Article

2015-01-20 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Elmerert Hupens2660 2015-01-20 07:30|| || Front Page|| [11125 views ] Top

#1 It's referred to by traditional western historians as the Arab Conquest. It was not expanded by the word as much as by the sword.

Posted by Procopius2k 2015-01-20 09:14|| 2015-01-20 09:14|| Front Page Top

#2 I wish it were so Mr. Lake. I truly wish it were so.

Posted by Besoeker 2015-01-20 11:02|| 2015-01-20 11:02|| Front Page Top

#3 Easy. Because those words never appear on the teleprompter.

Posted by Iblis 2015-01-20 13:33|| 2015-01-20 13:33|| Front Page Top

#4 Probably because dad would come back from hell and bitch slap his skinny ass if he did.

Posted by tu3031 2015-01-20 13:35|| 2015-01-20 13:35|| Front Page Top

#5 Trying to rationalize away the fact of his being raided Islamic and Val Jar being Persian. It's pretty simple, no long winded rationalization needed. He just cant bring himself to publicly admit the religion he was raised under was a false one.

Posted by 49 Pan 2015-01-20 13:38|| 2015-01-20 13:38|| Front Page Top

#6 Here's my take from the article.

First the kind of war described is the antithesis of any conflict the 'Jacksonian tradition' in US politics will support. If Jacksonian support is indeed a necessary (not sufficient) condition for any US war/conflict effort then this enterprise was already doomed in 2001.

Second, here's the key part on the nature of the WoT:

'...it has always been a war against networks of radical Islamists. But in order to wage that war, the U.S. has had to ally with Muslim countries and people, many of whom believe the state should punish apostates, adulterers and blasphemers.'

'large pluralities of Muslims in countries allied with the U.S. in the war on terror disavow the tactics of terrorism but endorse the aims of radical Islam. For example, 74 percent of Muslims in Egypt feel that sharia should be the "country's official legal code," and an equal majority say it should apply to non-Muslims as well as Muslims'

This looks like a deal was made whether implicitly or explicitly and secretly.

The West makes concessions to the mainstream Arab-Islamic world. Among these concessions is the at least de facto imposition of some key elements of Sharia on non-Muslims in the West.

Mainstream forces in the arab-islamic world in turn will cease any support for terror attacks on the West.

This does seem mad but it would be an explanation for the very strange attitudes of the Western political class since 9/11/2001.

Posted by Elmerert Hupens2660 2015-01-20 14:51|| 2015-01-20 14:51|| Front Page Top

#7 Elmerert Hupens2660, I read that differently. The way I read the text you quoted it means Egyptians may not like terrorism but they think Sharia is dandy and should apply to Egypt and eventually the world. I don't read any deal in there.

The problem is we played the weak horse in order to get our allies to like us. Act weak and people assume you are weak. Eventually you become weak.

Posted by rjschwarz 2015-01-20 15:22|| 2015-01-20 15:22|| Front Page Top

Posted by Muggsy Claviting7206 2015-01-20 16:37|| 2015-01-20 16:37|| Front Page Top

23:59 49 Pan
23:04 chris
23:02 Procopius2k
22:58 OldSpook
22:55 OldSpook
22:48 newc
22:45 JosephMendiola
22:33 JosephMendiola
22:27 JosephMendiola
22:25 newc
22:16 JosephMendiola
22:13 JosephMendiola
22:03 JosephMendiola
21:56 JosephMendiola
21:38 Airandee
21:20 SteveS
21:13 DLR
21:11 badanov
21:08 SteveS
21:08 rammer
21:02 Mugsy Glink
20:59 Canuckistan sniper
20:55 JosephMendiola
20:48 JosephMendiola