ISIS is a Rabid Dog. What Do We Do with Rabid Dogs?

2014081646

I saw the photo of the beheaded little girl and something in me shifted, rolled over and settled into a new slot, click.

Unlike my spiritual betters, I did not feel the need to go down to my knees and pray. I did pray, in snatches, like breathing, all the rest of the day. I prayed for conversion of the Muslims. I prayed for the people ISIS, Boko Haram, Hamas, et al are killing. I prayed for Europe, which is suiciding itself with the poison of political correctness. I prayed for the conversion of the United States.

But mostly, I kept going back to the photos: Photos of children, slaughtered. And what I felt was much the same emotion I felt when I shot water moccasins.

I don’t think I’ve ever told you about that one, gun control being the flash point that it is. I had a 22 from the time I was quite little. My Daddy taught me how to shoot right and he taught me gun safety as he was doing it.

There was a slough not far from our house, a brackish dead-end appendix of water that came off the North Canadian river and idled in place, breeding mosquitos and water moccasins. Daddy and I would sometimes get up early, take bacon for bait and go crawdad fishing in that slough. The water was crawling with water moccasins; revolting, stinking (yes, they smell bad) black things.

My part-time job one summer was to shoot and kill the water moccasins; thin them out so they didn’t kill the livestock, pets and people. I got paid a quarter for each dead moccasin.

I didn’t use the little bead on the end of the barrel and the gun sight to aim. That took too long with a moving target. I learned that all I had to do was concentrate on the target and by some magic of my autonomic nervous system, the gun would align itself and the bullet would go through the snake’s head and kill it.

The emotion I felt when I looked at those videos and the photos of slaughtered children was much the same as what I felt when I looked at a water moccasin. That’s because I wasn’t thinking about the dead babies. If I did that, I would be unable to move and my brain would fill with white noise. Breathing would come hard, if I did that. I. Simply. Can’t. Go. There.

I was thinking about those monsters who held the knives, the apostles of satan who are holding the guns pointed at the child in the photo above.

I looked at these photos, and something in me shifted, rolled over and settled into a new slot.

ISIS is a rabid dog. There is no cure for rabid dogs; no reasoning or counseling or whatnot. You don’t stop a rabid dog from being rabid by building it a better dog house or giving it higher grade kibble.

The only thing to do with a rabid dog is kill it. That is the only way the rest of us will be safe.

To carry the analogy further, rabies is highly infectious to humans. Once it gets into us, we are doomed to become rabid ourselves. Sooner or later, whether we want to or not, we are going to have to kill these people. There is no answer for ISIS but the sword.

As we consider this somber thought, we might also consider the less emotional, but critical, questions. ISIS is only a discreet entity in terms of name. It is in reality just another branch of the same well-funded army of satan that is flourishing in Nigeria under the label Boko Haram.

ISIS has managed to wage actual war against governments in Syria and Iraq. Funding, equipping, training, feeding and sustaining an army capable of waging war against two governments simultaneously takes huge amounts of money. It appears that this particular army is aided by traitors in the governments it is attacking, but that is another story. The point here is more basic:  Where is that war-waging money coming from?

I’m not talking about baklava sale money. I’m also not talking about individual money. It takes government money to fund war against standing governments on two fronts; three fronts, if you include Hamas.

Wealthy individuals are almost certainly contributing to the support of these human rabid dogs. But the kind of inexorable stream of big-time money that it takes to fund a war against governments on three fronts comes from another government.

Who is it?

It’s not Russia. They’re aiding the Syrians against ISIS.

I don’t think it’s a European country. It’s not Australia or Japan.

Who has that kind of money and a history of terrorist activities all over the world?

I don’t know, but when I was talking about this with my family last night, one of them said, “It may be China.”

That’s just a guess in a living-room conversation, but it certainly fits, doesn’t it?

We’ve got to figure this out. Who are we really up against here?

ISIS, Boko Haram, Hamas, et al, are the ones holding the guns, wielding the knives. They are the raping, murdering, little-girl stealing, baby-beheading rabid dogs.

But somebody is feeding these dogs. If it’s our Communist trading partner, China, they’re probably using our money to do it.

  • FW Ken

    I’m not sure what interest the Chinese would have in fomenting war to their west, besides which, they have a lot of internal problems right now. I do wonder if Russia is funding some of this to distract from their own aggression.

    • margaret1910

      I seriously doubt Russia cares about distracting the world about their aggression. They aren’t worried about any of us taking military action against them. I would bet on various Sunni nations with lots of oil money. Kuwait? Saudi Arabia? Qatar?

    • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

      The Chinese have a major jihad problem in Xinjiang. They cannot stop it, whatever violence they apply. Time and time again, brutal terrorist attacks account for dozens of Han Chinese.. They are not going to be fostering jihad in Asia, close to their own borders. They may love the picture of America proving gutless and powerless, but they won’t be supporting that kind of crap; in fact, if the West fails, it will probably be China who offers help – with strings attached – to the drowning governments of the Middle East.

      • oregon nurse

        Given how heavily invested the Chinese are in the US, they will use any opportunity here to come in and protect their interests – at our expense if possible.

  • JustaCatholicMom

    According to Business Times, ISIS receives money from our Gulf allies.

    ISIS “is also receiving private donations from wealthy Sunnis in American-allied Gulf nations such as Kuwait, Qatar, and, possibly, Saudi Arabia….

    “Everybody knows the money is going through Kuwait and that it’s coming from the Arab Gulf,” Andrew Tabler, senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told The Daily Beast. “Kuwait’s banking system and its money changers have long been a huge problem because they are a major conduit for money to extremist groups in Syria and now Iraq.”

    http://www.businessinsider.com/isis-funding-us-allies-2014-6

  • pagansister

    You certainly had a different childhood. Shooting snakes and for a quarter a piece! :-) I agree with you about rabid dogs. The evil,and horrible less than human beings, that are killing everyone they disagree with deserve what rabid dogs get—because the disease they have is not curable.

  • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

    I think you’re overlooking private money from Saudi Arabia, Dubai, and Yemen.

    It does not take governmental levels of funding to build an army anymore.

  • AnneG

    I heard someone say it is Qatar. They certainly have the money. So do some of the Saudis, even those in the Royal family, maybe. And, probably China, too.

    • Elijah fan

      China attacks its own muslim terrorists in the west of China. Her largest civil war which killed 20 million was started by fanatical Chinese “Christians” in the mid 19th century…the Taiping rebellion. She does not like religious fanatics.
      The Saudi royal family attack radical Islanists whenever they appear because they and ISIS would love to topple the royal family.
      We cannot bear false witness against those we simply don’t like.

      • hamiltonr

        China has a history going back decades of creating violent insurgencies in countries all over the world, including Africa, South America, and Asia.

        China also has interests in Nigerian oil and Pakistan.

        I do not know if China plays a part in funding and equipping ISIS/Hamas/Al Qaeda/Boko Haram.

        But to say that is “false witness” to consider the possibility is nonsense.

        • Elijah fan

          “Creating violent insurgencies”….or funding them because they were socialist but created in those countries? We do that…as to anti left groups.
          China looks for stable…stable sources of oil and actually produces half of her own ( she was an exporter of oil til 1993 to countries like Japan. ) She needs stable sources which cannot be found with terrorist states that a future US president might bomb into oblivion once they act here one big time. ISIS is a terror group with known buildings and we will one day assign cruise missiles to those addresses if they act here. China doesn’t seek unstable oil sources. Her oil efforts off Cuba have been feeble because of Cuba’s vulnerability to change but it buys them office space for several intelligence people off our coast.
          I would think the CIA or Special Ops is already viewing the ISIS leader’s recent public appearance photos for all men near him so that they can eventually follow those men to his likely domicile.

        • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

          Rebecca: China is at war with jihad on its own terrirory, with a violent and intractable insurgency in Xinjiang, which is fed from the same international sources as ISIS and Al Qaeda. These people travel;: as you can find rhousands of Checehens, Bosnians and other jihadis from abroad in AFghanistan, Iraq or Syria, so you can find Uighurs from Xinjiang there, and foreign jihadis in Xinjiang. China is the last nation in the world to support violent jihad, not just because it would come back and bite them on the backside, but because it already has. They are fighting the international jihad right now, And really, China supporting underground groups? Come on. They might have tried it in Mao’s days (what you mean by “a history going back decades – when they were ruled by an irresponsible and not very clever tyrant), but even then they were pikers compared with the professionals of subversion, especially the Soviet Union. Mao never managed a single successful insurrection or revolution anywhere: compare and contrast with Moscow’s achievements. And that was just why Mao tried: it was pure jealousy, the frog of the fable trying to blow itself up to the size of the ox. Mao resented Moscow’s position at the lead of the world communist movement, and tried in every way to humiliate Russia and its leaders It never worked. And since Mao, they have given up that kind of wasteful competition at things they did badly and put all their chips on economic development. They are massively invested in Africa, and the last thing they want is their colossal mining interests there upset by civil wars.

          ON the other hand, there is one power – numerically not large, but swollen by enormous flows of oil money – which is busy right now with violent subversion across the world. It is not China which controls up to four fifths of the mosques in the USA and uses them for infiltration and violent propaganda. It is not China whose schools abroad have been frequently shut down because they were hotbeds of racism and vicious indoctrination – check out what happened in Virginia not so long ago – and who systematically bribe and corrupt American and other diplomats stationed on its soil. It is not China whose wealth is irresponsible, gained in effect by the pure luck of the draw, and is therefore spent just as irresponsibily in enormous, showy and destructive developments and sent across the world in “charity” meant to expand Islam by force.

          I really don’t understand this obsession of yours with China. China is not underhanded: it is big and blustering and rude and rather stupid, like all freshly grown empires, but it sucks at subversion, because it has no effective fifth column anywhere – nobody really wants to be like the Chinese, like Communists in the old days wanted to be like the Soviets, and their opponents wanted to be like the Americans – and it does not understand others. It has long since effectively given up the aggressive promotion of Communism, along with Communism itself. Now what it wants is to become richer, stronger and bigger than anyone else. It would not know what to do with guerrilla operations in Africa or the Levant, let alone that she is fighting those same guerrillas in its own western colonies. (Xinjiang is not Chinese, it is a recent conquest.)

          I really don’t understand why you don’t accept the obvious. Saudis and Qataris can talk to ISIS in their own language, and I don’t mean just Arabic. They are fellow Muslims fed by the vicious Wahabi ideology – which approves of everything that is being done in Iraq; swollen beyond reason with capital they simply don’t know how to spend; at the centre of the Muslim world, thanks to Mecca and Medina (whose historical buildings, even those connected with Muhammad himself, they have systematically destroyed in the name of their twisted ideology of “destroying idols”), so that the whole Muslim world comes to them, and which gives them infinite potential for intrigue. The guilt of Saudi Arabia and Qatar is not only obvious, it is well known. Anyone competent in foreign policy will tell you the same story. Please don’t let Chinese phantoms get in the way, they only obscure judgment.

  • Jose Elizabeth Allen Hawkins

    What about the USA ? More money goes from here than anywhere else.

  • Cincinnatus1775

    Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. The same folks who are using our petrodollars to build mosques – vipers’ nests – all over the world.

  • http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/ CT Catholic Corner

    If the U.S. would strike fast and hard WIPING OUT radical Islamic terrorists as soon as they rear their ugly heads we would send a CLEAR message, ‘You radicalize and we will kill you before you kill others’. Period.
    When you allow evil to fester it spreads.
    We must crush the head of evil as soon as it appears- before it can grow and spread.
    There is a time FOR war, whether we like war or not. Now is a time for war. We can not allow this evil to spread and butcher any more people.

    In Christ,
    Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner

    • pagansister

      IMO attempting to wipe out radical Islamic terrorists isn’t as simple as you seem to think—if I read your post correctly. Children are being raised in this path, so killing some doesn’t eliminate the ones coming up Unfortunately these groups know how to “recruit” followers. As I’m sure you realize, Americans have gone over to those countries and joined radical groups. Also, where is the “head”? I sincerely wish this could be simple, but it isn’t gong to be. As for there being a time for war—-what has been happening for the last 14 plus years? Have things over there improved?

      • Mike Blackadder

        I agree with your response. It’s really not a simple task to try to combat a group like this. If you consider the whole approach taken by the Bush administration to combat terrorism you see that it is a concerted approach across many areas including military, financial, targeted humanitarian aid and propaganda that is required to weaken these terrorist organizations.

        One of the failures of Bush’s implementation was the inability to win along these other fronts. A lack of commitment from allies, and a more stronger propaganda war opposing him at home and abroad meant that the campaign was severely disadvantaged and it was rather the case that each front starved for resources rather than being committed to the task. Hopefully a ‘second try’ at the war on terror will adopt a similar multi-pronged strategy but greater buy-in from allies and across party lines.

        • AnneG

          They had buy in till the new administration came in in 2009, announced the date of the pull-out and refused to negotiate a SOFA.

          • Mike Blackadder

            Yes, I agree that Bush made progress and that this has been squandered by the current administration. At the same time, it is obvious to me that a lot of what went wrong in Iraq was due to partial failure of the objectives of the war in the non-military areas, and that this was due to a great deal of opposition to the war effort and overall lack of support.

            The point that I’m making to pagansister is that SHE is right about the complexity of the issue of terrorism and that we need to do more than throw bombs at the problem. I’m also pointing out that it isn’t really the case that this complexity has not been addressed, it’s just that Obama appears to have just abandoned fighting the war on terror, suggesting that ‘killing Bin Laden’ is the whole game.

            It’s as though he not only opposes the policy of invading Iraq, but that he feels there is no reason to continue fighting the war on terror (because Bin Laden is dead). I wonder if anyone would disagree with that assessment.

  • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

    REbecca, I told you months ago, when we were discussing Boko Haram. It is Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Especially Qatar. And don’t disregard private sources: where oil dollars flow, hundreds of private families have enough money to pay for battalions.

  • Jack Adams

    Qatar and Iran are behind Hamas. Saudi Arabia was behind OBL money wise, which ISIS, came out of.

  • Onni Keatran

    Really think it funny that your guess is “It may be China.” Don’t you know that the US supported Saddam Hussein and his dictatorship before the Gulf War? It is not a secret that a number of Western countries, including US, UK, Germany, and France, had sold weapons (including chemical weapons) to what we call “terrorist” today (simply google it and you will know what I’m saying). If you still imagine that the “Western civilization” is fighting against all these terrorist regimes, then you’re really wrong. There are a lot of politics behind all such “clash of civilizations”, and the US is not any better than his claimed opponent.

  • Onni Keatran

    Check this out: “America’s Allies Are Funding ISIS” (2014.06.14): http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/14/america-s-allies-are-funding-isis.html

  • Somnixer

    I don’t agree that the only choice is the sword. That’s definitely not what Christ taught, and it’s not what he expected of his disciples.

    If it is true that China is feeding these “dogs”, and that the U.S. is indirectly funding China, then what are you going to do about it?

    • Jim Dailey

      Conditions of a just war – Aquinas:

      First, just war must be waged by a properly instituted authority
      such as the state. (Proper Authority is first: represents the common
      good: which is peace for the sake of man’s true end—God.)
      Second, war must occur for a good and just purpose rather than for
      self-gain (for example, “in the nation’s interest” is not just) or as an
      exercise of power. (Just Cause: for the sake of restoring some good
      that has been denied. i.e., lost territory, lost goods, punishment for
      an evil perpetrated by a government, army, or even citizen population.)
      Third, peace must be a central motive even in the midst of violence.(Right Intention: an authority must fight for the just reasons it has
      expressly claimed for declaring war in the first place. Soldiers must
      also fight for this intention.)

    • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

      It is not, so the question is moot.

  • Rob B.

    In my darker moments, when I look at Africa and the Middle East, I think, “Maybe the British and the French had the right idea back in the 1890s”.

    As for the “rabid dog” argument, it only works if you have the will to pull the trigger. We’ve lost that will, I think.

  • JustaCatholicMom

    The best summary I’ve seen of “Who Created Isis” comes from The Dialogue Chronicle. One of the editors there noted that the U.S. helped fund ISIS via its arming of Syrian rebels. Over the last decade *multiple* players (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Jordan, Yemen, Iran, Syria, and the U.S.) have funded the different militants who comprise today’s ISIS.

    http://thedialoguechronicle.com/opinion/created-isis/

    But what’s the end game? Well, back in 2011, Glenn Greenwald had a very good article at Salon about a speech that General Wesley Clark gave regarding a policy coup engineered by the neocons. The neocons’ stated goal was to “attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years – we’re going to start with Iraq, and then we’re going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.””

    The goal of this destabilization was to put the Middle East under eventual American control. Paul Wolfowitz had revealed to Clark in 1991 that “We’ve got about 5 or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet regimes – Syria, Iran [sic], Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us.” ” http://www.salon.com/2011/11/26/wes_clark_and_the_neocon_dream/

    So in summary, American interests (with neocon guidance) helped create this Frankenstein’s monster for the goal of eventual U.S. hegemony in the region. Our foreign policy is still guided by the neocons who have morphed into the Obamacons. So if you’re wondering why Obama’s foreign policy doesn’t differ alot from his predecessor, and why he’s being pressured to bomb certain countries, this may help explain why.

    • AnneG

      Sorry but most of that seems like a conspiracy theory based on a fog of a couple of not very reliable witnesses. Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham wanted to arm parts of the opposition to Assad. Neither is a “neocon.” Just FYI, “neocon” is often used in place of “Jew” and I’d be careful. I didn’t think it was a particularly good idea to say things like, “Red line of use of chemical weapons,” “Assad will go sooner rather than later,” etc. and then do nothing. How much aid was actually sent and to whom aren’t public knowledge, so why would you quote Glen Greenwald?
      This is a mess, but be careful pinning the fault on any one group. You will probably be wrong, unless you just want to push a political agenda.

      • JustaCatholicMom

        No this info doesn’t come from conspiracy sites — it’s from mainstream publications, like Salon. And I wouldn’t call Gen. Wesley Clark an unreliable witness.

        And no, neocon doesn’t mean Jewish, it means neo-conservative and is used in the press, along with Obamacon. (Google Obamacon and you’ll get mainstream publications which mention it. It means conservatives who support Obama, mostly on hawkish foreign policy.) Neo-cons in general are the conservative war-mongers, which would include McCain and Lindsay Graham, and many Democrats.

        • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

          Weaseley Clark is a rat who carried out orders he disagreed with in order to further his career, where an honourable man would have resigned, and then he turned against them when things were already done and sought a political career on the strength of that. I trust him roughly as much as I would trust a seller of cheap computer parts on E-Bay.

          • JustaCatholicMom

            So because Gen. Wesley Clark has a different viewpoint he is a rat or weasel due to his other actions. Nice use of ad hominem there, but it doesn’t refute what he actually said.

            • AnneG

              Wesley Clark is well known for saying whatever might help Wesley Clark’s nonexistent political career. He is no Gen Franks or Gen Mattis. They are real leaders.

            • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

              Please read what I wrote. Clark is a rat and a weasel because he did not resign when given orders he later denounced as wrong. He carried them out; he got promoted; he retired with a higher pension; and then he suddenly discovered that he had disagreed all along. AT the very least, that is not the kind of man I want for a leader.

        • AnneG

          Slate is not “main stream.” They are a left of center to left online mag. Neocon is a term used by the left to connote non-observant Jews, in other words, Jews who are not in line with secular Jewish politics. They called Norman Podhoretz and his son, John, neocons as well as Paul Wolfowitz.
          John McCain is not neo anything. He has always been a conservative of the far west variety.
          If you want to describe somebody, I find it more descriptive to describe rather than label. For example, who said, “we should go Mano a Mano,”? VP Joe Biden. Is he a neocon? Would you label Pres Obama a neocon?
          What you said above is a conspiracy theory about the US taking over the world. It has no basis in fact. I know it is what WND and probably Mark Shae believe, but it is wrong.
          Please read a little comprehensive history, or just he Great Heresies by Hillaire Belloc, a Catholic not a neocon.
          We are in an existential struggle that has been going on since the 8th century.
          Btw, Wesley Clark is not reliable for anything but self-promotion. I know people who worked with him.

          • JustaCatholicMom

            It’s Salon, not Slate. And yes, just because it leans left doesn’t mean it’s not mainstream. It’s not considered fringe like WND or Infowars, for instance, or radical like DailyKos. DrudgeReport leans extreme right but often it has some good links. I don’t dismiss news sources just because they have a certain viewpoint. The reader just needs to discern carefully.

            Neoconservative is a valid word that is used commonly to describe conservative war-mongers of all backgrounds, so yes Hillary Clinton, for example, while a Democrat is considered neo-con in her foreign policy as is Obama who has become a huge disappointment to many Democrats. I didn’t realize that you have become the word police here, and ascribe extra meanings to commonly used words.

            Here for your edification is “What’s a Neoconservative?” from The American Conservative. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/whats-a-neoconservative/

            The idea of the U.S. becoming world dominant is no conspiracy theory and dates back to the first Bush administration and the first Gulf war, after the Soviet Union fell. Wikipedia has a long well-sourced page called “Project for a New American Century” which describes the idea behind it.

            I think you need to read a bit more comprehensive history and not just what Republican websites tell you. Of course we’re in an existential struggle, but it plays out in our world through various players. It’s helpful to know how the United States has been part of this greater evil that has unfolded, starting with the invasion of Iraq.

            As for discrediting Wesley Clark, so what if he’s not a perfect human being in your eyes. That doesn’t make what he said less valid.

            • AnneG

              I didn’t know that the Leftists were still running down what someone wrote 17 years ago. They talked a lot about rebuilding the military after Bill Clinton reduced it for the “peace dividend.” Quoting that as the grand plan to take over a whole bunch of the world is sending you down a rathole of conspiracy theories that eventually becomes demonic in nature.
              History is rarely a straight line and the best plans are always torn apart by events. So, I am usually pretty skeptical about conspiracies. The far left and the far right both seem to enjoy them, but they are way off and some people use the supposed facts to take advantage of gullible followers.
              It’s just like the 9/11 truthers and the birthers. All gullible and ends badly. Definitely not Christian or Catholic.

              • JustaCatholicMom

                Amazing. Let’s ignore Wes Clark. Pat Buchanan called out the war hawks at American Conservative and there are countless other conservatives questioning our foreign policy after the Iraq invasion, yet your answer is to characterize the history and questions as part of a left/right conspiracy theory, then further dismiss it as becoming “demonic in nature” and “not christian and catholic.”

                This is not worth discussing with you anymore because you are trying to demonize opposing viewpoints and therefore are not arguing in good faith. Not only have you deemed yourself the word police but you have deemed yourself the Pope, calling arguments that you don’t want to consider as “not christian or catholic.” Goodbye.

      • JustaCatholicMom

        P.S. From Merriam Webster’s dictionary:

        Neoconservative:

        2. : a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means

        http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neoconservative

        • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

          Yeah. And I bet some of your best friends are neocons, too.

          • JustaCatholicMom

            So? And I wouldn’t vote for them either.

            • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

              You don’t even know the quote?

  • Kathie Evenhouse

    I passed this blog on to our pastor and it called us to devote our services to prayer, supplication, and praise. Why praise? Because God can take evil and use it for good and God listens when we praise. We can no longer put on the blinders in our Western safety net, but realize we are part of the whole world.

  • Teri Ballard

    Does anyone know the plight, final plight of the baby pictured?
    Please let me know.

    • hamiltonr

      Teri, I deleted your email address. It’s unwise to put personal information like this in com boxes. If you would rather I delete the entire comment instead of editing it in this way, let me know, and I will.

      • Teri Ballard

        Thank you Hamilton. I sincerely appreciate your taking my address off. I debated putting it in in the first place, but then, I thought if it helped that poor baby in any way, I would go ahead and expose myself… Thank you for watching out for my better interest.

        • hamiltonr

          You’re welcome Teri.

  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    What do we do? We FIGHT them. Pulling out of Iraq was one of the worst blunders in American history. When will we realize that we cannot withdraw. American power creates stability. We need to get back there now! Otherwise we are looking at a genocide.

    • kenofken

      By “we”, of course, you mean other people’s kids.

      • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

        No, he means the whole nation. If you don’t imagine that fighting people who are experienced at international terrorism, who already think all Christians and all Americans should die (and have given tangible evidence of that), who have a fifth column in America in the form of millions of Muslim immigrants,and who absolutely don’t worry about being killed so long as they can kill a few enemy civilians – if you don’t think that waging war against such an enemy will put the whole population potentially in harm’s way, your imagination is extremely deficient. You are the victim of cliches hundreds of years old. It is never just “other people’s kids” who die in war. And if you want to know what is likely to happen if America or any other country tackles these psychopaths, think Boston a thousand times. And yet, knowing that, I fully agree that the only thing we can do is fight them. Of course, you are cleverer than that and can think of a way to pacify them – in fact, to appease them…..

      • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

        No. We pertains to Americans.

  • Elijah fan

    Here is an article that accounts for their money….much of it from oil fields they seized two years ago in Syria and have been selling oil for those years…but that was $825 million…which became $2 billion after robbing Mosul’s banks plus the worth of the military tanks, humvees, artillery etc. left by fleeing Iraqi soldiers….

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/15/iraq-isis-arrest-jihadists-wealth-power

  • duhsciple

    This article reminds me of Sam Keen’s book, “Faces of the enemy”

  • AquinasMan

    There’s quite a bit of online recruitment aimed at millenial Muslims and other disaffected individuals in this country. We are not safe here with this bunch exporting their Satan-Chic jihad to disgruntled twenty-somethings.

  • duhsciple

    One: see the fact check piece on these pictures over at the gospel coalition

    Two: read Matthew 5-7 and the part where not everyone who says, “Lord, Lord” is, in fact, following Jesus. This piece is advocating the opposite of Jesus

    Three: calling people “rabid dogs” or “cockroaches” or “tall trees” or “vermin” is a way of dehumanizing and demonizing enemies so that we might slaughter them. As justified as we feel with our anger and desire for revenge- we are supposed to look like twins of Jesus, not find our model in murderers who use the very same sad rhetoric.

    So: listen to Pope Francis who is listening, I think, to Jesus

    • hamiltonr

      Nobody responded to your first question, so I guess you had to explain it.

      I normally would agree with you about the name-calling. But when armed forces behead children and engage in genocide, I make exceptions.

      Actually, “rabid dog” is mild compared to a detailed description of their actions, which is itself pablum compared to the photos and videos of them committing these crimes against humanity. Rabid dog is meant, at least in my usage, to imply an infection, in this case a mental and moral infection; which in some ways is a sort of “out” for them.

      Be that as it may, people who commit crimes of this type are too dangerous to be allow to freely walk the earth. It’s a matter of sustaining civilization and self-defense. If we allow this kind of behavior to run rampant because we are too afraid to call it by its name, there will be nothing left.

      ISIS is a rabid dog. The only thing that will make me change that evaluation is if I learn that the photos, videos and stories about the genocide are not true.

      • duhsciple

        Over at the Gospel Coalition, they have been calling into question the authenticity of these photos. It is important to know the truth, either way.

        Of course, your article is very compelling, logical and passionate. These are atrocities. Evil. Absolutely. And I’m wondering how they come to justify their actions. What is the basis, the logic? I see them identifying their victims as less than human, monsters to be eliminated. Seen?

        You are right. Rabid dogs are infectious. We may all catch this violence virus. We mirror and imitate others very well as human beings

        Jesus offers an alternative. Repentance. A new way of thinking. He is the Son of Man, or New Humanity. He teaches a different Way.

        This article does not address bring the newness of Christ into the picture. we might reject this Way. However, what does this mean in terms of being a public Catholic?

        Again, your perspective is completely human. Deuteronomy 7… Kill all the Canaanites. Show them no mercy. And the lectionary this Sunday is Matthew 15:21-27. Jesus shows mercy to a….”dog”

        • hamiltonr

          I went to Gospel Coalition. What you are referring to is one blog post that tries to make a case by a negative proof about one thing, which is beheading children in Iraq. Contrast that with the link I’m will put below which comes from an Anglican pastor who is there in Iraq now.

          I think you should approach this situation by following your own conscience. I understand your revulsion about calling other human beings “rabid dogs.” It is harsh right down to the ground.

          However, as I said, I make exceptions for genocide and beheading children. Add to that beheading adults, rape and murder on a mass scale, abducting great numbers of women and girls to sell as slaves.

          http://episcopaldigitalnetwork.com/ens/2014/08/08/anglican-vicar-of-baghdad-child-i-baptized-cut-in-half-by-isis/

          • duhsciple

            Thanks for checking the link, adding further commend, and being patient with me. Building upon this trust, and I still hesitate, “What if it is USA tax payer dollars that funded these weapons?”

            My understanding is that the weapons they are wielding are what we have left behind from the previous war. We seem to have ourselves in a bind. Either we have to stay in Iraq forever, or, we leave and people capture and use the weapons in horrific ways. It is a lose-lose dilemma.

            Another Catholic I respect, Richard Rohr, says, “If you don’t transform your pain, then you will transmit it.” Without justifying in any way the atrocities that are very real, I’m seeing “monsters” who are transmitting the infection you describe. For me, and you may think this unrealistic, the way out is through “preemptive love.” You may be familiar with Jeremy Courtney (medical missionary, peacemaker in Iraq) and Shane Claiborne (who was helped by Iraqis following a car crash at the beginning of the war) as two examples of people who have forged a Christ like way.

            Derek Flood over at Sojourners also wrote a recent piece, describing the challenge your article poses. We might need the military response you suggest in the short term. We really must have a different kind of investment in the long term.

            Again, thanks for the challenge. Thanks for listening.

            P.S. Are you familiar with the work of Rene Girard and James Alison, other Catholics that I very much admire? They inform the thinking practiced in my comments.

            • hamiltonr

              If a US taxpayer is funding these weapons, I’d be perfectly willing to send them to prison for whatever maximum term the law allows. If the US GOVERNMENT is doing it, I think we should track it back to the responsible parties and consider the same.

              • AnneG

                Rebecca, this group took weapons the US Govt gave to the Iraqi military and is using them. Some of the Iraqi military have gone to the side of this group. I think because they think it was a choice of the “strong horse” or, fight with us or die. There may be direct funding from the US but I think this is all from our military equipment we abandoned when we abandoned the SOFA.

                • hamiltonr

                  Anne, I don’t think that equipment was “abandoned” I think that members of the Iraqi military gave it to them. One piece that we’ve been missing is that this is at base a Shia/Sunni war. It appears that treason comes easily to people in this part of the world,

                  • AnneG

                    I think it has been both. There have been a lot of Iraqi soldiers killed by ISIS and a lot have deserted. These guys are very opportunistic. Treason and picking the strong horse.

              • duhsciple

                The Iraq army, quipped and funded by us, abandoned their weapons. ISIS is using the arms we sent there.

                Further, when I reluctantly supported the war, it was on the basis of WMDs. This was across the partisan divide. Folks believed there were weapons, we were wrong.

                Since then, I have learned, I’m going to question justifications to go to war. Too many unintended consequences– such as ISIS. I’ve also learned about many alternatives

                Preemptive Love Coalition
                Christian Peacemaking Teams
                Nonviolent Peacekeeping Force

                Jeremy Courtney describes Muslims in solidarity with Christians, branding themselves, “I am N” (= Christian)

                I question the theology, “Let’s get rid of all the bad people” because then we will solve the problem of evi. That is biblical (Dt. 7:1-7) but it is not Christ like (Matthew 5:7; 9:9, 12:7, 5:44, 15:21-27, Luke 6:27-36)

                Check out Brian Zahnd’s material “Farewell to Mars”. Many of us have converted from Mars to Jesus

    • pagansister

      But are they actually “human”? Their actions demonstrate that they are not what is usually considered the definition of “human”.

      • hamiltonr

        Sadly mi amiga, they are human. But they are human who are too dangerous to co-exist with the rest of us.

        • pagansister

          “But they are humans who are too dangerous to co-exist with the rest of us.” I so agree with you!

  • Elizabeth K.

    I just experienced the same click. Yes–China. It completely fits with what is happening, and with what I think may be coming.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X