Caliphate | WarSclerotic | Page 10

Archive for the ‘Caliphate’ category

Humor: Senseless, violent, random “extremism” is not Islamic

February 14, 2015

Senseless, violent, random “extremism” is not Islamic, Dan Miller’s Blog, Sen. Ima Librul, February 14, 2015

(The views expressed in this article are mine and those of my (imaginary) guest author. They do not necessarily represent the views of Warsclerotic or any other editor. — DM)

Editor’s note: This is a post by my (imaginary) guest author, the Very Honorable Ima Librul, Senator from the great State of ~~Confusion~~ Utopia. He is a founding member of CCCEB (Climate Change Causes Everything Bad), a charter member of President Obama’s Go For it Team, a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Chairman of the Meretricious Relations Subcommittee.

Senator Librul is also justly proud of his expertise in interfaith dialogue, on the basis of which he has explained to the entire world that Islam is the religion of peace, grossly distorted by the non-Islamic Islamic State and other textual deviants. He was recently awarded the Obama Foundation’s cherished award for exemplary political correctness on the basis of his interfaith outreach. We are ~~humiliated~~ honored to have a post of this caliber by a quintessential Librul such as the Senator. Without further delay, here is the Senator’s article.

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

Almost no perpetrators of senseless, random, violent extremism are Muslims. Obama’s war on violent, random and senseless non-Islamic extremism will end the cycle of violence. Soon, all will come to trust and love us.

Here are just a few videos of non-Muslims engaged in extreme and senseless random violence.

The woman who was attacked was in the wrong place at the wrong time. She has only herself to blame and should have known better.

Like the senseless random attacks on Charlie Hedbo and a grocery store in France, this was also the fault of the alleged victim.

Even our best friends can do it.

Finally, here’s absolute proof of my analysis;

Whoops. Wrong video, but there is no proof that these folks were in any way motivated to engage in senseless, extremist and random violence by the religion of peace. Nobody is, and there is not one single word in the Holy Koran, other Muslim Holy texts or in Sharia law that so much as tolerates senseless, random extremist violence!

Besides, others do it too. Obama is absolutely right in not supporting savages like these bloodthirsty cowards in their efforts to murder innocent adherents to the religion of peace!

Senator Ted Cruz is wrong to claim that any senseless random violent extremism is Islamic.

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

Editor’s comments:

Senator Librul is correct in stating that Islam does not promote senseless, random violence. However, he fails to explain why: Islamic violence is almost always directed against those viewed as enemies of Islam. It is therefore purposeful, not senseless. Nor, for the same reason, is it “random.” And, as I contend here, it is not “extremist.”

Here is a suggestion from one of Senator Librul’s many devoted followers:

As soon as we remove all deer crossing signs directing deer to dangerous places for highway crossings they will find safe places to cross instead. On a parallel theory, as we cease to attribute senseless, random “extremist” violence to Islam, there will be no violence of that type of which we can properly accuse Muslims.

As is his wont, Senator Librul hit the hammer on the head with the nail. The Center for American Progress most likely agrees. Although People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) may disagree, Obama’s pup Bo has graciously offered to help.

Soon Bo, with Obama leading bravely as always from behind, will end senseless non-Islamic random violence. Then, the world will be a safer and better place in which we will all enjoy peace and happiness in our time. Right?

End random, senseless “extremist” Islamic violence? What’s that? Obama and Senator Librul deem there to be none and they are probably correct. So what’s the rush?

The infinitely wise Dear Leader of North Korea, Kim Chi-un, has proclaimed, “let us turn ours into a country of mushrooms!” “Our very own” infinitely wise Dear Leader Obama is doing His best to beat him to it.

Obama’s task of mushrooming* will be easier, and not only because He has no doppelganger to pester Him. Of greatest importance, He already has a tremendous head start.

*To keep in the dark and feed a rich diet of manure.

Categories: Caliphate, Charlie Hedbo, Foreign policy, France, Humor, Islam, Islamic slaughter, Islamic State, Kurdish fighters, Middle East, Obama, Political correctness
Tags: Caliphate, Charlie Hedbo, Foreign Policy, France, Humor, Islam, Islamic slaughter, Islamic State, Kurdish fighters, Middle East, Political correctness, Senator Librul

Comments: Be the first to comment

Sen. Ted Cruz at Defeat Jihad Summit

February 14, 2015

Sen. Ted Cruz at Defeat Jihad Summit, You Tube, February 12, 2015

Categories: Caliphate, Charlie Hedbo, Foreign policy, Human rights, Ideology, Iran, Islam, Islamic jihad, Islamic slaughter, Islamic State, Islamism, Koran, Middle East, Obama, Violent extremism
Tags: Caliphate, Charlie Hedbo, Foreign Policy, human rights, Ideology, Iran, Islam, Islamic Jihad, Islamic slaughter, Islamism, Jihad Summit, Koran, Middle East, Ted Cruz, Violent extremism

Comments: 3 Comments

4-Star Admiral Slams Obama: Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrated All Of Our National Security Agencies

February 11, 2015

4-Star Admiral Slams Obama: Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrated All Of Our National Security Agencies, You Tube, January 28, 2015

During a press conference on how to combat radical Islamic extremism, Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons (U.S. Navy, Ret.), former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet, stated that under the leadership of Barack Obama the Muslim Brotherhood have infiltrated all of the National Security Agencies of the United States. Furthermore, Lyons said that Obama is deliberately unilaterally disarming the military and spoke to the need for the new GOP controlled congress and Military leaders to stand up to the administration and uphold their oaths.

Categories: Caliphate, Department of Defense, Egypt, Foreign policy, Freedom, Human rights, International Community, Iran, Islam, Islamic State, Islamism, Middle East, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama, Obama administration, Sisi, U.S. Congress, US national security agencies
Tags: Caliphate, Dept. of Defense, Egypt, Foreign Policy, Freedom, human rights, International Community, Iran, Islam, Islamic State, Islamism, Middle East, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama Administration, Sisi, U.S. Congress, US national security agencies

Comments: 5 Comments

What’s worse than no strategy?

February 11, 2015

What’s worse than no strategy? Israel Hayom, Clifford D. May, February 11, 2015

It seems like only yesterday that U.S. President Barack Obama was being criticized for having no strategy to ‎counter the jihadi threat. In fact, it was about 10 days ago. Peggy Noonan’s Feb. 1 Wall Street ‎Journal column was headlined: “America’s strategy deficit.”‎

Since then, a different perception has been taking root: Obama does indeed have a strategy — ‎a “secret strategy,” one that is alarmingly misguided. ‎

According to this theory, he believes that fighting terrorism requires accommodating the regime ‎long recognized by the U.S. government as the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism: the Islamic Republic of Iran. ‎

He may also see the Islamic republic not as a rival to the Islamic State group but as a more moderate ‎alternative — despite the fact that Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has repeatedly declared ‎hostility toward America the foundation of the Islamic revolution. ‎

The president appears to believe that Sunni jihadis can be countered by Shia jihadis. Last week, Islamic State demonstrated its barbarism by immolating a Jordanian pilot. That should not ‎cause us to forget that Iran’s rulers supplied militias in Iraq with improvised explosive devices used to immolate ‎American soldiers, are supporting Syrian dictator Bashar Assad who has used chemical ‎weapons to scorch the lungs of his opponents, and are continuing to illicitly develop nuclear ‎weapons capable of immolating millions.‎

Dr. Michael Doran, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, has not just speculated about ‎Obama’s “secret strategy.” He has painstakingly combed through the record and produced a ‎‎9,000-word report persuasively establishing that Obama, since early in his presidency, has ‎been in pursuit of a “comprehensive agreement” that would allow Iran to become what the ‎president has called “a very successful regional power.” ‎

Understand what that means: Iran would be the hegemon of the Middle East. Some states would ‎accept Tehran’s authority, striking deals and kowtowing in order to survive. Europeans would ‎accommodate Iran, based on its control of the flow of Gulf oil. Israel and Saudi Arabia, nations ‎that Iran’s rulers have threatened to wipe from the map, would be left to fend for themselves.‎

And some Sunnis would almost certainly turn to al-Qaida and Islamic State to help defend ‎them from Shia domination. Indeed, Islamic State rose in response to the extension of ‎Iranian power in Baghdad after America’s withdrawal from Iraq, coupled with ‎Obama’s decision not to support non-Islamist Syrians who had rebelled against the Assad ‎dictatorship.‎

Doran cites evidence that in the first year of Obama’s first term, there were more ‎White House meetings on Iran than any other national security concern. Detente with Iran was ‎seen as “an urgent priority,” but the president “consistently wrapped his approach to that priority ‎in exceptional layers of secrecy” because he was convinced that neither Congress nor the ‎American public would support him.‎

A year ago, Doran further reports, Benjamin Rhodes, a member of the president’s inner ‎circle, told a group of Democratic activists (unaware that he was being recorded) that a deal with ‎Iran would prove to be “probably the biggest thing President Obama will do in his second term ‎on foreign policy.” He made clear that there would be no treaty requiring the Senate’s advice and ‎consent.‎

The president believes that “the less we know about his Iran plans, the better,” Doran ‎concludes. “Yet those plans, as Rhodes stressed, are not a minor or incidental component of his ‎foreign policy. To the contrary, they are central to his administration’s strategic thinking about ‎the role of the United States in the world, and especially in the Middle East.” ‎

Those plans also explain why the president has refused to use tough sanctions, or even the threat ‎of tough sanctions, to force Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to choose between his nuclear ‎weapons program and economic collapse. Doran writes, “For Obama, to force a confrontation ‎with Khamenei would destroy any chance of reaching an accommodation on the nuclear front ‎and put paid to his grand vision of a new Middle East order.”‎

Doran’s piece was published in the online journal Mosaic on Feb. 2. Four days later, ‎Obama released his 2015 National Security Strategy. It contained nothing about the ‎‎”secret strategy.” In fact, it contained nothing that could be called a strategy. ‎

That appraisal is widely shared. For example, David Rothkopf — who served in the Clinton ‎administration, “voted for Barack Obama twice” and now edits Foreign Policy magazine — called‎ the National Security Strategy “a brief filed by the president in defense of his record to date” and “a mishmash ‎leavened by good intentions but unintentionally spiced up by oversights, misrepresentations, and ‎a bad track record.” ‎

Last Friday, National Security Adviser Susan Rice reassured an audience at the Brookings ‎Institution that “the dangers we face … are not of the existential nature we confronted during ‎World War II or the Cold War.” But if Iran becomes nuclear-armed, other despotic regimes will ‎follow, greatly increasing the likelihood that terrorists will get their hands on nukes and, sooner ‎or later, use them.‎

Remember that American leaders of both parties similarly minimized the threat posed by al-Qaida prior to Sept. 11, 2001. Is the lesson of that day, as Rice implies, that we should ‎worry only about existential threats — confident that we can absorb lesser doses of death and ‎destruction? Or should we have learned instead to do all we can to prevent our enemies from ‎inflicting such punishment now and in the future?‎

This is a debate worth having. But it will be inhibited so long as the president insists on hiding ‎his views, leaving it to a few exceptional scholars to read between the lines. ‎

Categories: Al Qaeda, Caliphate, Foreign policy, Human rights, Iran, Islam, Islamic State, Islamism, Kerry, Middle East, Obama, Shia, Sunni, Syria, Terrorists
Tags: Al Qaeda, Caliphate, Foreign Policy, human rights, Iran, Islam, Islamic State, Islamism, Middle East, nuclear ‎weapons, Shia, Sunni, Syria, Terrorists

Comments: 1 Comment

Columnist On Jordanian Daily: ISIS ‘Did Not Invent A New Islam’

February 11, 2015

Columnist On Jordanian Daily: ISIS ‘Did Not Invent A New Islam,’ MEMRI, February 11, 2015

(It would be encouraging if such statements were more often made in the “legitimate news” media of the U.S. and the “free” world. — DM)

In a February 10, 2015 article in the English-language Jordanian daily Jordan Times, titled “We Have a Problem”, attorney and columnist Zaid Nabulsi wrote that Muslims must not suffice with protesting that “Islam is innocent” of the terrorists’ actions. They must also acknowledge that the extremism of terrorist organizations like ISIS emanates directly from the teachings of Wahhabi Islam that now permeate the Sunni world, and from messages spread by the Muslim Brotherhood and by prominent clerics like Yousuf Al-Qaradawi. He added that Muslims must be brave enough not merely to condemn the ideology of the terrorists, but also to renounce Islamic texts that are incompatible with basic human values, including certain hadiths that are erroneously attributed to the Prophet Muhammad, as well as the writings of certain prominent medieval scholars, such as Ibn Taymiyyah.

The following are excerpts from his article:

“Some Wahabist Teachings, Which Have Permeated The Air We Breathe In The Muslim World, Are Simply Irreconcilable With Decent Human Values”

“Enough is enough. It is time to speak out. ‘Islam is innocent’ is an incomplete sentence. Introspection is needed, for, if we shy away from reality, the alternative will be more images like those we witnessed last Tuesday night, when brave Lt. Muath Al-Kasasbeh was burnt to death in a cage…

“Some Wahabist teachings, which have permeated the air we breathe in the Muslim world, are simply irreconcilable with decent human values, especially the ones that declare that every non-Wahabist is a disposable body whose bloodletting is unproblematic. So enough of this burial of our heads in the sand. It has become tiresome to keep hearing the unproductive cliché that Islam is innocent after each atrocity committed by devout fanatics who did nothing except execute the exact letter of their textbooks, which order them to slaughter the infidels.

“The escapism that mainstream Islam has nothing to do with those atrocities does not hold water anymore because Wahabism and Islam have become indistinguishable. To understand the crisis of Muslims today, one has to remember that Wahabism exists in several textbooks containing the alleged sayings of the Prophet Mohammad, or books of ‘Hadith,’ revered by so many. What we must confront is the undeniable fact that it is from many stories found in these books that the unprecedented cruelty of groups such as the so-called Islamic State and Jabhat Al-Nusra emanates.

“The problem today has nothing to do with the original spirit of Prophet Mohammad’s message. Nor has it anything to do with the tumultuous history of Muslims over 14 centuries, parts of which were no doubt glorious and enlightened. The catastrophe today is with the visible manifestation of Islam in the modern world, as demonstrated by the prevalent beliefs and practices of many people who call themselves Muslims.”

“[The] Negative Image Of Muslims Is Not All Just Smoke And No Fire”

“[But] this negative image of Muslims is not all just smoke and no fire. This is what those 120 Islamic scholars who sent a letter to Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi last year could not fathom. [ISIS] did not invent a new Islam. On the contrary, its followers are strict adherents of the same textbooks quoted in that long letter (bizarrely addressed to ‘Dr Ibrahim Awwad Al-Badri,’ Baghdadi’s real name, bestowing intellectual respectability upon this mass murderer, as if one were writing a letter to the mayor of Copenhagen). In fact, the scholars’ letter was a misguided attempt to disinfect Wahabism, to cleanse it from itself, by claiming that IS simply misinterpreted texts that are otherwise compatible with human decency. In that sense, the letter squabbled over the semantics of the alleged instructions by the Prophet to spread Islam by the sword, but it did not dare renounce the authenticity of those same sayings…

“If we truly want to defend Islam, we need to perform a much more invasive surgery. Take the Muslim Brotherhood as an example of the prevalence of the Wahabist teachings among Muslims today. The Brotherhood is the virtual womb that incubated all the current jihadist groups, including Al-Qaeda itself (Al- Zawahiri hailed from the Egyptian MB offshoot that murdered president Anwar Sadat). Yet, when Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was killed in 2006, the three most senior leaders of the MB in Jordan brazenly visited the condolence house in Zarqa and announced to the media that Zarqawi was a martyr in the eyes of God, despite Zarqawi having blown up three hotels in Amman the previous year, killing scores of Jordanians going about their lives or celebrating a peaceful wedding…

“The orgy of decapitations in Syria over the last four years was promoted by very rich Sunni clerics such as Yusuf Al-Qaradawi and Mohammad Al-Uraifi, aided by the countless satellite stations openly calling for the murder of Alawites and Shiites, and financed by billions from extremely wealthy but hateful Muslims. So, enough with the denials. It is time to raise the alarm. We have a problem!”

“If We Really Want To Defend Islam As A Religion Of Mercy… We Have To Muster The Courage To Identify The Specific Texts That Actually Defame Islam, Denounce Them And Permanently Cleanse Islamic Tradition Of Them”

“There is obviously a propensity towards eliminating ‘the other’ imbedded deep within Wahabist ideology. It is not only foolish to deny this fact, it is also dangerous, for we would be covering the cancerous tumour with a bandage. What we cannot deny is that many of the Wahabist textbooks are the same operating manuals that Islamist butchers use to justify their savagery. For example, very few people know that while [the Jordanian pilot] Muath was being set on fire in that macabre video, the voiceover was a recitation of an Ibn Taymiyah fatwa deeming the incineration of unbelievers a legitimate act of jihad. Ibn Taymiyah is not some obscure scholar on the fringe of Sunni Islam. In the Sunni world, he is universally venerated with the title ‘Sheikh of Islam,’ elevating him to an almost infallible clerical status.

“If we really want to defend Islam as a religion of mercy, if we really want to be believed when we proclaim the innocence of this religion, we need to do more than just repeat this meaningless mantra about us having nothing to do with [ISIS]. We have to muster the courage to identify the specific texts that actually defame Islam, denounce them and permanently cleanse Islamic tradition of them.”

Categories: Caliphate, Foreign policy, Heresy, Human rights, Islam, Islamic slaughter, Islamic State, Islamism, Jordan, Koran, Media, Obama, Terrorists
Tags: Caliphate, Foreign Policy, Heresy, human rights, Islam, Islamic slaughter, Islamic State, Islamism, Jordan, Koran, Media, Muslim Brotherhood, Sunni Islam, Terrorists, Wahhabi Islam

Comments: Be the first to comment

Ben Carson on Obama: ‘Doesn’t Understand What A Basic School Child Might’

February 11, 2015

Ben Carson on Obama: ‘Doesn’t Understand What A Basic School Child Might’, Truth Revolt via You Tube, February 10, 2015

Categories: Caliphate, Christians, Combat troops, Dr. Ben Carson, Foreign policy, Funding terrorism, Obama, Terrorists
Tags: Caliphate, Christians, Combat troops, Dr. Ben Carson, Foreign Policy, Funding terrorism, Terrorists

Comments: Be the first to comment

Iran’s Moves in the Middle East and Why You Should Care.

February 10, 2015

Iran’s Moves in the Middle East and Why You Should Care, The Watchman via You Tube, February 10, 2015

Categories: Caliphate, Egypt, Foreign policy, Human rights, Iran, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Islam, Islamic slaughter, Islamic State, Israel, Kerry, Middle East, Muslim Brotherhood, Netanyahu, Nukes, Obama, P5+1, Sanctions, Terrorism, U.S. Congress
Tags: Caliphate, Egypt, Foreign Policy, human rights, Iran, Iran Scam, Iranian nukes, Islam, Islamic slaughter, Islamic State, Israel, Middle East, Muslim Brotherhood, Netanyahu, Nukes, Sanctions, Terrorism, U.S. Congress

Comments: Be the first to comment

Qatar, Egypt on a collision course

February 9, 2015

Qatar, Egypt on a collision course, Israel Hayom, Dr. Reuven Berko, February 9, 2015

This anti-Egypt agenda, which seems to be shared by Turkey, is fueled by the desire to realize the dream of installing a Sunni Islamic empire, all while undermining moderate Arab regimes and giving a nod to Iran, as a way of covering all bases — just in case.

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

Qatar and Egypt are at odds, and the attempts by the late King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to facilitate a reconciliation between them have failed.

Qatar’s relentless efforts to overthrow Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi’s regime and reinstate the Muslim Brotherhood to power are evident from the programs airing on the Doha-controlled Al-Jazeera television network, and from the publication of doctored wiretaps featuring the Egyptian president and his advisers, who allegedly “stole” Egypt away from the Muslim Brotherhood and the “holy” Mohammed Morsi.

This anti-Egypt agenda, which seems to be shared by Turkey, is fueled by the desire to realize the dream of installing a Sunni Islamic empire, all while undermining moderate Arab regimes and giving a nod to Iran, as a way of covering all bases — just in case.

Egypt’s decision to outlaw the Muslim Brotherhood has resulted in increased incitement by Qatar as well as in an escalation in terrorist attacks in Egypt and Sinai. Egyptian intelligence has linked the latest series of attacks to Ansar Beit al-Maqdis, an offshoot of the Islamic State group, as well as to Hamas’ Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades. Hamas and the Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades are very much Qatar’s “babies,” and their involvement in these terrorist attacks has prompted Egypt to outlaw both.

In response, Al-Jazeera has begun portraying Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades’ operatives, who have denounced Sissi as a traitor to Islam and Arabs everywhere, as heroes fighting for the liberation of “Palestine.” The Qatari television station has also been obsessively covering the riots and unrest instigated by the Muslim Brotherhood to undermine the regime, intimidate foreign investors, and reverse the image of stability Sissi’s government is trying to convey to the world.

The airing of secret wiretaps, on which Sissi is heard mocking the wealthy Persian Gulf states, at this time seeks to pit Cairo against the Gulf states, ahead of the World Economic Forum on the Middle East, which is scheduled to convene in Sharm el-Sheikh, in Egypt, in late February, and where Egypt will lobby for aid.

Sissi’s assertion about the current situation in the Middle East is correct: Sunni Arab states are being offered as sacrifice to Iran, which is pursuing its nuclear endeavors uninterrupted. These states understand that Egypt’s stability is a prerequisite for their own national security, and therefore aiding Cairo is a favor that could only work to their advantage.

At the end of the day, in a reality where Iran poses an existential threat to other Arab countries, pointing to the emir of Qatar as a leader drowning in gold while millions of Egyptians go hungry — as heard on the wiretaps — may prove to be a double-edged sword, which may end up striking Qatar itself.

Categories: Caliphate, Egypt, Foreign policy, Hamas, Iran, Iran scam, Islam, Israel, Middle East, Muslim Brotherhood, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Shiite, Siani, Sisi, Sunni, Terrorism, Turkey
Tags: Caliphate, Egypt, Foreign Policy, Hamas, Iran, Iran Scam, Islam, Israel, Middle East, Muslim Brotherhood, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Shiite, Siani, Sisi, Sunni, Terrorism, Turkey

Comments: Be the first to comment

Obama’s conciliatory approach

February 8, 2015

Obama’s conciliatory approach, Israel Hayom, Omer Dostri, February 8, 2015

Instead of taking a determined, aggressive stance against Islamic extremism and openly condemning the religion that gives it moral, spiritual, and material support, Obama is opting for more concessions and far-reaching conciliation. And absurd as it might seem, this is seen by Islam as weakness and provides an incentive for its operatives to attempt to undermine the principles of the West: liberalism and democracy.

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

On Thursday, in an almost unprecedented declaration, U.S. President Barack Obama, speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast, attacked claims that the vicious terrorist acts we are witnessing today are “unique to some other place” (meaning, to the Middle East and Islamic regimes), while comparing the acts of Christians during the Crusades to the acts of the Islamic State group today.

When you first hear these remarks, the sheer amazement makes it seem like you need to listen to them again. But the more one delves into Obama’s foreign policy and the more his conduct since being elected president is analyzed, the sense of shock subsides, and the picture becomes clearer and more comprehensible. From the start, Obama has stood for progressive policy, seen in some circles as “enlightened.” In practice, this means that Obama has steadfastly refused to discuss the problem of “extremist Islam” and “world terrorism.” Likewise, in September 2014, Obama declared that “the Islamic State does not reflect Islam.” These remarks join the famous Cairo speech in which Obama tried to make a new start with the Muslim world and brand the U.S., a superpower, as on the same level while presenting an accepting, conciliatory policy without any misgivings about or criticism of the sickness in the Islamic religion.

This policy is indicative of Obama’s ideology, which includes universalism, postcolonialism, and hints of Marxism and highlights the supposedly weakened “victims of imperialism.” This ideology drops the U.S. from its position as the greatest superpower in the world to that of an equal to non-Western nations that are the result of “oppressive” cultures, all in the name of optimistic equality. This is also one of the main reasons for the absence of American leadership in the world and why anti-democracies like China and Russia and countries that provide a haven for terrorism — such as Iran and Qatar — are trying to take control of the void.

But it’s clear that Obama’s behavior reached an apex with his recent declaration, when U.S. citizens found themselves witnessing the leader of the free world, who stands at the head of a liberal-democratic superpower, standing there trying to find justifications for the barbaric, murderous terrorist acts from the House of Islam. The fact that Obama needed events that took place nearly 1,000 years ago to compare with things that are happening in our time, in the cultured, democratic world, didn’t faze him for an instant. Nor did the facts that the Crusades were launched in opposition to aggression by the same murderous Islam operating today; or that they focused on Jerusalem and not conquering the world, like Islam.

For centuries, some Christians toiled brutally and murdered a not inconsequential number of people — including many Jews, of course. But while Christianity progressed and expressed remorse and the Catholic Church (that same violent, corrupt entity that was responsible for so many wars) weakened as Protestantism grew stronger, Islam has remained in the same darkness, loyal to its utopian and intolerant approach that sees every non-Muslim as a heretic. It’s us or them — the original version.

The very fact that Obama is digging around in history and looking for moral justifications for the Islamic State’s deeds highlights the danger of his policy, which is reflected in his pursuit of a bad deal with Iran, in his ignoring that same Iran’s terrorist activity throughout the world, in his attempts to join forces with the Muslim Brotherhood throughout the Middle East and in his soft policy toward extremist Islam, which he sees as part of a general cultural problem and not as a specific one.

Instead of taking a determined, aggressive stance against Islamic extremism and openly condemning the religion that gives it moral, spiritual, and material support, Obama is opting for more concessions and far-reaching conciliation. And absurd as it might seem, this is seen by Islam as weakness and provides an incentive for its operatives to attempt to undermine the principles of the West: liberalism and democracy.

Categories: Caliphate, Christians, Foreign policy, Iran scam, Islam, Islamic slaughter, Nukes, Obama
Tags: Caliphate, Christians, Foreign Policy, Iran Scam, Islam, Islamic slaughter, Nukes

Comments: 2 Comments

What Is the Islamic State Trying to Accomplish?

February 7, 2015

What Is the Islamic State Trying to Accomplish? National Review on line, Andrew C. McCarthy, February 7, 2015

(As soon as Obama defeats climate change, he may begin to focus on other less important problems. — DM)

pic_giant_020715_SM_ISIS-Fighter

(Image: ISIS video)

The Islamic State and al-Qaeda are our problem.

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

The Islamic State’s barbaric murder of Lieutenant Mouath al-Kasaebeh, the Jordanian air-force pilot the jihadists captured late last year, has naturally given rise to questions about the group’s objectives. Charles Krauthammer argues (here and here) that the Islamic State is trying to draw Jordan into a land war in Syria. It is no doubt correct that the terrorist group would like to destabilize Jordan — indeed, it is destabilizing Jordan. Its immediate aim, however, is more modest and attainable. The Islamic State wants to break up President Obama’s much trumpeted Islamic-American coalition.

As the administration proudly announced back in September, Jordan joined the U.S. coalition, along with the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Qatar. The only potential value of the coalition is symbolic: It has enabled the president to claim that Muslim countries were lining up with us against the Islamic State. Militarily, the coalition is of little use. These countries cannot defeat the Islamic State.

Moreover, even the symbolism is insignificant. Symbolism, after all, cuts both ways. As I pointed out when the administration breathlessly announced the coalition, our five Islamic partners have only been willing to conduct (extremely limited) aerial operations against the Islamic State. They would not attack al-Qaeda targets — i.e., the strongholds of al-Nusra (the local al-Qaeda franchise) and “Khorasan” (an al-Qaeda advisory council that operates within al-Nusra in Syria).

Obviously, if the relevance of the five Islamic countries’ willingness to fight the Islamic State is the implication that the Islamic State is not really Islamic, then their unwillingness to fight al-Qaeda equally implies their assessment that al-Qaeda is representative of Islam. The latter implication no doubt explains why the Saudis, Qatar, and the UAE have given so much funding over the years to al-Qaeda . . . the terror network from which the Islamic State originates and with which the Islamic State shares its sharia-supremacist ideology.

I’ll give the Saudis this: They don’t burn their prisoners alive in a cage. As previously recounted here, though, they routinely behead their prisoners. In fact, here’s another report from the British press just three weeks ago:

Authorities in Saudi Arabia have publicly beheaded a woman in Islam’s holy city of Mecca. . . . Laila Bint Abdul Muttalib Basim, a Burmese woman who resided in Saudi Arabia, was executed by sword on Monday after being dragged through the street and held down by four police officers.

She was convicted of the sexual abuse and murder of her seven-year-old step-daughter.

A video showed how it took three blows to complete the execution, while the woman screamed “I did not kill. I did not kill.” It has now been removed by YouTube as part of its policy on “shocking and disgusting content”.

There are two ways to behead people according to Mohammed al-Saeedi, a human rights activist: “One way is to inject the prisoner with painkillers to numb the pain and the other is without the painkiller. . . . This woman was beheaded without painkillers — they wanted to make the pain more powerful for her.”

The Saudi Ministry of the Interior said in a statement that it believed the sentence was warranted due to the severity of the crime.

The beheading is part of an alarming trend, which has seen the kingdom execute seven people in the first two weeks of this year. In 2014 the number of executions rose to 87, from 78 in 2013.

Would that the president of the United States were more worried about the security of the United States than about how people in such repulsive countries perceive the United States.

In any event, the Islamic State is simply trying to blow up the coalition, which would be a useful propaganda victory. And the strategy is working. It appears at this point that only Jordan is participating in the airstrikes. While all eyes were on Jordan this week for a reaction to Lieutenant al-Kasaebeh’s immolation, the administration has quietly conceded that the UAEsuspended its participation in bombing missions when the pilot was captured in December.

The explanation for this is obvious: The Islamic countries in the coalition know they can’t stop the Islamic State unless the United States joins the fight in earnest, and they know this president is not serious. The White House says the coalition has carried out a total of about 1,000 airstrikes in the last five months. In Desert Storm, we did 1,100 a day.

Seven strikes a day is not going to accomplish anything, especially with no troops on the ground, and thus no search-and-rescue capability in the event planes go down, as Lieutenant al-Kasaebeh’s did. With no prospect of winning, and with a high potential of losing pilots and agitating the rambunctious Islamists in their own populations, why would these countries continue to participate?

The Islamic State knows there is intense opposition to King Abdullah’s decision to join in the coalition. While the Islamic State’s sadistic method of killing the pilot has the king and his supporters talking tough about retaliation, millions of Jordanians are Islamist in orientation and thousands have crossed into Syria and Iraq to fight for the Islamic State and al-Qaeda. There will continue to be pressure on Jordan to withdraw. Without a real American commitment to the fight, this pressure will get harder for Abdullah to resist.

Jordan has no intention of getting into a land war the king knows he cannot win without U.S. forces leading the way. But the Islamic State does not need to lure Jordan into a land war in order to destabilize the country — it is already doing plenty of that by intensifying the Syrian refugee crisis, sending Jordanians back home from Syria as trained jihadists, and trying to assassinate Abdullah.

I will close by repeating the larger point I’ve argued several times before. We know from experience that when jihadists have safe havens, they attack the United States. They now have more safe havens than they’ve ever had before — not just because of what the Islamic State has accomplished in what used to be Syria and Iraq (the map of the Middle East needs updating) but because of what al-Qaeda has done there and in North Africa, what the Taliban and al-Qaeda are doing in Afghanistan, and so on.

If we understand, as we by now should, what these safe havens portend, then we must grasp that the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, and the global jihad constitute a threat to American national security. That they also (and more immediately) threaten Arab Islamic countries is true, but it is not close to being our top concern. Ensuring our security is a concern that could not be responsibly delegated to other countries even if they had formidable armed forces — which the “coalition” countries do not.

The Islamic State and al-Qaeda are our problem.

Categories: Air strikes, Al Qaeda, Caliphate, Coalition, Combat troops, Foreign policy, Hostages, Human rights, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Islamic slaughter, Islamic State, Jordan, Middle East, Obama, Syria, Terrorists
Tags: Air strikes, Al Qaeda, Caliphate, Coalition, Combat troops, Foreign Policy, Hostages, human rights, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Islamic slaughter, Islamic State, Jordan, Middle East, Syria, Terrorists

Comments: 3 Comments

Archives