Archive for November 18, 2015

REAL men like Obama aren’t afraid of widows and three year old orphans!

November 18, 2015

REAL men like Obama aren’t afraid of widows and three year old orphans! Dan Miller’s Blog, November 18, 2015

(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

As Obama has told us, Islam is the religion of peace, tolerance and love. Islamists coming to America to flee the violent depredations of Crusader-inspired Quaker, Amish and Jewish terrorists produced by climate change must be welcomed. To reject them would be cowardly and un-Amerian un-Islamic.

widows with children

Thus spake Obama, who has managed to become even more of a caricature of a president than previously. He needed to try manfully, but finally surpassed even Himself. Having set the bar so high, will He ever be able to surpass Himself again?

To ask “what Obama was thinking” when he made the remarks memorialized in the above video is to suggest that He was actually thinking. Perhaps He was thinking that His followers, who have been hiding in their “safe spaces” at Yale and other bastions of higher learning, are unaware of what happened in Paris. Maybe they are also unaware that it could happen in America if we permit the unfiltered immigration of Islamic terrorists like France, German, Sweden and much of the rest of Europe have done. Maybe they can be kept oblivious to such problems by happy talk about widows and young orphans. Or perhaps it was Obama’s way of showing courage and moral superiority: unlike His cowardly opponents, He isn’t scared of widows and three year old children! Other threats? He’s dealing really well with those, so let’s change the subject; He is too busy to talk about doing anything different.

Leading-from-Behind-copy

Leading from behind is lots of work, but He does it with the same bravery, steadfastness and self-sacrifice He demonstrates daily in all other contexts.

Hashtags, the Obama Administration’s most effective Weapons of Mass Deception (WMDs), have again been deployed:

refugeeswelcome-640x480
Shouldn’t the new hashtag read “#Widows and three year old orphans Welcome?” Shouldn’t also it disparage “racist” Halloween costumes and speech offensive to Muslims? In the holy name of Islam, we must submit to Obama’s wisdom; the Department of Domestic Tranquility (DDT) must get on the case immediately to make sure that we do.f

8 ISIS terrorists arrested plotting to pose as refugees

November 18, 2015

8 ISIS terrorists arrested plotting to pose as refugees, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, November 18, 2015

(Please see also, Obama in Manilla: Republicans Are Afraid of Widows and Three Year-Old Children. — DM)

cartoonrefugees

Nothing to worry about. If you’re at all concerned about terrorists posing as refugees, you’re probably some sort of orphan-hating Islamophobe.

Either that or the director of the FBI. Or the Director of National Intelligence.

But Obama knows that only bigots worry about terrorists posing as refugees. So it’s unfortunate that the Islamophobic Muslim government of Turkey just arrested 8 ISIS members who were plotting to pose as refugees to penetrate Europe.

Turkish police have detained eight suspected members of ISIS who were planning to sneak into Europe posing as refugees, state media said today.

Counter-terror police detained the suspects in Istanbul’s Ataturk Airport after they flew in from the Moroccan city of Casablanca on Tuesday, the official Anatolia news agency reported.

The police found a hand-written note on one of the suspects detailing a migration route from Istanbul to Germany via Greece, Serbia and Hungary, including smuggler boats across the Mediterranean Sea, as well as several train and bus journeys.

It comes just a day after it was revealed eight migrants have reached the EU using passports identical to the fake one found on one of the Paris suicide bombers.

We were told over and over again by the refugeecrats that ISIS terrorists would never want to pose as refugees because it’s just too slow and there are so many security checks. Apparently ISIS isn’t aware that it isn’t supposed to infiltrate countries as refugees.

Let’s swiftly ignore this news and take in huge numbers of Syrian migrants the way that Obama and Hillary want us to while completely ignoring the terror risks until an actual attack happens.

Obama in Manilla: Republicans Are Afraid of Widows and Three Year-Old Children

November 18, 2015

Obama in Manilla: Republicans Are Afraid of Widows and Three Year-Old Children, Fox News via You Tube, November 18, 2015

(Obama is increasingly becoming a caricature of himself. Does he actually believe that stuff?  Does anyone? — DM)

Post Paris: Can Sharia Law and the Constitution Coexist?

November 18, 2015

Post Paris: Can Sharia Law and the Constitution Coexist? PJTV via You Tube, November 18, 2015

 

Turkey, US to begin op for ISIL-free zone in Syria

November 18, 2015

Turkey, US to begin op for ISIL-free zone in Syria

Deniz Zeyrek – ANKARA

Wednesday,November 18 2015,

Source: Turkey, US to begin op for ISIL-free zone in Syria – DIPLOMACY

AFP photo

AFP photo

Turkish Foreign Minister Feridun Sinirlioğlu confirmed to Hürriyet on Nov. 17 that NATO allies Ankara and Washington have agreed to stage a “joint operation” along Turkey’s border with Syria, with sources saying this is the start of a previously announced bid to establish an “ISIL-free zone.”

Sinirlioğlu was responding to a question on statements by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who had said earlier in the day that the two countries would start an operation to complete the securing of the northern Syrian border, which has been used in the past by Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) militants.

Military and diplomatic sources told Hürriyet that Kerry was referring to “a cleaning operation” to be conducted in a 98-kilometer long zone on the so-called “Mare-Jarablus line,” underlining that the campaign would kick-off soon.

As the U.S. and Turkey together provide “air protection,” armed forces from the Free Syrian Army (FSA) will launch an offensive against ISIL.

Officials stressed that the Turkish Armed Forces will not put boots on the ground, though action will be taken against ISIL elements along the Turkey-Syria border.

The Turkish military will hit ISIL targets in Syria by strikes launched from Turkish territory, they said.

“We are pressing the button for the ‘ISIL-free zone’ that was publicly mentioned earlier,” a senior Turkish official speaking on condition of anonymity told Hürriyet.

“Seventy-five percent of Syria’s northern border has so far been shut down. And we are entering an operation with the Turks to shut off the remaining 98 kilometers,” Kerry said in an interview with CNN earlier on Nov. 17.

Kerry, who was in the southern Turkish province of Antalya on Nov. 15 to attend the G-20 Summit, arrived in Paris on Nov. 16 to pay respects to the victims of the Nov. 13 terrorist attacks that killed 129 people.

The United States and Turkey hope that by sweeping ISIL from the border zone they can deprive it of a smuggling route that has seen its ranks swell with foreign fighters and its coffers boosted by illicit trade, Reuters said in a Nov. 17 report.

Earlier, speaking to reporters after meetings French President Francois Hollande and Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius in Paris, Kerry said increased coordination with Russia in the fight against ISIL militants would require progress in the political process to end the Syrian war.

He added that agreements reached last week at the Vienna peace talks on Syria meant the country could be “weeks away, conceivably, of a big transition.”

Kerry also referred to independently conducted U.S. and Russian air strikes in Syria.

In Vienna on Nov. 14, Russia, the United States and powers from Europe and the Middle East outlined a plan for a political process in Syria leading to elections within two years, but differences remained on key issues such as the fate of President Bashar al-Assad.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Barack Obama also spoke about Syria on the sidelines of the G-20 Summit on Nov. 15.

November/18/2015

Post Paris: Is Obama Actually Pro-Jihadi?

November 18, 2015

Post Paris: Is Obama Actually Pro-Jihadi?, PJTV via You Tube, November 17, 2015

 

France ′at war′ against ′Islamic State′

November 18, 2015

France ‘at war’ against ‘Islamic State’ French President Hollande has put France on a war footing and proposed expanded powers for security services for the next three months. The speech comes as two killed and seven arrested in a raid on suspected mastermind.

Source: France ′at war′ against ′Islamic State′ | News | DW.COM | 18.11.2015

Frankreich Kabinettssitzung Ausnahmezustand Francois Hollande

Paris prosecutor Francois Molins said telephone surveillance and witness statements had led police to believe that Belgian jihadist Abdelhamid Abaaoud was in an apartment in Saint-Denis in northern Paris.

Anti-terrorist police had flooded the streets near the building and soldiers were also drafted in for an operation that lasted around seven hours that left two people dead, including a woman who police say blew herself up.

But it’s still unclear whether Abaaoud was among those killed or captured by French commandos.

“As things stand, it is impossible to give you the identities of the people detained, which are being verified,” Molins said. “All will be done to determine who is who, and based on the work of forensic police, we’ll tell you who was in the apartment – and what consequences it will have for the development of the investigation.”

French President Francois Hollande praised the country’s security services and said that France was “at war” with the Islamic State group which has claimed responsibility for the coordinated attacks that killed at least 129 people.

“It is the entire country that’s been attacked,” Hollande told a gathering of French mayors. “For what it represents, the fight we are leading to eradicate terrorism. And simply for what we are.”

In his televised remarks, Hollande urged the nation not to “give in to fear” or extremist sentiments.

“No anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim act can be tolerated,” Hollande said.

Frankreich Schießerei bei Polizeiaktion in Saint-Denis Paris Members of special French RAID forces in Saint-Denis, near Paris, France, November 18, 2015. This week the French government will consider extending the ‘state of emergency’ police powers for an additonal three months.

State of emergency for three months?

The president’s remarks come the same day as a bill to extend France’s state of emergency powers for three months is being considered by the cabinet.

Hollande had declared a state of emergency for 12 days following Friday night’s deadly attacks, and parliament must approve extending it. If passed by the cabinet, it could move its way through both legislative houses by the end of the week.

The state of emergency increases police powers of search and arrest and limits public gatherings, including houses of worship including mosques.

This comes the same day as the European Commission considers a bloc-wide ban on certain semi-automatic firearms and standardize markings across the European Union.

“Organized criminals accessing and trading military grade firearms in Europe cannot and will not be tolerated,” European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said.

jar/jil (AP, AFP, dpa)

After Backing Jihad and Open Borders, French Gov’t Feigns Shock

November 18, 2015

After Backing Jihad and Open Borders, French Gov’t Feigns Shock

Written by Alex Newman

Monday, 16 November 2015

Source: After Backing Jihad and Open Borders, French Gov’t Feigns Shock

After Backing Jihad and Open Borders, French Gov't Feigns Shock

First, Socialist French politicians loudly backed brutal jihadists in Syria to overthrow the dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad. Then they supported open borders so those same jihadists and their victims could flood into Europe, where the law-abiding populace has been largely disarmed and left defenseless by those same politicians. Now, the French government and Western politicians are feigning shock over the tragic but entirely predictable terrorist attack that claimed more than 120 lives in Paris. And if the same sort of policies continue, which appears likely at this point, analysts say more attacks in the future are all but inevitable.

Among those pointing to French government support for jihad in Syria as being at least partly responsible for the “blowback” was former congressman and three-time presidential contender Ron Paul. “Because the U.S. and its allies are essentially on the same side as ISIS and other groups — seeking the overthrow of Assad — many of the weapons they have sent to the more ‘moderate’ factions also seeking Assad’s ouster have ended up in the hands of radicals,” explained Paul, who for decades has been a leading advocate of a non-interventionist foreign policy. “Moderate groups have joined more radical factions over and over, taking their US-provided training and weapons with them.”

Indeed, as top U.S. officials and declassified intelligence documents have revealed, the reality is even worse than what Paul describes in his diplomatically worded critique. Consider, for example, the fact that Obama’s so-called “anti-ISIS” coalition — the governments and dictatorships ruling France, the United Kingdom, Turkey, and various Sunni Arab kingdoms — was largely responsible for creating, arming, funding, and training the Islamic State. “There was no moderate middle” in Syria, Vice President Joe Biden explained in a speech, contradicting Obama and his claim to be arming “moderate” rebels. Biden also noted that Obama’s Islamic allies were determined to take down Assad and have a “proxy war.”

“They [Obama’s allies] poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens, thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad; except that the people who were being supplied were Al Nusra and Al Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world,” Biden continued, without pointing to the administration’s well-documented role in it all. “All of a sudden everybody’s awakened because this outfit called ISIL, which was Al Qaeda in Iraq, which when they were essentially thrown out of Iraq, found open space in territory in eastern Syria, work with Al Nusra who we declared a terrorist group early on, and we could not convince our colleagues to stop supplying them.”

Other top U.S. officials have echoed those remarks. Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey admitted in Senate testimony that he knew of Arab allies in Obama’s anti-ISIS coalition that were funding ISIS. The terror group claimed responsibility for the attack, in which a handful of jihadists killed or injured more than 500 disarmed and helpless victims across Paris. Other senior military officials have also admitted that the Obama administration backed jihadists despite warnings about the inevitable consequences that would follow. Some former U.S. generals have even concluded that Obama “switched sides” in the terror war.

And a declassified 2012 report from the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency revealed that Western powers and their Islamic allies have known all along that al-Qaeda was leading the Syrian uprising, but were supporting the jihad anyway. “There is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist [fundamentalist Islam] principality in Eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime,” the same document explains. They got their wish, of course, when the Islamic State officially announced the establishment of its “caliphate” in Eastern Syria and parts of Iraq.

“Does anyone not believe this is a recipe for the kind of disaster we have now seen in Paris?” asked Paul in his column, published by the liberty-oriented Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. “The French in particular have been very active in arming even the more radical groups in Syria, as they push for more political influence in the region. Why do they still refuse to believe in the concept of blowback? Is it because the explanation that, ‘they hate us because we are free,’ makes it easier to escalate abroad and crack down at home?”

But thinking that more of the same will help solve the problem is futile, Paul continued. “It may not be popular to say this as emotions run high and calls ring out for more bombing in the Middle East, but there is another way to address the problem,” he said. “There is an alternative to using more military intervention to address a problem that was caused by military intervention in the first place. That solution is to reject the militarists and isolationists. It is to finally reject the policy of using ‘regime change’ to further perceived US and western foreign policy goals, whether in Iraq, Libya, Syria, or elsewhere.”

Paul was not the only voice expressing similar concerns. After the Paris attacks, the pro-transparency group WikiLeaks took to Twitter to make the same argument. “At least 39 dead in French terror attacks this evening. France has closed borders. US, UK, France fed ISIS. Not so funny now, is it?” the group asked in a comment that, despite its truthfulness, was perceived as insensitive by some critics. “At least 39 dead tonight in Paris terror attacks. 250,000 dead in Syria & Iraq. Both a direct result of US, UK, France feeding Sunni extremists.” The anti-secrecy group also said that those who funded, armed and trained Sunni extremists in Syria and Libya — a clear reference to the Obama administration and the Socialist French government — should be “brought to justice.”

In response to the attacks, the Socialist president of France, Francois Hollande, vowed a “merciless” response to jihad. Within days, French military jets were dropping bombs over Syria, supposedly aiming to strike ISIS targets. Yet, in recent years, French authorities have been among the most vocal supporters of the Islamic extremists waging war on Syria’s secular tyrant, Bashar al-Assad, who is called an “apostate” by Western-backed jihadists hoping to oust him. In Libya, the French government was also key in the “regime change” plot that armed known Islamic terrorists — many were openly affiliated with al-Qaeda — to overthrow the secular autocracy of dictator Moammar Gadhafi.

Of course, those two conflicts, in which Western globalists openly sided with terrorists and jihadists against former “terror war” allies, were the primary drivers of the massive influx of refugees into Europe. And while skeptical analysts have cast doubt on the narrative, according to multiple news reports, at least one of the Islamists who struck in Paris, possibly two, entered Europe as a Syrian “refugee” through Greece. Obama is planning to bring thousands to the United States, even though U.S. officials acknowledge that they cannot be properly vetted due to a lack of information from Syrian authorities.

ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other terrorist groups have even been bragging publicly about how they are “infiltrating” the West by posing as “refugees.” Fake Syrian passports can easily be purchased on the black market. Those groups have been explicit in promising attacks on the West, too. And multiple analysts have argued that French security services, when they are not tracking down anti-Islam activists for “hate speech” prosecutions, have been tracking the jihadists — while doing  practically nothing to stop them. At least several of the terrorists in recent attacks were well known to authorities, according to media reports. Indeed, Turkish authorities said they warned French officials about one of the Paris attackers — twice.

Disarming the law-abiding citizens of France with among the world’s most draconian gun-control regimes, leaving the French defenseless to cower in front of terrorists with no respect for weapons regulations, certainly did not help matters either, pundits declared. “You can say what you want, but if they had guns — if our people had guns, if they were allowed to carry — it would have been a much, much different situation,” argued U.S. presidential hopeful Donald Trump, currently a frontrunner for the GOP nomination, in a speech to a cheering audience in Texas.

“When you look at Paris — the toughest gun laws in the world — nobody had guns but the bad guys. Nobody. Nobody had guns,” Trump continued, echoing previous remarks he made during the last mass shooting in Paris by jihadists earlier this year. “[The terrorists] were just shooting them one by one.” He also noted that in the United States, cities with the most gun control tend to have the most violence. “So our country better get smart because we’re not smart right now,” Trump added.

A month before the attack, Obama was exploiting anti-Christian terrorism to advance more gun control in the United States. And just hours before the attack, Obama even claimed, falsely, that ISIS had been “contained.” Still, before the names of the victims were all released, those same politicians were already demanding more war, more intervention in Syria, more surveillance of citizens, and other draconian measures. Perhaps not surprisingly, Obama administration officials also seized on the Paris attack to slam privacy rights, encryption, and more. Some even tried to deflect the blame for the attacks onto NSA leaker Edward Snowden.

In the end, though, Snowden did not cause the attack, nor did a lack of gun control, or a lack of Western military intervention in the Middle East. But the horrific terror spree should not have been a surprise. Instead, the bloodshed was the predictable fruit of globalist machinations in the Middle East and beyond — the very same sort of machinations that are now being ramped up in the wake of the attack — as well as domestic policies such as gun control and open borders. If the people of the United States and France are concerned about jihadist terrorism, they should look at the source of most of it, and bring those responsible to justice.

Photo at top shows security forces outside Notre-Dame Cathedral during memorial service: AP Images

Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe. Follow him on Twitter

Why Muslim Migrants Always = Terrorism

November 18, 2015

Why Muslim Migrants Always = Terrorism, American ThinkerSelwyn Duke, November 18, 2015

Studies have shown that young Muslims in Europe are actually more radical than their elders.

*********************

What’s the point in the West sending troops to the Middle East if we bring the Middle East to the West? The preceding is a money line, one that should be used by Islam realists from Germany to Georgia.

The Paris terror attack has inspired much debate, from conservatives saying we need to confront ISIS aggressively overseas to liberals wringing their hands over rising anti-Islam sentiment that they claim will exacerbate the jihadist problem. And while I’m more sympathetic to the former sentiment than the latter, nothing should distract us from what must be our number-one priority: stopping the Muslim influx into the West cold.

Many say this is a cold position. And, unfortunately, their prescription for (misguided) compassion is seldom sufficiently refuted.

In an attempt to salvage a failing multicultural model and strategy for importing left-leaning voters, we hear that the Muslim migrants must be “vetted” better. A simple practical problem with this notion is that Syria’s and other Middle Eastern countries’ databases are woefully inadequate, making accurate information on many migrants impossible to obtain. This confronts us with a simple matter of probability: if 1 million migrants enter a nation over time and just 1/10th of 1 percent are terrorists, that’s 1000 dangerous jihadists. Is this acceptable? Note that my estimate may be conservative.

Yet there’s also a fundamental problem with vetting that goes unmentioned: even with complete information, it only tells you about the past.

It cannot tell you about the future.

In other words, even if those one million migrants have “clean records,” how many will become terrorists in the future? Again, 1/10th of 1 percent is 1000.

And what of their children? How many of them will become terrorists? No point repeating best-case-scenario percentages.

One response here is that the children will be more integrated and thus the problem should diminish over time. This is logical, but, unfortunately, also apparently untrue.

Studies have shown that young Muslims in Europe are actually more radical than their elders. This certainly is counterintuitive, but only because the average Westerner’s cranial database also doesn’t contain accurate information. For example and related to this, moderns take as a given that religion is declining in our “enlightened times.” Yet religious belief is actually increasing worldwide, a phenomenon poised to continue. Islam’s adherents are growing in number, and Catholicism’s are, too, slightly in excess of the increase in world population. Religious belief is only declining in the West — and, most significantly, among Westerners in the West.

Another common argument was expressed by Charles Grant, director of pro-E.U. think-tank Centre for European Reform. He said that ratcheting up the anti-Islamic rhetoric would serve ISIS’ ends and that “Europe’s game must be to resist that and not repeat the mistakes we made after September 11 which played right into al-Qaeda’s hands. We must hold our nerve and embrace our values of tolerance of faith and religions which we share in common and against the Islamic State,” reported the Telegraph. Many leftists echo this, the idea being that we must not further “alienate” Muslim communities. This overlooks that you can only alienate those who aren’t already alien.

Note again that the pattern evident is for younger Muslim generations to become more alienated from the West, not less. Some would blame this on the West itself, saying that despite indulging multiculturalism, outlawing anti-Muslim rhetoric and offering generous government benefits, we still aren’t opening our arms and hearts to these newcomers. Kill ‘em with kindness, the thinking (feeling?) goes.

Of such people ask a simple question: can you cite one time in history in which large numbers of Muslims have willingly assimilated into a non-Muslim culture?

Just one?

While there may be some exception, I can’t think of any. Note here a recent poll showing that a slim majority of U.S. Muslims prefer living under Sharia law to American civil law (and how many wouldn’t admit such a thing to pollsters?). The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, and the historical record informs that “Muslim assimilation” is a contradiction in terms.

In fact, I don’t know of even one instance in which large numbers of Muslims were ever shaken from Islam other than by the sword, and that wasn’t done very much, if at all. There was an attempt by a group of medieval Christian missionaries to peacefully convert Middle Eastern Muslims, but the effort was found futile and abandoned after a short time.

Then there’s the myth of “assimilation.” The term is thrown around thoughtlessly much as is “diversity,” and seldom mentioned is that assimilation is never complete. For while large groups who immigrate to a nation often do change, they also are agents of change. Did the large waves of Irish, Italian and German immigrants not alter America somewhat? This might have been a good, bad or neutral thing, but it’s assuredly a real thing.

There are also those who don’t assimilate markedly, if at all. Have the Amish or Hasidic Jews assimilated noticeably into the wider culture? Again, I’m not here making a value judgment on their particular different-drummer walk. The point is merely that assimilation is, foolishly and dangerously, taken as a given when there’s great precedent proving it’s not.

And this also is a numbers game. The rare Muslim who contemplated going to the West many years ago had to be a different kind of Muslim, one who understood he was entering a Christian culture that wouldn’t cater to his desires. He and his co-religionists would be so few and far between there’d be no prospect for “Halal” groceries, Islamic interest-free financing or Muslim schools for his children. So he’d be forced to assimilate by having to work within the established institutions of the host nation. But great numbers of Muslims form their own enclaves and their own institutions; this reality not only makes the journey west more inviting to pious Muslims, but also enables them to reinforce each other’s beliefs.

There’s another problem with assimilation: a prerequisite for it is providing something attractive to assimilate into. The communist political activist Willi Munzenberg once reportedly said, “We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks.” This has been accomplished. Decadence is everywhere, and we no longer even know what marriage is or what boys and girls are. French president Francois Hollande recently canceled a dinner meeting with the Iranian president because he refused to bow to a demand to serve Halal meat and no wine. It’s good he took at least that stand, but one could just imagine his hurling accusations of “intolerance” at Christians who refused to refrain from saying the Lord’s Prayer before a meal with Muslims. It’s an example of how Western Europe has been hollowed out, how it has the superficialtiies of its culture but not the substance. What are foreigners today supposed to assimilate into in today’s France, Italy, Germany and U.S.? Bread and wine; pasta fagioli; Wiener schnitzel; and baseball, hot dogs and reality TV, all lathered in moral relativism? Are they really going to follow the lead a dying anomaly in a world of growing religiosity? Heck, I’m a Westerner, and as a believing Christian I refuse to assimilate into my country’s wider culture (although I save my cutting off of heads for broccoli). Thus, with assimilation, even if Muslim migrants were buyin’, they wouldn’t be buyin’ what we’re sellin’.

Of course, none of this means we should toss the post-Christian West from the frying pan into the fire. If you want to destroy liberalism, though — both the suicidal modern ideology and the extant remnants of the classical variety — Islamization is a sure way to do it.

 

Obama Wants to Defeat America, Not ISIS

November 18, 2015

Obama Wants to Defeat America, Not ISIS His real enemy isn’t the Caliph of ISIS, but the ordinary American.

November 18, 2015

Daniel Greenfield

Source: Obama Wants to Defeat America, Not ISIS | Frontpage Mag

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

Last year at a NATO summit, Obama explicitly disavowed the idea of containing ISIS. “You can’t contain an organization that is running roughshod through that much territory, causing that much havoc, displacing that many people, killing that many innocents, enslaving that many women,” he said.

Instead he argued, “The goal has to be to dismantle them.”

Just before the Paris massacre, Obama shifted back to containment. “From the start, our goal has been first to contain them, and we have contained them,” he said.

Pay no attention to what he said last year. There’s a new message now. Last year Obama was vowing to destroy ISIS. Now he had settled for containing them. And he couldn’t even manage that.

ISIS has expanded into Libya and Yemen. It struck deep into the heart of Europe as one of its refugee suicide bombers appeared to have targeted the President of France and the Foreign Minister of Germany. That’s the opposite of a terrorist organization that had been successfully contained.

Obama has been playing tactical word games over ISIS all along. He would “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS. Or perhaps dismantle the Islamic State. Or maybe just contain it.

Containment is closest to the truth. Obama has no plan for defeating ISIS. Nor is he planning to get one any time soon. There will be talk of multilateral coalitions. Drone strikes will take out key figures. And then when this impressive war theater has died down, ISIS will suddenly pull off another attack.

And everyone will be baffled at how the “defeated” terrorist group is still on the march.

The White House version of reality says that ISIS attacked Paris because it’s losing. Obama also claimed that Putin’s growing strength in Syria is a sign of weakness. Never mind that Putin has all but succeeded in getting countries that were determined to overthrow Assad to agree to let him stay.

Weakness is strength. Strength is weakness.

Obama’s failed wars occupy a space of unreality that most Americans associate with Baghdad Bob bellowing that there are no American soldiers in Iraq. (There are, according to the White House, still no American ground forces in Iraq. Only American forces in firefights on the ground in Iraq.)

There’s nothing new about any of this. Obama doesn’t win wars. He lies about them.

The botched campaign against ISIS is a replay of the disaster in Afghanistan complete with ridiculous rules of engagement, blatant administration lies and no plan for victory. But there can’t be a plan for victory because when Obama gets past the buzzwords, he begins talking about addressing root causes.

And you don’t win wars by addressing root causes. That’s just a euphemism for appeasement.

Addressing root causes means blaming Islamic terrorism on everything from colonialism to global warming. It doesn’t mean defeating it, but finding new ways to blame it on the West.

Obama and his political allies believe that crime can’t be fought with cops and wars can’t be won with soldiers. The only answer lies in addressing the root causes which, after all the prattling about climate change and colonialism, really come down to the Marxist explanation of inequality.

When reporters ask Obama how he plans to win the war, he smirks tiredly at them and launches into another condescending explanation about how the situation is far too complicated for anything as simple as bombs to work. Underneath that explanation is the belief that wars are unwinnable.

Obama knows that Americans won’t accept “war just doesn’t work” as an answer to Islamic terrorism. So he demonstrates to them that wars don’t work by fighting wars that are meant to fail.

In Afghanistan, he bled American soldiers as hard as possible with vicious rules of engagement that favored the Taliban to destroy support for a war that most of the country had formerly backed. By blowing the war, Obama was not only sabotaging the specific implementation of a policy he opposed, but the general idea behind it. His failed wars are meant to teach Americans that war doesn’t work.

The unspoken idea that informs his strategy is that American power is the root cause of the problems in the region. Destroying ISIS would solve nothing. Containing American power is the real answer.

Obama does not have a strategy for defeating ISIS. He has a strategy for defeating America.

Whatever rhetoric he tosses out, his actual strategy is to respond to public pressure by doing the least he can possibly do. He will carry out drone strikes, not because they’re effective, but because they inflict the fewest casualties on the enemy.

He may try to contain the enemy, not because he cares about ISIS, but because he wants to prevent Americans from “overreacting” and demanding harsher measures against the Islamic State. Instead of fighting to win wars, he seeks to deescalate them. If public pressure forces him to go beyond drones, he will authorize the fewest air strikes possible. If he is forced to send in ground troops, he will see to it that they have the least protection and the greatest vulnerability to ISIS attacks.

Just like in Afghanistan.

Obama would like ISIS to go away. Not because they engage in the ethnic cleansing, mass murder and mass rape of non-Muslims, but because they wake the sleeping giant of the United States.

And so his idea of war is fighting an informational conflict against Americans. When Muslim terrorists commit an atrocity to horrifying that public pressure forces him to respond, he lies to Americans. Each time his Baghdad Bob act is shattered by another Islamic terrorist attack, he piles on even more lies.

Any strategy that Obama offers against ISIS will consist of more of the same lies and word games. His apologists will now debate the meaning of “containment” and whether he succeeded in defining it so narrowly on his own terms that he can claim to have accomplished it. But it really doesn’t matter what his meaning of “containment” or “is” is. Failure by any other name smells just as terrible.

Obama responded to ISIS by denying it’s a threat. Once that stopped being a viable strategy, he began to stall for time. And he’s still stalling for time, not to beat ISIS, but to wait until ISIS falls out of the headlines. That has been his approach to all his scandals from ObamaCare to the IRS to the VA.

Lie like crazy and wait for people to forget about it and turn their attention to something else.

This is a containment strategy, but not for ISIS. It’s a containment strategy for America. Obama isn’t trying to bottle up ISIS except as a means of bottling up America. He doesn’t see the Caliph of the Islamic State as the real threat, but the average American who watches the latest beheading on the news and wonders why his government doesn’t do something about it. To the left it isn’t the Caliph of ISIS who starts the wars we ought to worry about, but Joe in Tennessee, Bill in California or Pete in Minnesota.

That is why Obama sounds bored when talking about beating ISIS, but heats up when the conversation turns to fighting Republicans. It’s why Hillary Clinton named Republicans, not ISIS, as her enemy.

The left is not interested in making war on ISIS. It is too busy making war on America.