The author of this excrement is a Gawd Damn fascist in my estimation.
[Salon] It has become increasingly clear that terrorist groups such as ISIS can extend their reach to American territory via the Internet. Using their own websites, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and other platforms, they lure young men and women to their mission—without having to risk the capture of foreign agents on U.S. soil. The Americans ensnared in ISIS’s net in turn radicalize others, send money to ISIS, and even carry out attacks. ISIS is a pesky bunch, to be sure.
Never before in our history have enemies outside the United States been able to propagate genuinely dangerous ideas on American territory in such an effective way—and by this I mean ideas that lead directly to terrorist attacks that kill people. The novelty of this threat calls for new thinking about limits on freedom of speech. "Dangerous ideas". The language about an individual who just wants their views to be heard. The language of a tyrant.
What can we do? Proposals that Internet companies “shut down” dangerous communications have been met with howls of laughter from Silicon Valley. It’s easy for determined jihadis to replace shuttered websites with new ones and hard for Internet companies to keep track of billions of communications. Using the law to force Facebook and Twitter to do more to block ISIS propaganda would make sense but also falls short of what is needed. No approach is perfect, but there is a way to deal with these problems. Ideas are not problem. If you dislike an idea, there's a solution.
Consider Ali Amin, the subject of a recent article in the New York Times. Lonely and bored, the 17-year-old Virginia resident discovered ISIS online, was gradually drawn into its messianic world, eventually exchanged messages with other supporters and members, and then provided some modest logistical support to ISIS supporters (instructing them how to transfer funds secretly and driving an ISIS recruit to the airport). He was convicted of the crime of material support of terrorism and sentenced to 11 years in prison. Amin did not start out as a jihadi; he was made into one.
Researchers at George Washington University identified 300 U.S-based ISIS sympathizers who use Twitter and other social media to lure Muslim Americans into the arms of ISIS. These American citizens and residents—themselves the fruit of the recruiting efforts of foreign ISIS members as well as of other Americans—frequently use a graduated approach so as to avoid alarming people who are merely curious about Islam: A good approach for any entity that wants to attract new blood.
But there is something we can do to protect people like Amin from being infected by the ISIS virus by propagandists, many of whom are anonymous and most of whom live in foreign countries. Consider a law that makes it a crime to access websites that glorify, express support for, or provide encouragement for ISIS or support recruitment by ISIS; to distribute links to those websites or videos, images, or text taken from those websites; or to encourage people to access such websites by supplying them with links or instructions. Such a law would be directed at people like Amin: naïve people, rather than sophisticated terrorists, who are initially driven by curiosity to research ISIS on the Web. In other words: destroy the very rights upon which this country was born.
The law would provide graduated penalties. After the first violation, a person would receive a warning letter from the government; subsequent violations would result in fines or prison sentences. The idea would be to get out the word that looking at ISIS-related websites, like looking at websites that display child pornography, is strictly forbidden. As word spread, people like Amin would be discouraged from searching for ISIS-related websites and perhaps be spared radicalization and draconian punishment for more serious terrorism-related crimes.
The law would not deter sophisticated terrorists who send one another encrypted messages. That’s not its point. ISIS seeks to recruit Americans on American soil; in order to recruit from the public, it obviously cannot act secretly. It must instead broadcast widely and rely on surrogates to broadcast widely, in order to reach an audience of nonradicalized Muslims. This is a vulnerability. When people discover ISIS websites and circulate them by Twitter, Facebook, and other public websites, those people often disclose their identities. Many are too naïve to use pseudonyms; others reveal their identities to their ISPs, which can be forced to cough them up to police. Teenagers who are curious about ISIS but not yet committed to it are unlikely to use complicated encryption technologies to mask their identities from ISPs. Laws directed at this behavior would make a dent in recruitment, and hence in homegrown radicalism, even if they do not solve other problems. Laws such as this execrable proposal would also destroy the fabric of the Constitution, which I can easily infer is the whole purpose behind the law.
One worry about such a law is that it would discourage legitimate ISIS-related research by journalists, academics, private security agencies, and the like. But the law could contain broad exemptions for people who can show that they have a legitimate interest in viewing ISIS websites. Press credentials, a track record of legitimate public commentary on blogs and elsewhere, academic affiliations, employment in a security agency, and the like would serve as adequate proof. Ah yes, exemptions. "You have my permission to read or study about something as long as it is used for government approved purposes." Do you not see something wrong with this proposal?
The obvious problem with this law is that the courts could strike it down under the First Amendment. Under current doctrine, such an anti-propaganda law is unconstitutional because it would interfere with the right of people to receive or read political information—as would proposed laws that would require Internet companies such as Facebook and Twitter to remove ISIS-related propaganda from their websites. The Supreme Court has held that the government can ban political speech only when it poses an immediate threat to public safety, as when an orator encourages a crowd to go on a rampage. Speech that blasts the American constitutional system and praises America’s enemies has been held constitutionally protected time and again.
However, these rules go back only to the 1960s. Before then, in the United States, people could be punished for engaging in dangerous speech. The U.S. government prosecuted Nazi sympathizers during World War II, draft protesters during World War I, and Southern sympathizers in the Union during the Civil War. It’s common sense that when a country is embroiled in a war, it should counter propaganda that could populate a third column with recruits. The pattern in American history—and, in the other democracies as well, even today—is that during times of national emergency, certain limits on speech will be tolerated. And those convictions and laws were unconstitutional on their face. Dredging up past unconstitutional practice do not justify their resurrection now.
We do not currently face a national emergency comparable to a world war, but anti-propaganda laws may nonetheless be warranted because of the unique challenge posed by ISIS’s sophisticated exploitation of modern technology. In the old days, radicals handed out crudely mimeographed leaflets at street corners. Today, the Internet makes possible the constant circulation of captivating videos, vivid images, and extremist text, creating a “radicalization echo chamber.” It is the change in technology, more than the change in the nature of foreign threats, that has given rise to a historic and unprecedented danger from foreign radicalization and recruitment. The Internet reduces government control over information, and to this guy, that's a problem. Radicalization, or just an invite to join a recipe sharing group, the only acceptable counter to ISIS' propaganda is better ideas, freely expressed.
The major justification for freedom of speech is the marketplace of ideas—the claim that if people can say whatever they want, the best ideas will flourish. But just what is it that we can learn from ISIS? The social value of beheading apostates? The finer points of crucifixion? Those who regard free speech as fundamental need to consider whether legal principles that arose centuries ago make sense in the age of Snapchat. It is possible, as Cass Sunstein has explained in Bloomberg View, to modify the current test for free speech violations so as to advance public safety without throwing out important protections for dissent. A simple balancing test would permit laws to target dangerous speech that does not advance public debate. They made sense when they are applied as to free speech, when they are applied.
It’s possible that the propaganda threat from radical Islam will peter out on its own. Many Internet companies already censor pro-ISIS websites and accounts—which they can do because the First Amendment does not require private companies to protect the speech of their customers. And law enforcement authorities have used the material support statute aggressively, as in the case of Amin, to crack down on anyone who takes a step beyond mere advocacy. My colleague Geoffrey Stone has argued that the U.S. government has usually overreacted to foreign threats by cracking down on civil liberties, hurting people who would never have caused harm. During World War I, for example, the government punished dissenters who merely criticized the war and were not spreading German propaganda or trying to recruit agents. If Stone is right, we should be careful to avoid overreacting again. You are overreacting with this proposal.
But like it or not, the West is engaged in a propaganda war with ISIS. Our own distaste for ISIS’s views should not blind us to the fact that it appeals to thousands of Americans. A narrowly tailored anti-propaganda law that reduced the ranks of homegrown jihadis would not only enhance public safety. It would also protect American Muslims like Ali Amin from the virus of ISIS’s ideology. "Narrowly tailored" laws have a nasty habit of becoming the fascist monsters that destroy rights and societies. The only tried and true counter to terrible ideas are better ideas, freely expressed. Her 'narrowly tailored law' will be tailored sufficiently to be used against domestic political opponents. Ask Lois Lerner...
Posted by: badanov ||
12/16/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under: Islamic State
#2
Sounds not too unlike a modern extension and expansion of the Communist Control Act. The effect would be to perpetuate an endless cycle of whack-a-mole that would effectively divert attention from and thus prevent addressing the real problem.
Said real problem, of course, being Islam as demonstrated by the correlation between the level of religiosity of its adherents and those persons propensity to engage in violence against everyone else.
Hack at the root or hack at the branch, both are anathema to the Constitution. Or sit back and enjoy the escalating violence.
#3
to modify the current test for free speech violations so as to advance public safety
Say, doesn't science denial threaten public safety?
Posted by: Matt ||
12/16/2015 9:38 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Currently, there is far too much focus in D.C. on bogus global warming. If we can't disrupt, confuse, and destroy ISIS communications, we are too focused on bullshit leftist notion such as climate change. This piss ant caliphate should have been destroyed long ago and left in rubble.
#5
ISIS Gives Us No Choice but to Consider Limits on Speech of the Right
FIFY. Somehow fascism is always falling on America but always ends up promoted by the Left.
The major justification for freedom of speech is the marketplace of ideas—the claim that if people can say whatever they want, the best ideas will flourish.
Sort of missed whats been happening on America's campuses. And just who is shutting down the 'market place of ideas'? /rhet question
You don't have to limit American's right to free speech. But you can block internet traffic to and from certain parts of the world. Syrians, Chechens and the like are not American citizens and have no such rights here.
The greatly hyped new Saudi-led Islamic coalition against terrorism is meant more for Western ears rather than actual action on the ground against Sunni jihadist groups Islamic State and al-Qaida. Fortunately, for Saudis, "Western ears" are connected to brains suffering from major reality dysfunction.
The expectation that Sunni Saudi Arabia is going to lead a 34-state coalition against fellow radical Sunni groups when it sees them as a bulwark against advancing Iranian and Shi'ite allies across the region, should not be great. Unless your name is Barack-Angela-Francois
Follow the money, some how it always leads back to one of the princes in KSA.
The Saudis could save a lot of money just looking in the mirror for 10 minutes instead of convening a conference on something they started and they fund.
#2
It's not going to get any better with newly-elected Trudeau as PM. It's Canada and they elected him. However, expect to deal with the spill over in the U.S. Trudeau is Obama white and light.
Plus "Striking where the US = US-NATO/EU are NOT".
The Hard Boyz will need one [or more?], after all, from the Asia-Pacific side of CONUS-NORAM includ CANADA once they begin waging overt Jihad in Russia, China, + India.
Hillary Clinton has no record to run on. Family income is lower and the world is more dangerous. Donald Trump nailed it when he told Chris Wallace, "Hillary calls me 'dangerous'? She's killed hundreds of thousands of people with her stupidity." Trump was referring to the Obama administration's campaign to overthrow Arab dictators like Libya's Qaddafi and Egypt's Mubarak, which contributed to the chaos in the Middle East after the so-called "Arab Spring." Marco Rubio can't attack Hillary's disastrous foreign policy record because--as Ted Cruz observes--Rubio supported all the same stupid policies. Picture a Cruz-Clinton presidential debate: Cruz denounces Hillary's incompetence in promoting chaos in the Middle East. Hillary remonstrates, "But most Republicans supported me!" Cruz counters: "That's right--I'm running against you and against the Establishment in my own party." Game, set, match.
Here's a word of consolation for my neocon friends: It's not personal, just business. I'm a neocon too, an ex-lefty who went rightward with Reagan and carried my spear in the final phase of the Cold War. I was chief economist at Jude Wanniski's supply-side consulting firm Polyconomics, which is as neocon as you can get, and I give the neocons all the credit for Reaganomics. I've published in Commentary Magazine and Irving Kristol's Public Interest. I traveled the world promoting the Reagan model between 1988 and 1993--Mexico, Peru, Nicaragua, and most of all Russia--and learned first hand how Quixotic was the conceit that our model could be exported.
Every ideology has a use-by date and you're long past yours. Henry Kissinger did great service to this country by opening relations to China, a necessary if not sufficient condition for winning the Cold War. But Kissinger couldn't see past the dull calculus of detente, while Reagan foresaw unconditional American victory over Communism--and without you neocons, he never could have done it. You made a Gargantuan error, though, when you assumed that the Reagan Revolution could be exported to the Middle East, Russia and China, and you misplayed the strongest hand that any world power ever held. America went from only-hyperpower status when George W. Bush took office to a playing second fiddle to Vladimir Putin today. No-one wants to hear your claim that we really won in Iraq in 2008 and lost it all because Obama wouldn't leave a few divisions there. And when the "Arab Spring" came along, you mistook the oncoming express for the light at the end of the tunnel. You and the Obama crowd played "Dumb and Dumber." You both bought into the idea that Muslim democracy would arise from Islamist opposition to the old dictatorships.
So Ted Cruz has thrown you under the bus, just as you threw Henry Kissinger under the bus when Reagan came to office in 1981.
#1
Spengler is right that the neocon brand is dead, but I think he's off the mark blaming neocons for the Arab Spring. The neocons bet on democracy in Iraq. I'm not sure what to call the folks that bet on democracy in Libya and Syria before the Iraq test was complete. Fools is a term that comes to mind.
#2
They didn't bet on Democracy, they bet on a couple of putsches by the Moslem Brotherhood, and they did it without any help from Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld.
[WEEKLYSTANDARD] Tuesday's Republican presidential debate in Las Vegas is the final GOP primary debate of 2015. With about a month and a half before the first primary contest--the Iowa caucuses on February 1--it's become clear the field of plausible contenders is much smaller than the 13 Republicans who will debate in two separate events Tuesday night. It's possible December 15 will be the last time Republican voters see most of the whole band together before the forthcoming breakup. So which candidates should be cut loose after tonight?
Let's begin with the first event, the "undercard" debate: future debate organizers should make a New Year's resolution to scrap it in the months ahead. The undercard debates have had some utility in 2015. Two main-stage debaters Tuesday night, Carly Fiorina and Chris Christie, have spent one debate each on the kids' stage, giving both candidates a much-needed sense of urgency to perform well.
But the undercard has outlived its usefulness, and Tuesday's participants--Lindsey Graham ... the endangered South Carolina RINO... , Mike Huckabee, George Pataki, and Rick Santorum ...unsuccessful candidate for president and former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania. He was a lawyer before becoming the Representative for suburban Pittsburgh in 1991. He lost his Senate seat in 2006 to Bob Casey, a Democrat machine politician and political dynast. Santorum is a social conservative who thinks the rest of the country is, too... --are polling so poorly they barely register as blips in the Real Clear Politics averages of national and early state polls. Onetime undercarders Rick Perry and Bobby Jindal recognized they were going nowhere in the presidential race and got out. It's up to each candidate himself--and their donor(s)--whether he should quit the campaigns, but the TV networks ought to do their part to encourage our hapless undercarders by dropping the increasingly useless JV debates.
Meanwhile, ...back at the buffalo wallow, Yellow Wolf clutched at his chest and fell from his horse... there are a couple of candidates performing way below their status as main-stage debaters--chiefly Kentucky senator Rand Paul, whose hide was saved from the undercard by the generous folks at CNN. Paul is leading a libertarian movement in the Republican party that's atrophied away in the same way his poll numbers have. His best position is in Iowa, where he's been stalled out since August at below four percent support. Paul is simultaneously running for reelection to his Senate seat. In the unlikely event he delivers an all-star performance Tuesday night and prompts a stampede of supporters to bolt from Ted Cruz, he's likely to spend the next 10 months campaigning in his old Kentucky home.
The same might be said for Carly Fiorina, who burst onto the main stage in September after the only breakout performance on the undercard stage in August. Fiorina's spurt of support has sputtered out, however, and she's in Rand-Paul territory in most of the poll averages. Like Paul, she doesn't have an early state to hold out for. Fiorina's polling best in New Hampshire, at an average of 4.7 percent, but that puts her behind 7 other candidates. Without a compelling message beyond her ability to skewer Hillary Clinton ... sometimes described as For a good time at 3 a.m. call Hillary and at other times as Mrs. Bill, never as Another Elihu Root ... as perhaps none of the male Republican candidates could, it's hard to see a reason for her candidacy, or her appearance on the debate stage, after December.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/16/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Why do they still have the undercard debate? Why were half of those people on the main stage sucking up the air of the leading candidates?
Candidates need to see reality and step aside, stop wasting times, fogging up the field, and burning money.
#3
Actually Grog, Hillary is better than Bernie Sanders, who plans on shutting down all offshore drilling, our nuclear power plants, etc. He also wants to mandate 65mpg minimum on all vehicles. Yes, it can get worse than the Hildabeast
#7
I'm all for dropping Bush after last night. It's his money, not his positions or charisma, that keep him in it. Pathetic. Can't imagine anyone continuing to invest in this failure.
Christie might make a good Attorney General. He'd certainly be a refreshing change from Holder/Lynch.
#8
At this point, its Cruz, Rubio, and Trump. Everyone else is just cluttering up the discussion. The sooner the rest wake up to that reality the sooner we can discuss where to go from there.
#9
Some of you are probably old enough to remember when a 'dark horse' came out of the shadows at a deadlocked convention and was accorded the nomination. That's back when the 'media' were reporters, not shapers of sh .. fecal matter.
Posted by: Bobby ||
12/16/2015 13:27 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Crusader, my list of 'viable candidates' is slight longer at this point --
Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Fiorina, Christie.
These are (in my estimation) the only ones who can get 3% or more of the vote.
Bush? Gone. Paul? Gone. Kasich? Never-wuzzer.
Now by February it likely will be that Fiorina and Christie are out as well.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/16/2015 15:11 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Drop Christie and we have a match. I like him, but he won't fly nationally. I want Fiorino to break out and surge but doubt it will happen.
[NATIONALREVIEW] Begin with the continued rise of ISIS and an ISIS-inspired attack on American soil in San Bernardino. Obama's widely-panned Sunday evening speech on combating ISIS is fresh in our minds; he's haunted by the fact that the day of the attack, in an interview with CBS News, he declared, "Our homeland has never been more protected by more effective intelligence and law-enforcement professionals at every level than they are now." In the weeks between the Gay Paree attack and San Bernardino, Obama told the public there was no known "specific and credible threat" to the U.S. -- a point that in retrospect only emphasized how blindsided authorities were by the San Bernardino attack. The day before the Gay Paree attack, Obama said it was "premature" to call ISIS the greatest terror threat in the world and declared ISIS was contained -- he later emphasized he meant militarily, in Iraq and Syria.
After Gay Paree, Obama mocked Republicans for fearing "widows and orphans" among the Syrian refugees and insisted refugees were allowed in only after "rigorous screening and security checks" administered by the Department of Homeland Security. Days ago we learned that San Bernardino shooter Tashfeen Malik passed three background checks by American immigration officials as she moved to the United States from Pakistain, and no one noticed that she openly supported violent jihad on social media. We also learned her husband was in touch over the phone and via social media with more than one international-terrorism suspect.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/16/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Obama had a wonderful year, it's US who had a lousy one.
WHAT MORE IFF ANTI-US US OWG GLOBALIST OBAMA IS DOING IT INTENTIONALLY!?
Lest we fergit, US-LED ANTI-US PWG-NWO + GLOBALISM = THE US IS DIRECTLY ANDOR INDIRECTLY HELPING ITS GEOPOL ENEMIES AND "GREAT POWER" WANNABES, GOVTS-NATIONS + NGOS, ETAL. TO BE MILPOL OR GEOPOL STRONGER RELATIVE TO THE US ITSELF.
More poplarly known in "short title" as "helping our enemies get stronger", as the adage or warning goes, relative or compared to ourselves.
WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG, via Murphy's Laws + "Great Game" + Sun Tzu + Machiavelli + Mahanism, Etc.???
Year 2016 = 12 months is plenty of time for "red lines" to be made by the Bammer = USA, + ignored or swept side by Same.
[VF] Twice I have had the honor of meeting a pope.
The first time was 20 years ago, when the bombing of Sarajevo was at its height. Fed up with the abdication of the great powers, I sought an audience with John Paul II and brought with me the Muslim president of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Alija Izetbegovic.
The second time was very recently, December 9, on the eve of a celebration organized by the Holy See and the major American Jewish organizations. The celebration, to be held this Wednesday at United Nations Headquarters, in New York City, will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the encyclical Nostra Aetate, which--though this is not widely enough remembered--marked the beginning of the end of Catholic anti-Semitism. (The encyclical can be found at the Vatican's Web site.)
I will not dwell on my impressions of the two Pontiffs. On their curious and striking blend of grace and power, of visible spirituality and mysterious strength, of almost palpable saintliness residing in an equally imposing body. Nor will I dwell long on the strangeness, in both cases, of a tête-à -tête between the sovereign Pope of the "one holy, Catholic, and apostolic church" and an affirmative Jew accompanied in the first case by a devout Muslim and in the second case by two Orthodox Jews, former chief rabbi David Rosen and Michael Landau, representing the International Jewish Committee for Interreligious Consultations, who had come to present Pope Francis with a sheet of new commemorative postage stamps depicting some of the major moments in the last half-century of Judeo-Catholic rapprochement.
[Rutland Herald] There is one basic reality in the Middle East. The region contains a number of "countries" that were created out of whole cloth during the 19th and early 20th centuries by European colonial powers to suit their own purposes. The artificiality of those "countries" makes for a very unstable region.
Those "countries" are not in any sense internally cohesive, and many contain the seeds of their own disintegration. Historically, those "countries" have been governed repressively simply because the tribal, sectarian and national mixtures of residents are sufficiently volatile to require relatively strict repression for the maintenance of cohesion and public order.
The divisions that exist within those "countries" go back decades, centuries and millennia. Internal conflicts now exist where central, often repressive control has disappeared, as in Lebanon, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq. Where open conflict has not broken out, some form of repression continues in force, as in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt (for the moment) and the Gulf States.
The American compulsion to export democracy and concomitant peace to that world has been proven incredibly naive, largely because the only elements in the region that matter -- tribal, sectarian and national -- have no experience with democracy and are largely unprepared for and do not seek its introduction.
And in the midst of this instability, we find ourselves required to deal with ISIS. Some Americans believe that we are capable of "beating" ISIS and its allies and support boots on the ground. That may or may not be, but that is not the real issue. The real issue is, what comes after the defeat of that enemy?
#1
(a) Stop thinking that you can fix the problems with Muslims in Western countries by "fixing" ME.
(b) Realize that you don't need ME for energy any longer---fracking is way cheaper than constant intervention.
#2
Exactly correct g(r)om. Both history and current events clearly illustrate they will go 'Donner Pass' if left unmolested. A classic Darwinian self-correcting problem.
Now if you permit a mass migration into Europe, all bets are off.
#4
Migration to Europe won't change the equation. The indigenous eurines who work and generate all the welfare benefits were already extincting themselves before the migration began, and when it's over, there will be a continent sized Gaza minus the cash infusions. It will surely be ugly, but it won't be much of a threat, except to its residents.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
12/16/2015 8:39 Comments ||
Top||
#5
have no experience with democracy
Their culture and philosophy (aka Islam) are antithetical to the whole notion of democracy and/or individualism.
It is the arrogance, narcissism and blindness of the western elites that prevents them from listening to the ME as they continually explain that.
[ARABNEWS] Those who do not read what leaders of Daesh [Islamic State] write and those who do not watch the group's videos may not realize that it has many enemies, foremost among them is Soddy Arabia ...a kingdom taking up the bulk of the Arabian peninsula. Its primary economic activity involves exporting oil and soaking Islamic rubes on the annual hajj pilgrimage. The country supports a large number of princes in whatcha might call princely splendor. When the oil runs out the rest of the world is going to kick sand in the Soddy national face... Daesh [Islamic State] has a long list of rivals worldwide, such as the United States and most recently earned foe is Russia, as well as European governments, Egypt, Iraq and Jordan. Daesh [Islamic State] is also fighting both the Syrian regime and the opposition.
For two years now, the organization has actively spread fierce propaganda against Saudi Arabia and its rulers. There are many Saudi fighters in Daesh [Islamic State]'s ranks, and the government worries that they may one day sneak back into the country from Iraq and Syria to implement promote Daesh [Islamic State] agenda.
The same applies to the terrorist Al-Nusra Front, which presents itself as an opposition group that is only hostile to the Syrian regime. It is an extension of Al-Qaeda and has previously professed loyalty to it. Although it fights Daesh [Islamic State], their aims are similar.
Al-Nusra Front fighters have previously threatened Saudi Arabia. This is why we doubt the aims of regional governments that support it, because its biggest aim is to attack Saudi Arabia, which for turbans represents the Promised Land and the path toward legitimacy.
Terrorists consider Syria a base to gather, train and launch operations, as they did previously with Afghanistan. Initially, Al-Nusra Front and Daesh [Islamic State] deceived people with the idea that they were formed to fight unjust sectarian regimes in Iraq and Syria, thus exploiting people's grievances. Al-Qaeda did the same in Afghanistan and Iraq.
However, some men learn by reading. A few learn by observation. The rest have to pee on the electric fence for themselves... crimes committed in Syria and Iraq by Al-Nusra Front and Daesh [Islamic State] have quickly turned Arab and Muslim public opinion against them, unlike Al-Qaeda, which enjoyed media and religious propaganda in its defense.
Those who sympathize with Al-Nusra Front or Daesh [Islamic State] do not dare express that sympathy in Saudi Arabia. In some cases, worshippers have driven out preachers who dared commend Daesh [Islamic State]. People can now distinguish between nationalist groups that rebel against injustice and terrorist groups that facilitate chaos.
Daesh [Islamic State] in Iraq has worn several masks. It claimed to be formed from tribal groups then it portrayed itself as aligned with Baathists and later claimed it was a mixed army under An-Naqshbandiyyah leadership. Daesh [Islamic State] is the biggest and most dangerous power in Iraq -- many people became aware of this after it occupied djinn-infested Mosul ... the home of a particularly ferocious and hairy djinn... and a number of cities in Al-Anbar province. Today, it not only threatens Baghdad, but also Saudi Arabia's borders.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/16/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Islamic State
#1
I'm so tired of the (pathetic) attempts to fit Muslim belligerence into the framework of the modern liberal (lumpen Marxist) worldview.
#2
I'm so tired of both leftist Marxists and Muslims who don't give a fig about America. Fifteen of the 19 911 terrorists were from SA and all of them were Muslims from the ME. Financing came from SA. Nearly all of the recent terrorism is somehow linked to the ME except for a few one-off nut cases who were home-grown. I am tired of the left taking the country into Detroit territory--a shit hole that is the result of leftist policies over decades.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Rutland Herald] There is one basic reality in the Middle East. The region contains a number of "countries" that were created out of whole cloth during the 19th and early 20th centuries by European colonial powers to suit their own purposes. The artificiality of those "countries" makes for a very unstable region.
