carried out the assassination of US diplomat Lawrence Foley in Jordan - all before the invasion of Iraq. Its training base in Afghanistan was adjacent to bin Laden’s, and members of both groups operated together at times and trained in each other’s camps. The only reason the press got away with not calling the group al Qaeda was because its leader at the time - since assumed room temp- had not sworn the oath to bin Laden. He didn’t swear the oath until after the US invaded Iraq and Saddam Hussein was executed. I would suggest that the reason he didn’t swear the oath to bin Laden until then was because he had already sworn loyalty to another. In any case the lack of a formal oath to al Qaeda leadership gave the press an excuse to maintain the claim “alQaeada” had nothing to do with either Iraq or Iran even if this groups earlier editions did.