The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewIlana Mercer Archive
Wrong, Donald Trump, Islam Loves Us … to Bits
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

“I think Islam hates us,” said Donald J. Trump days before the last, March 10 debate in Coral Gables, Miami.

To mainstream media, this was a body blow as big as the blasts at the Brussels airport and metro station, on March 22.

The debate moderator gave Trump room to retract. Or, rather, to furnish the religion-of-peace politically correct pieties supplied by John Kasich before Brussels, and Hillary Clinton after the latest murder-by-Muslim of 31 European innocents.

The Kasich-Clinton statements are interchangeable:

“Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

Trump plowed on. To the question, “Did you mean all … Muslims?” he replied by insisting that a large number of Islam’s 1.6 billion-strong nation—Ummah—are prepared, even poised, to “use very, very harsh means” against Americans, whom, oddly, he, Donald Trump, would dearly like to protect.

They’re talking about radical Islamic terrorism or radical Islam,” said Trump. “But I will tell you this. There’s something going on that maybe you don’t know about, maybe a lot of other people don’t know about.”

It’s in the “they” and the “but.” Trump, whose pronouns are often missing a subject, was likely questioning the competition’s habit of pairing “radical” with “Islamic terrorism.” For if Islam is radical, as he probably suspects, then the “radical” adjectival is redundant.

People are pacified by such pairings. They persist in using veiled language. We’re up against an “ideology,” they noodle. We have to fight the ISIS “ideology”—which happens to be the al-Qaida “ideology”; is the “ideology” shared by Boko Haram and the Al-Nusra front; and has been the “ideology” around which Islam has organized since the 7th century, without meaningful religious reformation.

The ISIS “ideology” “represents the natural and inevitable outgrowth of a faith that is given over to hate on a massive scale,” writes NRO’s David French. Surveys conducted across the Muslim world reveal that a majority of Muslims are virulent anti-Semites, those “far removed from the Arab–Israeli conflict” as well.

Well, of course. The vilest vitriol in the Qur’an is reserved for us Jewish “apes.”

“Enormous numbers of Muslims are terrorist sympathizers,” observes French. “Roughly 50 million” are sympathetic to ISIS. “In Britain, for example, more Muslims join ISIS than join the British army.” Overwhelmingly, the Muslims questioned held disgusting views. How can they not? “Polygamy and sexual slavery” (verse 4:3) and the violent subjugation of women (4:34) are commanded in their Holy Book, too.

Brian Kilmeade, a Fox News Channel personality—with all the cerebral deficiencies the affiliation portends—wrote a book, “Thomas Jefferson and the Tripoli Pirates: The Forgotten War That Changed American History.” In it, to judge by a Factor interview he gave, late in 2015, Kilmeade co-opted Jefferson as a neocon, fighting 21st century America’s War On Terror.

Kilmeade’s silliest pronouncement during that interview was to say that the Muslim Tripoli Pirates had been practicing Islam in the way it was not meant to be practiced.

Did the Tripoli Pirates pirate The Authentic Islam, Mr. Kilmeade? If so, when in the course of its bloody history does The Authentic Islam kick-in?

Delve into the Qur’an, the hadith and the Sira, and it becomes abundantly clear: Islam is radical, has been for some time.

Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch reacted to Trump’s truism by excerpting dozens of Qur’anic verses, mandating eternal hatred and contempt for the Infidel. More materially, the faithful are to act on that hatred.

In reading the ghoulish litany, you lose count of the variations on the theme of, “Fight unbelievers until Islam reigns supreme” and make “wide slaughter among them.” Spencer then qualifies why Trump is right about the difficulties in separating out radicals from the rest. Muslims have yet to do this themselves. It’s their job: “There is no institutional distinction between Muslims who reject jihad terror and those who embrace it.”

True to type, the Christian Science Monitor has tried to discredit Brigitte Gabriel’s estimate of the number of Muslims raring to “cast into the hearts of the unbelievers terror” (3:151). The liberal newspaper ended up bolstering the activist’s case. One percent of Europe’s Muslim population would likely be willing to turn on Europeans. That’s a roiling reservoir of 325,000 Muslims, each capable of “slay[ing] idolaters” (9:5), à la Brussels and Paris (November, 2015).

Idiot alert: A small percentage of a huge number is still a bloody big deal.

So while most Muslims are not terrorists, a hell of a lot of them are ready, willing and able to dabble in the life-style.

You say, “There are some rough passages in the Hebrew Testament, too.”

Indeed. But they do not apply to anyone any longer—unless, in the words of Mr. Spencer, “you happen to be a Hittite, Girgashite, Amorite, Canaanite Perizzite, Hivite, or Jebusite.” Unsuited to obedience, we Jews have always argued over, interpreted and reinterpreted our Holy texts.

A principled non-interventionist must be first to concede that America’s adventurous foreign policy is a necessary condition for Muslim aggression; it is, however, far from a sufficient one. (Irrespectively, Americans don’t deserve to die stateside because of their government’s actions abroad.)

“Islam’s borders are bloody and so are its innards,” stated one of America’s most brilliant writers, Samuel P. Huntington, author of “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.” “The fundamental problem is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam,” he argued, in 1998. Islam is “a different civilization whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power.”

And Islam counsels conquest, not coexistence. Thus Islamic terrorism is the handiwork of people who’ve heeded, not hijacked, the unreformed Islam.

A President Trump ought to be able to keep his promise and stem the annual influx of 100,000 Muslims (multiplied many times due to family unification and chain migration policies, which allow one qualified sponsor to bring in a tribe).

Legal scholars of the caliber of Eugene Volokh and Eric Posner have reluctantly admitted that a moratorium on, or cessation of, Muslim immigration is not necessarily unconstitutional, under the “plenary power doctrine.”

States the federal law:

Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

All Muslims can thrive in America. Not all Americans will thrive in the presence of Muslims. This is because the faith of Muslims is Islam. And Islam predisposes to violence.

A preponderance of Muslims will remain dormant. But they could be “triggered” at any time, as was the case with Khalid and Brahim El Bakraoui. It only took this duo and a culprit or two to extinguish 30 lives and maim and mutilate hundreds more.

Brussels’ brothers El Bakraoui have “contributed” as much to their adopted country, Belgium, as Boston’s Tsarnaev brothers have to America.

American public policy is not a program to benefit the world; nor is it a means to a diplomatic end—namely appeasing Kasich’s and Marco Rubio’s partners in the Muslim world.

U.S. public policy must, very plainly, keep Americans safe without aggressing against others.

Since humanity does not have an inherent, natural right to venture wherever, whenever—stopping Muslim mass migration into the U.S. does not violate natural rights.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: 2016 Election, Donald Trump, Islam, Terrorism 
Hide 35 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. attonn says:

    Conquest, conversion and murder of “infidels” are a marching orders from the Quran and are not something that a “good Muslim” has a choice to reject.
    Kasich and Clinton must be on Saudi payroll to keep spewing a nonsense as obvious as “Islam is a religion of peace” drivel.
    Islam is a totalitarian, genocidal cult that fully approves of Muslims biding their time and faking moderation while their numbers are insufficient for the outright takeover of the host nation, but once Muslims achieve a critical mass, their true nature reveals itself in marginalization/ extermination of all other faiths.
    Of course, nowhere the true face of Islam is unveiled better than the Saudi Arabia itself, where the whole abomination had originated.
    All other religions are forbidden there, and even the most minute deviation from the dogma is punishable by death.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @Max Payne
  2. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @attonn

    Umm, you’re trying to keep this going, but I doubt that Ms. Mercer wants the comments to begin with mention of Saudi Arabia. Might lead to discussion of the variations in Islamic doctrine and practice, questions about why only the relatively secular nations in the MENA should be destroyed, and other awkward questions. This is TrumpTime, sir!

    • Replies: @attonn
  3. Sean says:

    Egypt has not been destroyed, although it has had some elections. Maybe Assad should have held some timely elections. Police states that have no elections may appear to be stable to elites and family dictatorships but they are like forests where the fires have been suppressed by outside intervention, and the result is a mega-conflagration at the slightest spark. Assad cut subsidies on basic necessities and that was the spark. Islamic doctrine has shaped the personalities of Arabs over countless generations, it’s not a matter of education.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @Talha
  4. attonn says:
    @anonymous

    I have no idea what you are trying to say. You Muslims are too cryptic and demure when you are not shouting “Allahu Akbar”.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  5. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean

    Is this gibberish in response to #2? I have noticed of late that a REPLY to a preceding comment doesn’t always show [email protected]—— in blue.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  6. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous

    Ah, the blue now appears — the gibberish was in response to #2.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  7. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @attonn

    Nope. I’m Christian. And a native born American with ancestry here to the 1740s. And pretty tired of all the blind “patriotism” with which my fellows obscure their views.

    The reason you’ve no idea [of] what I was saying may be a disinclination to read about the facts that I mentioned. How did your #1 challenge or inform the readership here? Weren’t you just piling on because Ms. Mercer and Mr. Trump are telling you what you want to believe?

    • Replies: @attonn
  8. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous

    No, wait — that was “attonn.”

    “Sean,” are you still there? There are probably six or eight people worldwide following this, so please clarify.

  9. attonn says:
    @anonymous

    The only one I see on this thread “obscuring their views” is you. The others mentioned (the author, Trump, me) are pretty clear on the subject at hand.
    Why don’t you simply inform everyone of your own beliefs with regard to Islam instead of hiding behind a nebulous accusations and a generic screen name (both of those are usually hallmarks of a coward)?

    • Replies: @anonymous
  10. Max Payne says:
    @attonn

    I wish the United States and UK would stop protecting Saudi Arabia too. Maybe the backwardness of the Middle East will finally right itself.

    But who am I kidding, as long as the US loves money and oil it’ll suck Saudi Arabia’s dick to keep it flowing (same applies to all GCC countries really, as we see Hillary in bed with Qatar).

    If the US fought a war for Kuwait, it would launch literal crusades to protect Saudi Arabia. Most Americans sure love to forget that fact. I don’t know why considering on day 3 after 9.11 the only flights allowed outside of the US (while the entire US air space was locked down) was the airplane carrying Bin Ladens family to Saudi Arabia.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bin-laden-family-evacuated/

    Here, that’s what the US is. Just for rent. Bin Laden family paid the fee and left while everyday Americans were grounded in their own country. Because the US would lay down American lives to protect Saudi Arabia (or at the VERY LEAST the House of Saud).

    Trump thinks he can change that but in the eyes of Saudi Arabia his money is nothing but chump change. Beggars purse really… and we all know the only thing that gets a response from the US is money (in the pockets of their politicians).

  11. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @attonn

    “Views” in the sense of what one sees, not what one has to say. My point is that comments like your #1 are needless rah-rah to what the author said. This apparently makes you feel validated and more important: “the author, Trump, me.”

    Now, if you want to learn something about Saudi Arabia and why Ms. Mercer would prefer to paint Islam and its adherents with a broad brush, someone else in #10 above has tried to help get you started. If your “views” are sufficiently informed, you can try to refute Max Payne. Maybe I’ll learn something from you in the process, which is why I come to this website to begin with.

  12. the Issacsohn appears, dragging her usual Zionist/anti-Islamic red herring. In fact Abrahamic Islam was/is nothing more than a 7th century spin-off from Abrahamic Jewry, a surrogate aggressor whose purpose was/is the destruction of White Western Civilization. The Crusaders understood this: that’s why they impartially slew both Jew and Moslem. During the Caliphate/Ottoman era, Jews functioned as the Islamic Empire’s tax-collectors, enforcers, and court advisers. As recently as 1922, on the Turkish coast at Smyrna, Jews and Moslems joined hands to massacre 200,000 Greek and Armenian Christians. And now the alliance between Zion-in-Palestine, alias Israel, and the Sunni terror states – Turkey, ISIS, and Saudi Arabia – is as obvious as Netanyahu’s nose. Currently Islam is just one of 4 invasive armies (+Blacks, mestizos, Asians) that the open-borders, universalist Tikkun Olam Judeo-globalist billionaires and their debt-controlled political class are using to destroy the White Nations

  13. Sean says:

    The Sunni Saudis are the main supporters of the Sunni anti Assad rebels and Trump says that the Saudis must supply troops to fight ISIS. Syria, which is a country of over 20 million people, was ruled by an unrepresentative minority regime that was losing the civil war because few Syrians would fight for it.

    • Replies: @Ace
  14. Islam teaches that the Moslems will take over the world, by persuasion where they can, by force where necessary.

    That eschatology is all you need to know.

    Christianity teaches that Christ will rule the world after His return. Therefore, taking over the world by force is just not in the game. If there is any force to be exerted, Christ will do it, not us.

    Now, it’s true there are peaceful Moslems.

    It’s also true there are violent Christians.

    We must turn, then, to the basic beliefs to determine who is going to remain a threat over the long haul. This is where it’s clear that Islam is a menace and will never be anything else.

    • Replies: @Talha
  15. Tony says:

    Indeed. But they do not apply to anyone any longer—unless, in the words of Mr. Spencer, “you happen to be a Hittite, Girgashite, Amorite, Canaanite Perizzite, Hivite, or Jebusite.”

    The Jebusites are still around. I think most of them are supporting Cruz now.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  16. biz says:

    I recently read Kilmeade’s book on the Barbary War and you have misrepresented it. He definitely does not claim that the Barbary States were practicing the wrong kind of Islam. There are no apologies for Islam in that book.

    For example he highlights clearly that the Bey’s ambassador in London said that his country had a divine right to kill and enslave Americans because he is Muslim and they are infidels.

    • Replies: @ilana mercer
  17. Talha says:

    And Islam predisposes to violence.

    I know, I know…that fool of an Ottoman Sultan, Bayazid – dispatching the royal navies to pick up and welcoming Jews that were kicked out of Spain:
    http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2377-bajazet-ii

    Pansy…

    When will those fool Muslims get it consistently right that we are supposed to kill all of them? I mean it says so in the Qur’an according to Her Eminence, Grand Mufti Mercer and Ayatollah, Hujjatul-Islam Spencer – it is a consensus ruling among all the scholars of the Orthodox Jahiliyyah school of jurisprudence – there is no dissenting opinion.

    I mean, Saladin, the most powerful Muslim sultan of his time screwed up big time too. He had Maimonides (the Jews’ second Moses) right there in front of him and instead of lopping off the head of the man responsible for the revival of Jewish intellectual thought – he hires him as his chief physician.

    What was wrong with you weak-kneed liberal Muslim leaders of the past?

    Ahem…

    U.S. public policy must, very plainly, keep Americans safe without aggressing against others.

    Now this makes sense.

  18. Talha says:

    An addendum…

    To dispel the nonsense that exists in the blogosphere and opinion pieces by psuedo-scholars, I would highly, highly recommend the work Jihad in Islamic History by Michael Bonner from Princeton University Press.

    http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8280.html

    It is a wonderfully compact, concise reading (less than 200 pages) on the subject that covers a vast time period (the city-state of Madinah, through the Ottomans, up until the modern nation-state period) and number of topics (concepts of martyrdom, scholarly differences, Muslim scholars who themselves participated in jihad, treatment of non-Muslim minorities, etc.).

    The work is very balanced and will make claims like “All the same, there is no doubt that the history of the dhimma compares favorably with the treatment of non-Christians in Europe during most of the pre-modern era” (and provide evidence) while not shying away from horrible incidents like the razing of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre by the (possibly insane) Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim or the Jewish massacre in Granada in 1066.

    There are slight mistakes like, he states, “The Muslim state—in the classical theory, the imam [caliph/ruler]—may conclude a truce with those [non-Muslim] rulers and states, but for no longer than ten years.” This ten years restriction is not the strongest opinion in the Hanafi school, which allows the truce to be open-ended/unlimited – a precedence for the nature of international relations of today. However, these minutiae should be overlooked in lieu of the solid research the author has done on an often-misunderstood topic.

  19. @biz

    You misrepresent my words. Why? Here they are:

    Kilmeade’s silliest pronouncement during that [Factor] interview was to say that the Muslim Tripoli Pirates had been practicing Islam in the way it was not meant to be practiced.

    Kilmeade said what I said he said during an interview with that other intellectual giant, Bill O’Reilly.

    So, I was quoting Kilmead’s LIVE interview. I would never read any Fox personality’s book. But he was very clear in his interview; and he most certainly toed the company line: PC about Islam all the way.

    It really is time for the thinking viewer to wake up to unthinking, PC Fox News.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  20. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @ilana mercer

    Ms. Mercer, it also seems fair to put some questions to you.

    I have been challenging your paeans to Mr. Trump here for several weeks, all of which you have ignored. It’s apparent that you closely read the comments about your columns. You often graciously acknowledge praise, but seldom respond (as you have here) to criticism.

    Why is that?

    And why this one exception, but not the more substantial comments, such as those elsewhere in this thread?

    Authors’ interaction with commenters can be enlightening; Mr. Dinh is a good example. I would prefer that you spend less time polishing prose and more defending your assertions.

    Thanks for at least reading this.

    • Replies: @Sean
  21. Talha says:
    @Sean

    Dear Sean,

    Police states that have no elections may appear to be stable to elites and family dictatorships but they are like forests where the fires have been suppressed by outside intervention, and the result is a mega-conflagration at the slightest spark.

    Excellent point…I remember watching the Phillipine government of Marcos fall apart due to similar circumstances (I believe it was a particular figure they assassianted) – don’t know if you’re old enough to remember it. Different land, different people, same toxic mix. Good thing the government and military wasn’t top-heavy with an ethnic minority or they might have gone into bunker-mode and caused a bloodbath among the protesters.

    May God preserve you and yours.

  22. Talha says:
    @The Grate Deign

    If I may…

    You haven’t been paying much attention to traditional Islamic eschatology.

    The Son of Mary (pbuh) descends and rallies the believers against the Dajjal (Anti-Christ). This, as you said, ushers in a golden age of peace and prosperity. We are awaiting his arrival as well.

    May God preserve you and yours and may we both find ourselves serving under his blessed banner when the Son of Mary (pbuh) arrives.

  23. Sean says:
    @anonymous

    Ilana has been prescient about Trump’s appeal, you haven’t and can’t understand how he has been so successful. What’s to defend?

    • Replies: @anonymous
  24. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean

    Here? You can start with the broadbrushing of Islam that evades any address of Saud.

    Previously? Among other things, the notion that Mr. Trump would by now have become more consistent and serious, such as by looking to people like Ron Paul or even Jim Webb to staff a proposed cabinet, etc. You can go back to her pieces, and my and others’ comments in these regards, and see this for yourself.

    Her defenders, whom I’ve referred to as the Trumpet section, started out by calling me a “troll” for Mr. Bush, then a “leftist.” Now, they mostly ignore me, just like she does. So thanks for at least chiming in on Ms. Mercer’s behalf.

    Did she confide in you about her unwillingness to defend her assertions when challenged or questioned? I really would like to know.

  25. Sean says:

    Whatever Ron Paul’s merits, his statements about Trump were a serious mistake. The Huffington Post announced at the start of the campaign that Trump’s campaign would be covered by their entertainment staff. You are being ignored because after all that has happened you’re still saying he is not a serious candidate, which is clearly wrong.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  26. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean

    I don’t know what you mean by “serious,” but my repeatedly ignored observations are that Mr. Trump is unworthy of Ms. Mercer’s (espoused) enthusiasm and that she knows as much but nevertheless feels compelled to rationalize his every thought and deed.

    Why did you request specifics from me, only to ignore all but a misreading of one of them?

    • Replies: @Sean
  27. Talha says:

    Also, MI5 disagrees…

    “Far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. MI5 says there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation.

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/aug/20/uksecurity.terrorism1

    …take it up with British intelligence.

  28. Sean says:
    @anonymous

    A politician needs qualities that Donald Trump has in abundance. Trump has justified his early supporters’ enthusiasm by becoming the front runner as Ms. Mercer predicted (and you did not). Nothing succeeds like success.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  29. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean

    Sean, is this just typing practice?

    To be clear, I have never attempted to predict anything about Trump’s success. What you say in #29 may otherwise be the case, but has nothing to do with my points that were reviewed in #25 at your request.

    And, of course, I still await anything at all from Ms. Mercer.

    • Replies: @Sean
  30. Sean says:
    @anonymous

    You have stated your belief that Muslims can’t be generalized about, that Trump is unworthy (of his success) and that Ilana is wrong about him. Well she wasn’t wrong about his astonishing success, after he generalized about Muslims. “What’s to defend” was a rhetorical question. The specific points you raised were complaint about a broad brushing of Muslims and evasion of any addressing of Saudis; they were self-contradictory for reasons that should be obvious. I am afraid the unwisdom of Trump appointing well known figures to his team is not clearly evident. Anyway, to get people interested in your views a successful prediction would not go amiss. Naysayers are ten a penny.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  31. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    You: “The specific points you raised were complaint about a broad brushing of Muslims and evasion of any addressing of Saudis; they were self-contradictory for reasons that should be obvious.”

    Please, sir. What I said was that her broadbrushing of Islam is what enables Ms. Mercer to avoid addressing the conduct of Saud.

  32. Ace says:
    @Sean

    Assad had difficulty because the US, Saudis, Qataris, and Turks were sending money, weapons, and thousands of foreign combatants there in a full-court press to bring him down. There’s much support for Assad and his army has stuck with him during the worst times.

    The “Assad must go” mantra of Kerry, Obama, and other morons is garbage.

  33. Sean says:

    Neighbours are natural enemies and a state on the far side of a enemy is a natural ally. Russia is opposed to Turkey, Turkey is opposed to the Kurds and both Assad and Russia try to use Islamic State to counter the other rebels. Obama could have toppled Assad with a couple of days of air strikes, but wasn’t that bothered either way. Where are the heavy weapons of the rebels if they are being supplied by the US?; they would have lots including air defence which could make mincemeat of Russian planes that are bombing them. Limited support for rebels yes, but Assad had a large army which was pushed back because while the rebels don’t have the numbers they have the majority of the population. If the Russians were bombing US backed rebels, they’d be shot down by the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger

    The US quickly became concerned that Jordan is going to go, nothing suggests they have any great interest in getting rid of Assad that would make them take risks with Jordan . The US had a humanitarian motive in the early Syrian civil war, because Assad was slaughtering masses of noncombatants. That motive has now faded and preventing Islamic radicals overthrowing the Hashemite state is the US number priority http://www.ibtimes.com/us-launches-rockets-southern-syria-jordan-first-time-2335353

    https://news.vice.com/article/the-great-wall-of-jordan-how-the-us-wants-to-keep-the-islamic-state-out The Obama administration is spending close to a half a billion dollars to build a sophisticated electronic fence along Jordan’s northern and eastern borders, a wall which US strategic planners hope will stem the flow of refugees and also wall off the increasingly important American base from the disintegration of Syria and Iraq.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ilana Mercer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?