Essay analyzed:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/262307/fighting-isis-plays-isis-hands-daniel-greenfield
FIGHTING ISIS PLAYS INTO ISIS’ HANDS?
Is letting ISIS kill us our only hope of beating ISIS?
March 28, 2016
FIGHTING ISIS PLAYS INTO ISIS’ HANDS?
Is letting ISIS kill us our only hope of beating ISIS?
March 28, 2016
Daniel Greenfield
[From article about essay]
Because terrorism has no religion. Even when it’s shouting, “Allahu Akbar”.
***
Obama initially tried to defeat ISIS by ignoring it. This cunning approach allowed ISIS to seize large chunks of Iraq and Syria. He tried calling ISIS a JayVee team in line with his recent claim that, “We defeat them in part by saying you are not strong, you are weak”. Unimpressed, ISIS seized Mosul. It was still attached to the old-fashioned way of proving it was strong by actually winning land and wars.
Then Obama tried to defeat ISIS by arming the Islamist allies of Al Qaeda and now a lot more American weapons are in the hands of Islamic terrorists. Some of them are even in the hands of ISIS.
Europe and the United States decided to prove that we were not at war with Islam by taking in as many Muslims as we could. Instead of leading to less terrorism, taking in more Muslims led to more terrorism.
[. . .]
There’s a reason that the counterintuitive strategies for fighting Islamic terrorism by not fighting Islamic terrorism don’t work. They make no sense. They never did. Instead they all depend on convincing Muslims, from the local Imam to Jihadist organizations, to aid us instead of attack us by showing what nice people we are. Meanwhile they also insist that we can’t use the words “Islamic terrorism” because Muslims are ticking time bombs who will join Al Qaeda and ISIS the moment we associate terrorism with the I-word.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/03/following_the_logic_of_the_obama_administration_on_isis.html
March 29, 2016
Following the logic of the Obama administration on ISIS
By Thomas Lifson
[From article about essay]
Because terrorism has no religion. Even when it’s shouting, “Allahu Akbar”.
***
Obama initially tried to defeat ISIS by ignoring it. This cunning approach allowed ISIS to seize large chunks of Iraq and Syria. He tried calling ISIS a JayVee team in line with his recent claim that, “We defeat them in part by saying you are not strong, you are weak”. Unimpressed, ISIS seized Mosul. It was still attached to the old-fashioned way of proving it was strong by actually winning land and wars.
Then Obama tried to defeat ISIS by arming the Islamist allies of Al Qaeda and now a lot more American weapons are in the hands of Islamic terrorists. Some of them are even in the hands of ISIS.
Europe and the United States decided to prove that we were not at war with Islam by taking in as many Muslims as we could. Instead of leading to less terrorism, taking in more Muslims led to more terrorism.
[. . .]
There’s a reason that the counterintuitive strategies for fighting Islamic terrorism by not fighting Islamic terrorism don’t work. They make no sense. They never did. Instead they all depend on convincing Muslims, from the local Imam to Jihadist organizations, to aid us instead of attack us by showing what nice people we are. Meanwhile they also insist that we can’t use the words “Islamic terrorism” because Muslims are ticking time bombs who will join Al Qaeda and ISIS the moment we associate terrorism with the I-word.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/03/following_the_logic_of_the_obama_administration_on_isis.html
March 29, 2016
Following the logic of the Obama administration on ISIS
By Thomas Lifson
No comments:
Post a Comment