« Mosul or Bust! - 20 February, 2015 | Main | HARPER: MORE REFLECTIONS ON NETANYAHU »

20 February 2015


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


is this the link?


Brooks got it from this. Well worth the read.



The transcript and video: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/shields-brooks-fighting-islamic-extremism-giuliani-obama/

William R. Cumming

Agree that Brooks was dead on!

Swami Bhut Jolokia

It's clear Brooks got it from Wood's article in The Atlantic, but he didn't have the courtesy to mention the article on air. Later in the segment he gives credit to Kristol on something else.

I guess Wood < Kristol so Brooks didn't feel the need to acknowledge him. What a scumbag.


The KKK considered themselves to be Christians. Should we refer to their violence as "Christian terrorism"? I am sure ISIS consider themselves to be religious warriors, but that should not stop us from stopping them.

As Mr. Woods indicate, containing them and degrading their "state" will eventually make them implode. As soon as their expansion is curtailed, time will not be on their side.

History has eventually not been kind to similar outbreaks of terror, whether religious or political.


This is unusual for Brooks; not so for Shields.

Have been going to ask if people were certain [all/most of] the incendiary footage they were watching was authentic. I haven't seen any of it nor have I seen any of the Entertainment Industry commercial quasi-snuff product, but have read that it is very very realistic. Decided not to raise the question, then the murdochians come up with this ....


What to believe? Who to believe? rinse, repeat.


Rarely do I agree w Brooks, but he nailed it. IS will not be stopped by U.S. A.I.D. projects.



The first KKK had Jews in it (Dr. Solomon Baruch would be an example) and a lot of Catholics. The second KKK was primarily a white supremacy organization. The Christian symbology of the burning cross, etc, was an inheritance from Scottiah tradiion in the first KKK. IS is PRIMARILY AN iSLAMIC movement AND IT WILL NOT IMPLODE. PL

Margaret Steinfels

More on the Wood's essay from Brook's colleague at the Times, Ross Douthat. http://nyti.ms/1zvtEfV

SAC Brat

When I have seen the ISIS videos on the US evening news I've always wondered if the videos were filmed in Southern California or the Negev Desert. Who would make the videos and who would benefit from their distribution?

If ISIS is such a bad group why not give them a bunch of bad ammunition (hot cartridge loads, grenades and mortar rounds with short fuses) and arrange their actions to look like fratricide? There used to be groups in the US that were good at turning an enemy inward on itself. Are there elements in the US that need an enemy like this?


People who think IS will just implode seem to be scooped from the same can that believes all that's needed to defeat ISIS is a good jobs program.

The secular humanism with its hand on the tiller in the West (and can't ever ignore the impulse to try and denigrate Christianity - witness Lars) has no idea what it means to BELIEVE in anything other than the State. They can't fathom ehat zeal is other than Something Scary.

Al Spafford

KKK Web site makes claims to "Christian" basis


Something over the top about it and a tad too LOUD (figurative).

Have any other groups fighting for ANY cause in the ME or Central Asia displayed such mediagenically dramatic dress discipline as these guys in their black frocks and standarized footwear [not inexpensive if bought here]?

Don't know enough to know who would do it or why. I am just beta testing Haruspex® ver. 1.000001


Regardless of what ISIS believe, it will not be easy to transform a 7th C construct to 21st C conditions. Murder and thievery will only get you so far. I know there are those who think it will be different this time, but these cults develop internal problems as external pressures increase.

I am sure ISIS want to see themselves as holy warriors and that is why it is important to not accept that and at least publicly to call them what they really are: terrorists,murderers, thieves and deluded.

Margaret Steinfels

Sorry thought I had appended what seems to me a bit of nuance to the Wood's view and a bit of elaboration to what Brook's said:

Douthat: "As a longstanding believer in a “theology has consequences” approach to world history and current affairs, I agree with all of this … but I would append an important qualifier as well. Specifically, in taking Islamic-State theology seriously as a form of Islamic thought, we also need to take seriously the Islamic case against ISIS, and the reasons why the soi-disant caliphate’s interpretation of its faith, however internally coherent and textually-rooted, represents a stark departure from the way the faith has been traditionally interpreted and widely understood."



Secular humanism can be disparaged but a working government that provides for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness plus religious freedom is all that prevents us from igniting Crusades against Orthodox Christianity and Islam; the New Dark Ages. As our government pursues policies that help only the wealthy to the determinant of the people, religious fundamentalism naturally rises to take its place.

The rational way to fight ISIS is to contain and starve the beast. Provide people hope, security and a better life. Stop the wars against Russia, Iran and Syria; arm minorities, and secure Turkey’s border. That is unless you want to draft our youngsters. Kill’em all and let Allah sort them out. The first series of Crusades didn’t succeed and won’t this time unless the goal is the end mankind’s reign on earth.


Thank you so much to Col. Lang and the Committee for the link to the Graeme Wood article!


DG -

Very interesting. But is there anyone who doesn't think that ISIS is an extreme fundamentalist utopian movement?


Considering that our left leaning leaders, media commentators and educators have abandoned religion and cheerlead the rest of society to conform to their anti-religious bias it should not be any surprise they can not understand religious motivations within ISIS. They don't understand (or respect) it in our own society. Here's an example:




I grew up Out West, partly among people who created orchards, farms, and dairies in what had been desert; it took a great deal of faith and belief in something larger than themselves to sustain those achievements. If you look at the vast system of irrigation networks, dams, and acres of cropland, you realize that faith can -- literally -- move mountains, build dams, and 'make the desert bloom'. This is still true today.

I was fortunate to grow up among people who were tolerant of one another's spiritual beliefs. As the child of a 'mixed marriage' (Catholic/Protestant) I learned early to be publicly circumspect, but respectful, about religious beliefs. Partly for that reason, trying to grasp the murderous conflict between religious sects in the ME is quite difficult for me.

If your point is that many of us reading the news are sadly naive about ISIS and the thought-processes that fuel it, I have to agree. Unfortunately, our naiveté has become dangerous (to ourselves, as well as to others).

Our naiveté is a luxury we can no longer afford as a society. But those of us who attempt to get a little more insight, seek out sources of information (such as SST) that will help disabuse us of our follies. All things human take time.


On the related question of ISIL's genesis and the seeming failure of the IC to understand either its dimensions or implications:

I have seen a few things from marginal sources, suggesting the following:

1. The IC (CIA, Brennan in the White House)did have a greater awareness than generally believed.
2. "They' had formulated the thesis (circa 2012-2013)that the only way to get rid of Assad was to rely on al- Nusra (backed by Qatar) and/or later ISIL (backed by the KSA or (Saudi nationals). This judgment was linked to the belief that some other, new non-radical leadership would emerge once Assad was gone.
3. Therefore, they took an essentially laissez-faire attitude toward ISIL as it emerged
4. Brennan's close personal relationship with Obama allowed him to persuade the President to view the early ISIL development through this optic.
5. Perhaps that explains Obama's absurd interview comment last February that ISIL was just an al-Qaeda Junior Varsity.
6. Brennan may have sold Obama this bill of goods by fudging the intelligence on who and what ISIL was, and other assessments re. Syria - so that Obama would behave in accordance with the Brennan strategy without ever signing off on it.

I am not in a position to credit any of this. It comes in part from a long-term journalist acquaintance of Brennan's who claims to have heard it in person from Brennan in the White House.

In a way, we're back to the old question: incompetence or stupidity?

It would be appreciated if the Colonel or anyone else could give an appraisal.



As I have written I first knew Brennan whwn he was a first tour CIA analyst attached to Alan Fiers' station in SA. My judgment of him then has not changed. He is a hyper ambitious dullard. I have no doubt that he has had a very limiting effect on Obama's thinking. Like so many people in government, he is probably incapable of the kind of thinking we are discussing. CIA, in particular is particularly addicted to the materialist poly sci mentality. pl


ROTL (get the hint?)

"trying to grasp the murderous conflict between religious sects in the ME is quite difficult for me" You need to study some European history. Try the Thirty Years War. pl



It is pretty much universally believed in the proffessariat that religion is an illusion, the opiate of the masses. The professariat is invited to the WH and to State to "educate." Unfortunately the :masses" are biting us all on the ass. pl

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

April 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    
Blog powered by Typepad