Do you remember Marie Harf, the State Department's nuanced PR spin? She thinks that Countering Violent Extremism By Nobody In Particular is all about giving terrorists jobs. Not to be outdone, here's Senator John Kerry:
“Why do people make what to many of us would seem to be an utterly wrongheaded choice and become the kind of terrorists that we’re seeing? It’s a question that we need to approach with humility, but also with determination, because you cannot defeat what you don’t understand.” […]
“In some cases, they may come from a lost job or from the contrast between one family’s empty dinner plate and a fancy restaurant’s lavish menu. The poison might even come from within, in the form of rebellion against anonymity, the desire to belong to a group, people who want a moment of visibility and identity, or the hunger for black-and-white answers to problems that are very complex in a remarkably more complicated world.”
Here at Team LSP, we want to help the Administration Counter Violent Extremism By Nobody In Particular, so we're posting this helpful State Department job application form. We'll resist the temptation to echo Kerry's words, you cannot defeat what you don't understand.
No, Kerry, you don't. It's called Islam and it's been waging war against the world for 14 centuries.
But that can't be true, because the Muslims that are busy beheading, crucifying, enslaving and raping people after the example of their Prophet, obviously aren't Muslims.
No. They're jobseekers.
LSP
15 comments:
And if you go to the ObamaNation's definition of extremists they have things in common:
Christian
Heterosexual
Believe in traditional marriage
Don't vote for Democrats
Own firearms
Let's add refusal to pay the jizya.
To what extent do you think, as a man in black, that ISIS is a US/Saudi/Qatar proxy?
Curious.
ISIS is it's own beast. al Qaeda is a Saudi proxy to the extent that it is run by Wahhabists and they all hail from the "magic kingdom". ISIS wants to capture Mecca (as does Iran) and to that extent, the Saudis are threatened.
The funding hydra has many heads, though.
Thanks. In darker moments I wonder if there isn't a Taliban precedent...
And.............
On Friday afternoon, the official Twitter account of the State Department asked followers to “share solutions” for fighting “violent extremism.”
Yep, that will help.
I guess they're trying to "crowdsource"...
The word "pathetic" springs to mind.
This is a very informative article on ISIS:
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
Of course, it's longer than 140 characters, so we can't expect anyone in the State Department to read it or anything similar.
I'm sure they don't have the time; they're too busy lying to themselves and everyone else about reality.
I like that article very much, though I doubt his conclusion -- salafist Islam is an antidote to ISIS? Really? Still, good stuff.
I link to it in "Marie Harf Epic Fail"...
My "solution" to those problems is sending them some gifts, in the shape of 'splody-goat love dolls!
You did link to it! Sorry, I missed that. Found it elsewhere and obviously thought of you.
I don't think he's saying that Quietest Salafis are an antidote (in fact, I think they would, on principle, do nothing about IS, as they sound like pacifists who refuse to excommunicate any Muslim). I think he's merely using them as an example of a branch of Islam that is somewhat redeeming. Their ideology is just as academic, fundamental, and passionate as the Islamic State's but without being murderous.
That was my take-away on the Salafis. I think his general point was regarding how to best tackle IS from a military standpoint, and I thought he made good arguments there.
That's a very good plan, Mattexian!
I'm not sure that the salafists are pacifists -- they just don't think the armageddon caliphate is here yet...
Viz. military solutions, he misses an obvious point -- Assad could drive them off the land.
But that might upset our allies and friends, Qatar and Saudi. To say nothing of strengthening Russia.
Me? I'd like to see us ally with Russia against Islamism.
! Those are interesting points. I gathered that nuance with the Salafis, too, but it seems like a perpetual holding pattern. It's like the Jews not recognizing the Messiah when He came. The Quietest Salafis are looking for something so overtly profound, they'll never find it. (whereas, IS is ready to bring the caliphate themselves, ground up.)
Us ally with Russia to deal with it? That's hard for me to imagine... Putin would want to lead... would we really "follow" his leadership? I see ego issues.
Far easier for Obama to say that there is no problem at all. No one is slaughtering his family or raping his daughters, so it's random "workplace violence".
"Workplace Violence" was an especially smart bit of newspeak.
Well done, Administration.
Any alliance with Russia would only work on one condition: that we remember that Putin will act in the best interest of Russia, and not give a rat's ass if we want something else, unless we can rationally convince him that it is in Russia's interest too. (Not something I see this administration doing.) OTOH, Barry doesn't seem to want to *lead*, but he does want to be in charge (if that makes sense). As an example, at Benghazi, Barry dawdled, and when the commanders in the region chose to act, they were quickly relieved of command, instead of ordering a rescue, and Barry basking in the glory of being a successful Commander-in-Chief at the top of that chain-of-command. (Better than his quote about abortion, being "above his pay grade"! He must have heard that in the Joint Chiefs meetings, when the officers were deferring to *him,* but he didn't realize the significance. Typical. )
Post a Comment