Obama's speech of September 10th, 2014 was a classic study in taqiyya (the Islamic practice of deception). He said: "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."
"No religion condones the killing of innocents." In Islam, the only "innocents" are those who worship "allah" and the prophet Mohammed in the way "allah" says they are required to do. Anyone else is not "innocent". They are "kafir" (disbelievers), and "allah" deals with them very harshly in the Koran. "And the vast majority of ISIL's victims have been Muslim." So? 1) Why did Barry mention Muslims first? Are the other religions of lesser importance? 2) According to the Koran, any Muslim who turns from Islam (and "turning" is completely subjective) is to be killed.
"And ISIL is certainly not a state." Really? You mean like "Palestine" is not a state? Oh, wait. Barry believes "Palestine" is a state. He has some rather selective reasoning. The Islamic State has taken territory by force, stealing land and murdering indigenous religious minorities, and has declared itself to be a state. How is that any different from "Palestine"? Arabs tried (literally) to shove the Jews into the sea. Does Barry need a lesson in the history of Israel?
Let us continue. "These terrorists are unique in their brutality. They execute captured prisoners. They kill children. They enslave, rape, and force women into marriage. They threaten their religious minority with genocide." Hm. "Unique"? Really?
Before I continue, it would behoove everyone to listen carefully to this interview with Walid Shoebat:
That should save me time in addressing the following quote:
"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."
Get it?
"We will continue to provide humanitarian assistance to innocent civilians who've been displaced by this terrorist organization. This includes Sunnis and Shia Muslims, who are at grave risk, as well as tens of thousands of Christians and other religious minorities."
Here we have those "innocent civilians" again, and why does Barry insist on listing Muslims first (again), qualifying it with "...who are at grave risk..."? Does that mean the "...tens of thousands of Christians and other religious minorities" are at any LESS risk?
"Already allies are flying planes with us over Iraq, sending arms and assistance to Iraqi security forces and the Syrian opposition, sharing intelligence and providing billions of dollars in humanitarian aid."
"...sending arms and assistance to Iraqi security forces and the Syrian opposition,..."? Who are these "Iraqi security forces"? Are these the same "security forces" we hired in Libya (the February 17th Martyr's Brigade)? The ones who were TERRORISTS? The ones who killed Ambassador Stevens? THOSE "security forces"? So, rending aid to so-called "security forces" and Syrian "opposition". In other words, aiding terrorism. YOU ARE DOING NOTHING BUT AIDING THE ENEMY, BARRY.
And, let us get this out of the way: The proper term for "ISIL" is the Islamic State.
As for the end of Barry's speech, I am going to reserve that for my next update because it applies to the question people have been asking me. I have addressed it on Twitter, but a detailed explanation requires more space, so I will outline what we NEED to do about the Islamic State in my next update, slated for Friday.
Meanwhile, I am not even going to go into Obama's ridiculous assessment of our economy. It is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
September 12, 2014
I failed to mention one thing yesterday. This business of Syria threatening us. Clearly, we have not gotten "permission" to strike the IS, not that I care, but I would like to point out last year's pivotal moment. When Obama's "red line" was crossed, and we sabre-rattled for two weeks, Israel moved its Iron Dome battery in preparation for an attack by Syria. Of course, when we backed down, it was all for naught, and while Prime Minister Netanyahu never said anything publicly, he could not have been happy. That cost Israel a fortune.
Now, there is no question the IS must be struck at its base, which is Syria. But, my concern is this: Syria can threaten America all it wants for failing to get their "permission". They can't hurt us. What they CAN and WILL do is attack Israel. For the first time in six years we must bear that in mind as we attempt to reverse the damage our country has caused with its foolish Middle East foreign policy.
So, what do we do? I will be up front; the plan I have come up with scares me. We should not have gotten ourselves in this situation in the first place, but here we are. I propose we work with Saudi Arabia. While I do not trust the Saudis, I do trust the House of Saud's desire to stay in power, and I believe the IS has them scared. We also need to work with Egypt. I do not trust el-Sisi either, but he has enough problems with the Muslim Brotherhood so I think he is motivated as well. I also have problems with Jordan but they, too, are worried about self-preservation. And, it goes without saying that we can and must work with Israel.
If you notice, nowhere in this proposal do I suggest arming "rebels". I am not certain we should arm anyone. I say we need to provide tactical and logistical support to those countries with a vested interest in getting rid of the IS. Of course, we should definitely form a coalition with our allies; that goes without saying. Great Britain, France, and Germany come to mind. But, contrary to Obama's philosophy, America needs to take the lead as the only remaining superpower (IF we still have that status).
Notice I also did not suggest working with Iran. It is insane enough that we are negotiating with them about their nuclear program. Insane. We certainly do not need to team up with Hezbollah. Oh, wait. We are already doing so in Lebanon. IS THIS ADMINISTRATION OUT OF ITS COLLECTIVE MIND?
At any rate, we need to be very careful, and in the end, trust no one. But, doing nothing is not an option. We must also deal with Russia. But that is for my next blog.
NOTE: As I was preparing this post for publication, the news broke that Russia has condemned Obama's "attack" on the IS, saying that any action without the approval of the UNSC "would be an act of aggression and flagrant violation of international law". I thought Russia was opposed to terrorism? (Can you say "Crimea"?) I am being facetious. Putin and al-Assad have both aided in the creation of the IS. That statement runs counter to "Western" thinking, but only because those in "the West" do not understand the mind of a dictator. To them, it makes perfect sense, and America has played right into their hands.
If you notice, nowhere in this proposal do I suggest arming "rebels". I am not certain we should arm anyone. I say we need to provide tactical and logistical support to those countries with a vested interest in getting rid of the IS. Of course, we should definitely form a coalition with our allies; that goes without saying. Great Britain, France, and Germany come to mind. But, contrary to Obama's philosophy, America needs to take the lead as the only remaining superpower (IF we still have that status).
Notice I also did not suggest working with Iran. It is insane enough that we are negotiating with them about their nuclear program. Insane. We certainly do not need to team up with Hezbollah. Oh, wait. We are already doing so in Lebanon. IS THIS ADMINISTRATION OUT OF ITS COLLECTIVE MIND?
At any rate, we need to be very careful, and in the end, trust no one. But, doing nothing is not an option. We must also deal with Russia. But that is for my next blog.
NOTE: As I was preparing this post for publication, the news broke that Russia has condemned Obama's "attack" on the IS, saying that any action without the approval of the UNSC "would be an act of aggression and flagrant violation of international law". I thought Russia was opposed to terrorism? (Can you say "Crimea"?) I am being facetious. Putin and al-Assad have both aided in the creation of the IS. That statement runs counter to "Western" thinking, but only because those in "the West" do not understand the mind of a dictator. To them, it makes perfect sense, and America has played right into their hands.
No comments:
Post a Comment