I had wanted to post about Muslim problems from a blog, but somehow, some self-appointed censor got the blog blocked.
The relevantlink – maybe someone else can get through – is this:
And the web site is blocked for me, but Google Cache has the following archive:
The Islamic State has publicly responded to statements by Pope Francis that the war waged by the Islamic terrorists is not religious in nature. The article answers the pontiff that their only motivation is religious and approved by Allah in the Qur’an.
Highlights of the latest issue of Dabiq – the official propaganda magazine of the Islamic State – the terrorist group is criticizing especially the naivety of Pope Francis, who’s clinging to the belief that Muslims want peace and peaceful coexistence and that Islamic terror is motivated for economic reasons. In the article “By the Sword” ( “By the Sword”), the authors categorically state: “This is a divinely-sanctioned war between the Muslim nation and the infidel nations.” […]
“Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them”
The article laments that despite the clearly religious nature of their attacks, “many people in the ‘crusaders’ country’ (Western countries)” expressed shock and even disgust because the leadership of the Islamic State ” uses religion to justify violence … Indeed, jihad – the spread of the rule of Allah with the sword – is an obligation that we find in the Qur’an, the word of our Lord, “ says the magazine. “‘Pour the blood of unbelievers’” is a common obligation. The command is very clear: kill the unbelievers, as Allah says, “kill the disbelievers wherever you find them.” “[…]
The fact is that “even if you (the West) stopped bombing us, throwing us in jail, torturing us, to humiliating and driving you us out of our land, we would continue to hate you, because the main raison of our hatred will not disappear as long as you have not embraced Islam. Even if you had to pay the jizyah [tax for infidels] and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you. ” […]
So that’s the kinder, gentler social media ban.
All I have left to post is “1000 balls of flame” from Orlov, who wrote:
, the US has squandered a fantastic sum of money fattening up its notoriously corrupt defense establishment with various versions of “Star Wars,” but none of that money has been particularly well spent. The two installations in Europe of Aegis Ashore (completed in Romania, planned in Poland) won’t help against Kalibr missiles launched from submarines or small ships in the Pacific or the Atlantic, close to US shores, or against intercontinental missiles that can fly around them. The THAAD installation currently going into South Korea (which the locals are currently protesting by shaving their heads) won’t change the picture either.
What is the absolute minimum of military action—what I am calling “a thousand balls of fire,” named after George Bush Senior’s “a thousand points of light”—to restore peace on terms favorable to Russia? It seems to me that 1000 “balls of fire” is just about the right number. These would be smallish explosions—enough to demolish a building or an industrial installation, with almost no casualties.
The reason it is very important for this military action to not kill anyone is this: there are some three million Russians currently residing in the US, and killing any of them is definitely not on strategy. There is an even larger number of people from populous countries friendly to Russia, such as China and India, who should also remain unharmed. Thus, a strategy that would result in massive loss of life would simply not be acceptable. A much better scenario would involve producing a crisis that would quickly convince the Russians living in the US (along with all the other foreign nationals and first-generation immigrants, and quite a few of the second-generation immigrants too) that the US is no longer a good place to live. Then all of these people could be repatriated
I think Orlov is entirely wrong about warfare. Maybe he’s smart about other things, but I don’t think there’s any way that any country can set off any kind of bomb without killing civilians. 1000 bombs means lots of genuine civilian casualties.
Orlov is a smart, logical guy, unlike the emotional, allegedly Muslim bearded men who are ranting about holy war. (Is it possible that “ISIS” is really just an Israeli stunt? If so, is it purely “by way of deception” or is it more military? ) Regardless of whether “ISIS” turns out to be staffed by real Arabs or by a bunch of foreign agents provocateur, I fear that “ISIS” is genuinely irrational.
I fear that irrationality will bring prolonged violence, very much unlike Orlov’s theoretical surgical strike. Orlov is theorizing about playing chess, and “ISIS” is propagandizing in the mindspace of mainstream international politics.