Wisconsin Public Radio had me on yesterday to discuss the wisdom of Trump’s planned withdrawal of American troops from Syria.
You can listen here.
“Making A Case For Trump’s Decision About Troops In Syria, From DACA To Border Wall,” Wisconsin Public Radio, January 8, 2019:
Despite receiving criticism from many Republicans and military experts, President Trump has slowed down his plans to pull all 2,000 troops out of Syria but remains firm that the U.S. cannot stay there forever. We talk with a guest who believes Trump’s decision to withdraw from Syria is a good one. We also take a look at immigration stance and policy over time and consider how ideas have shifted from DACA to funding a border wall.
mortimer says
Part of the peace process in Syria needs to be the creation of an independent Kurdistan. The Kurds did much of the fighting against ISIS with Turkey harassing them behind their backs. The Kurds have been an ally of the US and deserve at long last to have their own homeland.
Jim says
+1
christianblood says
US and its various jihadist proxies have lost the war in Syria, they failed miserably their murderous, satanic plan to dislodge Assad from power, install their proxy jihadist allies and initiate religious genocide against millions of Christians and other minorities in Syria! America and its evil allies MUST back up and abandon their illegal occupation of the Syrian soil now!
Bezelel says
christianblood, Please don’t refer to the actions of the obama, hilary admin as being the same as the U.S. I know it is debatable but not to me.
christianblood says
Bezelel
US policies on the Islamic World have not changed much over the past 40 years! Like Obama, Reagan and Bushes before him Trump is still dancing with and even bowing to the head-chopping Saudis!
Bezelel says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHHu1Uxufs0
25 minutes you need to watch
christianblood says
Bezelel
All the neocon Pompeo kept saying is Iran is bad, Iran is bad, Iran is bad!
NO IRAN IS NOT BAD, JIHADIST-BACKING US AND NATO AND THEIR ISLAMIC ALLIES ARE INDEED VERY BAD!!! WITHOUT IRANIANS BACKING THE LEGITIMATE SYRIAN GOVERNMENT, THE BLACK FLAG OF AL-QAEDA AND ISIS WOULD BE FLYING IN DAMASCUS TODAY AND MILLIONS OF CHRISTIANS AND OTHER MINORITIES WOULD HAVE BEEN SLAUGHTERED THERE AND THE GENOCIDAL, ANTICHRIST NEOCONS WOULD CELEBRATING!
gravenimage says
Again, christianblood is enraged that we defeated ISIS. Bad dhimmis!
christianblood says
gravenimage
(…US claim of defeating ISIS is absolutely ludicrous…) says the very eloquent Dr Marcus Papadopoulos and he is absolutely right!
del says
Mortimer, Your second and third sentences are true, but the first sentence about a “peace process” is unrealistic: there are no “peace processes” with, nor within, Islam. The concepts and whole ideology of Islam does not allow such a thing. At most, a temporary truce, based on necessity due to force, threat and violence, is allowed.
ronyvo says
True. That is why wee cannot trust Muslims for one second.
The Crusader says
Let the Kurds have their own Home land.
WPM says
The United States should force NATO to reject Turkey as part of NATO pack if they do not agree to a separate Kurdist nation . If European powers do not agree to expel Turkey on these ground we should withdrawn our money, equipment, troops from NATO pack. I for the life of me do not understand how we do not have a trade embargo already with Turkey they are a great part of the problem in the region in my opinion..
Christian Indeed says
Not only your opinion, WPM.
Turkey should NOT be a part of NATO nor should they be a part of EU.
The Crusader says
Agreed
Old Fat Bald Socially Inept Ron says
Once upon a time we went to war with Japanese in Japan, and Germans in Germany and we have maintained a military presence in both of these countries ever since and likely will forever…but why are the rules always different when dealing with Muslims in Muslim countries?
Why do we not have a big beautiful military base in Iraq today and plan to keep one in Afghanistan?
If for no other reason than to serve as a serious deterrent to any country that may consider bombing or attacking us they should know we will destroy them, we will then rebuild them, but we will NEVER leave them.
eduardo odraude says
Our presence in Japan and Germany is currently voluntary for those two nations, I believe. Both nations have some reasons to desire our presence. In the Pacific, it is argued that we provide security against the neighborhood bully, meaning the Chinese communists. I’m not sure why German politicians have generally supported our presence and not wanted us to leave. No doubt it has to do with the Germans seeking to satisfy the security needs of the French, among others, since Germany invaded France in WWII, the reason we US troops ended up in Germany.
The current Afghan and Iraqi governments also have a voluntary arrangement (though I’m not sure those two governments reflect the will of their respective populations on the issue of a US presence).
eduardo odraude says
“we US troops”
should read
“our US troops”
Leon Degney says
I think it would be useful if we were able to recall and edit our posts, don’t you think? I think it would be great if we could correct typos etc.
Bubba says
Germany tolerates our presence as a deterrent to their neighborhood bully, the former USSR / Russia. It has nothing to do with their #1 ally France.
eduardo odraude says
Yes, of course you’re right on that, Bubba, though I wouldn’t go so far as to say it has nothing to do with other nations, such as France, concerned about Germany’s invasions in two World Wars.
Rob Miller says
The reason the Germans wanted our military there was simple. The American taxpayers were paying for their defense so they could use their money for their socialist welfare state and to financially dominate Europe (That’s what the EU is really about.)
eduardo odraude says
No doubt that is a factor. But there are also those Bubba and I pointed out.
Terry Gain says
As I argued when the announcement was made, a withdraw at this time is premature and under no circumstances should the Iraq and Syrian Kurds – who have led the ground war against ISIS – be abandoned to the bloody Turks. I am delighted to see that this bad decision is being walked back.
eduardo odraude says
Robert Spencer was at the top of his game in this interview.
Aussie Infidel says
Robert is absolutely right. We should abandon the fallacious approach of ‘a war on terror’ began by George W Bush. Terror is not our enemy, but simply a tactic used by our enemy against us. Instead, we must oppose the ideology responsible for the terror. And that ideology is ISLAM – pure and simple. As Muhammad said:
“We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve (Christians) … And their refuge will be the Fire … ” (Quran 3:151).
“And fight them until there is no fitnah (opposition) and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah.” (Quran 8:39).
“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror’.” (Bukhari 4:52:220). Muhammad himself was a self-confessed terrorist.
Since our enemy is big on using lawfare to defeat us, we should take similar steps to defeat them. And the very first step we should take is to legislate a legal definition of religion – because all else depends on that as law. The legislation should not get bogged down on the details of any specific religion, but should concentrate on what we deem acceptable religious practice and behaviour. An example would be the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – which all western countries have already signed. And that would automatically exclude Islam from being recognised as a religion, and relegate it to the level of a criminal ideology.
Wellington says
I beg to differ. We do not need to waste time on legislating “a legal definition of religion” anymore than we need to waste time on legislating a legal definition of a political ideology. What is imperative is accurately assessing any ideology, be it secular or religious, as beneficial or detrimental.
For instance, Nazism is a detrimental secular ideology and while it should be legal, it should be shamed as well, ostracized, ridiculed, it adherents described as losers, and those who are foreigners and adhere to this putrid ideology and wish to immigrate to a free country should not be allowed to. Those already here who are citizens and Neo-Nazis should be allowed to remain such but they must be under no illusion that they can get away with implementing any of their heinous tenets which break the law.
And so should it be the case with Islam and its deluded followers. We do not have to destroy freedom, or severely restrict it, or engage in torturous legal definitions of what is or is not a religion or what is or is not a proper political ideology, in order to preserve freedom.
Terry Gain says
Wellington
You are trying to fight Islam with one hand tied behind your back. Tied up by yourself. You are in this predicament because you fail to grasp the purpose of the First Amendment. It was not adopted in order to provide legal protection to an evil, totalitarian, conquest ideology which denies freedom of religion to everyone and prescribes the penalty of death for everyone that attempts to exercise their First Amendment Rights. Employ either the Golden Rule or The Purposive Rule of statutory interpretation in order to extricate yourself and move over to our side.
gravenimage says
Terry, did John Adams and Thomas Jefferson fail to grasp the purpose of the First Amendment as well? They were able to fight Islam without gutting the First Amendment.
And implying that Wellington is not on your side–that is, the side that stands against Jihad–because he is loathe to eviscerate our laws for Muslims is very troubling.
Wellington says
Terry Gain: My grasp of the First Amendment does not differ from that of the American judiciary and yet you think yourself more correct than all of us. Telling. Damning too.
Not that it will do any good, because I find you determined to shred freedom in the quest to preserve it, but I feel compelled to put forward nonetheless, for your edification and those who think like you, a magnificent assessment of the full dimension of liberty I refer here to a salient passage from Thomas Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address, given March 4th, 1801. It goes as follows:
“If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”
Or do you think you grasp the parameters of freedom even better than Jefferson? For now, I rest my case.
del says
Wellington,
If Islam is considered a religion, then the US government is and will be unable to implement your “those who are foreigners and adhere to this putrid ideology and wish to immigrate to a free country should not be allowed to”.
The reality is that Islam is an ideology (a vaguely coherent set of ideas) which does not fit into the assumed (European-Enlightenment) categorization of religious OR political since it has elements of both and defines a culture which does not recognize as valid any attempt to separate religious from political. In an Islamic culture, the basic justification for the validity of any political system is: Islam.
Nevertheless, since Islam has very significant political tones, it should be treated, imperfectly, as a political ideology, in order to obviate, or be able to obviate, its teachings and eventual and certain demands to install an Islamic political system.
Wellington says
Thanks for your reply, del. Just because a belief system is deemed a religion for First Amendment purposes would not necessarily translate into the US not being able to prohibit immigration based on religious belief. For instance, I think it quite arguable that some foreigner who is a declared Satanist could be denied entry to the US PRECISELY because of this, especially if such a person had acted upon a Satanic belief which was contrary to American law, an example being a human sacrifice which had occurred and the foreigner somehow avoided conviction in his home country.
The First Amendment protects freedom of religion (N.B., it protects belief completely but not necessarily certain actions based on belief as I already gave an example of) but this does not mean, should not mean, that those who wish to immigrate to the US who adhere to an evil religion cannot be denied entry on this very basis.
The key to all this is accuracy in assessing a religion and not the denial of religious status to a wicked religion. After all, the American Constitution is not a suicide pact. But perhaps because Islam is such a very well disguised malevolent belief system it will be necessary to have another amendment to the Constitution making Islam the exception to the First Amendment. Then again, pursuant to Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, the Congress could legislate denying Islam First Amendment protection status and disallow the courts from reviewing said legislation. No doubt about it, Islam will stretch the Constitution to its limits because it is such a clever, long-lived and extra nefarious parasite, using freedom as is its wont to eventually end freedom, but I remain convinced that if finally Islam is assessed as something evil, this will be enough to contain it, marginalize it, and ultimately make it as reprehensible to belong to as is the case with the KKK and Neo-Nazi organizations (which are also legal I might add but really no threat because they are widely seen as something only losers, bigots and the confused adhere to—the same needs to happen to Islam).
Terry Gain says
Aussie Infidel
I agree that Jihad terror – as serious as it is – is not the most serious threat. The most serious threat is Islam, but for reasons which are understandable, the constant message on this site is that the most serious concern is Jihad Terror.
There are very few people willing to deal with the reality that the enemy is Islam, not radical Islam and not Islamism.
The fact remains that abandoning allies to enemies The Turks) is disgraceful and I am delighted to see that Trump is walking back the premature withdrawal announcement.
underbed cat says
JIhad is war against infidels, that is Islam, that has 2 parts, one to seduce and invade (migration) that promote deceptively it is peaceful, and the other part is terror to obliterate kill and remove freedom…clever and effective to deceive. Why effective? It is effective to leaders who do not inform themselves of the doctrine. Did we flip sides in Syria, it is still confusing since Assad was not muslim…allowed Christians churches…and was considered a brutal dictator for fighting Islam? I still am confused about Syria. I cannot separate jihad terror and Islam they root from the same doctrine in my opinion.
Aussie Infidel says
Terry, Sorry for the late reply; but I’ve only just managed to get back to JW. Life is busy even though I’m retired and in my eighties. From long experience, I’ve found that people who see terrorism as the main threat, simply haven’t read the Quran. They know virtually nothing about Islam, and their ignorance is responsible for their political correctness. George W Bush started the ‘war on terror’, when he spoke at the Mosque after 9/11 flanked by Muslim Brotherhood members, and stating, “Islam is peace!” I couldn’t believe my ears. I actually shouted at the TV, “It’s the ideology, you stupid b@$t@rd!” The US should already have learned its lesson, from the attacks on their embassies, the USS Cole, and the Iranian hostage situation. We must fight the ideology not simply the crime. The law enforcement authorities see these attacks as isolated crimes committed by individual criminals or crazies, rather than just one more assault in the 1,400 year long jihad against the kuffar. Jihad is a guerrilla war, rather than a conventional conflict – but a war nevertheless.
It is pointless vetting each Muslim immigrant, because as history has shown, even though they might be genuinely escaping the clutches of Islam in their home country, if that ideology is already here and being preached in their mosques, it could succeed in indoctrinating their children with all the criminal behaviour sanctified by the Quran. And with their high birthrate, Islam would win the war simply through changing demographics. As far as I’m concerned there is only one way to prevent Muslims from affecting citizens in the West – declare their activities illegal, or a threat to national security, and refuse them entry to our countries. Wellington doesn’t agree that we need to legislate to define what activities are acceptable. But the legislation need only contain a clause such as: “religious practices must be in accord with the principles enshrined in the US Constitution or the UDHR.”
Wellington also compares the KKK and neo-Nazis as reprehensible, but no real threat. That’s true, but these groups are purely political fringe groups, whereas Islam is a social, political, financial, legal and military ideology using religion as a front to give it an air of respectability and help it win against the kuffar. Unfortunately anytime anyone mentions that a religion – or religious practice – should be banned, libertarians jump to defend the supernatural belief. Most religions are benign, and I have no truck with them. But it is possible for a religion to be a criminal ideology and a threat to national security. Why should such a religion be given legitimacy and protection under the First Amendment? And be granted tax exemptions, which are a cost to the American taxpayer? Also, neither the KKK or the Neo-Nazis have a ‘holy book’ containing any God given instructions to kill non-members (although they might well do that). It’s just not a requirement of membership. But the Quran commands such activity which contradicts our western norms of conduct. And the Quran is backed up by the Sharia, which they also falsely believe is ordained by God. Ask Muslims which laws they prefer? And the answer is always, “The Sharia!” To do otherwise, would condemn them as apostates, and for that they could be killed.
To protect society against criminals, we lock them away until they have done their time. But almost all jihadis re-offend after they have been released. Why? Because their Quran still contains all those verses of violence which will continue to incite future generations of Muslims for ever-more. What freedoms would we be losing by declaring their behaviour unacceptable? We are all constrained by the law anyway. There is only one real solution: Keep Muslims and their ideology out of our countries – every last one of them – until they renounce their totalitarian creed. Quarantine them in the ‘shithole countries’ they live in now. If we are not prepared to do that, we will lose, because as Wellington agrees, they will continue to use our laws against us.
I’m also pleased to see that Trump is taking the withdrawal more slowly. But the US cannot act as the world’s policeman forever, and particularly where no amount of police action is likely to be successful.
Bezelel says
https://www.debka.com/erdogan-calls-for-joint-turkish-russian-iranian-control-of-us-pullout-from-syria-in-face-of-moscows-veto/
This article says The Kurds have a good chance at an Aotonomous State under Assad’s central Gov. Putin it seems can live with that. Erdogan is of course trying to queer the deal so that he can occupy Syria and attack the Kurds. Putin is not ok with that. Iraqi Kurds have an Autonomous State already. This solution will probably work out. Too bad for Erdogan who bought ISIS oil and therefore has no room to talk about working with terrorists.
Terry Gain says
With respect, Erdogan’s concern is that the 15 million Kurds who live in Turkey will try to carve out of Turkey a Kurdish area which will be combined with the Kurdish areas of Syria and Iraq to form a Kurdish state. Erdogan’s concerns are not unreasonable but they are not in the best interests of the Kurds or peace. Turkey needs a Gorbachev or perhaps an Ataturk or (inside joke) a Joe Biden.
Terry Gain says
gravenimage says
Jan 9, 2019 at 9:49 pm
Terry, did John Adams and Thomas Jefferson fail to grasp the purpose of the First Amendment as well? They were able to fight Islam without gutting the First Amendment.
And implying that Wellington is not on your side–that is, the side that stands against Jihad–because he is loathe to eviscerate our laws for Muslims is very troubling.
……
GI
John Adams clearly understood that Islam is evil. The suggestion that he – or any of the Framers – would have considered that the First Amendment protects an ideology which is not only evil, but which root and branch, is so vehemently opposed to freedom of religion that it prescribes the death penalty for those who attempt to exercise it.
I challenge you and Wellington to search the Federalist Papers and produce any reference to Islam by the Framers. They were fighters who opposed tyranny. If they had considered that Islam would one day be attempting to conquer America – as it is now – I can’t imagine that they would have concluded that the laws they were passing facilitated Islamic conquest.
I regret to say that Wellington has failed to grasp the obvious.
Wellington says
I regret to say, Terry, that you fail to grasp what Jefferson grasped, as I already indicated in my 10:28 P.M. post above. You see, Terry, if you have a problem with me on the matter of freedom, you also have a problem with Jefferson concerning the same matter.
I have Jefferson on my side (and the American judiciary). Whom do you have on yours?
Terry Gain says
Wellington
Where did Jefferson say that the First Amendment protects the Islamic doctrine that prescribes death for people who attempt to exercise freedom of religion? Islam would have ceased to exist without that execrable doctrine. I have a good opinion of Jefferson and I am very disappointed to see that you do not share that opinion.
I believe Jefferson would be horrified to see that the First Amendment is being used to protect an evil totalitarian political ideology that is so vehemently opposed to freedom of religion that it prescribes the death penalty for people who attempt to exercise it.
With respect Wellington, give your head a shake.
Terry Gain says
Wellington
You claim to have Jefferson on your side, but you offer no proof of same. I look forward to evidence that Jefferson, or any of the Framers, expressed the opinion that the First Amendment protects an ideology so vehemently opposed to freedom of religion that it prescribes the death penalty for people who exercise it.
Unlike you, I do not think that Jefferson, or any of the Framers, were dupes.
Wellington says
Now I am a dupe, Terry? Go to hell. I have never questioned your commitment to fighting what Islam intends for us all. I despise the religion as you do and I am prepared to fight what it intends for us all as ably as I can. BTW, Robert Spencer himself has on several occasions said that he thinks Islam is a religion. Is he a dupe too, Terry?
I have only indicated that it is not necessary, and certainly not constitutional, to declare Islam not a religion for First Amendment purposes. And again I would ask you for judges at any time in American history who have opined that Islam should not be considered a religion for First Amendment purposes and I’m sure you will not provide me any because there are none, which means either the entire American judiciary from its beginning to the present has known more about the First Amendment or you have. Gee, let me think here, who is correct, you or the corpus of the American judicial branch from 1789 onward? Hmmm. What a tough call.
I have also pointed out to you more than once that EVEN IF Islam were declared not a religion for First Amendment purposes if would still be a protected belief system even though it is a political, totalitarian ideology and so it would still be “covered” by the First Amendment just as Nazism and Marxism are and thus you would have a “victory” with virtually no difference as matters stand now.
And to aver that I don’t have Jefferson on my side after the quote I provided you from his First Inaugural Address is simply stunning. Frankly, I find you not only uninformed but stupidly stubborn. I don’t like to insult people if I can help it but once in a while a person needs to be insulted, especially after that person calls you a dupe. Done here.
del says
For Wellington, in regard to your 11:55 comment ending in “Done Here.” (no direct reply button available)…
My reading of Terry Gain’s last sentence is not that he referred to you as a dupe, but rather that he believes that you are effectively describing the Framers as dupes, and he disagrees.
from Jefferson quotes, Monticello.org:
“The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subjects to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
[Query XVII, “Religion”] Notes on the State of Virginia
If the above neighbour only says that their allah is something or other, then ok…but when practiced as instructed by its texts, Islam or its devotees, pick pockets and break legs and chop hands and decapitate, etc., all in the name and service of Islam. So how does one best deal with such an ideology? The answer is definitely tricky, and I don’t have it.
Terry Gain says
Erratum
A long sentence not completed.
The suggestion that he – or any of the Framers – would have considered that the First Amendment protects an ideology which is not only evil, but which root and branch, is so vehemently opposed to freedom of religion that it prescribes the death penalty for those who attempt to exercise it …
… is
unreasonable
ridiculous
risible
not helpful
unlikely to carry the day
an unnecessary gift to Muslims
a suggestion that has Muslims so filled with mirth that they are so convinced that they are in heaven that they have perpetual erections.
Terry Gain says
GI
I don’t just stand against Jihad. I stand against Islam. Most people stand against Jihad. The threat is not Jihad. It is Islam. Islam is tyranny, with or without Jihad.
Terry Gain says
TTFN
DogOnPorch says
Excellent stuff, Robert.
eduardo odraude says
Here’s an immigration principle that does not discriminate on the basis of religion but has the desired effect:
The US (and other liberal democratic nations) should institute a moratorium on immigration from nations that do not protect freedom of religion and freedom of speech. There could be exceptions, of course, for individuals whom those nations discriminate against. The principle, interestingly, would not only limit immigration from most if not all Muslim-majority nations; it might also pressure parts of Europe to stop restricting freedom of speech.
The principle is not politically possible right now, but perhaps it could be put in a form that would be.
eduardo odraude says
One of the reasons that immigration principle might not be acceptable is that it would exclude immigration from China, whereas the US economy and US defense establishment arguably need Chinese students with scientific ability to become permanent US citizens. On the other hand, the exclusion might put powerful pressure on China and Muslim-majority nations and regions to free up their societies.
Aussie Infidel says
Eduardo, In my experience, people with totalitarian mindsets are extremely reluctant to adopt freedoms they have been taught to despise. I know a few Chinese people here in Australia who came as students, but their political opinions are still hard left – and I would question whether their loyalty is to our country or still lies with China. I wouldn’t want them working in our defense industries. Most Muslims who have been here for years, still prefer their rigid dogmatic Sharia to our laws, but continue to use our laws to destroy the very freedoms they provide.
Wellington says
I like your idea, eduardo. You thought outside of the box. My compliments.
Something’s got to give because Islam will ruin liberty (and other good things) if given the chance. Well, when you’re dealing with the longest-lived and best disguised evil ideology in history it is time to be creative, legally and in other areas. My only point all along is that based on American law there is no way at this point to think that Islam can be declared not a religion for First Amendment purposes. So, other “routes” need to be followed and explored. But first things first and that is no avenue, legal or otherwise, will thwart Islam if it isn’t first seen as a negative. This has to be step one.