Chaos Manor View, Wednesday, June 15, 2016
[For homosexuals] Death is the sentence. We know there’s nothing to be embarrassed about this. Death is the sentence.
Imam Farrokh Sekaleshfar in an address at Hussein Islamic Center, Orlando. Florida, 2013
We have to start with the premise that the goal is to defeat the enemy.
Donald Trump: Obama ‘More Angry at Me than He Was at the Shooter’
by Alex Swoyer14 Jun 2016Washington, DC
Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump responded to President Obama’s criticism over the refusal to say the words ‘radical Islamic terrorism’ during his campaign rally Tuesday night in Greensboro, North Carolina.
“I watched President Obama today and he was more angry at me than he was at the shooter and many people said that,” Trump told at least 5,000 supporters at the Greensboro Coliseum Complex. “That’s the kind of anger he should have for the shooter and these killers that shouldn’t be here.” [snip]
Obama lashes out at Trump, says using the phrase ‘radical Islam’ is ‘not a strategy’
By David Nakamura June 14
Obama: What would saying ‘radical Islam’ accomplish?
After a meeting with his national security team in the wake of the Orlando shooting, President Obama addressed criticism that he has not used the term “radical Islam” when referring to the shooting. He called the criticism a “political distraction” and said, “calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away.” (Reuters)
An angry President Obama on Tuesday lashed out at Republicans, and particularly Donald Trump, who have called him soft on terrorism, warning that “loose talk” about Muslims has harmed the United States’ campaign against militant groups in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Obama challenged the demand by his critics that he characterize acts of terrorism, including the mass shooting in Orlando, as the work of “radical Islam” — a phrase the president has refused to use because he believes it unfairly implicates an entire religious group for the acts of militant extremists.
A day earlier, Trump used the phrase to question Obama’s commitment to stopping terrorist acts, including the Orlando shooting, by saying the president refuses to define the enemy.
“That’s the key, they tell us. We can’t get ISIL unless we call them ‘radical Islamists,’ ” Obama said, referring to the Islamic State militant group after meeting with his National Security Council at the Treasury Department to discuss the administration’s counterterrorism strategy. “What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is, none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction.”
The president added: “There’s no magic to the phrase, ‘radical Islam.’ It’s a political talking point; it’s not a strategy.”
Wall Street Journal
[snip] Since the President asked, allow us to answer. We’re unaware of any previous American war fought against an enemy it was considered indecorous or counterproductive to name. Dwight Eisenhower routinely spoke of “international Communism” as an enemy. FDR said “Japan” or “Japanese” 15 times in his 506-word declaration of war after Pearl Harbor. If the U.S. is under attack, Americans deserve to hear their President say exactly who is attacking us and why. You cannot effectively wage war, much less gauge an enemy’s strengths, without a clear idea of who you are fighting.
Mr. Obama’s refusal to speak of “radical Islam” also betrays his failure to understand the sources of Islamic State’s legitimacy and thus its allure to young Muslim men. The threat is religious and ideological.
Islamic State sees itself as the vanguard of a religious movement rooted in a literalist interpretation of Islamic scriptures that it considers binding on all Muslims everywhere. A small but significant fraction of Muslims agree with that interpretation, which is why Western law enforcement agencies must pay more attention to what goes on inside mosques than in Christian Science reading rooms.
Mr. Obama’s refusal to speak of “radical Islam” leads to other analytical failures, such as his description of the Orlando terrorist as “homegrown.” The Islamic State threat is less a matter of geography than of belief, which is why it doesn’t matter whether Islamic State directly ordered or coordinated Sunday’s attack so long as it inspired it. This, too, is a reminder of the centrality of religion to Islamic State’s effectiveness.
No wonder the Administration seemed surprised by the Islamic State’s initial success in taking Mosul in 2014—soldiers of faith tend to fight harder than soldiers of fortune—and by its durability despite the U.S.-led air campaign. Last November Mr. Obama boasted that Islamic State was “contained” a day before its agents slaughtered 130 people in Paris. Days later, White House factotum Ben Rhodes insisted “there’s no credible threat to the homeland at this time.” Then came San Bernardino. [snip]
The Wall street Journal editorial says it much more politely than I would in the mood I am in, but it says it well. Barrack Hussein Obama’s speech makes it plain that neither he, nor anyone who agrees with him, has a chance of defeating the Caliphate. Even though Daesh has formally declared war on us, Mr. Obama does not accept that radical Islam is the enemy.
There is a sense in which he is right, of course: the Koran makes it clear that all Muslims must be in perpetual war on all non-believers, and there can be no peace until they have prevailed. There can be truces when the tactical situation requires, but the Jihad is perpetual. Now a number of Muslims, estimated to be as many as 80%, do not take that part of the Koran seriously. Some have tried to reinterpret those verses to be symbolic, just as a vast majority of Christians and Jews no longer take seriously the Biblical command that “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” in this modern world; but even if 90% of Muslims ignore the plain meaning of Jihad, that leaves millions of Muslims, including several sovereign nations, plus the Caliphate, who explicitly do obey; and one of them, the Caliphate, has explicitly said so, and claims by that act to be the only legitimate Muslim state.
So long as the Caliphate exists it is the spiritual home and rallying commander of tens of millions: a rather large number.
It is the good fortune of the West that the House of Islam is divided into factions that hate each other as much as they hate the West; but that division is not eternal. The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem took advantage of that Muslim schism (and many other factors of course) to establish control of the lands now known as Israel and Lebanon, and much of Syria; but the Muslims united – or were united by – the Kurd Saladin, the Light of the World, who retook Jerusalem and much of the Middle East. His Caliphate was brought down by the Mongol invasion. Which treated the Muslims so harshly that they proposed a hitherto unthinkable alliance with Elizabeth’s England. She wisely rejected it. The Moslem world was once again unified by the Turks, who turned Constantinople into Istanbul in 1453, and under Suleiman the Magnificent besieged Vienna in 1529. That siege failed, but it was a near thing.
Suleiman was induced by his later wife, the Russian (Ukrainian) girl Roxelana, to have his favorite son strangled by the five mutes with their bowstrings, and was succeeded by her son, Selim the Sot; but even with the weakening of the leadership the Turks managed another siege of Vienna in 1683, well after the establishment of English colonies in the New World.
The Muslim world remained a great power right up into World War I when The Young Turks led by Mustapha Kemal Ataturk established the present secular Republic, separating Mosque and State and entrusting the enforcement of that separation to the Army. That held until a few years ago, but the Army’s power has been broken by the popularly elected government, which appears to be converting the secular republic into an Islamic Republic.
If you do not know who your enemy is, you cannot have a strategy leading to victory; you can only seek to defend against attacks made at a time and place of the enemy’s choosing. And that, Mr. President, is why you must identify the enemy. ISIL, the Caliphate, is more than it appears to be. It has potential adherents everywhere in the Muslim community. Failure to recognize this dooms your soldiers to a defensive strategy with no hope of victory. It is amazing that you do not already know this.
Why President Obama is wrong
‘Radical Islamism,’ ‘political distraction’ and ‘political talking point’
Top of Form
By Newt Gingrich – – Tuesday, June 14, 2016
In the past few days, we have seen two horrific attacks on Western civilization. The first, in an Orlando nightclub, left 49 innocent people dead and dozens more injured. The second, in Paris, live-streamed the slaughter of a French policeman and his wife in their home, as their three-year-old son watched.
These terrible events raise many questions about how we should confront the threats we face. Among those questions, one is fundamental: how do we explain the atrocities?
An obvious response is that both were perpetrated by Islamist supremacists who were sincerely motivated by their ideology. For some reason, however, President Obama believes this basic fact isn’t important to say. On Tuesday, the President called the use of phrases like “radical Islamism” a “political distraction” and “a political talking point.”
“There’s no magic to the phrase ‘radical Islam’,” he said, addressing the Orlando massacre. “…What exactly would using this language accomplish? What exactly would it change?”
It was surreal to watch a commander-in-chief stand in front of the American people, just days after the most deadly terror attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, and explain why he did not think it was important to tell the truth about the individuals and the ideology responsible. It is difficult to imagine how the President could more clearly have demonstrated his willful dishonesty about the threats we face.
And he was not just dishonest—but flippantly so. None of the President’s advisers, he remarked, have ever told him, “‘Man, if you use that phrase we can really turn this thing around.’ Not once.”
Even in the wake of monstrous terror, the President refuses to take the threat seriously—and he’s facetious about it in the process. But to answer his question—what exactly would it accomplish to accurately describe our enemies? There is a simple response: It would give us a chance to win the war we are engaged in.
If we do not acknowledge that our enemies are Islamist supremacists, we cannot hope to address the fact that they are united by an ideology that is virulent, violent, and apparently seductive to millions of people.
The importance of the Caliphate
You seem to be placing a lot of faith in the idea that collapsing the Caliphate will keep angry disaffected Muslim men from executing these kind of terrorist attacks on Western targets. Unfortunately, it isn’t as if the world was free of Islamic terrorism before ISIS declared itself a Caliphate in 2014. Al Qaeda never declared itself a Caliphate or sought to claim and control territory, yet they were able to spread their ideology with some effectiveness, and had an ability to attract recruits and inspire actions from afar.
In comparing the two, is the greater effectiveness of ISIS in spreading radical Islam mainly the result of their Caliphate declaration, or is it as much the result of their greater mastery of social media? Perhaps Al Qaeda has been eclipsed by ISIS mainly because of their stubborn pursuit of ever more spectacular, centrally directed terrorist plots (which are easier to defend against), whereas ISIS never had that focus, and was able to seamlessly shift to a strategy of outsourced jihadism once the expansion of the Caliphate stalled?
I suppose, from an Islamic theological perspective, the association of ISIS with a Caliphate increases their legitimacy with some Muslims. But is that really a decisive factor when it comes to converting someone like Mateen into a jihadist? Was he a diligent scholar of Islam, persuaded by a theological argument, or just an angry Muslim who happened to associate himself with ISIS because it is the highest profile proponent of jihadism at the moment? Isn’t it quite possible that, absent the continued existence of the Caliphate, people like Mateen will have no trouble finding other sources of inspiration and justification for their actions?
I would say that the war is much larger than the war with the Caliphate, but Daesh is visible and its territory desired by people who do not want to attack us; some, the Kurds, seem – at least at the moment – to be actual friends of the United States and grateful for liberation from Saddam.
Al Qaeda obviously remains an enemy. There are others. That war requires considerably more intelligence effort; but so long as the Caliphate exists it will not cease attacks on us. Destruction of the Caliphate should be a salutary lesson for those seeking our destruction.
Netanyahu speaks on Orlando
“racist ” judge
Jerry, perhaps 25 years ago the lawyer in my small town who was generally regarded as the best trial lawyer around was up for federal judge. As part of his background check an FBI agent visited the local Elks lodge. After verifying the nominee’s membership ( probably 75% of the local lawyers were Elks) his next question was “Does the organization have female members? As later related to me by the club secretary who was answering the questions, he deliberately misunderstood the inquiry and said “oh, yes. Women participate in all of our activities.” The gentleman was confirmed and remains a federal judge to this day. (about 10 years later the national Elks organization changed its policy and began admitting women) I have often wondered what would have happened if our club secretary would have answered the question honestly, and now I wonder if membership in an organization limiting membership by gender was relevant why membership in an organization limiting membership by ethnicity is not.
Thuktun Flishithy spotted?
Here they come (again)!
I am sure you saw this and many of your regular mail people saw this, but just in case:
Might have to re-read Footfall now!
Two More Planets?
A neat article. However, I am unrepentant, it should read as “Planet Ten.”
Pluto, spherical, atmosphere, geology, five moons. What more does Pluto need to be reinstated as a planet?
Regards, Charles Adams, Bellevue, NE
Astronomers say there could be at least 2 more mystery planets in our Solar System
The gang’s all here! PETER DOCKRILL 14 JUN 2016
“If you were still getting your head around the concept of the mysterious Planet Nine potentially tracing its elusive orbit somewhere around the fringe of the Solar System, try this on for size.
A team of astronomers has performed new calculations on the data that originally gave rise to the Planet Nine hypothesis, and these new numbers suggest that the hypothetical extra planet might not be alone – there could be multiple planets hiding at the edge of our Solar System that we’ve yet to discover. If the researchers are correct – which nobody knows for sure right now – it could really mean a do-over for the high school textbooks….”
Sam Browne belts and pistols.
Whilst British Army Commissioned and Warrant officers did indeed wear Sam Browne belts to support side arms, the shoulder strap that goes over the right shoulder and down to the left hip is to support the weight of their swords, not their pistols. The pistols were worn on the right hip, and attached to a lanyard that went around the right shoulder so that they wouldn’t get lost if dropped.
The shoulder strap was certainly intended to support a sword in its origin. C Northcote Parkinson, remarking on his experiences as an officer in World War II, mentions its utility in making it possible to carry the remarkably heavy Webley.
Subj: Whence intellectually respectable Trumpism, now the Journal of American Greatness has shut down?
The Journal had billed itself as a forum in which to try to formulate an intellectually respectable Trumpism.
The Journal of American Greatness began some months ago, to a large extent anyway, as an inside joke. At a certain point its audience expanded beyond any of our expectations. It also ceased to be a joke.
Thus it no longer makes sense to continue it in its current form. No journal is meant to last forever, and this one won’t try to. We’ve decided to call it a day.
The inspiration for this journal was a profound discomfort with the mode of thought that has come to dominate political discourse—an ideological mode that makes nonsense of the reality of American life. The unanticipated recognition that we have received, however, also makes clear that many others similarly felt the desirability of breaking out of conservatism’s self-imposed intellectual stagnation. Should any such market for our ideas exist in the future, we may participate in it. But we will do so in a different way.
In closing, we simply want to thank our readers—we never expected so many of you—who made this extraordinary adventure possible over the last four months.
The Wayback Machine apparently did not capture it before it evaporated.
However, Google is my friend, and (a variant of?) the article I was in the middle of reading, “Towards a sensible, coherent Trumpism”, seems to exist now at
Hmm… I would have bet money that I first saw a link to that article from Chaos Manor, but the “Search View or Mail” knows not of it. They say your memory is the second thing that goes, when you get old; alas, I cannot remember what they say goes first. 8-(
Hoping for more Fiction from Pournelle! Demonstrators all over the world pick up the chant: “Fiction from Pournelle! Fiction from Pournelle!…”
More Political Correctness Gone Wild
Yale may cave on English poets course after students called it ‘too white’
The English faculty at Yale looks prepared to surrender to social justice warriors demanding a rewrite of the storied “Major English Poets” course.
The faculty’s chair appeared to make concessions after calls for the compulsory course be “decolonized” because it features too many white male authors.
Students claimed that they were “so alienated that they have to walk out of the room” because of a preponderance of authors like Shakespeare and Chaucer, who “actively harm” them.
In a petition demanding that minority writers be injected into the curriculum, students left their teachers little room for dissent.
They concluded: “It is your responsibility as educators to listen to student voices. We have spoken. We are speaking. Pay attention.”
In the wake of widespread news coverage of the course, Professor Langdon Hammer responded in a blog post on the faculty website.
While noting the course – which dates from the 1920s – has “never been in the news before”, Hammer said it “seems fitting for students and faculty to raise questions” about the content.
* * *
Fred on Everything
America has become a three-ring circus run equally by Goebbels, Barnum and Bailey, and Caligula. Something is seriously out of whack when the President of the United States insists that boys pee in the girls’ room, when the National Basketball Association threatens to pull the All Star game from North Carolina unless it allows integrated urination. Does basketball now dictate to the states? Arrayed against these are people who believe in what was once called common decency. They do not want their daughters of twelve years going to a ladies’ room in which predictably will be hanging out men of doubtful intentions and intense interest.
Underlying all is the clash over dictatorship of the proletariat, the rule of the underclass. The culture that approved taste, learning, careful English and manners confronts the the slums which increasingly prevail. Filth and illiteracy are not just tolerated but exalted.
Freedom is not free. Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free.