Islam | WarSclerotic | Page 112

Posted tagged ‘Islam’

Britain’s Female Jihadists

September 22, 2014

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….”

702

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.”

Categories: Iraq war, Islam, Islamic State, Jihad, Syria
Tags: British women, Female jihadists, Iraq, Islam, Islamic State, Syria

Comments: Be the first to comment

Al Nusrah Front threatens to execute 2nd Lebanese hostage

September 21, 2014

Al Nusrah Front threatens to execute 2nd Lebanese hostage, Long War Journal, Thomas Joscelyn, September 21, 2014

Screen Shot 2014-09-21 at 2.16.39 PM-thumb-560x292-3761

The Al Nusrah Front, al Qaeda’s official branch in Syria, is threatening to kill a second Lebanese hostage held in its custody. The man has been identified as Ali al Bazzal.

The threat was posted in tweets on one of the group’s official Twitter feeds. A banner containing the threat can be seen above.

In addition, a video posted online appears to show the group executing another Lebanese hostage, Mohammad Hamiyeh. In a tweet on Sept. 19, Al Nusrah said that Hamiyeh “is the first casualty of the stubbornness of the Lebanese military that has become a puppet in the hands of the Iranian party.”

The “Iranian party” is Hezbollah, which is fighting alongside Bashar al Assad’s forces against Al Nusrah and other rebel forces.

Lebanese officials subsequently confirmed that Hamiyeh has been killed. The al Qaeda group had repeatedly promised to kill Hamiyeh if its demands were not met.

The video shows a man shooting Hamiyeh in the head, with Bazzal sitting to his right. Bazzal then pleads for his life, saying that Hezbollah, the “party of the devil,” must alter its operations.

“If you don’t stop attacking and inciting against our Sunni brethren then I will follow my fellow soldier who was killed right there,” Bazzal says, according to The Daily Star, a publication based in Lebanon.

The video does not appear to have been posted on Al Nusrah’s official Twitter feeds, but instead surfaced online separately. For instance, the banner shown above was posted on Al Nusrah’s Twitter feed for the Qalamoun region of Syria. The video was not posted on the same feed.

The version of the video viewed by The Long War Journal also does not contain Al Nusrah’s official media logo.

Still, the image of the man identified as Bazzal in the video matches the picture in banner republished above, which was released by Al Nusrah.

The banner contains the question, “Who will pay the price?” Al Nusrah used that same question in the first video it released showing its Lebanese hostages, who were captured in August, as well as in subsequent statements and online banners.

The al Qaeda group says that Hamiyeh was the first to pay the price, because the Lebanese army and Hezbollah have not met their demands. Al Nusrah has said previously that it wants Hezbollah to remove its fighters from Syria, and a number of other conditions met. As in Al Nusrah’s past hostage operations, the government of Qatar is attempting to broker the negotiations.

Al Nusrah has shied away from killing its captives in recent weeks, releasing hostages on several occasions. The organization has not produced graphic beheading videos like its counterparts in the Islamic State, a jihadist group that has captured large swaths of territory in Iraq and Syria since earlier this year. The Islamic State and Al Nusrah are fierce rivals.

While it has not produced gory execution videos like its rivals in the Islamic State, Al Nusrah has now executed a Lebanese soldier and threatened to kill another hostage.

Categories: Islam, Jihad, Syria
Tags: Al Nusrah, death, Islam, Islamic Jihad, Syria

Comments: Be the first to comment

The muddled strategy of Jubilation T. Obama

September 21, 2014

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:

Categories: Islam, Islamic State, Obama
Tags: Islam, Islamic State

Comments: 1 Comment

Where Is Obama’s ‘Broad Coalition’?

September 21, 2014

Where Is Obama’s ‘Broad Coalition’? National Review Online, Victor Davis Hanson, September 18, 2014

The One

President Obama addresses servicemembers at MacDill Air Force Base. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

The so-called Islamic State has left destruction everywhere that it has gained ground. But as in the case of the tribal Scythians, Vandals, Huns, or Mongols of the past, sowing chaos in its wake does not mean that the Islamic State won’t continue to seek new targets for its devastation.

If unchecked, the Islamic State will turn what is left of the nations of the Middle East into a huge Mogadishu-like tribal wasteland, from the Syrian Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf. And they will happily call the resulting mess a caliphate.

It is critical for United States to put together some sort of alliance of friendly Middle East governments and European states to stop the Islamic State before it becomes a permanent base for terrorist operations against the U.S. and its allies. Unfortunately, it appears unlikely that the U.S. will line up a muscular alliance — at least until the Islamic State reaches the gates of Baghdad or plows on through to Saudi Arabia and forces millions of Arabs either to fight or submit.

Why the reluctance for allies to join the U.S.?

Most in the Middle East and Europe do not believe the Obama administration knows much about the Islamic State, much less what to do about it. The president has dismissed it in the past as a jayvee team that could be managed, contradicting the more dire assessments of his own secretary of defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

When Obama finally promised to destroy the Islamic State, Secretary of State John Kerry almost immediately backtracked that idea of a full-blown war. Current CIA director John Brennan once dismissed as absurd any idea of Islamic terrorists seeking a modern caliphate. It may be absurd, but it is now also all too real.

Such confusion sadly is not new. The president hinges our hopes on the ground on the Free Syrian Army — which he chose not to help when it once may have been viable. And not long ago he dismissed it as an inexperienced group of doctors and farmers whose utility was mostly a “fantasy.”

No ally is quite sure of what Obama wants to do about Syrian President Bashar Assad, whom he once threatened to bomb for using chemical weapons before backing off.

Potential allies also feel that the Obama administration will get them involved in an operation only to either lose interest or leave them hanging. When Obama entered office in 2009, Iraq was mostly quiet. Both the president and Vice President Joe Biden soon announced it was secure and stable. Then they simply pulled out all U.S. troops, bragged during their re-election campaign that they had ended the war, and let our Iraqi and Kurdish allies fend for themselves against suddenly emboldened Islamic terrorists.

In Libya, the administration followed the British and French lead in bombing the Moammar Gadhafi regime out of power — but then failed to help dissidents fight opportunistic Islamists. The result was the Benghazi disaster, a caricature of a strategy dubbed “leading from behind,” and an Afghanistan-like failed state facing Europe across the Mediterranean.

Now, the president claims authorization to bomb the Islamic State based on a 13-year-old joint resolution — a Bush administration-sponsored effort that Obama himself had often criticized. If the president cannot make a new case to Congress and the American people for bombing the Islamic State, then allies will assume that he cannot build an effective coalition either.

Finally, potential allies doubt that the United States wants to be engaged abroad. They are watching China flex its muscles in the South China Sea. They have not yet seen a viable strategy to stop the serial aggression of Russian president Vladimir Putin. Iran seems to consider U.S. deadlines to stop nuclear enrichment in the same manner that Assad scoffed at administration red lines. With Egypt, the administration seemed confused about whether to support the tottering Hosni Mubarak government, the radical Muslim Brotherhood, or the junta of General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi — only at times to oppose all three.

Obama himself seems disengaged, if not bored, with foreign affairs. After publicly deploring the beheading of American journalist James Foley, Obama hit the golf course. When the media reported the disconnect, he scoffed that it was just bad “optics.”

There is a legitimate debate about the degree to which the United States should conduct a preemptive war to stop the Islamic State before it gobbles up any more nations. But so far the president has not entered that debate, much less won it.

No wonder, then, that potential allies do not quite know what the U.S. is doing, how long America will fight, and what will happen to U.S. allies when we likely get tired, quit, and leave.

For now, most allies are sitting tight and waiting for preemptive, unilateral U.S. action. If we begin defeating the Islamic State, they may eventually join in on the kill; if not, they won’t.

That is a terrible way to wage coalition warfare, but we are reaping what we have sown.

Categories: Islam, Islamic State
Tags: Coalition, Islam, Islamic State, Victor Davis Hanson

Comments: Be the first to comment

Syrian Brotherhood Stands Nearer to ISIS Than to U.S.

September 17, 2014

Syrian Brotherhood Stands Nearer to ISIS Than to U.S., The Investigative Project on Terrorism, Ravi Kumar, September 16, 2014

(Wouldn’t it be grand if our dear leaders knew what they are doing, why and what they hope to accomplish? — DM)

1063

Yusuf Al Qaradawi, an influential Brotherhood cleric living in Qatar, joined in criticizing the American military campaign against ISIS. “I totally disagree with [ISIS] ideology and means,” he wrote on Twitter, “but I don’t at all accept that the one to fight it is America, which does not act in the name of Islam but rather in its own interests, even if blood is shed.”

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

While the United States tries to build a coalition of Arab allies to join the fight against the terrorist group ISIS, now known as the Islamic State, one group which stands to benefit directly is coming out against Western intervention and expressing unity with other radical jihadists.

A Syrian Muslim Brotherhood spokesman says attacks on the Islamic State by the United States and its allies are not the answer.

“Our battle with ISIS is an intellectual battle,” Omar Mushaweh said in a statement published Sept. 9 on the Syrian Brotherhood’s official website, “and we wish that some of its members get back to their sanity, we really distinguish between those in ISIS who are lured and brainwashed and they might go back to the path of righteous, and between those who has foreign agendas and try to pervert the way of the [Syrian] revolution.”

Rather, the first target for any Western intervention should be dictator Bashar al-Assad’s regime, Mushaweh asserts, according to a translation of his comments by the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

Such comments should reinforce Western concerns about the Syrian Brotherhood, whose members are prominent among the Free Syrian Army (FSA), one of the supposedly moderate factions in the Syrian civil war which receive U.S. training and weapons. And it shows the challenge of finding truly moderate allies on the ground in Syria. Compared to ISIS, the FSA might be considered moderate. Then again, ISIS was so ruthlessly violent that al-Qaida disavowed the group in February.

In addition, the Syrian Brotherhood openly mourned the death last week of a commander in Ahrar Al Asham, a Syrian faction with ties to al-Qaida.

Mushaweh’s views about the U.S. intervention are shared by other Brotherhood members. Another Brotherhood leader, Zuher Salem, minimized the ISIS threat by comparing current American rhetoric to that which preceded the 2003 Iraq invasion.

“All of these tales that are being told by America about the primitive, terrorist and threatening nature of the Islamic State are similar to the tales that have been told in regard to the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, and about the crimes against humanity,” Salem wrote in an article published Sept. 13 by the Arab East Center, a think tank associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. “It is trifling to race with others to condemn terrorism and the killing of the American journalist, because we should be aware the aim of this anti ISIS coalition is to pave the way for an Iranian hegemony over the region.”

Yusuf Al Qaradawi, an influential Brotherhood cleric living in Qatar, joined in criticizing the American military campaign against ISIS. “I totally disagree with [ISIS] ideology and means,” he wrote on Twitter, “but I don’t at all accept that the one to fight it is America, which does not act in the name of Islam but rather in its own interests, even if blood is shed.”

While both are Sunni Muslim movements, each seeking to establish a global Islamic Caliphate, ISIS views the Brotherhood as too passive, while the Brotherhood sees ISIS as being unnecessarily violent in pursuing its aims.

The two have common enemies, however, including the ruling regimes of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, and Jordan, which have worked to cripple the Brotherhood, and which ISIS considers infidel regimes which should be toppled in pursuit of a broader Islamic Caliphate.

In another indication the Syrian Brotherhood is no moderating force, it issued a statement on its website Sept. 10 mourning the killing of Ahrar Al Asham leader Hassan Aboud in a suicide bombing.

“Syria has given a constellation of the best of its sons, and the bravest leaders of the Islamic front and Ahrar Al Sham,” the head of the Brotherhood’s political bureau, Hassan Al Hashimi, said in the statement translated by the IPT. “We consider them Martyrs.”

Ahrar Al Sham is a radical group co-founded by Abu Khaled al-Suri, who was al-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahiri’s designated representative in Syria. Al-Suri was killed in February in a suicide bombing believed to be carried out by ISIS.

Aboud made clear his ideological links to al-Qaida clear in a July 2013 Twitter post. “May God have mercy on the Mujahid Sheikh Abdullah Azzam. He was a scholar of Jihad and the morality.” Azzam was considered a mentor to Osama bin Laden, and pushed conspiracy theories involving Jewish and Christian plots against Islam.

The Brotherhood official mourning Aboud, Al Hashimi, has visited the United States a couple of times since the Syrian civil war started.

He spoke at the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in northern Virginia on Nov. 17, 2013, as part of a program organized by the Syrian Emergency Task Force (SETF). The SETF has worked closely with Muslim Brotherhood members and some of its officials have expressed anti-Semitic statements and solidarity with Hamas.

Still, the SETF has partnered with the State Department to implement training projects in Syria. Last December, the SETF’s executive director endorsed working with a coalition of Syrian opposition groups called the Islamic Front, even though several entities involved, including Ahrar Al-Sham, had fought with ISIS and the radical Jabhat al-Nusra, or al-Nusra Front. Four Islamic Front affiliates also endorsed a declaration calling for “the rule of sharia and making it the sole source of legislation” in a post-Assad Syria.

The announcement of the event was distributed to the Dar Al Hijrah mailing list, but without mentioning that Al Hashimi is the head of the political bureau of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: Islam, Islamic State, Muslim Brotherhood, Syria, Syrian Brotherhood

Comments: 2 Comments

This is What Happens When You Attack Israel

September 17, 2014

For too long the media and international community have been preaching that “Palestinians” bear no responsibility for the consequences of their decisions and they are passive victims of the conflict.

By: Shalom Bear
Published: September 17th, 2014

via The Jewish Press » » This is What Happens When You Attack Israel.

A Gaza building, reportedly used by Hamas, destroyed by the IDF on August 26, 2014.
Photo Credit: Emad Nassar/Flash90

Leftwing websites love to play up the photos of destruction of Gaza. The poor, suffering, innocent “Palestinians”, victims of Israeli aggression and collective punishment, are their front page stories.

Their bottom line is always the same, the Gazans (or the “Palestinians”) are not responsible for their actions and decisions; they’re passive victims of the conflict.

But it’s not true.

Even before their violent takeover of Gaza, Hamas received the largest block of votes in Gaza, giving them the majority, in fact Hamas secured 76 out of 132 seats – that’s 58% – in the Palestinian Authority’s parliament.

The people of Gaza, knowing full well the genocidal charter of Hamas, voted Hamas in. There’s no getting around that.

It’s both immoral and patronizing to say Gaza’s residents (or the Arabs in Judea and Samaria) voted Hamas in because Hamas’s social programs are more important to them than Hamas’s plans for genocide.

It is now well documented that the destruction in Gaza by the IDF was limited to areas that Hamas was using to attack Israel, whether it be for their command centers, missile silos, terror tunnels, or terrorist positions. For the most part, areas that were not involved in the fighting emerged from the war mostly unscathed.

Even within terror-infested neighborhoods, there are buildings that were hit, and buildings that weren’t.

Owners of many of the hit buildings were profiting from Hamas, charging them rent and receiving payment for letting Hamas store their weapons there, build terror tunnels entrances underneath their homes, or to set up rocket launchers in their orchards and backyards.

Unfortunately, there were also other civilian locations which Hamas illegally decided to use during the war, to attack Israel from.

The problem is that the international community refuses to report on the Arab civilian’s complicity and collusion with the terrorists, preferring to always portray them as the innocent victims, stuck in a situation out of their control.

Last week a Hamas official accidentally let it slip that Gazans are not letting Hamas back into their homes.

So much for the myth of the innocent and oppressed Gazans who can’t stand up to Hamas.

What was missing until now was any incentive for the Gazans to stand up to Hamas.

After all, the media and the UN teach them that there are absolutely no consequences to their actions – so why not let part of your house be converted into a missile silo to wipe out the Jews.

But now, the Gazans have learned an important life lesson. If you participate in any way in the genocidal attempt to destroy Israel, there are significant consequences to your actions.

The media should keep showing these photos of the destruction in Gaza.

Some day, the Gazans and the Arabs in Judea and Samaria will demand the right to vote from their leaders in the Palestinian Authority and Hamas.

They will once again need to decide whether they want the corrupt terrorists to take over, or if they want the ruthless terrorists to take over.

Unfortunately, a poll right after the war showed that Hamas was more popular than ever.

But perhaps, just perhaps, with a little retrospection, they’ll look at these pictures from Gaza and say, “We want a third option.”

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: Anti Semitism, Gaza Strip, Gaza war, Hamas, IDF, Islam, Israel, Jihad, Operation Protective Edge, Palestinians

Comments: 2 Comments

Will Islam become a peaceful, tolerant religion?

September 16, 2014

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?

Categories: Islam, Islamic State, Obama
Tags: Islam, Islamic State, Muslim extremists, Zuhdi Jasser

Comments: Be the first to comment

Three Choices and the Bitter Harvest of Denial: How Western denial about Islam has fueled Genocide in the Middle East

September 15, 2014

Three Choices and the Bitter Harvest of Denial: How Western denial about Islam has fueled Genocide in the Middle East, Dr. Mark Durie, September 2, 2014

Moderates

Categories: Iraq war, Syria war
Tags: Islam, Jihad, Koran, Mark Durie

Comments: Be the first to comment

Who Are These ‘Moderate’ Syrians Obama Wants to Pit Against ISIS?

September 15, 2014

Who Are These ‘Moderate’ Syrians Obama Wants to Pit Against ISIS? Daily Beast. Jamie Dettmer, September 15, 2014

(Will Obama send a battalion of like minded savants, who claim that Islam is peaceful, to convince their “moderate” inferiors in Koranic wisdom that Islam really is peaceful and freedom loving? Perhaps he should accompany them.– DM)

Moderates

Daniel Leal-Olivas/AFP/Getty

Like other countries convulsed by Arab Spring insurrections, there was a mismatch between Western expectations and perceptions and the thinking and religious views of the majority involved in the fighting, and that was a year before the emergence of ISIS. The war back then was clearly becoming more sectarian and Islamic—the trajectory was obvious.

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

There were few modern democrats among the armed opposition to Assad two years ago. There are far fewer now. So who can Obama trust not to turn Western-supplied weapons against us later?

The young rebels and opposition activists gathered in a school to discuss how the northern Syrian town of Al Bab should be governed after the departure of Bashar al Assad’s soldiers were taken aback by the question: “Why aren’t there any women here?” It was the summer of 2012, more than 12 months into the uprising against the Syrian president, and more than a year before Abu Bakr al Baghdadi announced the formation of his al Qaeda breakaway, the Islamic State of Syria and Sham, or ISIS.

Initial surprise at my question was followed by smirks. The young men who had talked about ushering in a new era of modern democracy and freedom in Syria pushed forward a nervous young imam to explain. “It is not in our tradition for men and women to mix,” he said. “They can have their own meeting, if they want. And if we need advice on some issues, we can ask them.” There were some chuckles at this. So much for democracy, at least in its Western guise.

Later that night I sat with two local sheikhs who explained how they were forming a court to adjudicate civil disputes and rule on criminal cases. “We will use Sharia law,” said Abdulbaset Kuredy. “What else is there? After Assad, the whole country will be governed by Sharia.” Then he launched into a condemnation of the corrupt West and its acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. The sheikhs were aligned with the Free Syrian Army, the rebel group now touted in Washington as the “moderates” to support in the fight against Assad on the one hand, ISIS on the other.

There was nothing I saw in Al Bab in August 2012—still early days in the insurrection that is now halfway through its fourth year—that led me to feel that if the Syrian uprising toppled Assad, it would lead to an inclusive, minority-respecting, and more or less democratic outcome. Like other countries convulsed by Arab Spring insurrections, there was a mismatch between Western expectations and perceptions and the thinking and religious views of the majority involved in the fighting, and that was a year before the emergence of ISIS. The war back then was clearly becoming more sectarian and Islamic—the trajectory was obvious.

After two years of brutal and barbaric sectarian warfare, the Syrian rebellion has seen an even greater hardening of sectarian attitudes among Syrian opponents of Assad and his regime, which is dominated by members of the minority Alawite sect. Many secular activists from the urban areas of Damascus or Aleppo withdrew long ago, sickened by what the uprising was becoming. They were appalled at the rise of the jihadists and their cruelty, worried by the strength of Islamist factions among the rural fighters who are the backbone of the militias. The center did not hold.

A key element in President Obama’s strategy to halt the jihadist campaign of terror across the Levant involves reversing his earlier decision to refrain from fully backing so-called moderate Syrian rebels with arms and training. Exasperated by infighting among the leaders of the Syrian National Council and the Free Syrian Army, and worried by the weakening of the more secular elements, the Obama administration basically left the uprising alone. Critics like Sen. John McCain say that helped the rise of extremists like ISIS.

Now the president is asking Congress for $500 million to bolster rebels he kept at arm’s length to give them weapons and pay for training these insurgents he once derided as ineffectual “former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth.”

But we shouldn’t imagine this is a change of policy in line with President George W. Bush’s “freedom agenda” or the “New Beginning” philosophy of Obama’s 2009 address in Cairo that sought to mend relations between the U.S. and the Arab world.

In his 13-minute speech last week, Obama did not mention the word “democracy” once—nor, for that matter, did “freedom” make any appearance. The arming and training of Syrian rebels is about U.S. national security interests and the rolling back of the jihadists.

But the decision to do so prompts a key question once again: Who are the moderates? Who in rebel ranks can be trusted not to turn Western-supplied weapons against the West later, or switch sides as we’ve seen in Mali and other countries racked by Islamist rebellions? Who can receive arms that won’t be shared with ISIS or the official al Qaeda affiliate in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra? Who won’t embarrass the West by engaging in some act of egregious cruelty, torturing prisoners or executing foes?

There were not many moderates around two years ago, as I found in Al Bab then, and there are far fewer now. A year ago the town was overrun by ISIS and many of the young rebels joined the group; others who remained loyal to brigades affiliated with the FSA pulled out. The bulk of those, according to locals, hooked up with the Islamic Front, a coalition of Islamist militias who are the second largest fighting insurgent formation after ISIS. The front has close ties with al-Nusra.

The Obama administration’s frustration with the rebellion and distrust of the insurgents were overlooked briefly a year ago, when Obama’s “red line” was crossed and Assad used chemical weapons against rebels and civilians. The administration considered taking action. Under skeptical questioning by some lawmakers, Secretary of State John Kerry insisted last summer: “The opposition has increasingly become more defined by its moderation, more defined by the breadth of its membership, and more defined by its adherence to some, you know, democratic process and to an all-inclusive, minority-protecting constitution, which will be broad-based and secular with respect to the future of Syria.”

That wasn’t the case then and it isn’t now. Shortly after Kerry’s comments, a respected British defense consultancy, IHS Jane’s, released a study claiming that more than half of the rebels battling to oust Assad were either jihadists or hardline Islamists.

“There are certainly moderates remaining,” says Jonathan Schanzer, a Mideast expert with the Washington-based think tank the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. “The problem is that they are few in number and lacking in support. They have been marginalized by U.S., European, Turkish, and Arab policies that have only served to boost the presence and capabilities of the more radical factions. It’s unclear to me how Washington’s new approach can help reverse this trend in an urgent or expeditious manner—which is what is needed.”

Most of the militias that are effective fighting formations and have scored off-and-on successes on the battlefield against ISIS are not moderate by Western standards. Most are Islamist to varying degrees and some, like Ahrar al-Sham, which lost most of its top leaders this week in a bomb attack in Idlib, are dedicated to establishing a Sunni theocracy in Syria. They don’t subscribe to transnational jihadism, but they do have strong ties to al-Nusra, which is part of the al Qaeda international franchise.

The most effective anti-ISIS fighters are with the Kurdish self-defense forces of the YPG, but because of their links with the Turkish separatist PKK, which is designated as a terrorist organization by the United States and European countries, they can’t be included in groups that receive Western backing.

According to a report issued this week by the International Crisis Group, the “mainstream” rebel opposition is caught in a desperate plight, “locked in a two-front war against the regime and IS [Islamic State or ISIS], their position is more precarious than at any time since the fighting began.”

ISIS has pressed an offensive north of Aleppo and is threatening to deliver a severe blow to rebel opposition groups by cutting off their supply lines to Turkey. If this can’t be stopped, the Crisis Group warns, the loss “would reverberate throughout the country, pushing many to give up the fight or join a more powerful militant force: IS.”

So speed is also of the essence. But not only is the Obama administration going to find it hard to select rebel groups it can work with, it will also have the problem of persuading them to focus on ISIS at the expense of their struggle against Assad, and if the regime starts making up more ground, that in turn could ignite local Sunni anger to the benefit of the jihadists.

There are already signs emerging that key Islamist groups aren’t ready to fall into line with the Obama agenda. This week a deal was struck between IS and an important Islamist coalition, the Syrian Revolutionaries Front, which is made up of about 20,000 fighters.

According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a U.K.-based Syrian opposition monitoring group, the jihadists and the Front have agreed “not to attack each other” while fighting the principal enemy, Assad.

Categories: Syria war
Tags: Islam, Koran, Moderates, peaceful, Syria

Comments: Be the first to comment

Obama, the Islamic State and Islam, the enemy which shall not be named

September 12, 2014

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?

Categories: Iraq war, Syria war
Tags: Iraq, Islam, Syria

Comments: 4 Comments

Archives