Comments

  1. Michael Adams says

    Remember when we debated the question “O’Bama, fool or knaves?” Many of us have taken both sides in that argument. It’s ironic, really, just  how rapidly the whole issue has resolved into “Both!” He may love all that Third-World stuff because he is a fool.  However, his steady and intentional tilt in that direction is not random, nor the result of his being tricked, more or less on a daily basis. It is policy, whose thinking may be muddled in the O’Boy’s fevered imaginings, but he follows it steadfastly and consistently.

  2. Mike Devx says

    Obama is pro-Islam and anti-Christianity.  I’m convinced by now that he believes in the umma and promotes it.  He has little use for Christianity, skips all the Christian-based events that he can, and is unnenthusiastic at those he does attent.   He always has been pro-Islam, but he’s also always been savvy at downplaying it and concealing it.  As President he cannot be an aggressive promoter.

    Obama is an internationalist and a leftist – two concepts that practically mean the same thing these days.  He has little use for American sovereignty.  Our sovereignty, in fact, is a barrier to the advancement of internationalism.  Obama undermines American sovereignty with remarkable frequency, especially when he thinks no one is paying attention.  I can’t recall a single instance where Obama has chosen to promote American sovereignty over internationalism.  He is not pro-America.

    He’s a very sneaky sob.  All these hidden agendas that he advances when he can get away with it.  No one in Washington D.C. – no one! – seems willing to call him on any of it.

    Having said all that… is Obama MORE interested in all of these leftist idealogical positions, or is he more interested in the raw accumulation of brute power?  I still don’t the answer to that one.

    • says

      Mike Devx: I think you’re right about Obama’s orientation, something that goes a long way to explaining his recent assault on the Catholic Church and other faith-based organizations. He is genuinely and profoundly hostile to them, and one of his goals is to weaken them. Making it so that they have to go against their doctrinal beliefs, or pay heavy fines, or lose employees because they won’t provide insurance, or simply close their doors, is a result devoutly to be wished.

      Yamarsakar: Evil is a conclusion, but it’s not, for us, a strategy. I know you believe that we should take war directly to the enemy, but even if you were leader in chief of the world, I’m not sure that would be possible. What pragmatic solutions would you propose to weaken and render ineffectual the Muslim Brotherhood?

  3. Michael Adams says

    Increasing oil production would go a long way toward weakening Islam, which inhabited a huge dusty no where until Arabian and later, Persian, oil were discovered. They complain about the Spanish driving them out of Spain, but, in the same year, Columbus discovered America, which made the Muslim dominance of trade routes irrelevant. The O’Boy is opposed.  Wonder why?  No, really?

  4. says

    There are two methods in counter-insurgency, regardless of whether you are the insurgent or the occupation.  One is to take territory and people, and defend them against the enemy. In this vein, taking away Arab Muslim Brotherhood enclaves will weaken them.

    The other method is to replace what you destroy with something better and stronger. The first goal is relatively easy to accomplish. It is this second one that is more problematic.

     
    Both methods require something called will or intent. Since Obama ensured that Egypt would see the Brotherhood in power, that is no longer an option, if it ever was, to replace Brotherhood power with something better. In the States, however, there are still opportunities to replace Brotherhood influence.

    For one thing, target the black communities. As Leftists have done before, when they targeted black families for erasure and destruction, slavery and serfdom, the enemies of the Left must target blacks as well. In this case, target them for a slave rebellion, insurrection, and liberation. Slaves are not particularly easy to control once freed and given weapons to fight back against their oppressors. As the Civil War taught the South.

    Are people in America ready to arm the slaves and free them here in the US? Not that I can see. Without that will, what good are plans and solutions? They’re not ready for them. They don’t hate enough. They don’t want it enough. They don’t have enough love of the goal, the end result, enough to sacrifice what it takes. Not whites, not blacks, not Asians, not Mexicans. Asians and Mexicans and whites aren’t going to bleed to free black slaves (again) when the black slaves themselves wish to empower their white and Democrat masters. They’re not ready. And until they are ready, knocking out the Muslim Brotherhood’s hold amongst American communities isn’t really going to get off the ground.

    So alternatively, you can knockout and replace the Brotherhood’s influence amongst white communities as well as the centers of power in DC. That sounds a lot more feasible. But there you run into something called the Leftist Alliance of interests. You cannot destroy or even replace the Brotherhood until you destroy and replace the Leftist bureaucrats and politicians in power.

    You see how this tangled web is and why politics has not yet solved it? It hasn’t even gotten close. To take the war to them, means attacking them on all fronts. Because if you attack piece meal, it is very likely that the allies of the target you are attacking will ensure their continued safety and existence. Attack the Brotherhood and the Left comes to their aide. Attack the Left, and the Brotherhood and Hollywood capitalism comes to their aide. Attack North Korea and China comes to their aide. Attack Vietnam and China and Russia comes to their aide. There’s a reason why Americans didn’t “win” those wars.
     

  5. says

    Currently, Americans are still in the early days where they don’t even know about the threat. January 2001, rather than December 2001.

    That’s why you still have books being printed showing the “threat”. But you don’t have books with titles like “how to Destroy the Muslim Brotherhood”.

    Until people are at that stage, where they are willing to accept such a goal, what good would come from me describing such plans?

    Until you have the determination to destroy the enemy utterly, there is no point to preparation and planning. 

Leave a Reply