As the ISIS keeps consolidating its grasp on vast parts of Syria and Iraq and Boko Haram continues on its path of ruthless Christian extermination, we are now informed the Saudi government has sent some 30,000 soldiers at the frontier with Iraq, after the latter government has decided they need all the inefficiency and corruption they can muster again the advancing menace; or put in a different way, they need as many soldier as possible fleeing in front on the enemy.
Now, Iraq is Shia in the majority, and the government is certainly very much Shia oriented, which causes many Sunnis to, rather stupidly, support the ISIS (let the poor idiots enjoy the ISIS for a few years, and then we'll see whether they keep enjoying them). It is, therefore, understandable the Shia see in the ISIS a real menace.
But you see, the very Sunni Saudis also fear them; very probably, they fear them not one bit less! The ISIS doesn't care how oppressive a freaking Sunni de facto dictatorship you already are. If you are not them you are conquest territory, period.
Now: the ISIS, in the optimism of their young existence and of their notable local military successes, brag that with allah's (small “a”) assistance they might get even to Rome. I do not think even the maddest of them thinks this realistic (although I am rather sure Pope Francis would welcome them in a spirit of dialogue and fraternity, inviting them to hold on to their Korans; and would be very surprised as they behead him); but boy, Mecca and Medina are a different matter altogether, and it is fair to say if ISIS manages the breakthrough in Iraq only the US military power can prevent them from going over Saudi Arabia with the steamroller.
It would be quite an irony, for one of the most stupidly repressive Muslim regimes of the planet, to go down in flames through the hands of Muslims even more “orthodox” than them; and to suffer countless episodes of atrocities and humiliation in the name of the very religion they so rigidly defend.
Quite the religion of peace, then…
Father Z has drawn attention on this Ann Coulter article.
Whilst I do not approve all that she says (and she has been rather a disappointment of late), I think this article is very useful in exposing a spread misconception about the world of Muslim fanatics: that if we appease them and/or do as they want, they’ll miraculously stop being fanatical.
The argument is utterly flawed. If one thinks that Obama Bin Laden didn’t need more than the (invited!) presence of American soldiers in Saudi Arabia to start his unholy and utterly failed “war”, you understand that Islamic rage is a molotov waiting to self-ignite, without any need for excuses. The last complaint is just the last fig leaf for what is their fundamental problem (fanaticism) and the fundamental problem of their religion (a false one; established by a child rapist; encouraging violence and fanaticism).
Let us see some of the most relevant assertions of Ann Coulter:
1) “Gen. Petraeus objected to the Quran-burning protest on the grounds that it could be used by radical jihadists to recruit Muslims to attack Americans.
This is what liberals say whenever we do anything displeasing to the enemy – invade Iraq, hold captured terrorists in Guantanamo, interrogate captured jihadists or publish Muhammad cartoons. Is there a website somewhere listing everything that encourages terrorist recruiting?
If the general’s main objective is to hamper jihadist recruiting, may I respectfully suggest unconditional surrender? Because on his theory, you know what would really kill the terrorists’ recruiting ability? If we adopted Sharia law!”
2) “There have been more terrorist attacks on U.S. soil by these allegedly calmed Muslims in Obama’s first 18 months in office than in the six years under Bush after he invaded Iraq.”
3) “Also, as I recall, there was no Guantanamo, no Afghanistan war and no Iraq war on Sept. 10, 2001. And yet, somehow, Osama bin Ladin had no trouble recruiting back then. Can we retire the “it will help them recruit” argument yet?”
These observations are extremely pertinent. It is rather disturbing, in fact, that nowadays even generals suggest in public that one should do not anything he is free to do in order not to anger fanatics living on the other side of the planet. One can be against or in favour of the burning (brilliantly, Ann Coulter says that she is in favour “mainly because burning Korans will contribute to global warming”) but a general should never make this type of suggestions, whatever the proposed behaviour. This is exactly the contrary of the freedom he is fighting for and Coulter’s observations are very pertinent.