In the Washington Post, Petraeus complained about the “inflammatory political discourse that has become far too common both at home and abroad against Muslims and Islam”. The former general warned that restricting Muslim immigration would “undermine our ability to defeat Islamist extremists by alienating and undermining the allies whose help we most need to win this fight: namely, Muslims.”
At Rutgers, Obama claimed that restricting Muslim immigration “would alienate the very communities at home and abroad who are our most important partners in the fight against violent extremism.”
If we alienate Muslims, who is going to help us fight Muslim terrorism?
You can see why Obama doesn’t mention Islamic terrorism in any way, shape or form. Once you drop the “I” word, then the argument is that you need Islam to fight Islam. And Muslims to fight Muslims.
This is bad enough in the Muslim world where we are told that we have to ally with the “moderate” Muslim governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to fight the Muslim terrorists whom they sponsor.
Petraeus has troublingly close ties to the Saudis. He defended their oil dumping program, praised the role of Islamic law in fighting Islamic terrorism and endorsed their Syria plans. While defending the Saudis as allies, he blamed Israel for America’s problems with the Muslim world. The narrative he was using there was the traditional Saudi one in which Israel, not Islam, is the source of the friction.
He defended Pakistan as an ally and claimed to believe the Pakistani excuses that they did not know Osama bin Laden was living right in their military center and that they really wanted to fight the Taliban.
Obama’s “partners” against “violent extremism” have included Muslim Brotherhood terror supporters at home and abroad. He backed Al Qaeda’s LIFG in Libya, Iran’s Shiite terror militias in Iraq, Al Qaeda allies in Syria and those are just a few of the worst examples of his partners against extremism.
Petraeus and Obama view terrorists and state sponsors of terror as important allies. Their policies have led to multiple terrorist attacks against Americans. And they still insist that we need Islamic terrorists as allies to protect us from Islamic terrorists. We need moderate theocrats to protect us from extremist theocrats. We need the Saudis and Pakistanis to save us from the terrorists whom they arm and fund.
But it’s Muslim immigration where their argument really shines.
The United States faces a terror threat because a certain percentage of the Muslim population will kill Americans. Every increase in the Muslim population also increases the number of potential terrorists. Muslim immigration increases the terrorism risk to Americans every single year.
These are undeniable facts.
When you’re in a hole, stop digging. Muslim populations are a hole. Immigration is the shovel. Dig deep enough and you’re six feet under.
Even if the mainstream narrative about a moderate majority and extremist minority were true, how could the cost of Islamic terrorism justify the expansion of even moderate Muslim communities?
But the Obama/Petraeus narrative about needing partners in Muslim communities in America implicitly concedes that Muslim communities at home, like the Saudis and Pakistanis abroad, create environments in which Islamic terrorists can safely operate. They admit the existence of Islamic no-go zones where the FBI and local law enforcement are ineffective so that we have to treat parts of Michigan or New Jersey like Pakistan or Iraq, trying to work with untrustworthy allies to gain intelligence on enemy territory.
We have to work with CAIR or ISNA, the way we do with the Saudis or Pakistanis, even though they’re untrustworthy, because they’re all we have in parts of America that have become enemy territory.
This argument is terrible enough in the Middle East. But it’s horrifying in the Midwest.
It’s bad enough that we sign off on “partners” who finance terrorists and then pretend to fight them in Syria or Afghanistan, do we really want to be doing this in Illinois or California?
The real problem, as Obama and Petraeus indirectly concede, is that Muslim communities create an ideal environment for Muslim terrorists. The last thing that we should be doing is building them up.
Even if Muslim communities were an asset, the Obama/Petraeus narrative is that they benefit us by helping us deal with the problems that they cause. The obvious question would be to wonder why we need them in the first place to help us cope with a problem that wouldn’t exist without them.
Obama insists that we need Muslim immigration so that Muslims will help us fight Muslim terror. But if we didn’t have Muslim immigration, we wouldn’t need Muslims to help us fight Muslim terrorism.
Muslim immigration isn’t a solution. It’s a problem posing as a solution. And we are told that we need to make the problem bigger in order to solve it. Muslim immigration has yet to reduce terrorism in any country. The increase in Muslim populations has not made Europe any safer. On the contrary, it has increased the risk of terrorism. The same is also true in Africa, Asia and across the Middle East.
The plan to reduce the risk of terrorism by increasing the Muslim population has failed around the world. Nor has it ever worked in the United States. What are the odds that it suddenly will now?
Building a counterterrorism strategy around creating more terrorism is not a strategy, it’s a suicide mission. Using Muslim immigration to fix a terrorism problem caused by Muslim immigration is like drilling a hole in a boat and then trying to plug it with water. Europe is sinking and if we don’t stop importing hundreds of thousands of Muslims, we’ll be facing the same problems that Europe does.
“It is precisely because the danger of Islamist extremism is so great that politicians here and abroad who toy with anti-Muslim bigotry must consider the effects of their rhetoric,” Petraeus insists.
It’s a compelling argument, but not in the way that he thinks it is.
If Muslims can’t handle the full spectrum of argument, debate and namecalling that is a part of life in a free country without turning homicidal, then something has to go. According to Petraeus, it’s freedom of speech. According to others, it’s Muslim migration. Americans will have to decide whether they would rather have freedom of speech or Muslim immigration. Because even the advocates for Muslim migration are increasingly willing to admit that we can’t have both. The choice is ours.
Either we can hope that Islam will save us from Islam. And that Muslims will protect us from other Muslims. Or we can try to protect ourselves and save our lives and our freedoms from Islam.
PLEASE HELP SUE THE TERRORISTS IN COURT:
THANK YOU VERY MUCH !!
Here's hoping, that upon election, Trump will be consulting with Daniel Greenfield, Stephen Coughlin, et al and not the compromised Petraeus. The Irishman.ReplyDelete
Can't fix stupid. But this isn't about stupid. This is agenda. Rhetoric helps keep folks confused and undecided about what they really see and understand is actually happening.ReplyDelete
One of the biggest allies form Muslim immigration (and also illegals from South of the Border) are the myriad "fair housing laws." The federal government has issues them, and so have every state and local municipality. "Fair housing laws" prohibit discrimination by race, creed, etc. Employing this law, the feds and Christian charities bring in Muslims by the boat full can dump more Muslims "immigrants" in places as urban as New Jersey and as unlikely as Montana. The irony of a "fair housing" law is similar to that of a state or city banning smoking in "public" spaces like restaurants, private clubs, and so on. The irony is that if you set the terms of whom one can associate with in these conditions, you own the facility, not the owner. Non-smokers wanted their "safe places" in which to dine. So bars and restaurants lose business and eventually go out of it. I've seen it happen over and over gain where I live. And if you try to prohibit Muslims from even applying for living space in this country in a private venue, you no longer own your apartment or residential block; the government does and the only beneficiaries are the "discriminated" applicants. You will be called to court and fined up the wazoo. And probably even told to pay compensation to Muslims for trying to keep them out of your hair, out of your daughter's shorts, and off your neck in terms of knives. Freedom of association is a dead letter. If you can't choose your tenants, then you are but a steward of "public" property, and the master sets the rules.ReplyDelete
Note the logical fallacy of the "Islamophobia fighters". On the one hand, they claim that the Islamic radicals are "not Muslims" and "have nothing to do with Islam", but on the other hand, they say that openly confronting the Islamic radicals will "push the moderate Muslims into the arms of the extremists". How is that possible? They just said the so-called "moderates" have nothing to do with the "extremists" but then, at the same time, they say that there is there is the ongoing threat of these same "moderates" suddenly going over to the "extremists".ReplyDelete
This is really Orwellian!
"War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength!"
Nothing can save those like Petraeus who are so desperately eager to evade the facts.ReplyDelete
And the fact is, based on luminously clear information, which pours in from around the world every day, that Islam is an evil belief system which inspires its followers to murder or enslave anyone who disagrees with them in the slightest.
Need proof? Look at how members of different Islamic sects, the Sunnis and the Shiites, having slaughtered each other for centuries, continue to wage war, murder each other, over trivial details of Islamic belief.
And the idea that all this is the result of 'Islamic extremism' is simply nonsense. Yes. there are followers of Islam, who, whether because they retain some shred of human decency or because they are simply not sufficiently devout, do not obey Islam's commandments to enslave, slaughter, those who disagree. But all those followers are enablers of those who do.
We in the West must decide. Do we value our heritage of freedom and individual rights or are we willing to lay down and die by submitting to Islam? That is our only choice. The nature of Islam will allow no other.
And those like Petraeus, while I respect his service in our armed forces, are simply betraying us to the deadly enemy, Islam, when they counsel 'restraint'.
Thanks! You are a national treasure.ReplyDelete
I hope that it is intrepid truth-tellers Daniel Greenfield, Stephen Coughlin, et al, that Trump consults with upon election and not the disgraceful Petraeus. The Irishman.ReplyDelete
One of the biggest allies of Muslim immigration (and also illegals from South of the Border) are the myriad "fair housing laws." The federal government has issued them, and so have every state and local municipality. "Fair housing laws" prohibit discrimination by race, creed, etc.ReplyDelete
Employing this law, the feds and Christian charities that bring in Muslims by the boat full can dump more Muslims "immigrants" in places as urban as New Jersey and as unlikely as Montana.
The irony of a "fair housing" law is similar to that of a state or city banning smoking in "public" spaces like restaurants, private clubs, and so on. The irony is that if you set the terms of whom one can associate with in these conditions, you own the facility, not the owner. Non-smokers wanted their "safe places" in which to dine. So bars and restaurants lose business and eventually go out of it. I've seen it happen over and over again where I live.
And if you try to prohibit Muslims from even applying for living space in this country in a private venue, you no longer own your apartment or residential block; the government does and the only beneficiaries are the "discriminated" applicants. You will be called to court and fined up the wazoo. And probably even told to pay compensation to Muslims for trying to keep them out of your hair, out of your daughter's shorts, and off your neck in terms of knives. Freedom of association is a dead letter. If you can't choose your tenants, then you are but a steward of "public" property, and the master sets the rules.
I posted a comment (twice), last night and today. It has disappeared both times. Is there something you don't approve of? The Irishman.ReplyDelete
Brilliant! Thank you.ReplyDelete
This is great reading. Obviously, logic, cause and effect, and actual facts do not count. The left will automatically come up with "association does not equal causation." Of course, those people on 3 jumbo jets would probably argue that point if not for the fact that the "I'll have the snack-bar" crowd were at the controls and those passengers are now dead.ReplyDelete
It just goes to show how people, even credible soldiers like Petraeus can be coopted and bought out. Someone must have the goods on him about something, or he has some hefty bills to pay. A sad day for America.
Let us hope that Trump cannot be bought, coerced, scared, threatened, coopted, or in some other fashion bent and twisted into another open borders and police state puppet.
If the anti-Trump thugs start down the path of violence to prevent his election or taking office, it could get ugly out there. Let's hope for cooler heads but also, let's get some redirection and change for the better.
Right on point.ReplyDelete
Behead those who insult The Prophet.ReplyDelete
Nuke those who behead us.
Let's see, Islam is our savior from Islamic terrorism------Polio is our savior from polio-----bird flu will save us from bird flu.ReplyDelete
being stupid will save us from being stupid.
"Muslim groups like CAIR and ISNA have waged a relentless campaign to undermine national security and defame Americans."ReplyDelete
I would add that they are using our system of laws against us and quite effectively, in my opinion. For every true charge leveled against continued Muslim migration and its inherent and obvious dangers, CAIR is right there bleating about "Islamophobia" and threatening lawsuits!
Any coincidence that Petraeus rhymes with Betray us?ReplyDelete
I'm not a military person. Nevertheless, it somehow sounds discordant to refer to Gen. Petraeus as "former general". I believe generals retain the title for life: veterans who served during war are, by law, entitled to retain their rank (Ref. 1) Mr. Greenfield should refer to him as Gen. Petraeus. Retired colonels. I believe, would formally be referred to as, for example, Col. Jones (Ret.), but I believe the protocol is different for generals.ReplyDelete
Like all modern four stars, Gen. Petraeus is highly politically attuned. While I am sympathetic to Daniel Greenfield's attitude toward "moderate Moslems", on a practical basis, we do need the cooperation of regimes like the Saudis to curb Islamic extremism. With people whose values are so discordant with our own, we are unlikely to get the degree of cooperation we seek. It has long been a dilemma for US policy makers that we need to work with those whose values we may find, in many respects, abhorrent.
Another Great Article. No slight intended, but I would name this Article, "Only MORE Islam Can Save Us From Islam".ReplyDelete
The ideology of ISIS and Al=Qaida came straight out of Saudi Wahabi teaching, simply taken to their logical conclusions. They used their oil revenues to spread their poison around the world, but it then boomeranged back on them. Saudi Arabis is the PROBLEM, not the SOLUTION. If they don't radically change their ways I don't see how they can be any sort of ally in the fight against these groups. I also hope Netanyahu will be extremely cautious in dealing with them. Their ideology promotes genocidal antisemitism and any cooperation they make with Israel is simply a matter of "the enemy of my enemy is my (temporary) friend". There is NO basis for long-term cooperation between Israel and the Saudis undr their current ideology.
In biology there is the population logistic growth formula (mainly applied for insects…) in which once the carrying capacity is exceeded, guess what, the population starts to die out until an equilibrium solution is reached. There are two types of these: stable solutions and unstable solutions. The question is: how many muslims can western countries carry on? Oh sorry, this is only for insects. I beg your pardon.ReplyDelete
Daniel, this post invoked the memory of something you may want to think about: the Mafia-based book-and-movie series The Godfather. If you have read or seen these works by Mario Puzo, you may notice some similarities between the Sicilians and the Muslims of the Middle East, not only in their looks, but in their world view, culture and many other things as well. I propose that there is a relationship between how we're reacting to the Muslim invasion and our exposure, decades earlier, to The Godfather. Puzo had a very graphic way of describing mob hits and other things like that, and the movies carried that out perfectly.ReplyDelete
I believe it is no accident. Google "sicilians descended from arabs" and you will find a lot of material. Sicilians are descended from a lot of peoples, but Arabs are probably the most prominent among them.
What do you think?
Dear Mr Greenfield, thanks a lot for your analysis. Above theme reminds us about a typical Italian dilemma. The owner of a restaurant is blackmailed by Mafia. In order to prevent sudden outbreak of fire, he is forced to ask protection. In other words, here needs Mafia to protect him against the Mafia. That set of mind brought Mr Paolo Gentiloni, Italy's Minister of Foreign Affairs, stating that "We need Islam to combat Islamic extremism".ReplyDelete
Clelia&Eric, Eurabia, Italian province.
Nice Daniel. My take is that orthodox Islam is a perfectly explicit conspiracy to commit mass murder, fully prosecutable under existing laws against conspiracy to commit murder, and certainly grounds for barring immigration. Here is my attempt to wise up VDH on this matter, after he called Trump's proposed ban on Muslim immigration "idiotic":ReplyDelete
There is nothing idiotic about banning entry into the U.S. on the basis of religion. Orthodox Islam is a very explicit conspiracy to commit mass murder, mass rape, sex slavery, robbery, pillage, cruxifiction, and endless other crimes "until all religion is for Allah alone" (Koran verse 8.39). This conspiracy is fully prosecutable under existing laws against conspiracy to commit murder and is a perfectly valid reason for drastically curtailing Muslim immigration.
We are also in a declared war with "those who attacked us on 9/11," which was orthodox Islam. We were attacked by the believers in an ideology, just as WWII was perpetrated by the Nazis. All adherants to that ideology are properly regarded as enemies.
Not all Muslims are orthodox. A generation ago most Muslim immigrants to the west were trying to escape orthodox Islam, but not any more. The current tide of Muslim immigrants to Europe and America are trying to bring orthodox Islam here, as demonstrated by polling that says that over 50% of them want to live under sharia law and impose it on others.
Sharia is the codification of orthodox Islamic murder conspiracy, making explicit allowance for the slaughter of unbelievers, for rape, for sex slavery, for theft and pillage and all the rest. Letting in believers in sharia is letting in enemy soldiers. To think that we can't or shouldn't bar such people from entering is crazy.
The proper question is what we should be doing to prosecute and deport those who are already here. In the American Indian peyote case the Supremes ruled that religion cannot provide cover for activities that have been criminalized on otherwise legitimate grounds (i.e. not criminalized just to suppress religion), which obviously includes conspiracy to commit murder.
We should be working on ways to distinguish orthodox Islamic murder cultists from non-orthodox Muslims who are trying to get away from Islamic orthodoxy. Brain scanning lie detection might work, allowing us to know both who we can let in and who we should prosecute or put in prisoner of war camps. Until we have a reliable such technology Muslim immigration needs to be drastically curtailed.
Nothing can save Islam. Islam is a disease, like the Khmer Rouge.ReplyDelete
David, please, please, please send this piece or a summary of it to Trump the minute he is declared president. I feel that these arguments by Obama and Petraeus plus some of Obama's other actions can provide substance for a treason trial.ReplyDelete
Let us suppose that moderate Muslims had the power to persuade the Jihadis that they should not bomb us. And they did it. Great. But that would empower moderate Muslims, and they will ask that aspects of Sharia be integrated in the constitution.
They will say that, is the least they can offer the Jihadis. And if they dont get it, the Jihadis will start the terror.
What do we do? If we give in, it will be the thin end of the wedge. If not the terror starts.
The correct solution is not to rely on moderate Muslims to help us against Islamic terror. That would be like asking communists to defend us against communism. We fight Islamic terror by fighting Islam. Which means "no" to Muslim immigration, and the repatriation of non-citizen Muslims as a first step.