I see Qatar regime as progressive by local standards and generally considered their Wahabist affiliations more to appease the public than of actual conviction.
It is Qatar that are paying Hamas to continue their jihad (since many former donors now realise Hamas' genocidal ambitions, a bit late considering it is all laid out in the Hamas' Charter, but better late than never. It is Hamas that is paying for much of the supplies of the Al Nusra Front in Syria (ya know, the local Al Qaeda branch). So I think you are again romantacising Qatar, looking only at what you would like to see rather than what it does. The side effect of a pharmaceutical can be more significant than its intended effect - don't ignore the downsides of drugs nor ideologies.
I hardly consider Obama administration to have fulfilled its promises. While it failed dismally in many areas for its actions to match its rhetoric, I still consider it a minor improvement over the failings of the previous administration.
In terms of supporting liberty the previous Administration had a spotty record, but was actually miles ahead of Obama if you do the research. In terms of geopolitics the Bush Administration was miles better. Bush defeated Saddam (who would have had nuclear weapons by now, and would have killed even more of his Shia and Kurdish minorities through violence or starvation - eg the draining of the southern marshes). It was Bush who destroyed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and allow the use of waterboarding on (only!) three individuals that led to the elimination of Osama. It was Bush who liberated both Iraq and Afghanistan - but instead of cementing a hard won piece (as was done for Germany, Japan and Korea) Obama performed insanely hasty withdrawals simply for his own political benefit. Obama, like Bill Clinton, also used the power of the US to assist Islamicist takeovers (Libya, Egypt and now Syria; Bill C's was in Kosovo). Bush supported allies, while Obama sold them out (which is why Obama has *zero* credibility anymore with its allies). The damage Obama has done to geopolitica stability will take decades to repair. So I don't agree with your statement there. The worst crime Obama committed was siding with the Iranian theocracy in the Green Revolution. The World would be a much much better place today if he had stated the US promotes liberty for everyone everywhere - but he never ever stands up for Enlightenment values in actions (he just talks, his acts are usually supporting the Islamist and international Leftist agenda).
However, the current Islamic world is in disarray. Some may have grand ambitions to make the whole world Islamic, but they are in no shape to execute such ideas.
The Islamic world is indeed rotting within. However, there is enough force of will from the OIC to be a strategic civilizational-level threat. The country that your statement misses is Turkey. Turkey is getting stronger and with Erdogan at the helm is very very dangerous. Look at how they recently banned alcohol. They are regressing - just like second-generation Muslim immigrants are often more regressive and dangerous than the original immigrants (because the later ones never realise how horrible Islam is in practice when it controls society). Also in this paragraph you talk about the crimes of the European imperialists/Christianity. We agree. However you must realise that that was then. Making "moral equivalence" between acts of the past that Europe does not intend to repeat and the acts of Islam that are being repeated daily around the globe is bad - and provides cover for Islam to continue with its same bad actions. Please don't do it.
We agree. I think Infowars is junk and the signal-to-noise ratio is vastly lower than Breitbart/Newsmax (with the fantastic Thomas Sowell)/Frontpage. It is hard to discriminate whether Alex Jones' is simply a loon or it is a false flag disinformation programme, either way, infowars is not generally a good source.
Yes, I won't charge you to not having read enough. I have my reservations on the quality of some of the references though, just as you feel about mine. I prefer academic sources which are biased from your stand point. I accept that limitations exist but am not willing to throw the baby with the bathwater.
Fair point. Academic sources are superior - but they have to be evaluated critically for contamination by Cultural Marxism (which is destroying free discourse globally in universities).
I will listen to them (and all the other stuff you linked) to see if he has anything new to say, perhaps over the weekend. Likewise, I suggest you do take time to read about Islamic history from a non-culture war stand point, such as about their philosophers, not just power struggles and standard scholarship without political messaging, as it will temper your reaction to the topic. Never mind, if you have already done that.
The philosopher I'm most familiar with is Al Ghazali - and as a (former) scientist I consider him to be one of the worst forces for ignorance, superstition and evil in the World. Since Al Ghazali invalidated most of the earlier Islamic philosophers I have a passing historical interest in the earlier guys - but to be truthful I'm more concerned with Islamic doctrine as is stands today (which is why I recommend Stephen Coughlin to you). Everything else is abstract.
You think Islamic immigrants have not well assimilated in European countries and should stop immigration until they feel they can? Fine by me. West has every right to do that and should. You think US should prefer immigration from Europe, India and China, whose citizens are filtered by skill at consulates, assimilate well and should close immigration from problematic regions? Also OK from me. Nothing to argue over here. And there isn't much to do beyond that than wait.
I'm not really for freezing immigration. I don't see the fundamental problem with the Islamists per-se. I see the problem with the Cultural Marxists (academics and leftists politicians) that are using the Islamicists to change culture in a massive social experiment. I wouldn't even mind that if it was a force for good - but the reality is that the common totalitarian impulses of the Islamicists and Left are removing liberties (eg. it is clear the Obama regime simply sees the US Constitution as an outdated impediment to their 'progressive' goals - and are very happy to remove the protections it has for the US populace against tyranny - and if the US falls to tyranny it is bad for all of us [nb: I'm from New Zealand]).
And there isn't much to do beyond that than wait.
I disagree. Our moral obligation as people who have done the research to to inform others. If we don't stand for Enligtenment values who will? It will not get easier as time goes on and the Muslim flood and high birthrate into Europe continues (and they do not need to be a majority to impose their values). I can understand why you try and balance the debate with your statements. That works for other people with similar knowledge. However, for those that know a little I think it is very dangerous - because it can easily be misused by those making apologetics. I believe that if we defend Enlightenment laws, principles and values with no compromise and no exceptions that Islam will implode - just as the Soviet Union did. However, for every inch that we concede it makes it a harder and longer struggle to prevail in the end. Education of Muslim women is part of the solution, but it is not enough. It has to be a combination of education, uncompromising defence of Universal Human Rights (not the awful Sharia-compliant Cario 'Human Rights' nonsense), and robust and unapologetic kinetic action where needed. Then we will win and everyone will benefit (the West will have peace, Muslims will be free to practice what is left of their superstition, Israel will get the security it craves, etc).