Today a PolitiFact fact check caught my eye: “Mike Pence wrong that ISIS has been defeated.” Assigned a rating of “Mostly False” by the site, the assessment reminds us that as much as 20 percent of ratings by some fact checkers are actually “opinion checks” based on interpretation rather than indisputable fact.
The controversy over Pence’s remarks stems from a speech he gave earlier this week in which he said, “The caliphate has crumbled, and ISIS has been defeated” and that the U.S. would now “hand off the fight against ISIS in Syria to our coalition partners.”
Pence’s speech explicitly noted that “defeat” of ISIS would still entail a continued war against the insurgency.
Oh, it will require a good bit more than that. For starters, it will require an acknowledgment that “defeat ISIS” is pretty much devoid of any real value, because as soon as they dry up and blow away another group of murdering Muslim sickos is going to pop up in their place, just as ISIS supplanted al Qaeda in their own turn. The Muslim whack-a-mole game we’ve been engaged in for lo, these many years has no stopping point, no real end.
But Pence is wrong on one thing: a TRUE defeat of ISIS, involving as it would an open, straightforward acknowledgement of where the real problem lies—Islam— wouldn’t have to “entail a continued war” at all. We go all Sherman and LeMay on their ass by declaring adherents to the repugnant ideology of Islam our enemy, crushing them utterly, and killing them in job lots, leaving not one Middle Eastern brick standing upon another. Whatever is required of us to purge them of the will to fight against us for good, that’s what we do—without apology, remorse, or recrimination.
We then boot Muslim invaders from the Western countries they’ve infiltrated, and require any who might sincerely wish to enjoy whatever benefits life in modern civilization offers them to declare their allegiance to their nation, formally and explicitly renounce Islam, and pledge to desist from undermining or attacking their Western hosts on pain of either immediate deportation, imprisonment, or death should they ever be found to have relapsed into their former savagery. As the man says:
The term “defeat” has specific military meaning. The U.S. Army’s Field Manual 3-09 defines “defeat” as when “an enemy force has temporarily or permanently lost the physical means or the will to fight” and is embodied by “mass surrenders, abandonment of positions, equipment and supplies, or retrograde operations.”
I would take it a step further: as I’ve said many times over the years, we need to make the notion of attacking us so terrifying to them that the very thought causes them to piss themselves, and any among them who might dare to publicly advocate such a thing risks being torn apart by anybody within earshot. Sherman, among others, knew that defeating an enemy is never merely a matter of taking terroritory from him, but of humbling him—of cowing him, of subduing and disheartening him to an extreme degree. Otherwise, you’re just pissing in the wind.
uch a definition would certainly fit ISIS’s loss of its caliphate and its degradation from a quasi-nation-state back into a traditional federated terror organization. Indeed, the Atlantic Council has previously used the term “territorial defeat” to describe the U.S. focus in Syria and said that such “defeat” would still leave an “insurgency” on the ground.
The Council on Foreign Relations similarly clarified the “military defeat” of ISIS would still leave an insurgency that could effect and inspire attacks.
Then the real enemy hasn’t been defeated yet. ISIS may (or may not) have been, but the REAL enemy has not. And will not, until we gut up enough to at least call him by his proper name.
As for Politifact: yeah, fuck them anyhow, eight ways to Sunday. As the author notes, they’re not “fact-checking,” here or anywhere else; they’re pimping the liberal agenda, and that’s all.
Update! Well, obviously SOMEBODY has been defeated here.
Between 2007 and 2017, there were 8,686 petitions for spousal or fiancé visas for or on behalf of minors. And during that same period, 4,749 minors on spousal or fiancé visas got green cards. Even while the United States was claiming to fight sex trafficking in underage girls, our own immigration system was rewarding and promoting the sexual trafficking of girls as young as thirteen.
While the Senate report reveals that is the leading child marriage trafficking country, with 3,297 spousal visa petitions filed and 3,123 approved is Mexico, most of the countries in the top 10 list are Muslim.
580 petitions were filed and 554 approved from Nalia’s Pakistan. Another 541 filed and 509 approved from Jordan, 277 filed and 233 approved from Yemen, and 227 filed and 207 approved from Iraq.
Mexico once again tops the list of fiancé petitions with 444 filed and 338 approved, but Pakistan is once again in second place with 237 filed and 189 approved. Yemen accounts for 97 filed and 51 approved, Iraq had 94 filed and 72 approved, Jordan had 78 filed and 63 approved, Lebanon had 69 filed and 49 approved, Syria had 67 filed and 50 approved, and Afghanistan had 66 filed and 49 approved.
2,152 spousal and fiancé petitions for or on behalf of minors from Muslim countries were approved.
These numbers are extremely incomplete. No country is listed for over 3,000 of the petitions. But Muslim countries still make up 13 of the top 20 destination countries for child marriage trafficking.
Leaving Mexico aside for now, the question asks itself: WHY?!? For WHAT is our government allowing this absolutely stupefying nonsense to go on? WHO, exactly, believes it a good thing to admit more pedophile, juvie-raping Muslims into our country, their child-brides in tow? WHERE is the public clamor demanding this?
If you or I petitioned the government for official sanction to marry a 13 year old girl, what do you think the response would be?
This is nothing short of an outrage. I can’t even. I just…can’t even.