Megyn Kelly Grills State Dept’s Marie Harf After Obama Invokes Anti-American Islamic Cleric, You Tube, September 26, 2014
(How difficult must it be to find a prominent Islamic scholar who has not issued a fatwa encouraging the killing of Americans? The one chosen for Obama’s remarks at the UN, Bin Bayyah who issued such a fatwa, appears to have become rather an embarrassment. — DM)
Obama Praises Muslim Cleric Who Backed Fatwa on Killing of U.S. Soldiers, Washington Free Beacon, Adam Kredo, September 14, 2014
President Barack Obama addresses the United Nations General Assembly / AP
Patrick Poole, a reporter and terrorism analyst who has long tracked Bin Bayyah, expressed shock that the Obama administration would endorse the cleric on the world stage.
“It is simply amazing that just a few months ago the State Department had to publicly apologize for tweeting out it’s support for Bin Bayyah, only to have Barack Obama go before the leaders of the entire world and publicly endorse Bin Bayyah’s efforts,” Poole said.
“It seems that nothing can stop this administration’s determination to rehabilitate Bin Bayyah’s image, transforming him from the Islamic cleric who issued the fatwa to kill Americans in Iraq and calling for the death of Jews to the de facto White House Islamic mufti,” he said.
This type of mentality has contributed to the administration’s foreign policy failures in the region,” Poole said.
********************
President Barack Obama favorably quoted and praised on Wednesday in his speech before the United Nations a controversial Muslim cleric whose organization has reportedly endorsed the terror group Hamas and supported a fatwa condoning the murder of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.
Obama in his remarks offered praise to controversial cleric Sheikh Abdallah Bin Bayyah and referred to him as a moderate Muslim leader who can help combat the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’s (ISIL or ISIS) radical ideology.
However, Bin Bayyah himself has long been engulfed in controversy for many of his views, including the reported backing of a 2004 fatwa that advocated violent resistance against Americans fighting in Iraq.
This is not the first time that the Obama administration has extoled Bin Bayyah, who also has served as the vice president of a Muslim scholars group founded by a radical Muslim Brotherhood leader who has called “for the death of Jews and Americans,” according to Fox News and other reports.
The State Department’s Counterterrorism Bureau (CT) was forced to issue multiple apologies earlier this year after the Washington Free Beacon reported on its promotion of Bin Bayyah on Twitter.
“This should not have been tweeted and has since been deleted,” the CT Bureau tweeted at the time after many expressed anger over the original endorsement of Bin Bayyah.
However, it appears that Obama and the White House are still supportive of Bin Bayyah, who, despite his past statements, is still hailed by some as a moderate alternative to ISIL and al Qaeda.
“The ideology of ISIL or al Qaeda or Boko Haram will wilt and die if it is consistently exposed, confronted, and refuted in the light of day,” Obama said before the U.N., according to a White House transcript of his remarks.
“Look at the new Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies—Sheikh bin Bayyah described its purpose: ‘We must declare war on war, so the outcome will be peace upon peace,’” Obama said, quoting the controversial cleric.
Concern over the administration’s relationship with Bin Bayyah started as early as 2013, when outrage ensued after he was reported to have met with Obama’s National Security Council staff at the White House.
While Bin Bayyah has condemned the actions of groups such as Boko Haram and ISIL, he also has taken controversial positions against Israel.
He issued in 2009 a fatwa “barring ‘all forms of normalization’ with Israel,” according to a Fox report on the White House meeting.
Additionally, the notorious 2004 fatwa permitting armed resistance against U.S. military personnel in Iraq reportedly stated that “resisting occupation troops” is a “duty” for all Muslims, according to reports about the edict.
Patrick Poole, a reporter and terrorism analyst who has long tracked Bin Bayyah, expressed shock that the Obama administration would endorse the cleric on the world stage.
“It is simply amazing that just a few months ago the State Department had to publicly apologize for tweeting out it’s support for Bin Bayyah, only to have Barack Obama go before the leaders of the entire world and publicly endorse Bin Bayyah’s efforts,” Poole said.
“It seems that nothing can stop this administration’s determination to rehabilitate Bin Bayyah’s image, transforming him from the Islamic cleric who issued the fatwa to kill Americans in Iraq and calling for the death of Jews to the de facto White House Islamic mufti,” he said.
This type of mentality has contributed to the administration’s foreign policy failures in the region,” Poole said.
“This is a snapshot of why this administration’s foreign policy in the Middle East is a complete catastrophe,” he said. “The keystone of their policy has been that so-called ‘moderate Islamists’ were going to be the great counter to al Qaeda. But if you take less than 30 seconds to do a Google search on any of these ‘moderate Islamists,’ you immediately find they are just a degree or two from the most hardcore jihadis and have little to no difference when it comes to condoning violence.”
A White House official said that the president’s remarks speak for themselves and declined to add anything further.
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.”
The muddled strategy of Jubilation T. Obama, Dan Miller’s Blog, September 20, 2014
Obama continues to insist on leading from behind; that’s the most He can do. Who in his right mind would follow Him were He to try to lead from the front?
“Moderate” Islamists
Commander in Chief Juilation T. Cornpone Obama, Nobel Peace Prize recipient and Hero of the Obama Nation, has His own ideas about the “non-Islamic” Islamic State (IS) with which He is or isn’t at war (or going to war) with the help of “moderate” Islamists.
It is not out of ignorance that President Obama and Secretary Kerry are denying the Islamic roots of the Islamic State jihadists. As I argued in a column here last week, we should stop scoffing as if this were a blunder and understand the destructive strategy behind it. The Obama administration is quite intentionally promoting the progressive illusion that “moderate Islamists” are the solution to the woes of the Middle East, and thus that working cooperatively with “moderate Islamists” is the solution to America’s security challenges. [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
[T]he term “moderate Islamist” is an oxymoron. An Islamist is a Muslim who wants repressive sharia imposed. There is nothing moderate about sharia even if the Muslim in question does not advocate imposing it by violence.
Most people do not know what the term “Islamist” means, so the contradiction is not apparent to them. If they think about it at all, they figure “moderate Islamist” must be just another way of saying “moderate Muslim,” and since everyone acknowledges that there are millions of moderate Muslims, it seems logical enough. Yet, all Muslims are not Islamists. In particular, all Muslims who support the Western principles of liberty and reason are not Islamists.
If you want to say that some Islamists are not violent, that is certainly true. But that does not make them moderate. There is, moreover, less to their nonviolence than meets the eye. Many Islamists who do not personally participate in jihadist aggression support violent jihadists financially and morally – often while feigning objection to their methods or playing semantic games (e.g., “I oppose terrorism but I support resistance,” or “I oppose the killing of innocent people . . . but don’t press me on who is an innocent“). [Emphasis added.]
Perhaps Obama doesn’t know or doesn’t care what He wants to fight, beyond sagging poll numbers.
Coalition of the unwilling
His coalition of the unwilling is a diverse bunch, but how can He lead them, even from behind, when He can’t convince himself or them of much of anything?
Despite being the greatest orator of the last thousand years, he’s a complete bust at selling anything but himself, as comprehensively demonstrated in his first couple of years: see his rhetorical efforts on behalf of ObamaCare, or Massachusetts Senate candidate Martha Coakley, or Chicago’s Olympics bid. When it comes to war, he suffers from an additional burden: before he can persuade anybody else, he first has to persuade himself. And he can’t do it. So he gave the usual listless performance of a surly actor who resents the part he’s been given. It’s not just the accumulation of equivocations and qualifications – the “Islamic State” is not Islamic, our war with them is not a war, there’ll be no boots on the ground except the exotic footwear of a vast unspecified coalition – but something more basic: What he mainly communicates is that he doesn’t mean it. [Emphasis added.]
Coalition Islamists want to retain their own regional powers but have few quarrels with Islam (Egypt under President Sisi may be an exception as to Islam). Saudi Arabia?
Islamic State terrorists have infamously decapitated three of their prisoners in recent weeks. That is five fewer than the Saudi government decapitated in August alone. Indeed, it is three fewer beheadings than were carried out in September by the Free Syrian Army — the “moderate Islamists” that congressional Republicans have now joined Obama Democrats in supporting with arms and training underwritten by American taxpayer dollars.
The Obama administration regards the Saudi government as America’s key partner in the fight against Islamic State jihadists. The increasingly delusional Secretary of State John Kerry reasons that this is because the fight is more ideological than military. Get it? The world’s leading propagators of the ideology that breeds violent jihad are our best asset in an ideological struggle against violent jihadists. [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
Saudi Arabia is the cradle of Islam: the birthplace of Mohammed, the site of the Hijra by which Islam marks time — the migration from Mecca to Medina under siege by Mohammed and his followers. The Saudi king is formally known as the “Keeper of the Two Holy Mosques” (in Mecca and Medina); he is the guardian host of the Haj pilgrimage that Islam makes mandatory for able-bodied believers. The despotic Saudi kingdom is governed by Islamic law — sharia. No other law is deemed necessary and no contrary law is permissible.
Boots on the ground
The Obama Nation will have no “boots on the ground.” Obama, a specialist in all specialities and wiser in all matters than anyone else, apparently believes that He knows better about military matters than do His past and current military advisers.
Retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, who served under Obama until last year, became the latest high-profile skeptic on Thursday, telling the House Intelligence Committee that a blanket prohibition on ground combat was tying the military’s hands. “Half-hearted or tentative efforts, or airstrikes alone, can backfire on us and actually strengthen our foes’ credibility,” he said. “We may not wish to reassure our enemies in advance that they will not see American boots on the ground.” [Emphasis added.]
Mattis’s comments came two days after Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, took the rare step of publicly suggesting that a policy already set by the commander in chief could be reconsidered.
Despite Obama’s promise that he would not deploy ground combat forces, Dempsey made clear that he didn’t want to rule out the possibility, if only to deploy small teams in limited circumstances. He also acknowledged that Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, the commander for the Middle East, had already recommended doing so in the case of at least one battle in Iraq but was overruled. [Emphasis added.]
Perhaps a few of Obama’s Islamist allies will supply a few boots on the ground.
The “moderate” Islamists Obama wants to train and equip, now with Congressional approval, are little if any better.
Air strikes
Air power, provided by the Obama Nation and apparently now also by France, could be useful in degrading and destroying enemy leaders and their military equipment. However, Obama says that He will micromanage the process in Syria.
A man who’s a better speechwriter than his speechwriters, a better political director than his political directors, and who knows more about policy than his policy advisors must surely also be a better general than his generals, no?
The U.S. military campaign against Islamist militants in Syria is being designed to allow President Barack Obama to exert a high degree of personal control, going so far as to require that the military obtain presidential signoff for strikes in Syrian territory, officials said.
The requirements for strikes in Syria against the extremist group Islamic State will be far more stringent than those targeting it in Iraq, at least at first. U.S. officials say it is an attempt to limit the threat the U.S. could be dragged more deeply into the Syrian civil war… [Emphasis added.]
Throughout President Obama’s time in office, the White House has kept close control of counterterrorism targeting, reserving the right to sign off on strikes against al Qaeda and other militant targets in Yemen, Pakistan and elsewhere.
Defense officials said that the strikes in Syria are more likely to look like a targeted counterterrorism campaign than a classic military campaign, in which a combatant commander picks targets within the parameters set by the commander in chief.
President Johnson micromanaged airstrikes during the Vietnam war and joked (?) that no outhouse could be attacked without his approval. Obama, if He is awake and preoccupied with neither of the heavy burdens of office He bravely shoulders — golfing and fund raising — may perhaps manage it almost as well as did Johnson. Oh well. He may get a few IS leaders lurking in outhouses. Unfortunately, the IS is a many headed hydra: lop off one head and two replace it. Destroyed military equipment? Newly armed “moderate” Islamic jihad groups will provide more, willingly or otherwise.
The Commander in Chief, Jubilation T. Obama
The Confederacy had no General Cornpone. The Obama Nation now has its own, as the Commander in Chief. He is the leader who can best implement His “strategies,” if and when He decides what they are and how to do it. Please pay attention to the lyrics. How many analogies are there to our current Commander in Chief?
The country’s now in the very best of hands, at least since 2009.
But be of good cheer: help is on the way. Here are some better ideas than Obama has offered thus far:
Finally, the really good news
There is still one shimmering example of efficiency and wisdom in the Obama Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, which protects us from Tea Party and other far right terrorists, foreign and domestic. It’s right at home where it should be, in a (former) insane asylum. Here is a picture of DHS personnel hard at work doing their best for we the people:
Jubilation T. Obama is the demented gentleman to the far left rear of the photo, leading the DHS from His customary position.
UPDATE:
Rick Moran posted an article titled Defense Secretary Hagel to Review Pentagon-NFL Ties at PJ Tatler. His onerous new duties might keep the Secretary of Defense out of trouble by limiting any bothersome ruminations on insignificant military concerns such as those affecting the “non-Islamic” Islamic State, et al.
FURTHER UPDATE:
ISIS Releases Professional Looking ‘Movie Trailer’ Truth Revolt, Larry O’Connor, September 17, 2014
(Please see also Obama: U.S. forces will not have ‘combat mission’. He keeps saying it, but . . . — DM)
‘Flames Of War’ features images of US troops and the White House.
ISIS has released a very professional looking “movie trailer” titled Flames of War via YouTube.
The 52-second video includes films of American troops involved in heavy fighting in what appears to be Iraq. With many quick edits and slow-motion explosions, the trailer then focuses on exterior shots of the White House and President Barack Obama speaking about America’s engagement in Iraq.
The concluding title image has the words “Flames of War” set ablaze with a subtitle reading “Fighting has just begun.”
The final image is a black background with white text saying “Coming Soon.”
As the AP points out, the timing of the video’s release is probably not coincidental:
The video’s timing, released Tuesday, suggests it was a response to Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee that if the current Iraq strategy doesn’t prevail, he may recommend the use of ground troops.
Will Islam become a peaceful, tolerant religion? Dan Miller’s Blog, September 16, 2014
The video embedded below presents the views of a Muslim who regrets that the Islamic State, its predecessors and progeny, are Islamic and driven by Islam as it now exists.
Zuhdi Jasser, a Muslim, supports the efforts of Hirsi Ali and others who call attention to the horrific actions taken by Islamists (also referred to as “Muslim extremists”) in the name of and because of Islam. He rejects efforts by Obama and others to excommunicate the Islamic State, et al, from Islam which — like the IS, et al, — is neither peaceful nor tolerant. He hopes that Islam will eventually become peaceful and tolerant.
Obama, far from being the constitutional and religious scholar He would have us believe Him to be is, at best, woefully ignorant about both the Constitution and Islam. Perhaps more likely and more harmful, He has sufficient understandings of both — and of His power — to undermine the Constitution while empowering Islamists. His “foreign policy” appears to be directed toward Islamist empowerment and His domestic policy appears to be directed toward diminishing our freedoms. Both are fed by and thrive upon politically correct multicultural notions. Is it all about the (unquenchable) thirst for power over others achieved, and to be achieved, through their submission, or are there other powerful ideological motivators?
If Dr. Jasser’s views were to be accepted by a very substantial majority of Muslims worldwide, they might provide hope for positive change. However, Islamists are powerful. Dr. Jasser is not. He does not have millions of devout followers, nor does he have the financial and other resources of Islamists; the Islamic State is considered to be the most wealthy terrorist organization the world has seen. No matter what Dr. Jasser may say, and no matter how right he may be, his words will not change the contentions of the Excommunicator in Chief. Nor will they change the views of those who agree with Him.
Will Dr. Jasser change the views of reasonable, peaceful Muslims who already live, and want to continue to live, in harmony with others, including “non-believers” and apostates? Probably not; at best he may not alienate too many of those who consider Islam already to be peaceful.
Will he change the views of “extremist Muslims” (Islamists)? Almost certainly not, at least in the reasonably foreseeable future. Islamism has become too powerful to expect that the words of Dr. Jasser and other like-minded Muslims will cause significant numbers of Islamists to have epiphanies.
Neither will the transparently disingenuous words of such luminaries as Obama and Kerry.
Muslims need to persuade other Muslims that Islam, as it now exists, is evil. Those who are thus persuaded need to persuade others to join with them in changing Islam from evil to good. They need to succeed. Unfortunately, success seems unlikely in the foreseeable future.
Until efforts to change Islam into a peaceful and tolerant religion succeed, civilized nations need stop pretending that Islam is something it is not and to do everything within their power to defeat Islam as it exists. They have not yet begun. They have not even acknowledged the name of the problem. Will they do so in time?
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.”
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments