How’s that Arab Spring thingy working out for you Mr. President?

Hate to tell you Mr. President but Islam is at war. With us. Not that you’d notice, or admit it if you did.

The media has been in a frenzy since the bombs went off in Boston, hoping for a “white guy” to be the bomber. At best, a “tax protestor” white guy. Well Karma is a bitch.

Chech Terrorist

Please note “World view: Islam” on his Facebook page. Leftists are grasping at straws because Chechens happen to be Caucasian and their desperation is simply pathetic. Here’s a tweet from Cynthia Tucker, a hard core leftist.

Cynthia Tucker

The President and his flacks have been trying to make friends with Islamists since his first day in office. So far we’ve got the Muslim Brotherhood in control – sort of – of Egypt making life hell for all Egyptians while they institute Sharia. Who cares if the economy goes to hell or a few Christians get tortured and murdered, its small price to pay for new friends.

Then there’s Syria and the ongoing soap opera with Assad and company and his WMDs. And the “Islamists” vs the “non-Islamists.” You really need a menu to tell the players in Syria. The only thing that’s pretty for sure is that whoever ends up in power, they won’t like us. I just hope we don’t put one soldier or Marine at risk for Syria, we should fence off the country and air drop small arms and ammo – lord knows DHS has plenty to donate to the cause – and wait until the shooting stops.

Let’s not forget Ft. Hood. Despite the best efforts of President Obama and his politicized generals at DoD, it was NOT “workplace violence” it was a coordinated terror attack. The President had the opportunity to face terrorism early on in his Presidency and he blinked.

Ft Hood Shooter

The problem with this guy goes well beyond just classifying his murder of 14 people as “workplace violence” so the President could avoid possible political heat, it’s with the way his case has been handled from well before day one.

The Major was well known to superior officers as a radicalized Muslim. He had documented contacts and correspondence with a radical Imam and yet the Army gave him a pass. They probably thought they’d be labeled as “racist.” Instead, they should be labeled as accomplices before the fact. The problem at Ft. Hood was not a gun, it was political correctness that has infiltrated even the US military.

As long as we’re enumerating problems that this administration has either created or made worse in area of terrorism being at war with the US, let’s not forget Benghazi. I wrote about the latest outrage, having Secretary of State John Kerry tell a House committee to “move on” and just get over Benghazi.

Oh, and then there’s Iran.

Iran Nuke

The way this administration has handled our relations with Muslims and Muslim terrorist nations since the inauguration day in 2009 is criminal. Unfortunately, none of them will ever be called upon to pay a price for their stupidity. That price is paid by soldiers and Marines and their families. As a Marine Corps dad I hope there is a very hot circle in Hell for this administration.

Burning in Hell

Boston Globe Frets Over City's Muslims After Marathon Bombing
Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
  • GarandFan

    Now, now, now Mike! We don’t want to be “judgmental”. Unless, of course, they’re old white men or other conservatives who are FILLED WITH HATE, and go around blowing up innocent people.

  • jim_m

    Being that these punks were legal residents, expect the administration to cast this as domestic terrorism and as an isolated case of “self-radicalized” militants. No islamic connection will be allowed to be made.

    • herddog505

      I agree. I expect these two to go down the memory hole almost as fast as Kermit Gosnell, Floyd Corkins, and Bill Ayers.

  • 2klbofun

    So, it’s NOT the color of their skin, it’s the content of their character.

  • 914

    Pretty good! He’s arming them up and surrounding all of us like criminals.

  • MartinLandauCalrissian

    Islam is a disease on humanity.

    • herddog505

      Oh, for pity’s sake, not this again. There are about 1.6 BILLION Muslims in the world. We’ve got a problem with perhaps a few thousand (“problem” being defined as “they don’t like us enough to do something about it beyond grumble at their TV’s”; if THAT was a “problem”, we’d be bombing Europe right now). The rest are like everybody else: they live their lives and leave other people more or less alone.

      I don’t take the liberal approach that, if ONLY we’re “nice” enough and apologize enough and throw Israel under the bus, they’ll leave us alone. But claiming that Islam – a religion practiced peacefully by tens of thousands of our fellow Americans – is a “disease” is not only ridiculous, but downright destructive. Do we WANT to pick a fight with the rest of the Muslim world? Or would we rather isolate the villains by making it clear that our fight is with them and their sick, twisted ideology and NOT with the billions who do nothing more offensive than go to mosque and think of non-Muslims as heathens?

      And let’s keep in mind the history: we started having a real problem with “Islam” in about the early ’70s. I suggest a couple of causes. The first is our support for Israel, who humiliated several Muslim countries with our help (and do not be deceived: I completely support Israel and in no way think we ought to throw them under the bus to make nice with Egypt, Syria, etc.). The second – and, I think, biggest – cause is the Soviet Union. The Soviets were egging on the islamists, the Soviets were arming them, the Soviets were bankrolling terrorist groups, the Soviets were propagandizing throughout the Muslim world. THEY are the biggest cause of our problem, which unfortunately has taken a life of its own.

      We are clearly in a war with islamofascists, who are supported and bankrolled by powerful entities / governments in the world, especially Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and other countries. We should hunt them down and kill them without mercy, and, if necessary, knock off the organizations and governments that support them. We should be very diligent about monitoring the activities of radical Muslim groups in our own country so that the Nidal Hassans are not allowed to be in a position to hurt anybody.

      But calling Islam a disease? No. Quite aside from the fact that it plainly is NOT, doing so makes our task that much harder. We can’t fight 1.6 billion people if they get the idea that we WANT to do so.

      • Brucehenry

        I agree with most of your comment, but I’d like to point out that you have some of your history wrong. We started having a “real problem” with Islam after World War 2, when we came to the realization how valuable was the oil under the feet of the millions of Muslims of the Middle East. Israel is a separate, but related and arguably more important, problem. Our first real over-reach was Iran in 1953. The coup there and then led pretty directly to the 1979 hostage crisis and Hezbollah, Hamas, Beirut, etc. Our support of the Saudi royal family (Wahabists all) has led to a few problems as well.

        Also, the Soviets did NOT egg on the Islamists. We did. Remember Charlie Wilson’s War? The Soviets backed secularist leftist types like Nasser in Egypt who outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood. We backed tyrants like Saddam and Mubarak, who murdered or suppressed leftists, Social Democrats, and liberals until there were no one left to oppose them BUT Islamists.

        • jim_m

          Blaming our policy in Iran for the genesis of modern islamism is to neglect the impact of the partition of the Palestinian Mandate, the history of Middle Eastern politics and their affinity for Nazism, and the historical affinity of islam for domination of other lands and the oppression of other people’s and religions. You ignore islam’s attempted expansion into Europe in the 17th century for instance. You ignore the cultural fact that islam is not merely a religion but also a political ideology and many muslims do not distinguish between the two.

          To suggest that anyone “egged on” the isamists is to ignore the fact that they really didn’t need egging on.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes, yes, those are all factors. What I’m trying to convey here is agreement with the gist of Herddog’s comment while pointing out that the history of the issue is more complex than either he or Martin suggest in their posts.

            I guess, in fairness, one can’t convey the whole of one’s thinking on Middle East history and policy in a blog comment. Although maybe Martin can, lol.

          • jim_m

            That did not come across. It seems like you are saying, ” the Soviets did NOT egg on the Islamists. We did”. In other words, you were denying that someone else precipitated the problems and that the US is entirely at fault for all evil in the world.

          • Brucehenry

            Well, if that’s how I came across that’s unfortunate.

          • jim_m


          • Brucehenry

            Perhaps I should have said “The Soviets did NOT egg on the Islamists any more than we did.”

          • jim_m

            Fair enough. And you did indicate to some extent that part of the issue is the mulsims themselves with the abbreviated mention of the Saudis and their wahhabism.

            The problem of islam is like one of a vicious dog. Is it the owner who trained it and abused it (the islamists), or the person who provoked it (the rest of the world)? The only problem with that analogy is that I doubt anyone in Boston provoked these islamists except that the islamists believe that by breathing we provoke them. Some on the left would have us believe that the fault lies entirely on those who are accused of provoking the dog. In the US we believe that the owner of the dog is responsible for his dog’s behavior. You create a dangerous problem you are responsible when someone gets hurt.

            (And yes, I realized before posting this that dogs are not halal. I chose to use the analogy anyway.)

          • Brucehenry

            I’m just thinking out loud here but fundamentalism seems to be the real problem. What I’ve read about Islam leads me to believe that it is particularly vulnerable to fundamentalist movements like Salafiism and Wahhabiism. Of course I don’t pretend to be a scholar on the subject, but it seems to me that Kemal Ataturk-style secularism was taking hold, or at least gaining adherents, when the Cold War and Great Power realpolitik made these people pawns in a game that was beyond their control.

            It didn’t help that both sides in the Cold War had puppets who killed off Social Democrat and liberal opponents until the only opposition left was to be found in the mosques.

            History is messy and open to various interpretations, but to dismiss all thinking about it and to embrace simplistic hateful nonsense like “Islam is a disease on humanity” is nothing short of folly. Self-defeating folly.

          • jim_m

            I don’ blame outside influences for the rise in fundamentalism. Islam originated as a religion of conquest and its fundamentalism runs toward violence and oppression, unlike other religions such as Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism where the fundamentalist sects more frequently run toward asceticism.

            The issue is the core tenets of the faith and few other faiths have the body of religious literature advocating for the oppression of other religions and forced conversion of the infidel.

            It is true that secular culture did have an ascendency in the middle of the last century and that does show that there can be a more hospitable strain of islam that really can get a long with the rest of us. But it should be noted that historically that is the exception. WHile you may feel that making the statement that “islam is a disease on humanity” is “self defeating folly” I would claim that saying that islam is a “religion of peace” is even more so. Ignoring islam’s militant tendencies is not only foolish, it is dangerous.

          • Brucehenry

            OK, I can agree, or at least not violently disagree, with most of that.

            Edited to add: At least, I can see where you’re coming from.

          • jim_m

            Oh, and I was going to say that there is something in all people that is attracted to fundamentalist beliefs, whether they be of a religion or of an ideological nature. Fundamentalist beliefs make things simple and clear. People are drawn to such belief systems. It is not a matter of education since we see people of advanced education as well as no education drawn to these systems. It is a matter of human nature. The problem as I noted above is in tendency of the fundamentalism in question.

            (in a side note I finally purchased a new laptop so it seems that I am making fewer typos now that I have a keyboard that works properly. I am shorn of excuses now for my spelling)

          • Brucehenry

            I would say “many” or maybe “most” people can find fundamentalism of one sort or another attractive rather than “all.” I certainly never have, at least not since early adolescence. I’ve never been all that sure of being “right” about everything (or indeed anything!), as I find so many religious or otherwise dogmatic folks to be.

          • jim_m

            I was trying to say that the personality trait that makes fundamentalism attractive is found in everyone. But as in everything, different traits are expressed with different strengths in different people. I would say that we all have the trait, but that it exists to a different extent in each person. It is not a value judgement, it is just an acknowledgement of reality.

        • herddog505

          I don’t consider (though they may disagree) helping A-stan run the Soviets out of their country as egging on islamists any more than helping Stalin eject Schikelgruber was egging on international communism.

          I also don’t recall acts of islamofacist terrorism being directed against us prior to the early ’70s, though it may be that I’m misinformed / ignorant.

          I also reject the idea that our meddling in Iran in the ’50s is why some Muslims detest us in the present day. Such would be cause for Iranians to dislike us, but I don’t see that knocking over the government of Iran in 1953 would cause some Saudi and Jordanian Muslims to want to slaughter Americans in 1993.

          My broader point is that Islam per se is not a problem for us, and to the extent that islamofascism is, the USSR is the principle villain.

      • Constitution First

        Yeah, but how many speak-up against the terror? Crickets….

        Simply put: Exchange the word Christian for Muslim in the events of the last thirty years or so.

        Enough said?

  • Commander_Chico

    Hey, I’ve got an idea. We stop interfering in their countries, bombing them, invading them, overthrowing their governments, or propping up their dictators and corrupt sheikhs and kings for commercial advantage and resource extraction.

    Of course, they hate us “for no reason” as I just heard Bill O’Reilly say.

    • LiberalNightmare

      How about we quit giving them asylum, housing and education?

      If they want to hate us, the least we can do is give them a reason.

      • Cut all foreign aid.

        “You want to hate us? Well, you go right ahead. Maybe you’ll appreciate us next time there’s a calamity and you’re waiting for aid from Russia or China – or your neighbor starts looking at your country and thinking you’d be easy to knock off. That base we used to have was a deterrent, wasn’t it? And think of what it meant for your economy. Now, it’s just an empty shell. And YOU have to pay for its upkeep… if you even bother.

        “In the mean time, all that money we were giving you? Hope you saved some of it – because you’ll not see a thin dime from us again.”

        Hmm. Might be able to balance the budget just from that.

        • LiberalNightmare

          It would be fun to watch certain countries try to turn a barrel of oil into a toaster without us.

          • The thing that pisses me off is that I’m at a point where I’m thinking such a response is appropriate. I didn’t use to think so, until I started paying more attention.

            I’ve seen decades where we’ve swung between seeming appeasement w/high payments and seeming bullying – with high payments. Hell, I think for some of them just our existence is enough to piss them off.

            Would the world be better off without the United States? I don’t think so – but I think a lot of them see Uncle Sam as being generous with money flowing from endlessly deep pockets while they are free to kick him in the shins and shout insults. The money keeps coming, no matter what.

            Maybe it’s time for that to stop.

        • Brucehenry

          If you think there’d be enough money in the foreign aid budget to bring the deficit to zero I suggest you look at the numbers.

          • YOU can’t recognize something meant to be amusing?

            Whoops – forgot to put in a /sarc tag. My bad.

            I know it wouldn’t bring the deficit to zero, but if the supposed untouchable foreign aid can be removed – or even cut if not entirely dropped, so could a fair amount of other untouchable spending.

            Then again, I think a lot of the clowns inside the Beltway would simply want to go “Yay! More Money!” and spend the amount cut on other things.

          • Brucehenry

            Beg pardon. Although, in my defense, there is a difference between “meant to be amusing” and “amusing.”

            See, that was “meant to be amusing.”

          • Well, we misunderstand each other’s point of view all the time on here.

    • But what about our groveling President? Hasn’t he managed to appease those who would otherwise hate us?

      Then again, he DID appoint Kerry Secretary of State… If that wouldn’t make other countries love us, I don’t know what would.

    • 914

      I’m minding my own business. What the Oligarchy does stays with the Oligarchy. lol

      • Commander_Chico

        You got it.

    • jim_m

      Yeah we have done a lot of invading Chechnya, bombing Chechnya, interfering in Chechnya, propping up Vladimir Putin for commercial advantage in Chechnya.

      Care to spout more anti-American bullshit today?

  • Oysteria

    Time for Obama to make a speech in Chechnya. And don’t we have some extra fighter jets lying around we could send over?

  • Vagabond661

    When was the last time an old white guy blew something up?…..Bill Ayers?

    • jim_m

      Bret Kimberlin perhaps? Or how about this bunch?

      Oddly they are all democrats. Although none of those mentioned were old. Even the unibomber wasn’t old when he sent his bombs.

  • ackwired

    This is perfect. Right after Huston assured us there was “no backlash”. Not only do you have Islam at war with the US, you have Obama sponsoring and somehow causing the Arab Spring. Let’s reach out and try to touch reality.

    • herddog505

      Given that Barry and his partisans were patting themselves on the back for the Arab Spring (his masterful Cairo speech made people all through the region hunger – HUNGER, I say – for democracy and peace and love and tolerance), I don’t think that we can be blamed for making the same connection.

      • ackwired

        I don’t remember that. Do you have any links showing Barry taking credit for the Arab Spring because of a speech he gave?

        • herddog505

          Obama’s approach to Iran, including his assertion that the unrest there represents a debate among Iranians unrelated to the United States, is an acknowledgment that a U.S. president’s words have a limited ability to alter foreign events in real time and could do more harm than good. But privately Obama advisers are crediting his Cairo speech for inspiring the protesters, especially the young ones, who are now posing the most direct challenge to the republic’s Islamic authority in its 30-year history.

          One senior administration official with experience in the Middle East said, “There clearly is in the region a sense of new possibilities,” adding that “I was struck in the aftermath of the president’s speech that there was a connection. It was very sweeping in terms of its reach.”

          The adviser said that “there is something particularly authentic about those who are carrying out these demonstrations,” citing the fact that some are carrying symbols of the 1979 Iranian revolution as they march for new elections, including photos of the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

          This is a lengthy analysis of how Barry (unsurprisingly) tried to make it all about himself.

          [In his 2011 speech about the Arab Spring]. the president also managed to compare the Arab Spring to both the American Revolution and the American Civil War. In addition to Rosa Parks, Bouazizi was also equated to the original tea party activists. The protesters have been both rebelling “against an empire” and “enslaved.” But the Arab Spring is neither a war for national independence or a monolithic civil war. Since January, pundits have been trying to claim that we are witnessing a redux of 1848 or 1968 or 1979 or even 1989. But shouldn’t we be content simply to give each of these protest movements their own place in history? To do otherwise is to diminish these unique movements that have assumed their own shapes and forms in each country. They are also struggles that are far from over. As Simon Montefiore has rightly pointed out: “Every revolution is revolutionary in its own way.”

          The president even harkened back to his speech in Cairo two years ago as if to suggest that he was ahead of the curve — that it was his oratory that foreshadowed, perhaps even helped spearhead, the dramatic change taking place today. He claimed to affirm in Cairo the sentiment that “the status quo is not sustainable” (a favorite theme of the Arab Spring), but he never uttered those words in 2009.

          The president concluded his speech by quoting from, not surprisingly, the Declaration of Independence. In a favorite rhetorical tool of both candidate and President Obama, he couldn’t resist making himself part of the story, personally connecting his own narrative to events taking place far away from home. “I would not be standing here today,” the president said, “unless past generations turned to the moral force of nonviolence as a way to perfect our union — organizing, marching, protesting peacefully together to make real those words that declared our nation: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'”

  • Paul Hooson

    The U.S. has never really had any control over what sort of political waves sweep through the Mideast. When Nasser came to power in Egypt in the postwar era, a wave of Arab Socialism also sweep the Syrian regime and other governments into power. And the superpowers had no control over that. This latest political wave isn’t especially good news for the U.S., but like the governments that gained power in the Arab Socialism days, the U.S. will find some pragmatic leaders that they can still do business with, despite many political differences. The Arab Socialist regimes were a reaction against colonialism, and this latest wave is reaction against those regimes, although not a true assertion of democracy as Islamist political powers gain strength and more control over the lives of the persons in these countries. These countries have yet to develop governments that respect the individual, although even the West battles with the role of government vs. individual rights.

    • jim_m

      While it is true that you cannot control what sort of government will take root in another country (unless, of course, you actually take that country over), you can have a significant influence on how that country positions itself in terms of its foreign policy. By appearing weak and eager to appease violence and aggression, the obama admin has succeeded in encouraging these new governments to take antagonistic positions toward the US and left them less than willing to stem any violence toward our nation and its people.