Within mere days of the “success” of Islamic terrorists attacking civilians in the center of Paris, Barack Hussein Obama is still insisting that he has to shut down facilities located in Guantánamo Bay.
He continues to insist that maintaining Guantánamo Bay to contain some of the worst terrorists ever spawned on this planet is in fact a recruiting tool for ISIS and because of that it must be closed.
Now listening to all the Democrat sycophants that surround the president one would be led to believe that he’s just the smartest guy on the planet. Until of course you begin to read other opinions as to why ISIS seems to be so successful in recruiting troops that support their so-called caliphate.
Predating the rise of Islam, Arabic and Middle Eastern cultures relied heavily on the concept of “the strong horse”. These cultures have historically viewed all their opponents as being either strong horses or weak horses, and they never bet on weak horses, always trying to ally themselves with the strong horse. The prophet Mohammed apparently never issued a fatwa suggesting to his followers that such a simplistic view might not be the best geopolitical attitude to take. So every Middle Eastern nation still follows the “strong horse” philosophy when confronting opposition.
It appears that the followers of ISIS base their tactics on their perception of Western civilization as being the ultimate weak horse. Being protected by a attacked nation’s own judicial system, and the Western worldview which considers executing a murderer to be inhumane contribute to the Middle Eastern view that Western civilization is decadent, or in their terms the weak horse. That being true, there is nothing in Western civilization that would deter their terrorism, such as attacks like the one most recently perpetrated in Paris.
After each successful attack that is not responded to forcefully, that reaction reinforces the view of the West that it is the weak horse. Just like any criminal organization, the weak, the disorganized, the irresolute become ever more attractive targets. The more attractive the target, the less willing it is to respond to attacks with overwhelming force, the more likely follow-on attacks will result.
Russia, while referred to as the “Lesser Satan”, is still treated with caution by terrorist organizations because of their willingness to respond to any attack with all the strength at their disposal. Western nations, on the other hand, are enamored with the concept called in military circles a proportional response. This reduces any respect Middle Eastern Muslims feel is required for Western nations because we aren’t killing irrespective of the age, sex, military status or any other factor that might cause such people to be classed as “noncombatants”. Under Western ethical concerns, we are supposed to treat the lives of these “noncombatants” as sacrosanct.
Mr. Obama appears to embrace those ethical concerns when dealing with Muslim fanatics. Sadly, terrorists view avoiding the deaths of noncombatants as a sign of weakness.
Within the context of the “strong horse”/“weak horse” binary selection options, not maintaining a posture of a strong horse, if not THE strong horse, becomes suicidal.
Not trying to perform a psychoanalysis of our president, I would be willing to imagine that if Barack Obama was asked to describe himself and his positions in the context of “strong horse”/“weak horse”, he would undoubtedly view himself as being the equivalent of Secretariat.
The leaders of ISIS, Iran, Iraq, Turkey and possibly others might have a different view. They might even be able to look at this picture and say “Yep, that’s Obama! Let’s get him.”