Obama v. The Generals: Should Top Brass Contradict the Commander-in-chief in Public? You Tube, September 23, 2014
Nobel Peace Prize-winning president urges U.N. to destroy Islamic State, Washington Times,
U.S. President Barack Obama addresses the 69th session of the United Nations General Assembly at the U.N. headquarters, Wednesday, Sept. 24, 2014.
[W]e have reaffirmed that the United States is not and never will be at war with Islam. Islam teaches peace.” He added, “The only language understood by killers like this is the language of force.”
In advance of next week’s meeting at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Mr. Obama said the situation in the Middle East looks “bleak” and laid down a marker for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
“Let’s be clear: the status quo in the West Bank and Gaza is not sustainable,” Mr. Obama said. “We cannot afford to turn away from this effort — not when rockets are fired at innocent Israelis, or the lives of so many Palestinian children are taken from us in Gaza. So long as I am president, we will stand up for the principle that Israelis, Palestinians, the region, and the world will be more just with two states living side by side, in peace and security.”
**********************
Exactly one year after proclaiming that the world was “more stable,” President Obama urged the United Nations Wednesday to confront rising emergencies around the globe, from terrorists rampaging in Syria and Iraq to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to the deadly Ebola epidemic in West Africa.
“We come together at a crossroads between war and peace, between disorder and integration, between fear and hope,” Mr. Obama told the United Nations general assembly. “Each of these problems demands urgent attention.”
Mr. Obama said pledged the U.S. will spend more on the emergencies, and blamed the international community for allowing the problems to fester.
“We collectively have not invested adequately in the public health system of developing countries,” he said. “We have not confronted forcefully enough the intolerance, sectarianism and hopelessness that feeds violent extremism in too many parts of the globe.”
He again criticized Russia’s “aggression” in Ukraine and said the world would lift sanctions against Moscow if Russia de-escalates the war.
Despite renewing America’s war against terrorists in the Middle East, Mr. Obama said his administration is not engaged in a “class of cultures.”
“I have made it clear that America will not base our entire foreign policy on reacting to terrorism,” he said. “Rather, we have waged a focused campaign against al Qaeda and its associated forces — taking out their leaders, and denying them the safe-havens they rely upon.
“At the same time, we have reaffirmed that the United States is not and never will be at war with Islam. Islam teaches peace.”He added, “The only language understood by killers like this is the language of force.”
Later Wednesday, Mr. Obama is expected to urge the U.N. Security Council to pass a broad new resolution that would impose global travel bans on fighters intent on enlisting in overseas wars, a measure aimed at the Islamic State. Administration officials have said they believe the resolution has enough support to be approved.
In his speech to the U.N. last year, Mr. Obama said “the world is more stable than it was five years ago.” He said “new circumstances” would allow the U.S. to shift away from a “perpetual war footing.”
Two days after expanding airstrikes into Syria against the militant group, Mr. Obama asked the world “to join in this effort.”
“Those who have joined [the Islamic State] should leave the battlefield while they can,” the president said. “Those who continue to fight for a hateful cause will find they are increasingly alone.”
He also urged nations and Muslim communities to reject sectarian strife, calling for “a new compact among the civilized peoples of this world to eradicate war at its most fundamental source: the corruption of young minds by violent ideology.”
“That means cutting off the funding that fuels this hate,” he said. “It’s time to end the hypocrisy of those who accumulate wealth through the global economy, and then siphon funds to those who teach children to tear it down.”
Mr. Obama said it’s “true” that the U.S. “has plenty of problems within our own borders,” and pointed as an example to the civil unrest spawned by a white police officer shooting black teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., in August.
“In a summer marked by instability in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, I know the world also took notice of the small American city of Ferguson, Missouri — where a young man was killed, and a community was divided,” Mr. Obama said. “So yes, we have our own racial and ethnic tensions. And like every country, we continually wrestle with how to reconcile the vast changes wrought by globalization and greater diversity with the traditions that we hold dear.”
But Mr. Obama said Americans “welcome the scrutiny of the world, because what you see in America is a country that has steadily worked to address our problems and make our union more perfect.”
“America is not the same as it was 100 years ago, 50 years ago, or even a decade ago,” he said. “Because we fight for our ideals, and are willing to criticize ourselves when we fall short.”
In advance of next week’s meeting at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Mr. Obama said the situation in the Middle East looks “bleak” and laid down a marker for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
“Let’s be clear: the status quo in the West Bank and Gaza is not sustainable,” Mr. Obama said. “We cannot afford to turn away from this effort — not when rockets are fired at innocent Israelis, or the lives of so many Palestinian children are taken from us in Gaza. So long as I am president, we will stand up for the principle that Israelis, Palestinians, the region, and the world will be more just with two states living side by side, in peace and security.”
Britain’s Female Jihadists, Gatestone Institute, Soeren Kern, September 21, 2014
(The gentler sex and the religion of peace submission and death. — DM)
“My son and I love life with the beheaders.” — British jihadist Sally Jones.
Mujahidah Bint Usama published pictures of herself on Twitter holding a severed head while wearing a white doctor’s jacket; alongside it, the message: “Dream job, a terrorist doc.”
British female jihadists are now in charge of guarding as many as 3,000 non-Muslim Iraqi women and girls held captive as sex slaves.
“The British women are some of the most zealous in imposing the IS laws in the region. I believe that’s why at least four of them have been chosen to join the women police force.” — British terrorism analyst Melanie Smith.
Mahmood also called on Muslims to conduct jihad operations on British streets. In a recent tweet, she counselled: “If you cannot make it to the battlefield, then bring the battlefield to yourself.” Great Britain is now the leading European source of female jihadists in Syria and Iraq.
********************
As many as 60 Muslim women between the ages of 18 and 24 are believed to have left Britain to join the jihadist group Islamic State [IS] during the past twelve months alone, according to British terrorism analysts.
Dozens more have inquired about joining IS since the beheading of American journalist James Foley in Syria in August 2014 set off a frenzy of enthusiasm within jihadist circles.
Many of the women seem to be motivated by the hope of finding a jihadist husband, analysts say, apparently because they covet the cultural and religious “prestige” conferred upon Muslim widows whose husbands have died as “martyrs” for Allah.
Until recently, most of the British women affiliated with IS have been restricted to performing domestic chores such as cleaning and cooking. Lately, however, some women have become restive and have demanded a greater role in the IS enterprise.
Several British women are now engaged in IS recruiting efforts, using social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter to encourage a new wave of British jihadists to travel to Syria and Iraq.
A half-dozen other women have been incorporated into a female-only militia called the Al-Khansaa brigade, based in the Syrian city of Raqqa, where the IS has set up its headquarters.
Al-Khansaa—named after a seventh-century female Arab poet who was a contemporary of the Muslim Prophet Mohammed—was established in February 2014 with the purpose of exposing male enemy jihadists who try to disguise themselves by wearing women’s clothing in order to avoid detection and detention at IS checkpoints.
The brigade was also established to detain civilian women in Raqqa who do not follow the Islamic State’s strict interpretation of Islamic Sharia law, including the requirement that all women be fully covered in public and that they be accompanied by a male chaperone.
In an interview with the blog “Syria Deeply,” Abu Ahmad, an IS official in Raqqa, explained the rationale behind Al-Khansaa. He said:
“We have established the brigade to raise awareness of our religion among women, and to punish women who do not abide by the law. There are only women in this brigade, and we have given them their own facilities to prevent the mixture of men and women.”
British terrorism analyst Melanie Smith told the Daily Telegraph that Al-Khansaa is a Sharia law police brigade whose social media accounts are run by British women and written in English.
“The British women are some of the most zealous in imposing the IS laws in the region,” Smith said. “I believe that’s why at least four of them have been chosen to join the women police force.”
The Al-Khansaa brigade has now expanded its remit to operating brothels for the use of IS fighters. The result is that British female jihadists are now in charge of guarding as many as 3,000 non-Muslim Iraqi women and girls who are being held captive as sex slaves, according to British media.
“It is the British women who have risen to the top of the Islamic State’s Sharia police and now they are in charge of this operation,” another analyst told the Daily Mirror. “It is as bizarre as it is perverse.”
A key figure in the Al-Khansaa brigade is said to be Aqsa Mahmood, a 20-year-old woman from Glasgow, Scotland who left for Syria in November 2013. Mahmood attended private schools and had wanted to become a doctor, but she dropped out of university without warning and vanished overnight in order to become a jihadist and marry an IS fighter.
Using the jihadist name of Umm Layth (Arabic for “Mother of the Lion”) on Twitter (account now suspended), Mahmood has encouraged other British Muslim women to leave their families behind in order to join the jihad in Syria. She wrote:
“Biggest tip to sisters: don’t take detours, take the quickest route, don’t play around with your Hijrah [religious pilgrimage] by staying longer than 1 day for safety and get in touch with your contacts as soon as you reach your destination.”
Mahmood, who says she is dedicated to the “pursuit of Allah’s pleasure,” added: “Once you arrive in the land of jihad, [IS] is your family.”
In two tweets Mahmood described the kinship she felt with fellow Muslims in the Islamic State. Before referring to the place as “paradise,” she concluded:
“Wallahi [I swear] I will never be able to do justice with words as to how this place makes me feel or what Ansaar of Shaam [helpers of Syria] have done for me and Allah only knows how much I love and appreciate these people for His sake…”
In another post, Mahmood called on Muslims to imitate those who murdered British soldier Lee Rigby outside the Woolwich Barracks in London in May 2013. “Follow the examples of your brothers from Woolwich, Texas and Boston,” she wrote, referring also to the shooting in Fort Hood, Texas in November 2009 and the Boston Marathon bombings in April 2013.
Mahmood also called on Muslims to conduct jihad operations on British streets. In a recent tweet, she counselled: “If you cannot make it to the battlefield, then bring the battlefield to yourself.”
She also wrote about martyrdom: “Allahu Akbar, there’s no way to describe the feeling of sitting with the Akhawat [sisters] waiting on news of whose Husband has attained Shahadah [martyrdom].”
British media have published photographs of a burqa-clad Mahmood holding a shotgun, and of a child holding an AK-47 machine gun.
Mahmood’s parents have said they cannot understand why their daughter ran away from home to become a jihadist:
“Our daughter was brought up with love and affection in a happy home, attended Craigholme private school, went to university and was always taught to show respect for mankind and was well integrated into this society. She may believe that the jihadists of ISIS are her new family but they are not and are simply using her.
“If our daughter, who had all the chances and freedom in life, could become a bedroom radical, then it is possible for this to happen to any family.”
Another British jihadist linked to the Al-Khansaa brigade, a 21-year-old medical student who goes by the name Mujahidah Bint Usama, published pictures of herself on Twitter holding a severed head while wearing a white doctor’s jacket. The gruesome image appears alongside the message “Dream job, a terrorist doc,” followed by images of smiley faces and love hearts.
Usama’s Twitter account has now been suspended, but in her description of herself she wrote: “Running away from jihad will not save you from death. You can die as a coward or you can die as a martyr.”
Yet another British jihadist, a 22-year-old convert to Islam named Khadijah Dare, has vowed to become the first female jihadist to execute a British or American captive.
Writing under the Twitter name Muhajirah fi Sham (Arabic for “immigrant in Syria”), Dare asked for links to video footage of the beheading of James Foley. In a slang-filled tweet she wrote:
“Any links 4 da execution of da journalist plz. Allahu Akbar. UK must b shaking up ha ha. I wna b da 1st UK woman 2 kill a UK or US terorrist!(sic)”.
In another tweet, Dare wrote:
“All da people back in Dar ul kufr [land of disbelievers] what are you waiting for … hurry up and join da caravan to where the laws of Allah is implemented.
“No one from Lewisham [a borough in southeast London] has come here apart from an 18-year-old sister shame on all those people who afford fancy meals and clothes and do not make hijra [Mohamed’s flight from Mecca to Medina in 622]. Shame on you.”
Dare was born in London and converted to Islam at age 18, when she began worshipping at the Lewisham Islamic Center, a mosque linked to the radical cleric Abu Hamza and the two killers of Lee Rigby.
Dare moved to Syria in 2012 to marry a Swedish jihadist named Abu Bakr. The marriage was arranged through his mother on Facebook and she did not meet him until the day of their wedding. Dare recently published pictures of her son holding an AK-47 rifle.
In a Channel 4 documentary that aired in July 2013, Dare, who at that time went by the name Maryam, said:
“I couldn’t find anyone in the UK who was willing to sacrifice their life in this world for the life in the hereafter… I prayed, and Allah ruled that I came here to marry Abu Bakr.”
She also called on other British Muslims to join the jihad:
“You need to wake up and stop being scared of death…we know that there’s heaven and hell. At the end of the day, Allah’s going to question you. Instead of sitting down and focusing on your families or your study, you just need to wake up….”
Khadijah “Maryam” Dare, a young London woman who converted to Islam and moved to Syria to marry a Swedish jihadist, is shown here in Aleppo setting off to go shopping with a friend and their small children. They bring along their AK-47 assault rifles “just in case”. (Image source: Channel 4 video screenshot)
On August 31, the Daily Mirror reported that Dare’s jihadist rants have turned her into a “celebrity jihadi” who has become an “immense threat” due to her popularity. The newspaper reported that British security services have now made finding her a “top priority” over fears that radical Muslims are answering her calls to leave the UK to join IS in the Middle East.
In a four-minute video entitled, “Answering the Call–Foreign Fighters (Mujahedeen) in Syria,” a burka-clad Dare appears firing an AK-47 rifle and pleading with fellow Brits to fight by her side in Syria. Speaking in a London accent, she said:
“These are your brothers and sisters as well and they need your help. So instead of sitting down and focusing on your families or focusing on your studies, you need to stop being selfish because time is ticking.”
Not all British female jihadists are in their teens and twenties. A 45-year-old British convert to Islam named Sally Jones recently issued threats via Twitter to behead Christians. Jones, who changed her name to Umm Hussain al-Britani, wrote: “You Christians all need beheading with a nice blunt knife and stuck on the railings at Raqqa. Come here I’ll do it for you!”
Police say Jones, who also goes by the name Sakinah Hussain, travelled to Syria in late 2013 after converting to Islam and developing an online romance with a 20-year-old British jihadist from Birmingham named Junaid Hussain.
Hussain, who uses the alias Abu Hussain al-Britani, was jailed in 2012 for running a computer hacking group known as Team Poison. He escaped to Syria in 2013 while on bail, and has been posting extremist messages on social media pledging to conquer the world and kill infidels.
Police fear Hussain is masterminding plan to teach jihadists how to empty the bank accounts of rich and famous Britons to fund terror attacks.
According to British media, Jones, originally from Kent in southeast England, was once an aspiring musician with an all-girl punk rock band but ended up spending a lifetime on social welfare benefits. She is now raising her 10-year-old son from a previous marriage as a Muslim under the Islamic State.
In an interview with The Sunday Times, Jones reflected on her new circumstances: “My son and I love life with the beheaders.”
Erdoğan slams New York Times for ISIL story![]()

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu leave Hacı Bayram Veli Mosque in Hacıbayram neighhborhood of Ankara after Friday prayers on Aug. 22. (Photo: Today’s Zaman, Mevlüt Karabulut)
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan lashed out at The New York Times on Wednesday over a report saying the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has been steadily attracting Turkish recruits, calling the report “shameless.”
The New York Times ran the story on Monday with a photo of Erdoğan and Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu leaving a mosque in the Ankara neighborhood of Hacı Bayram, which the report said has become a recruitment hub for ISIL.
“A media organization in the US accuses us of supporting terror organizations by posting a photo of me and Davutoğlu,” Erdoğan told a gathering of the Chamber of Turkish Tradesmen and Craftsmen’s (TESK). “This is, in the clearest of terms, shameless, ignoble and base.”
The New York Times report focused on Hacı Bayram, where it said about 100 people have joined the ranks of ISIL, indicating that its locals tried to approach Erdoğan and Davutoğlu to raise the issue of ISIL recruitment when the two went to the historic Hacı Bayram Veli Mosque in the neighborhood.
The report said as many as 1,000 Turks have joined the ranks of the extremist group, citing local media reports and Turkish officials.
Erdoğan had just on Tuesday targeted The New York Times for a separate report it published on Saturday that said the US cannot convince Turkey to stop the flow of ISIL oil, a major source of revenue for the extremist group.
“This newspaper [The New York Times] … is very skilled at fabricating false reports. I also told [US Secretary of State John] Kerry that the US media made up false reports. These [reports] aim not to show Turkey’s real face but to harm Turkey-US ties and Turkey’s relations with other countries. These are not true. These methods are evil-minded,” he said of the Saturday report.
On Wednesday, Erdoğan again denied allegations of oil trade with ISIL. “They say Turkey buys oil [from ISIL] and they [ISIL militants] are treated in Turkey. Such things are out of the question,” Erdoğan said.
Turkey, one of the most vocal opponents of the Syrian regime, has been accused of helping the expansion of ISIL by turning a blind eye to the passage of foreign fighters transiting its territory to join ISIL in Syria in order to tip the military balance against President Bashar al-Assad’s forces. Ankara vehemently denies allegations and says Western countries where ISIS recruits come from should cooperate more closely with Turkey to stem flow of foreign fighters.
Ankara is also reluctant to publicly confront ISIL because of concerns over the fate of 49 Turks who were seized by the group in June in Mosul, Iraq.
“For us, the 49 people who are held in Mosul are more important than anything. We have responsibilities; we have to be careful in our statements,” Erdoğan said, underlining the Turkish concern for the hostages.
Erdoğan also stated that what he called the “perception operation” to create a negative image of Turkey will be taken to the United Nations General Assembly in New York.
“Turkey is a great country that cannot drop to its knees before such false reports. For us, the 49 people [46 Turkish nationals and three others] who are held in Mosul are more important than anything. We have responsibilities; we have to be careful in our statements. I regret to state that some treasonous networks that don’t have this sensitivity carry water to the mill of the others [ISIL militants]… We will tell world leaders about this ugly perception operation during the UN General Assembly on Monday,” he said.
Turkey claims that its hands are tied due to the 46 Turkish nationals who were kidnapped by ISIL from the Turkish Consulate General in Mosul over three months ago. Turkish officials have imposed a gag order on Turkish media coverage of the hostage issue, claiming that they do not want news stories to put the hostages’ lives at risk.
Turkey also refused to sign an anti-ISIL communiqué at a counterterrorism meeting in Jeddah last week. A senior Turkish official said Ankara had refrained from signing the communiqué in part due to the sensitivity of efforts to free the 46 Turkish hostages captured by ISIL fighters in Iraq. However, pro-government elements of the Turkish media have run articles expressing broader skepticism about Obama’s plans.
Why Many Arabs and Muslims Do Not Trust Obama, Gatestone Institute, Khaled Abu Toameh, September 15, 2014
Many Arabs and Muslims identify with the terrorists’ anti-Western objectives ideology; they are afraid of being dubbed traitors and U.S. agents for joining non-Muslims in a war that would result in the death of many Muslims, and they are afraid their people would rise up against them.
Many Arab and Muslim leaders view the Islamic State as a by-product of failed U.S. policies, especially the current U.S. Administration’s weak-kneed support for Iraq’s Nuri al-Maliki. Some of these leaders, such as Egypt’s Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, consider the U.S. to be a major ally of the Muslim Brotherhood. Sisi and his regime will never forgive Obama for his support for the Muslim Brotherhood.
Also, they do not seem to have much confidence in the Obama Administration, which is perceived as weak and incompetent when it comes to combating Islamists.
“Yes, this is not our war and we have nothing to do with it and we don’t need it. We don’t want to wage war on behalf of others in return for nothing and just to appease Obama. Not everything we hear and watch is correct. The best solution is for us to protect our borders and prevent Islamic State from infiltrating our country. If they come, then it will be our war.”
******************
“This is not our war and we should not be taking part in it.”
That is how many Arabs and Muslims reacted to US President Barack Obama’s plan to form an international coalition to fight the Islamic State [IS] terrorist organization, which is operating in Iraq and Syria and threatening to invade more Arab countries.
Islamic State terrorists have killed and wounded tens of thousands of Arabs and Muslims, mostly over the past few months. By contrast, Islamic State has targeted only a few Westerners, three of whom were beheaded in recent weeks.
Islamic State terrorists are also responsible for the displacement of millions of Iraqis and Syrians, and for the murder of many others.
Still, the atrocities committed by Islamic State against Arabs and Muslims, in addition to the immediate threat it poses to many of their countries, do not seem to be sufficient reason for them to declare war on the group.
While some Arabs and Muslims would prefer to see the U.S. and its Western allies fight Islamic State, others have voiced strong opposition to the new U.S.-led coalition against the group, mainly because they identify with the terrorists’ anti-Western objectives and ideology.
Arab leaders last week told U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry that they would contribute “in many aspects” to the anti-Islamic State coalition. But most are not prepared to commit ground troops to the battle against its estimated 30,000 jihadis.
The Arab leaders who want the U.S. to wage war on Islamic State are afraid of being dubbed traitors and U.S. agents for joining non-Muslims in a war on a group that seeks to establish an Islamic Caliphate. Their main fear is that their people would rise up against them once they were seen fighting alongside non-Muslims in a war that would result in the death of many Muslims.
The most these Arab leaders are prepared to do to help the emerging U.S.-led coalition is provide logistical and intelligence aid to the Americans and their Western allies in the war on Islamic State.
Jordan, for its part, has agreed to train members of Iraqi tribes to help them fight Islamic State terrorists in Iraq. Jordan and most of the Gulf countries are also reported to be opposed to serving as launching pads for airstrikes on the terrorist bases in Iraq and Syria.
Although they have formally agreed to join the U.S.-led coalition against Islamic State, it appears that Arab leaders do not trust the Obama Administration when it comes to combating Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East.
Some of these leaders, such as Egypt’s Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, consider the U.S. Administration to be a major ally of the Muslim Brotherhood. Sisi and his regime will never forgive Obama for his support for the Muslim Brotherhood and deposed President Mohamed Morsi.
Will Sisi ever forgive the Obama Administration for its support of the Muslim Brotherhood? Above, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry chats with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi in Cairo on July 22, 2014. (Image source: U.S. State Department)
Moreover, many Arabs and Muslims view Islamic State as a by-product of failed U.S. policies in the Middle East in the aftermath of the “Arab Spring.” They say that the current U.S. Administration’s weak-kneed support for former Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and his repressive measures against Sunnis paved the way for the emergence of Islamic State. They point out that Obama’s hesitance to support the moderate and secular opposition in Syria also facilitated Islamic State’s infiltration into that country.
Worse, there is no shortage of Arabs and Muslims who are convinced that Islamic State is actually an invention of Americans and “Zionists” to destroy the Arab world and tarnish the image of Islam.
The head of Egypt’s Al-Azhar University, Sunni Islam’s highest seat of learning, was recently quoted as saying that Islamic State terrorists were “colonial creations” serving a “Zionist” scheme to “destroy the Arab world.”
Many Arabs and Muslims probably do not like Islamic State and view it as a real threat. But at the same time, they also do not seem to have much confidence in the Obama Administration, which is perceived as weak and incompetent when it comes to combating Islamists. They simply do not trust the Obama Administration.
Sheikh Yusuf al Qaradawi, Chairman of the Qatari-based International Union of Muslim Scholars, who is no fan of Islamic State, has also come out against the emerging U.S.-led coalition.
“Our ideological differences with Islamic State do not mean that we agree to an American attack on the group,” al-Qaradawi explained. “America does not care about the values of Islam. It only cares about its own interests.”
If there is one Arab leader who is really concerned about the repercussions of a war on Islamic State, it is Jordan’s King Abdullah, who is facing growing domestic pressure to stay away from the U.S.-led coalition.
Ironically, this opposition comes despite Jordan clearly appearing to be the next target of the Islamic State jihadis. Some reports have even suggested that Islamic State terrorists have already succeeded in infiltrating the kingdom.
King Abdullah’s dilemma is that if he joins the U.S.-led coalition, his country would be plunged into turmoil and instability. Yet the monarch is well aware that failure to take part in the war would facilitate the jihadis’ mission of invading his kingdom.
Over the past week, many Jordanians have publicly come out against the idea of Jordan joining the new coalition. These voices are not coming only from Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood, but also from secular individuals and groups.
Last week, 21 Jordanian parliament members wrote a letter to their government warning it against helping the Americans and their allies in the war on Islamic State.
Six Jordanian secular parties also joined the call in a statement addressed to the government: “We must resist imperialist schemes and continue to raise the motto of democracy, independence and freedom.”
Reflecting widespread skepticism over Obama’s intentions, Jordanian writer Maher Abu Tair, who is closely associated with King Abdullah, sounded an alarm: “Getting Jordan involved in the confrontation with Islamic State is a dangerous matter. If everyone is truly worried about Jordan, why not support it socially and economically instead of dragging it into a quagmire?”
Reflecting similar sentiments, another Jordanian writer, Abdel Hadi al Katamin, said: “Yes, this is not our war and we have nothing to do with it and we don’t need it. We don’t want to wage war on behalf of others in return for nothing and just to appease Obama. Not everything we hear and watch is correct. The best solution is for us to protect our borders and prevent Islamic State from infiltrating our country. If they come, then it will be our war.”
Signs of concern in Tehran, Israel Hayom, Boaz Bismuth, September 14, 2014
Nearly a year into Hassan Rouhani’s first term as president, the Iranians understand the cards have been re-dealt in the Middle East and that they suddenly also have a lot to lose.
The Iranians like the existing situation, which allows them to buy time (the target date for reaching an agreement on the nuclear issue is Nov. 24) until they can finally acquire their bomb. They know that war is a fluid proposition, and that someone along the way may find it appropriate to take out their nuclear program along with ISIS.
************************
Only a few days have passed since U.S. President Barack Obama’s declaration of war — without much of a choice — against the Islamic State (ISIS), and with every passing day the U.S. is realizing how difficult the job will be. Two important regional players will not stand at its side in Iraq and Syria: Turkey won’t help, and Iran, not surprisingly, will be a bother.
The campaign against ISIS cannot be won from the air alone. It is hard to expect the coalition’s jets to be effective against the Sunni terrorists hunkered down in Mosul and Tikrit. Obama’s coalition cannot accommodate too much harm to Muslim civilians.
Even before the onset of the war, the president’s advisers understood there would be few if any partners among the countries in the region eager for a ground offensive. Even the Kurds are not rushing to fight outside their autonomous region, even though they would be the primary benefactors of the war against ISIS: An independent state awaits them, perhaps right around the corner.
And this is precisely what concerns Iran these days. Nearly a year into Hassan Rouhani’s first term as president, the Iranians understand the cards have been re-dealt in the Middle East and that they suddenly also have a lot to lose.
The campaign against ISIS is bringing the United States back to the region. The Iranians were unhappy about it in 2003, and they don’t like it today either. Then, incidentally, it froze their nuclear project. We can only hope that this time the Americans will use their return to terminate it once and for all.
Additionally, Baghdad will have to reappoint Sunnis to key government positions, after they were kept out during the era of Nouri al-Maliki, who considered Iran his central ally. The Iraqi Sunnis have different plans. Moreover, the establishment of an independent Kurdish state has never appealed to Iran — not only because such a development could spark the aspirations of the Kurdish minority living in Iran itself, but because a future Kurdish state is expected to have good relations with Israel and the United States.
The Iranians also know Obama’s coalition will put Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria at greater risk. While the war could, on the one hand, solidify him as a recognized, albeit negative player in the region, it could also become an opportunity to eliminate him along with ISIS and crown someone else in his stead.
The Iranians like the existing situation, which allows them to buy time (the target date for reaching an agreement on the nuclear issue is Nov. 24) until they can finally acquire their bomb. They know that war is a fluid proposition, and that someone along the way may find it appropriate to take out their nuclear program along with ISIS.
War Coming: Nothing The Peace-At-Any-Costers Can Do About It, Israellicool, Ryan Bellerose, September 11, 2014
ISIS is a Muslim group. Their foundation is pretty much a strict interpretation of Sunni Islam. To claim that it is not Islamic is to ignore several important things, but the key fact is it doesn’t matter what WE think or what western Muslims think, it only matters what the asshats in ISIS think.
And what they think is they are on a holy mission to create an Islamic Caliphate. I am getting tired of reading all these western orientalists who post that “these people do not follow Islam” as though they have all studied Islam and as though Islam is a monolith.
I also grow tired of the apologists who try to marginalise the problem or claim that anyone who speaks up about this issue is a racist, bigot or Islamophobe. ISIS is NOT the same as Westboro. Westboro are asshats no doubt but they do not behead people and aren’t large enough in numbers to cause any real issue. The mainstream of Christianity doesn’t support them. ISIS, on the other hand, has the support of a LOT of Muslims, and even the ones who do not support it, are rarely vocal about that unless they are in the west.
Hamas is only fighting the expansion of ISIS because the Hamas leadership does not want to lose the cash cow they have. In fact the Hamas charter demands pretty much the same as ISIS: an islamic caliphate where everyone else is a dhimmi (not even a citizen let alone a second class citizen).
Let me be clear, if you belong to any of the following groups, you shouldn’t be supporting ISIS:
Women, Homosexuals, Christians, Jews, Natives, Muslims who are not fanatical, Atheists, Europeans, Asians, North Americans, people who believe in Humans rights……. perhaps now you get the picture. If you are not Muslim, and more specifically a specific sort of muslim, then you should not remain silent. Pretty much the only people who should support ISIS, out of self interest, are Sunni Muslims, mostly of the more legalist end of the spectrum because moderate Sunnis probably don’t want to party like its 999.
There is a war coming, and there is not a damn thing the peace-at-any-costers can do about it. This war will not always be fought openly, even now, its being fought on campuses, in the media and in other arenas of public perception. It really is going to be all the people who believe in human rights and freedom against a totalitarian ideology that believes in its supremacy and refuses to acknowledge equality.
WE do not have a choice over whether to fight, if we do not fight we will be allowing our freedoms to be taken from us. If you think I am being an “Islamophobe” I urge you to spend some time and research Islam and its core beliefs. Look at what ISIS is doing because, my friends, actions speak louder than words. Sex slavery, torture, beheadings, crucifixion: these aren’t just things from the dark ages, these are happening right now to Christians, Yazidis and Kurds.
Now that’s the bad news, the good news is we’re not alone in this fight, there are Muslims who speak up against ISIS and extremism, and they are fighting to change Islam into a more moderate religion. It is imperative that we support those people, we do not allow ourselves to become jaded and prejudiced against all Muslims, because I will be honest with you, our best chance to defeat the radicals is to work with those who want change. So take some time, educate yourself about these things because whether you like it or not we are in this fight: its just that some of us don’t know it yet.
Obama, the Islamic State and Islam, the enemy which shall not be named, Dan Miller’s Blog, September 11, 2014
Islam is the greatest threat to the civilized world. Obama denies that it is any threat and maintains that it is peaceful.
Minutes into His address to the nation (full text here) on the eve of two September 11 attacks, one in 2001 and another in 2012, Obama stated:
Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not “Islamic.” No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state. It was formerly al Qaeda’s affiliate in Iraq, and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and Syria’s civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syrian border. It is recognized by no government, nor the people it subjugates. ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way. [Emphasis added.]
In a region that has known so much bloodshed, these terrorists are unique in their brutality. They execute captured prisoners. They kill children. They enslave, rape, and force women into marriage. They threatened a religious minority with genocide. In acts of barbarism, they took the lives of two American journalists – Jim Foley and Steven Sotloff. [Emphasis added.]
Obama remains faithful to His views of Islam, as expressed during His Cairo address.
So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations – to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.
I have argued the characteristics of Islam and that the Islamic State has its roots in Islam in detail here, here and elsewhere; little purpose would be served by repetition. This summary should be sufficient for present purposes.
Here is a video of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s September 11th comments on Obama’s September 10th address. Keep in mind that Netanyahu is compelled to say nice things about Obama whenever he possibly can, even if to do so requires that he stretch a point or two or three. But listen to Netanyahu’s comments, quite divergent from Obama’s, on Islam and Islamist states — including Iran — which seek an Islamic caliphate for the entire world through fear and terror. The relevant differences among the Islamist states are principally on the nature of the desired caliphate. There was a master race, now there is a master faith. Islam’s master religion is at least as evil as Nazism master race. Clarity and courage are needed. Do we have them? Obama does not.
The Islamic State is at least as Islamic as Nazism was German
Winston Churchill spoke about Nazism early and often. Here is what he said during a 1934 radio broadcast:
Many of Churchill’s comments on Nazi Germany might be applied to Islam. As PM Netanyahu said, then there was a “master race.” Now, there is a “master religion.” What are we to do about it?
Was Nazism Germanic? Millions of Germans believed it to be. They were enthralled by the Chief Imam of Nazism, Hitler. Germany’s preparations for war with civilization went into full swing when Imam Hitler rose from the depths to control Germany. If Obama had been President in the mid 1930’s and had proclaimed His intention to battle Nazism, might He have said something like this?
Now let’s make two things clear: Nazism is not Germanic. German culture does not condone the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of Nazism’s victims have been German. Nazism is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way. [Emphasis added.]
Nazi Germany’s “vision” was not merely the “slaughter of all who stand in her way.” That, along with the fear and submission its slaughter induced, was its strategy. The Nazi vision, to be achieved through its strategy, was the expansion of the “fatherland” through the “peaceful” surrender, and military conquest of Europe if necessary, for the imposition of Nazism throughout the region.
The vision of the Islamic State, its Islamic allies, cohorts and opponents, reflects their vision of Islam — the expansion of “true” Islam throughout the non-Islamic (and apostate Islamic) world and the imposition of the “true” version of Islam on non-Muslims and apostates. They differ principally in what they consider “true” Islam.
There is at least one difference between “moderate” Islamists and the Islamic State: the Islamic State does not pretend to desire peace; “moderate” Muslims do. Like “moderate” Islamists, Nazi Germany professed its peaceful nature and claimed to desire no more than to right wrongs committed against ethnic Germans in Czechoslovakia and elsewhere. Its claims of good will and a peaceful soul were accepted by Neville Obama Chamberlain and many other naive leftists in Britain and Europe.
As noted in a Washington Times editorial,
Whether by the name al Qaeda, Taliban, al-Shabab, Boko Haram, Islamic State, ISIS or ISIL, the Islamist goal is one and the same — the destruction of the West and the defining values of civilization. The only appropriate response is to crush those who would threaten those values. It’s not an occasion for dialogue, appeasement or negotiation. [Emphasis added.]
Neither is it the time to arm “moderate” Islamists on the ground that they will help to eliminate the horrors of the Islamic State.
Obama claims that He will arm and support “moderate” Islamists.
Across the border, in Syria, we have ramped up our military assistance to the Syrian opposition. Tonight, I again call on Congress to give us additional authorities and resources to train and equip these fighters. In the fight against ISIL, we cannot rely on an Assad regime that terrorizes its people; a regime that will never regain the legitimacy it has lost. Instead, we must strengthen the opposition as the best counterweight to extremists like ISIL, while pursuing the political solution necessary to solve Syria’s crisis once and for all. [Emphasis added.]
Presumably, Obama has in mind arming the “moderate” opposition to the Syrian regime. There may be some moderates, but does the Obama administration know who they are? Does it know that they are capable of resisting, successfully, the theft of their U.S. supplied armaments by non-moderates?
There are approximately 100,000 Syrian rebels,
including the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front and the powerful Islamic Front rebel umbrella group, currently fighting the Islamic State group in Syria
Has the “vetted, moderate” Free Syrian Army been vetted and is it “moderate?”
As President Obama laid out his “strategy” last night for dealing with ISIS in Iraq and Syria, and as bipartisan leadership in Congress push to approve as much as $4 billion to arm the Syrian “rebels,” it should be noted that the keystone to his anti-Assad policy — the “vetted moderate” Free Syrian Army (FSA) — is now admitting that they, too, are working with the Islamic State. [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
On Monday, the Daily Star in Lebanon quoted a FSA brigade commander saying that his forces were working with the Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda’s official Syrian affiliate — both U.S.-designated terrorist organizations — near the Syrian/Lebanon border.
“We are collaborating with the Islamic State and the Nusra Front by attacking the Syrian Army’s gatherings in … Qalamoun,” said Bassel Idriss, the commander of an FSA-aligned rebel brigade.
“We have reached a point where we have to collaborate with anyone against unfairness and injustice,” confirmed Abu Khaled, another FSA commander who lives in Arsal.
“Let’s face it: The Nusra Front is the biggest power present right now in Qalamoun and we as FSA would collaborate on any mission they launch as long as it coincides with our values,” he added. [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
[T]his time last year the bipartisan conventional wisdom amongst the foreign policy establishment was that the bulk of the Syrian rebel forces were moderates, a fiction refuted by a Rand Corporation study published last September that found nearly half of the Syrian “rebels” were jihadists or hard-core Islamists. [Emphasis added.}
. . . [M]ultiple arms shipments from the U.S. to the “vetted moderate” FSA were suspiciously raided and confiscated by ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra, prompting the Obama administration and the UK to suspend weapons shipments to the FSA last December.
In April, the Obama administration again turned on the CIA weapons spigot to the FSA, and Obama began calling for an additional $500 million for the “vetted moderate” rebels, but by July the weapons provided to the FSA were yet again being raided and captured by ISIS and other terrorist groups. Remarkably, one Syrian dissident leader reportedly told Al-Quds al-Arabi that the FSA had lost $500 million worth of arms to rival “rebel” groups, much of which ended up being sold to unknown parties in Turkey and Iraq. [Emphasis added.]
At the same time U.S.-provided FSA weapons caches were being mysteriously raided by ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra, one of the senior FSA commanders in Eastern Syria, Saddam al-Jamal, defected to ISIS. In March, Jabhat al-Nusra joined forces with the FSA Liwa al-Ummah brigade to capture a Syrian army outpost in Idlib. Then in early July I reported on FSA brigades that had pledged allegiance to ISIS and surrendered their weapons after their announcement of the reestablishment of the caliphate. More recently, the FSA and Jabhat al-Nusra teamed up last month to capture the UN Golan Heights border crossing in Quneitra on the Syria/Israel border, taking UN peacekeepers hostage.
Obama’s coalition
As argued at The Clarion Project,
The U.S. must also be prepared for the pro-Islamist members of its coalition against the Islamic State to predictably support Islamism. [Emphasis added.]
A cataclysmic revelation? Hardly. But does Obama consider it a problem? Most likely He does not. Might He see it as an opportunity?
Secular Syrian opposition figures complain that Qatar and Turkey are sidelining them by supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists. When the U.S. worked with Qatar in removing the Qaddafi regime in Libya, Qatar exercised its influence to benefit the Islamist forces. Libya is experiencing bloody fighting between Islamist and secular forces today.
Qatar continues to support the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and the Islamic Front, specifically Ahrar al-Sham. An Ahrar al-Sham leader named Abu Khaled al-Souri had high-level Al-Qaeda ties and was killed by the Islamic State. Jabhat al-Nusra and other Al-Qaeda-linked figures see Qatar as friendly territory.
Saudi Arabia, which has agreed to help support rebels fighting the Islamic State, has already been supporting the Islamic Front, specifically Zahran Alloush’s Army of Islam (or Jaysh al-Islam). His ideology is similar to that of Al-Qaeda/Jabhat al-Nusra.
The Saudis also back a coalition named the Syrian Revolutionary Council. It condemned the United Kingdom for sentencing Islamist cleric Raed Salah for inciting terrorism. He was previously imprisoned in Israel for financing Hamas and working with an Iranian intelligence operative.
Which if any national members of Obama’s coalition support non-Islamic concepts such as freedom of religion, of the media and of speech? It is my understanding that they oppose them, even on rare occasions when they claim to accept them in modest ways.
What else is wrong with the Obama Strategy?
Here’s a taste, even from MSNBC:
Many problems with Obama’s approach to Islamic terrorism are already obvious and more will become apparent with time. As we wait, shall we prepare for Christmas?
Recent Comments