President Donald Trump has set out to crush Islamic State when it is already at a low ebb, but Islamists and some analysts say his actions could strengthen the ultra-hardline group by creating new recruits and inspiring attacks on U.S. soil.
The jihadis haven't had good enough recruiting and the ability to inspire attacks in America (and in Western Europe, Turkey, and elsewhere) during 8 years of Islam-friendly President Obama? This despite his very public notification to the Islamists in 2009 with his Cairo "outreach" speech that President Bush 43 was no longer president, and so the Islamists had no more reason to attack the West?
France, which is in the jihadi bulls eye these days, didn't insulate themselves from foreign or domestic jihadi anger by staying out of the Iraq campaign that we launched in 2003. Yet the nuanced class here still looks for reasons why we cause jihadi rage. Amazing.
We experienced the Obama administration's ineffective soothing balms of hope and change applied to jihadi anger yet Trump will revive jihadi recruitment? Really?
Oh, you mock my description of the Obama years? But that is exactly what our former president and his fanboys (and girls) believed:
People, we just finished 8 years of President Barack Hussein Obama with a culturally sensitive outreach to the Islamic world supercharged by his middle name and time living in Indonesia to disarm the nutballs.
You think I'm kidding? This is exactly what Obama believed and his fanboys (and girls) believed that rot!
And what did we get from that? Iraq War 2.0, with jihadis overrunning large parts of Iraq; plus jihadis rampaging through Syria and Iraq; with the Taliban reviving after what was apparently a pointless Obama troop surge in Afghanistan; with a Boko Haram killing fest that would not in fact bring back our girls despite a perfectly lovely First Lady hashtag campaign; with blood in the streets of European cities and homegrown terrorists radicalized by distant jihadis rather than calmed down by living in President Obama's America killing people here in America.
And a temporary suspension of some refugees from countries that President Obama had identified as problems is what will cause jihadi RAGE? How stupid are you to believe that?
In reality, the question isn't what anger Islamists. The question is what doesn't anger the Easily Excitable? Seriously, it's our fault?
Good Lord, people. Why do we hate us so much to think we provoke murderous rage for carrying out a perfectly normal government function?
Every damned thing angers jihadis and their proto-jihadi recruiting base. They are vile creatures and we shouldn't worry about making them happy with us. We can't manage that feat.
Killing jihadis is job one in defeating the jihadis. This shields our homelands from the collateral damage of the Islamic civil war that is raging over the soul of their religion, while protecting Moslems abroad who will be safer to win that Islamic civil war.
And with this report that ISIL is having problems with their jihadis, I think we can say that killing them and defeating them is having a good effect on them. Dying for a losing cause is never as appealing as dying for the glorious caliphate.
Oh, and let me add a bonus on why so-called Western feminists should be the most rabid anti-jihadis:
In addition to each militant’s name, country of origin, country of residency, date of birth, blood type and weapons specialties, the documents list the number of wives, children and “slave girls” each had.
Feminists got worked up over Carrie Fisher's slave outfit in The Empire Strikes Back. This? Well, you can hear the sound of crickets over their outraged cries.
In their world President Trump is the biggest threat they see to the sisterhood.