If there's a murderous, anti-Western, anti-democratic government to be found, Joe Hung will be there to lick its boots. Or sandals, as the case may be.
Barack Obama should stop his Crusade against ISIS now, demands Hung:
Obama still has time to reconsider [his] new Crusade, lest he should repeat President Bush's folly by getting the United States mired ever more deeply in the Middle East quagmire.
A competent historian would never say Obama was engaged in a Crusade, for the simple reason that Obama's not trying to recover formerly Christian lands in the Middle East.
(It helps, when one accuses another of launching a Crusade, to have some familiarity with the actual DEFINITION of the word...)
Moving along, ISIS's grotesque little apologist in Taipei asserts the Islamofascist group cannot be fought because it's invincible:
Even supposing the new Crusaders succeeded in toppling the IS caliphate, suicidal terrorism could never be stopped. Caliph al Baghdadi has ordered a jihad. There would not be any lack of mujahideen. Hundreds of thousands of his followers are willing and ready to die in a holy war against the Western imperialists who they believe are launching the new Crusade.
No, 'fraid not. A caliph's religious and political legitimacy rests necessarily upon his control over TERRITORY. Remove his control over land and his legitimacy vanishes. After which, the orders of a phony caliph carry no weight.
Speaking of al-Baghdadi's legitimacy, supermajorities in Middle Eastern countries have a unfavorable opinion of ISIS and regard al-Baghdadi's self-proclaimed position as illegitimate. Read into it what you will that an agnostic Confucian like Joe Hung finds al-Baghdadi more legitimate than the vast majority of Muslims do.
(Chart showing 85% of all Middle Easterners regard ISIS with disfavor.)
Finally, Joe Hung suggests that because ISIS is invincible, it should be left alone to bring peace to the region, the way the Ottoman Caliphate did in years previous:
There was no trouble in the Middle East while the caliphs of the Ottoman Empire ruled it for more than 400 years.
This is all highly unconvincing, since according to Islamic law, a caliph is REQUIRED to wage at least one war every year against Infidel nations.
An ISIS caliphate is therefore likely to create A GREAT DEAL of trouble outside the Middle East, regardless of what happens inside. (Just as the Ottomans made incessant war on Eastern Europe and the Balkans.)
And as for his fanciful prospects of ISIS pacifying the Middle East, Joe Hung forgets the presence of 6 million Jews and many more million Shiites in the region, whom ISIS is unlikely to leave unmolested.
Um, you said "rapes" twice.
POSTSCRIPT: Joe Hung invents "facts" to satisfy his narrative:
As a matter of fact, one result of the Crusades, during which Jews were massacred by Crusaders in a pogrom, was the birth of Zionism, which finally triumphed with the creation of Israel. [Emphasis added]
Comrade Historian is apparently unaware that Zionism (like many other forms of nationalism) was largely a product of the 19th century.