The extremists released the following video, titled “A Message to the
Allies of America,” Saturday which purportedly shows Haines’ beheading,
shown on YouTube by Your Face
Warning Graphic:
Warning Graphic:
Saturday, September 13, 2014
Kurdish female fighters face jihadists in Iraq's north...ISIS Nightmare lol
oped: Can you picture a Kurdistan gal sticking her rifle in the face of a cowering ISIS idiot after blowing off his cajones'...saying you raped my mother and sister and now I am sending you to Allah enjoy your 72 virgins!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Makhmur (Iraq) (AFP) - Tekoshin stands on a mountain in north Iraq with a rifle slung over her shoulder and a grenade tucked into her belt, facing jihadists in "a struggle to liberate women".
Women have been fighting alongside men in the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) to wrest Mount Makhmur in northern Iraq back from Islamic State (IS) jihadists, whose treatment of women makes the fight especially personal for the dozens of female fighters on the mountain.
IS-led militants have overrun
large areas of Iraq, and the group also controls significant territory
in neighbouring Syria, enacting its harshly restrictive and brutal
interpretation of Islamic law in both countries.
Tekoshin,
27, says she and other women are fighting the group not only because of
the threat it poses to Kurds but because it "is against women's
liberation".
"They don't
allow women in areas under their control to go to the market" and force
them to wear headscarves, she says. "Our struggle against (the IS) is to
defend women from them and from that kind of thinking."
- Women, men deploy together -
Some 50 women are
among the fighters on the mountain from the PKK, which launched an
insurgency for self-rule in Turkey in 1984 and has been listed as a
terrorist group by countries including the United States, but began
peace talks in 2012.
At the
entrance to the mountain town of Makhmur, "The Islamic State" was
scrawled on a one-storey concrete house, but hastily painted over since
the PKK took it back.
Tekoshin says women fought side by side with the men in the battle to force out the jihadists.
"We usually organise ourselves
in groups of four women, and I command one of the groups," she
explained, wearing traditional Kurdish clothing usually seen on men.
"But when it comes to fighting, we break up and we and the men deploy together on different fronts."
Kurdish women have fought alongside men for years in the PKK,
its Syrian offshoot the People's Protection Units (YPG), and to a lesser
extent, the Iraqi Kurdish peshmerga forces.
Asked whether she was married, Tekoshin laughs: "Most of us here aren't married. I joined the PKK when I was 14 years old."
Tekoshin says the PKK does not forbid its fighters from marrying, but that it is generally frowned upon.
- 'More afraid of us' -
She also finds amusing the idea that the jihadists may have been surprised by coming face to face with women fighters.
"I think (IS) were more afraid of us than of the men," she
says, adding that she thinks "they believe they'll go to hell if they
die at a woman's hands".
While
Tekoshin says she fights best with her Kalashnikov assault rifle,
Saria, 18, shyly says she feels equally comfortable with both light and
heavy machineguns and sniper rifles.
Saria grew up in northern Syria,
and her two brothers and her sister are currently fighting against IS
there, she says, adding that both her parents were in the PKK.
"When
I was a child, I didn't think I would be a fighter. But I realised how
much my (Kurdish) nation needs me... and I chose this road," she says.
"It is important for us to find our place in war, side by side with the men," she says.
On
the mountainside, the PKK fighters live a communal life. Normally they
take turns cooking, but in wartime, male volunteers from nearby Arbil
city take care of feeding the fighters.
For
Shimal, a 26-year-old fighter, the anti-IS battle is as much about
solidarity with women who have fallen victim to the jihadists as it is
about the Kurdish national cause.
IS "turns women into slaves," she says.
The true face of Islam..educate..educate #EOS
Yes indeed....people really need to get off cloud 9 and the PC train...in other words wtfu!
Cue: http://sharlaslabyrinth.blogspot.com/2014/09/saudis-tip-toe-into-war-on-isis.html
http://sharlaslabyrinth.blogspot.com/2014/09/rep-d-maxine-waters-americans-are.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Islamic State jihadi from Denmark takes selfie with severed head
by:
Comparing the Quran with the acts of Islamic State, one understands that what is coming out of Syria these days is Islam 101: “So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command].” (Quran, 47:4).
Translated from Uriasposten:
This is the 25-year-old Mohammad from Ishoej, the now-renamed Jacob. He disappeared September 2 of last year from the City of Copenhagen. According to friends and family, he went to Syria, where he has joined the extremely violent Islamist movement known as the Islamic State, IS. …
Radio24syv is in possession of nine pictures showing the 25-year-old man with a large beard, a scarf around his forehead and black clothes. He is wearing a gun belt with a pistol and a hand grenade, a belt bag and a belt on the chest with the words ‘Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’.
In one photo, he sits on his knees, pointing with his right hand towards a severed head. In other photographs he stands along a fence, pointing at severed heads that are put on skewers, while the headless bodies are attached to the fence. Several of the photos shows signs of fresh blood.
Denmark: No imams want to join anti-Islamic State demonstration
by:
Translated from Information:
A demonstration in Aarhus (Denmark), where Muslims are encouraged to denounce the terrorist group Islamic State, has had difficulty attracting participants. Muslims are afraid of being attacked or receiving hate mail from IS followers in Denmark, say representatives of the Muslim community in the city …
It is not surprising, says Ann-Sophie Hemmingsen, a researcher on radicalization at the Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS), that many Muslims in Denmark fear reprisals.
“It is not currently possible to determine whether the fear of reaction from the IS support at home is justified. But it’s very understandable that Muslims in Denmark, showing their resistance to IS, fear that IS’s brutality in Iraq, for example, can be followed up with actions from the IS supporters at home,” she says. …
“None of the imams I have spoken to have been keen to set up and support the demonstration, and it’s really annoying,” said Mohammad Sabah Ahmad (organizer of the demonstration).
Saudis Tip-Toe Into the War on ISIS
oped: Excellent article...what people need to realize is that Islam is not a religion per se...it is a 7th Century Theocracy 'War Machine' still stuck in the 7th Century...Caliphate after Caliphate has failed over the centuries. The reason being is that they are too busy waging war,raping,pillaging,cutting off heads and hands all in the name of Allah the Moon God. Is it not time for the Middle East to join the rest of the world in the 21st Century? Educate yourselves move away from the theocracy war machine Muhammad established during the 7th century...find a real religious purpose that will move you into the 21st century...learn how to create things rather than destroy things...accept others beliefs and culture and stop forcing your beliefs down others throats or lack of !
Start here educate yourselves on what Islam is really about: http://sharlaslabyrinth.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-life-and-times-of-muhammad_5191.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
By Jeff Stein
Western technicians at Dhahran Air Base like to
joke that the only aircraft the Saudis can keep in the air by themselves
is a model of a British Tornado on a pedestal at the gates.
Indeed, the entire Saudi military arsenal—including the
world’s biggest fleet of American F-15s outside of the U.S. and
Japan—couldn’t function without the several hundred mostly American and
British technicians who keep the royal family’s tanks, ships, artillery
and warplanes in working order. As with everything else in the Saudi
economy, from servants to oil field workers, the Saudis just don’t “do”
such hands-on work.
The same goes for Saudi ground troops: There are
officers, and there are grunts (not all of them Saudis), and nothing
in-between. The concept of a corps of sergeants actually running things,
is, well, foreign, to the desert kingdom’s rulers, for a variety of
tribal and cultural reasons. But as any Western general knows, an army
wins (or doesn’t) on the strength of its sergeants, the blue-collar guys
down below the colonels, majors and lieutenants who prod the grunts and
make sure things get done. And it’s the sergeants who do the training.
So when Obama administration officials talk about helping
finance and train so-called "moderate" Syrians to take on the Islamic
State, they're only half-right. In the Saudis’ shopworn custom, the
kingdom will certainly fork over millions to finance the fight, but if
they do any training at all it will probably be carried out by
others—the hundreds of U.S. and British military advisors on scene in
the kingdom.
Likewise, the prospect of Saudi pilots banking their F-15s
into dive-bombing runs against ISIS targets in Iraq or Syria, is a
fantasy. Just getting the king to issue a denunciation of the
neck-slicing savages was considered a major victory in official
Washington.
“They will be relying on foreigners—Americans mostly, as I
understand it,” for training, says Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA and
White House Middle East expert now at the Brookings Institution. “They
have zero capacity to do the training themselves. Even if we backed out,
they would just hire [military contractor] MPRI or groups like them to
do the training.”
“It will be a Saudi face for a U.S effort,” agrees
Patrick Skinner, a former CIA operative in Iraq who frequently travels
the Middle East for the Soufan Group, a private organization led by
former FBI, CIA and British intelligence officers. “Not a bad thing,” he
adds, “but it will be interesting to see how effective the result is.
After all, we spent untold time and treasure training up the Iraqi and
Afghan armies that are proving completely inept. Why do we think we can
do it even faster with Syrian rebels? It makes no sense.”
Having Americans continuing to play a key role in Saudi
Arabia’s defense doesn’t make a lot of sense, either, at least
politically. It was the main organizing cry for al Qaeda: Get the
Americans out of the “land of the two holy Mosques,” Mecca and Medina.
On top of that, the Saudi Ministry of Defense is
facing a leadership vacuum, leaving it outside the loop of royal
decision making, according to a former top U.S. diplomat in the region.
But the Ministry of Interior, he added on condition of anonymity to
discuss such sensitive matters, could offer substantive help to whatever
coalition President Obama can string together to combat ISIS: After two
decades battling al Qaeda-inspired domestic insurgents and terrorists,
the 100,000-strong MOI knows the enemy and its techniques well, and
almost certainly has its own intelligence sources in Syria (which
Washington sorely lacks, by all accounts).
“It could certainly arm” the Syrian rebel factions of its
choosing, the former ambassador said. Even more important, he added,
the ministry is led by Mohammad bin Nayef, 55, a member of the House of
Saud and a potential contender for the throne. “It will only work if
he’s on board.”
Experts on the Saudis cautioned that the king’s
recent verbal attacks on ISIS should not be dismissed as mere talk, as
some influential American commentators have it.
“It is a really big step that the Saudis are doing this and publicly announcing that they doing it,” Pollack told Newsweek. “That is not how they do things, so this is a very deliberate effort on their part to show their commitment to this fight.”
It’s also important because, “We haven’t been on same page
with them on Syria for a long time,” said the former ambassador.
“There’s been a lot of bad blood” between Riyadh and Washington--and not
just over Syria. The Saudis themselves nourished the brand of
puritanical Islam that would give birth to al Qaeda and its evil
stepchild, the Islamic State. Denouncing its savagery seems beyond
hypocritical on the part of the royals: In the past month alone, the
kingdom’s executioners beheaded 19 people in “Chop-Chop Square,”
Riyadh’s medieval justice forum, nearly half for nonviolent crimes.
“It’s important for symbolic reasons,” agrees
Richard Barrett, the former head of counterterrorism for MI6, Britain’s
secret intelligence service. “They can’t sit on sidelines… They have to
take a role of some sort,” he told Newsweek. “Even if their role is small, it should be visual and actual.”
Barrett also suggested the “allies” start thinking
the unthinkable: Saudi, Iranian and U.S. military commanders publicly
coordinating attacks on ISIS—as a prelude to a regional peace agreement.
Bombing ISIS into submission alone, he pointed out, won’t solve the
bigger problem of the region—the struggle of Shiites and Sunnis for
hegemony in the Middle East.
“At some point,” he said, “the Saudis and Iran will have to cooperate.” Why not now?
Jeff Stein writes Spytalk from Washington, D.C.Groan: U.S. Army Worried Too Many White Men Leading Combat Units
Ridiculous. When do we become a color
blind society and not care about these things? But since we have to talk
about it they say 10% is the current number of black officers. The
black population in the US is 14%. That’s within 5% and we always hear
that is the margin of error.
Check it out:
U.S. Army sociologists are worried that a lack of black officers leading its combat troops will have detrimental effect on minorities and lead to fewer black officers in top leadership posts.
“The issue exists. The leadership is aware of it,” Brig. Gen. Ronald Lewis toldUSA Today on Thursday. “The leadership does have an action plan in place. And it’s complicated.”
The Army reports that only 10 percent of its active-duty officers are black, which has contributed to its dearth of black officers leading soldiers with occupational specialties in infantry, armor and artillery.
“It certainly is a problem for several reasons,” Col. Irving Smith, director of sociology at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, told USA Today. “First we are a public institution. And as a public
Check it out:
U.S. Army sociologists are worried that a lack of black officers leading its combat troops will have detrimental effect on minorities and lead to fewer black officers in top leadership posts.
“The issue exists. The leadership is aware of it,” Brig. Gen. Ronald Lewis toldUSA Today on Thursday. “The leadership does have an action plan in place. And it’s complicated.”
The Army reports that only 10 percent of its active-duty officers are black, which has contributed to its dearth of black officers leading soldiers with occupational specialties in infantry, armor and artillery.
“It certainly is a problem for several reasons,” Col. Irving Smith, director of sociology at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, told USA Today. “First we are a public institution. And as a public
institution we certainly have more
of a responsibility to our nation than a private company to reflect it.
In order to maintain their trust and confidence, the people of America
need to know that the Army is not only effective but representative of
them.”
Continue Reading on weaselzippers.us ...
Continue Reading on weaselzippers.us ...
Pelosi: ‘Civilization As We Know It Would Be In Jeopardy If Republicans Win The Senate’
Pelosi and reality don’t really go hand in hand.
Check it out:
BILL MAHER: I want to ask you about this election that’s coming up because now the campaign has been kicked off. Nate Silver said the other day it looks like actually the Republicans are going to win the Senate and everyone was like ‘Oh, no, they’re going to win the Senate.’ My question is what would change? There’s the filibuster there anyway, they don’t pass anything. It’s completely gridlocked. What do I care if they lose the Senate?
NANCY PELOSI: It would be very important for the Democrats to retain control of the Senate. Civilization as we know it today would be in jeopardy if Republicans win the Senate.
MAHER: This and ISIS are threatening civilization. Oh, no.
Check it out:
BILL MAHER: I want to ask you about this election that’s coming up because now the campaign has been kicked off. Nate Silver said the other day it looks like actually the Republicans are going to win the Senate and everyone was like ‘Oh, no, they’re going to win the Senate.’ My question is what would change? There’s the filibuster there anyway, they don’t pass anything. It’s completely gridlocked. What do I care if they lose the Senate?
NANCY PELOSI: It would be very important for the Democrats to retain control of the Senate. Civilization as we know it today would be in jeopardy if Republicans win the Senate.
MAHER: This and ISIS are threatening civilization. Oh, no.
PELOSI: Yeah, it is really important. But
let’s not put ourselves to the stipulation that we’re not going to win
the Senate. Let’s instead work really hard. The fact is that it’s all
about turnout and many people want to support the Democrats. We just
have to make sure that they turn out for the election.
Maxine Waters: Americans are Bigots for Opposing Sharia Law
oped: Here is my answer to Maxine Waters: http://sharlaslabyrinth.blogspot.com/2014/09/rep-d-maxine-waters-americans-are.html
I confess I've been called a bigot for lots of things simply because I have a Christian worldview. I've been called it by atheists, homosexuals and Islamists, but they always use that because they simply cannot defend their positions, and so, they resort to name calling. It shouldn't surprise anyone then that socialist Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) spoke at an Islamic Society of Orange County town hall meeting on the issue of the Constitution and Sharia law.
Keep in mind that this town hall meeting took place in 2012, but her words are still relevant today because she and others like her continue to think like this. Also keep in mind that the Islamic Society of Orange County claims to be a "non-political organization."
"Over the last year, and due to the focus of House Republicans on so-called 'Muslim radicalization,' we have seen politicians and pundits attacking the Islamic faith as a security threat to the United States," she said. "Across the country, these people are exploiting fear and trying to convince state legislatures that the state adoption of Sharia tenants is the strategy extremists are using to transform the United States into an Islamic country."
Read More: http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/09/maxine-waters-believes-americans-bigots-opposing-sharia-law/
Friday, September 12, 2014
Rep (D) Maxine Waters: Americans are Bigots for Opposing Sharia Law
First and foremost..Maxine, you Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid really need to resign from office...The three of you are the most low information politicians to ever walk the halls of congress. And IMHO y'all are bordering on bi-polar dysfunction as well as being senile. The three of you seem to think everyone needs to accept passed bad laws in order to see whats in them...Now how dumb is that? How the hell do y'all even function in life with rediculous ideas,diatribes, philosophies as well as a lack of the understanding of law? Much less 'Common Sense' albeit the reference to 'Common Sense' is a oxymoron...akin to the three of you!
Sharia Law:
Sharia law is the law of Islam. The Sharia (also spelled Shariah or Shari'a) law is cast from the actions and words of Muhammad, which are called "Sunnah," and the Quran, which he authored.
The Sharia law itself cannot be altered, but the interpretation of the Sharia law, called "figh," by imams is given some leeway.
As a legal system, the Sharia law covers a very wide range of topics. While other legal codes deal primarily with public behavior, Sharia law covers public behavior, private behavior and private beliefs. Of all legal systems in the world today, Islam's Sharia law is the most intrusive and strict, especially against women.
According to the Sharia law:
[Punishment for Theft in Saudi Arabia]
[The Punishment for reading a Bible in Saudi Arabia]
• Theft is punishable by amputation of the right hand (above).
• Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
• Criticizing or denying Muhammad is a prophet is punishable by death.
• Criticizing or denying Allah, the moon god of Islam is punishable by death.
• A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death.
• A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
• A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
• A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
• Girls' clitoris should be cut (per Muhammad's words in Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
• A woman can have 1 husband, but a man can have up to 4 wives; Muhammad can have more.
• A man can unilaterally divorce his wife but a woman needs her husband's consent to divorce.
• A man can beat his wife for insubordination.
• Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman.
• A woman who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).
• A woman's testimony in court, allowed only in property cases, carries half the weight of a man's.
• A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits.
• A woman cannot drive a car, as it leads to fitnah (upheaval).
• A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
• Meat to be eaten must come from animals that have been sacrificed to Allah - i.e., be Halal.
• Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.
• The list goes on.
I am giving you a homework assignment to try to educate the three of you on Islam and Sharia Law... since you obviously haven't a clue! As you can see above Maxine you as well as Nancy Pelosi could not serve in government much less drive a car or vote!
Put on a large pot of coffee and begin your journey into the Myth of Islam!
Read: http://sharlaslabyrinth.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-life-and-times-of-muhammad_5191.html
Foley's mother felt like 'annoyance' to US government
Washington (AFP) - The mother of
executed US reporter James Foley said she felt her son's case was an
"annoyance" to the US government.
In an
interview aired Thursday with CNN, Diane Foley said her family was
warned it could be charged if it tried to raise ransom money to free
their son.
The family was
also told no prisoners would be exchanged for Foley, nor would the
government take military action, the mother said. The family was told
not to go to the media and "trust that it would be taken care of."
"As an American I was embarrassed and appalled," Foley said.
"I
think our efforts to get Jim freed were an annoyance" to the US
government, she added. "It didn't seem to be in our strategic interest,
if you will."
The 40-year-old
freelance reporter's death was revealed August 19 in a video released
by Islamic State militants, in which he is seen being beheaded.
CLICK IMAGE for slideshow: Picture taken on November 5, 2012 in Aleppo, northern Syria shows US freelance reporter …
IS
said his killing was in response to US air strikes against it. A week
later it released another video showing the beheading of another
American journalist, Steven Sotloff.
Foley
had covered wars in Afghanistan, Libya and Syria and contributed to
GlobalPost, Agence France-Presse and other outlets. He was seized by
armed men in northern Syria in 2012.
"Jim would have been saddened. Jim believed to the end that his country would come to their aid," Foley said.
"We were just told to trust that he would be freed somehow, miraculously," Foley's mother said. "And he wasn't, was he?"Coach Obama And The ISIS Varsity
by Ben Crystal
As I’m writing this, President Barack Obama has just wrapped up a prime-time address to us, his loyal subjects. The topic of his latest proclamation: the islamofascist brushfire in the Mideast that Obama’s bumbling fanned into a five-alarm inferno. What was once a civil war between the forces of Syrian President Bashar Assad and rebel opponents has now metastasized into a regional nightmare. And while Obama once dismissed the Islamic State (aka ISIS or ISIL) as terrorism’s “junior varsity,” apparently, the terror team has been called up to the big show.
In his address, Obama outlined a four-point program to arm and train “forces fighting these terrorists on the ground.” Presumably, those “forces” would then use their newly acquired weapons and training to destroy ISIS and then what? Join hands and sing “Kumbaya?” You’ll pardon me for asking, but I have a few questions I think deserve more than the usual White House fade, especially in light of the fact that Obama’s newest attempt at meaningful foreign policy is — by his own admission — more open-ended than an Internal Revenue Service audit.
Obama accomplices like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have been providing cover for Obama’s latest misadventure by referring to “moderates” in Syria and Iraq. Who are these “moderates,” and where were they when Obama’s plan for pacifying a restive Mideast involved arming ISIS against Syrian President Bashar Assad? Are we now supposed to accept that not only do such people exist, but that they have earned such largesse? Are we supposed to forget that ISIS used to be the very “moderates” we supported? Are we further supposed to forget that Obama’s policy regarding the very real threat of islamofascism has gone from “arming islamofascists to fight against other islamofascists” to “arming islamofascists to fight against the islamofascists we armed to fight against other islamofascists?” Are we even further supposed to forget that some and/or all of the people — islamofascist or “moderate” — have spilled from Syria into Iraq to fill a vacuum Obama created? And are we even further supposed to forget that the current crop of islamofascists hail not only from the Mideast, but from such exotic locales as London, Paris and Minneapolis? For that matter, has it occurred to anyone within earshot of the president that giving money and materiel to everyone who writes “moderate” on his nametag has led to nothing but heartbreak so far?
Taking to the teleprompter, Obama provided answers to precisely none of those questions. But he did declare ISIS to be a “terrorist group” requiring us “to degrade and ultimately destroy” them. That’s a far cry from “junior varsity,” a long bellow from “we don’t have a strategy” and a big shout from “manageable problem.” Keep in mind that the previous sentence reflects only the past few weeks of Obama’s eternal evolution on the appropriate response to islamofascism. Throw in “the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” the Iranian crackdown, the “Arab Spring” (for which Obama was entirely unprepared) and a few murders committed in the name of a phantom YouTube video, and the lack of both coherence and competence emerges.
We’ve gone from 9/11 attacks to attacks on 9/11. We’ve gone from fighting islamofascist murderers in the Mideast to fighting islamofascist murderers in the Mideast. We’ve seen Libya transform from a terrorist haven into a haven for terrorists, albeit terrorists who now use our embassy as a health club. We’ve even managed to regress to operations in Somalia and Yemen, because we’re retro like that. But there is something new under the sun. As we paused to mark the 13th anniversary of the original 9/11 attacks, we were confronted not only by the spreading fungus of islamofascism in the Mideast but by the realization that the infection appears to have spread to our shores. Moreover, even Obama’s own national security apparatchiks are now acknowledging the presence of ISIS vermin within a short swim of our own southern frontier. Given Obama’s avowed plan to let through every thug, gangster and reprobate through with the promise of free lifetime care and feeding, it’s hardly a stretch to think a few Abduls and Zameers might have snuck through amidst the Tomases, Ricardos and Joses.
Since Obama took home the Nobel Peace Prize for promising to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony, the world has plunged into outright caterwauling. Russia dug its old Soviet uniforms out of the gulag; China has extended its airspace to include everything west of Obama’s vacation rental on Hawaii; North Korea is developing long distance delivery systems for Kim Jong Krazy; and even our pals in Europe are starting to look at us funny. Of course, they’ve got problems of their own. From the Norwegian capital of Oslo to Madrid and from Paris to Istanbul, islamofascism is whirling like the proverbial dervishes. The most common name for newborns in England is Mohammed, as if our best pals needed another reminder of how much fun the “religion of pieces” can be. And here at home, a growth Obama considered beneath his notice has rocketed past his “manageable problem” to “we should schedule a biopsy.” As Obama acknowledged, “[T]hese terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region — including to the United States.”
I suppose it’s laudable of Obama to actually show up for work, much less offer a strategy. But as he wrapped up his meandering attempt to convince the world that he’s super serious this time, I couldn’t help but think two things: “Welcome to the varsity, ISIS” and “Man, I could have watched ‘World War Z’ on Netflix.”
If You Take Him At His Word, Obama Is Insane
by Bob Livingston
“I want the American people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,” President Barack Obama said in a nationally televised address Wednesday night. “It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil.”
If you take Obama at his word and believe that he believes what he said, he is utterly insane. There are currently U.S. troops on the ground in and around Iraq sent there by Obama. Whether there are 100 or 500 or 10,000 or more is irrelevant. Whether he calls them advisers or observers or something else is irrelevant. They are there, and their numbers are growing incrementally. That’s called “mission creep.”
The U.S. has spent most of the past decade training and arming Iraqi troops, al-Qaida-linked “freedom fighters” and an assortment of other ne’er-do-wells that he and his neocon buddies call “the good guys.” Those “good guys” are the same “good guys” that became the bad guys and ran roughshod over the vaunted U.S.-trained Iraqis, who surrendered their U.S. weaponry faster than a Frenchman on double-time.
So Obama’s strategy is to use bombs to kill ISIS troops — and, no doubt, civilians as “collateral damage” — and let the vaunted Iraqis and some new group of al-Qaida-linked “freedom fighters” (whom we trained and are continuing to train and who are aligned with ISIS against the Syrian regime) wage the fight against ISIS. In other words, he’s going to continue to do what he’s been doing for six years — and just add in some bombs for good measure. And he expects that to defeat ISIS.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result. If you take him at his word, Obama is clearly insane.
Germany bans Islamic State in bid to stop attacks, recruitment
BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany announced a ban on Islamic State on Friday, saying it aimed to prevent the militants from recruiting young jihadists in Germany, especially via the internet, or from using combat-hardened fighters returning to Europe to carry out attacks.
Coinciding with the launch of a broad U.S. campaign against the Sunni militants, which could include air strikes in Syria as well as Iraq, Germany introduced an immediate ban making all IS propaganda, symbols and activities illegal.
To help counter IS military gains in Iraq, Chancellor Angela Merkel has broken with Germany's post-war policy of not sending arms to war zones and has begun to send weapons and equipment to Iraqi Kurds fighting the militants.
"The terrorist organization Islamic State is a threat to public safety in Germany as well," said Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere, estimating that over 400 Germans have joined IS in Iraq and Syria and about 40 have died, some in suicide attacks.
More than 100 jihadists are back in Germany including "some with combat experience who have learned to hate", he said.
"We don't know what they are doing, but it could be that they will carry out attacks," said De Maiziere, citing the case of a returning French jihadist arrested in connection with an attack on a Jewish museum in Belgium in May.
Islamic State runs aggressive German-language recruitment campaigns on social media "to get young women and men to join the jihad and fight and murder", the minister said.
But security services alone cannot stop the radicalization of young Muslims, de Maiziere said, urging "parents, siblings, neighbors and friends" to help. He praised the main Muslim community groups for standing up to the "barbaric" organization.
(Reporting by Stephen Brown; Editing by Dominic Evans)
U.S. Muslims ask Obama to Block Counter-Terror Training
So much for the moderate Muslims.
Check it out:
Even as fears grow that ISIS terrorists are secreted inside America’s Muslim community, dozens of American Muslim groups have fired off a letter to President Obama demanding he cut off federal funding for sheriffs and other local police receiving anti-jihadist training from a former FBI agent.
Veteran FBI Special Agent John Guandolo, formerly of the bureau’s Washington field office, has been training local law enforcement officials and federal agents in tactics for identifying and ferreting out Islamic terrorists and their supporters inside U.S. cities.
But more than 75 Islamic and leftist groups upset with his focus on the religious motivation of terrorists last month sent a five-page letter to the White House complaining of a “biased” training program.
Led by the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, which has been named an unindicted co-conspirator in a major federal terrorism case, the coalition demanded the president implement a “mandatory retraining program” for “all federal, state and local law enforcement officials” who have been trained by Guandolo.
Continue Reading on www.wnd.com ...
Texas Sheriff to ISIS: Rear Your Head Here & We’ll Send You to Hell
by:
While many assume wrongly that when we
post articles against Islam or informing the public about what Islamists
are advancing in or against the US we are pushing a spirit of fear, we
are not. We simply put out the information so that people can be aware
and alert as to what is going on and respond appropriately. Midland
County Sheriff Gary Painter has done just that. He's heard the
information and now he has a message for members of ISIS who wish to
cross our borders and engage in terrorism: We'll send you to hell.
Last week, the Texas sheriff appeared on CNN alongside host Don Lemon
and was asked what message he wanted to communicate to the Islamists in
ISIS.
"If they rear their ugly head, we'll send them to hell," he declared without hesitation.
"If they rear their ugly head, we'll send them to hell," he declared without hesitation.
Painter said that his biggest concern was the ISIS is already inside the US.
Sheriff Painter said that he had worked the border for eight years and knew of many places, just like the one James O'Keefe crossed, where the border was wide open to people coming across (O'Keefe has now demonstrated that the northern border is just as unsecure). He also made mention of the underestimated number of 10-15 million illegal aliens inside our borders currently.
The host responded in fashion that could only be described as "disbelief" that ISIS is in the United States. Perhaps he was not paying attention any more than his colleague Jake Tapper during a live report where ISIS supporters in Ferguson, Missouri were declaring just that.
"I believe they have people here," he said. "They have cohorts. I believe they have people here who are going to throw in with them. I believe we have some homegrown people that are going to get mixed up in it."
Sheriff Painter said that he had worked the border for eight years and knew of many places, just like the one James O'Keefe crossed, where the border was wide open to people coming across (O'Keefe has now demonstrated that the northern border is just as unsecure). He also made mention of the underestimated number of 10-15 million illegal aliens inside our borders currently.
The host responded in fashion that could only be described as "disbelief" that ISIS is in the United States. Perhaps he was not paying attention any more than his colleague Jake Tapper during a live report where ISIS supporters in Ferguson, Missouri were declaring just that.
"I believe they have people here," he said. "They have cohorts. I believe they have people here who are going to throw in with them. I believe we have some homegrown people that are going to get mixed up in it."
He then pointed out that several Americans have traveled to Syria and Iraq to wage jihad and been killed. We've even documented those, as well as Muslims from the UK who have done the same thing.
"I think it would be naïve to say they're not here," Painter concluded.
While Lemon said that the Pentagon didn't have any information that ISIS was here and that Governor Rick Perry used the word "may" come across the US/Mexico border, one has to ask the question the day before September 11, 2014, did they have the information about September 11, 2001? Hmmm?
"I think it would be naïve to say they're not here," Painter concluded.
While Lemon said that the Pentagon didn't have any information that ISIS was here and that Governor Rick Perry used the word "may" come across the US/Mexico border, one has to ask the question the day before September 11, 2014, did they have the information about September 11, 2001? Hmmm?
"I think our citizens are aware that
there's a strong possibility that these individuals are already here,"
he responded. "Sure, there's not positive proof, but how many people
knew there was 10-15 million undocumented aliens? How do you prove
that?"
"We have people that are in these United States on visas…student visas, work visas… that have never reported in," he continued. "They've had no one to check 'em, no one to identify, until they get stopped by law enforcement or something, by chance happens."
Though there have been numerous reports that indicate Islamists are crossing the southern border, Painter's point is well made in demonstrating that you cannot trust the federal government when it comes to security.
"We have people that are in these United States on visas…student visas, work visas… that have never reported in," he continued. "They've had no one to check 'em, no one to identify, until they get stopped by law enforcement or something, by chance happens."
Though there have been numerous reports that indicate Islamists are crossing the southern border, Painter's point is well made in demonstrating that you cannot trust the federal government when it comes to security.
Painter said that his own department
goes through emergency management training twice per year to prepare for
scenarios like dealing with ISIS. They also work with various agencies
in the state and at the federal level.
He also went on to say that law enforcement is incapable of doing their jobs apart from the help of the public and working with other agencies.
Painter alleged to have received an intelligence briefing on ISIS, in which he said that the report came in some time last week and that there were three or four suspected ISIS cells near Ciudad Juarez, Mexico and were operating there as well as moving through the area, which is mere miles from El Paso, Texas. His office was warned to be on the lookout for it.
Finally, when asked what his message was to ISIS, Sheriff Painter didn't even take time to think but calmly stated, "If they rear their ugly head, we'll send them to hell."
He also went on to say that law enforcement is incapable of doing their jobs apart from the help of the public and working with other agencies.
Painter alleged to have received an intelligence briefing on ISIS, in which he said that the report came in some time last week and that there were three or four suspected ISIS cells near Ciudad Juarez, Mexico and were operating there as well as moving through the area, which is mere miles from El Paso, Texas. His office was warned to be on the lookout for it.
Finally, when asked what his message was to ISIS, Sheriff Painter didn't even take time to think but calmly stated, "If they rear their ugly head, we'll send them to hell."
This is the kind of spirit the American people need to have against these savages. It is the same message Marine veteran Nick Powers put forth in August. Furthermore, if you are Christian, you should not be timid or fearful of these Islamic devils
either. For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power, and of
love, and of a sound mind (2 Tim 1:7). A high five goes out to Sheriff
Gary Painter for his vigilance and for his courageous stand. May God
raise up many more just like him in our land.
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/09/texas-sheriff-isis-rear-head-well-send-hell/#ibqyClR2UUi03SBg.99
Thursday, September 11, 2014
How the world responded to Obama's Islamic State speech
President Obama's plan to defeat the self-styled Islamic State in Iraq and Syria has sparked global reactions on the legalities and consequences of American military power in the Middle East.
By Chelsea Sheasley
From Tehran to Berlin, commentators are chewing over President Barack Obama’s speech last night on fighting the self-named Islamic State (IS). And while the prospect of expanded US intervention in the Middle East alarms some, he gets plaudits from others for his combative message.
Mr. Obama’s speech wasn’t top
news in many outlets, and more reactions will likely follow. Here’s a
sampling of responses, from countries that Obama hopes will join his
“coalition of partners” to those with frostier ties.
In the Middle East, initial reaction was largely pessimistic, according to translations of local media reports provided by the BBC.
Syria bristled at the threat of
US airstrikes in its territory, which Obama said he could do in pursuit
of IS fighters. Syrian state TV said:
Obama's strategy against the Islamic State exposes Washington's lack of seriousness regarding combating terrorism, as it fights against only one group while arming others.
Iran's Fars News Agency didn’t publish a direct response to the speech, but its top story online critiqued Washington:
Iran's Judiciary Chief Sadeq Amoli Larijani voiced concern over the negative impacts of Washington's politically-tainted policy towards campaign against terrorism in various countries, saying that alleging attack on the ISIL in Iraq and arming the same group in Syria means a full lack of logic.
In Israel, a columnist for the left-leaning Haaretz newspaper gave Obama mixed reviews for his speech:
U.S. President Barack Obama wasn't Rambo or Captain America on Wednesday night, but his speech on fighting the Islamic State got the job done […]Though he didn't mention him by name, Obama took pains to remind everyone that despite his combative message, he was not George Bush the cowboy who sent hundreds of thousands of soldiers to Iraq and managed to isolate America in the process. But he also made clear, without admitting as much even to himself, that he is no longer the old Obama either – not the bright eyed and bushy tailed Obama who thought he would win Arab hearts with a speech in Cairo, nor the jilted and disillusioned Obama who wanted to put it all behind him and pivot to Asia.
A commentary in Lebanon’s Al-Akhbar English, published the day of Obama’s speech, writes that “the US war on ISIS is unlikely to succeed for many reasons.” Among them:
1) The US is relying on allies, like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who share the very ideology of ISIS.2) The US is relying on Arab and Muslim allies who have very bad standing among their own local populace.3) The US has an established track record: it usually replaces a bad monster with an even worse monster in the Middle East.
In Europe, the response focused both on Obama’s delivery and on his relationship with the US Congress. Germany’s Duetsche Welle wrote:
American Presidents become solemn when they announce new wars or military conflicts. They explain why the fight is necessary, how they will win in the end, and why America must lead. President Obama also followed this pattern in his speech from the White House. He described the crimes of the “ Islamic State,” (IS). He outlined his plan to defeat the Islamists with help from the Iraqis, Kurds, the Free Syrian Army as well and numerous allies. He became emotional when explaining why only America is capable of leading a coalition against IS.
Britain's The Guardian writes:
In the space of a single primetime address on Wednesday night, Barack Obama dealt a crippling blow to a creaking, 40-year old effort to restore legislative primacy to American warmaking - a far easier adversary to vanquish than the Islamic State. Obama’s legal arguments for unilaterally expanding a war expected to last years have shocked even his supporters.
RT, Russia’s official news agency, ran a critical question and answer piece with anti-war activist Brian Becker. Among his responses:
The Obama administration said that they have the right to strike forces whomever they declare to be the enemy in Syria without the consent of the Syrian government and, in fact, they made it clear they will not work with the Syrian government. That is the violation of the international law. The US government has no right whatsoever to arrogate itself to use force in Syria, a country that is technically at peace with the US. I think what is even more here what we have seen is the dishonest presentation to the American people.
In a commentary before the speech, Mexican daily newspaper, La Jornada, slammed what it calls "inconsistencies" in US policy toward the Middle East:
"These facts are a clear examples of the inconsistencies characterizing US politics, and Western politics in general, in the conflicts unfolding in the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Islamic world: extremely pragmatic, fluctuating, and unscrupulous policies, in which the villains of today are the allies of tomorrow and vice versa.'
Palin Family Allegedly Involved In A Brawl
oped: Oh for cryin' out loud BFD ...let's be honest here folks we all one time or another in our younger lives have been involved in a spat or two..if'n ya claim ya haven't ~sorry you are full of it and are just plain lying'...EOS! #PERIOD
via: The Daily Caller
Palin Family Allegedly Involved In A Brawl
A
majority of the Palin family — Sarah, Todd, Bristol, and Track — was
allegedly involved in a booze-filled brawl over the weekend in which the
former vice presidential candidate reportedly screamed, “Don’t you know
who I am?”
According to reports from local
bloggers, the Palin crew showed up at a party in Wasilla following a day
at the Iron Dog snowmobile race.
According to local blogger Amanda Coyne,
witnesses at the scene said Palin’s eldest son, Track, showed up to the
party in a stretch Hummer. He then confronted a man who had previously
dated one of his sisters, according to Coyne and another blog called
Immoral Minority.
“That led to some pushing and shoving, which escalated somehow to the family being asked to leave the premises,” Immoral Minority, reported.
“Word is that Bristol has a
particularly strong right hook, which she employed repeatedly, and it’s
something to hear when Sarah screams, “Don’t you know who I am!” Coyne
reported.
“This isn’t some damned
Hillbilly reality show!” a party-goer allegedly yelled, making a
possible reference to “Sarah Palin’s Alaska,” a failed reality series
that ran for nine episodes between Nov. 2010 and Jan. 2011.
“As people were leaving in a
cab, Track was seen on the street, shirtless, flipping people off, with
Sarah right behind him, and Todd somewhere in the foreground, tending to
his bloody nose,” a witness told Coyne.
Anchorage police declined to
provide details told Immoral Minority that none of the parties involved
wanted to press charges. No arrests were made.
Anchorage police did not immediately respond to The Daily Caller’s request for a police report.
The Nowhere Man Goes to War
via:PJMedia
Pity Barack Obama. Our hapless chief executive must be suffering from a cognitive disorder the size of Alpha Centauri. The poor guy grew up on the anti-imperialist mouthings of lefty poet Frank Marshall Davis, schoolboy revolutionary Bill Ayers and later anti-Israel professor Rashid Khalidi, not to mention the well-known anti-American excrescences of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and now he has to go to war — as an imperialist — against the very Third World people he was told again and again we colonized and destroyed. His head must be about to explode.
No wonder he insisted in his Wednesday night speech that the Islamic State is not Islamic — what is it? Hindu? Zoroastrian? A lost tribe of Hasidic Jews? — and that we are fighting an amorphous “terrorist group” (the Irish Republican Army? Basque separatists perhaps?), not the jihadism whose violent ideology has so obviously metastasized across several continents under many guises during his administration with no end remotely in sight. He dares not name our enemy, although it’s almost impossible to imagine how we could win without doing so. He cannot say anything that’s true because he doesn’t know what is true or, perhaps more likely, is terrified to know and then have to admit it. If he did, everything would unravel, not just the jejune Marxism of Frank Marshall Davis. Everything.
But he does know what his poll numbers are and they aren’t good. So we are where we are. Half way in and half way out. Forget Winston Churchill. Forget Douglas MacArthur. The USA is going to war with a nowhere man who no longer knows what he stands for — and who originally stood for very little more than widely discredited and tired left-wing drivel masquerading as hope and change. Now even that’s gone, a distant memory.
We all remember the Beatles’ lyrics:
He’s a real Nowhere Man
Sitting in his Nowhere Land
Making all his nowhere plans for nobody
Two days ago, according to reports, Obama was still reluctant to do anything about the beheaders of ISIS, but was finally driven to act because of those disastrous polls and broad hints from some of his party members that he was leading them to electoral disaster. Others in that same party were mortified he might actually go to war, so, being Barack Obama, in other words a nowhere man, he split the difference — no boots on the ground (except for a piddling 475 advisers — let’s hope there won’t be any “mission creep”).
Welcome to nowhere war waged by a nowhere man.
‘Vetted Moderate’ Free Syrian Army Commander Admits Alliance with ISIS, Confirms PJ Media Reporting
via: PJ Media
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.
This confirms our reporting about the FSA’s alliances with Syrian terrorist groups here at PJ Media last week.
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
bord“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.
[Luis Manuel: Syrian Rebel Commander: Yes, We’re Still Collaborating ...]
“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.
In my report last week I noted that buried in a New York Times article last month was a Syrian “rebel” commander quoted as saying that his forces were working with ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra in raids along the border with Lebanon, including attacks on Lebanese forces. The Times article quickly tried to dismiss the commander’s statements, but the Daily Star article now confirms this alliance.
Among the other pertinent points from that PJ Media article last week was that this 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.
Another relevant phenomenon I noted was that multiple 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.
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.
But the Free Syrian Army is not the only U.S.-armed and trained “rebel” force in Syria that the Obama administration is having serious trouble keeping in the “vetted moderate” column.
Earlier this week I reported on Harakat al-Hazm, which was the first of the “vetted moderates” to receive U.S. anti-tank weaponry earlier this year. Harakat al-Hazm is reportedly a front for the Muslim Brotherhood as well as Turkey and Qatar, its Islamist state sponsors.
An LA Times article published this past Sunday from the battle lines in Syria where their reporter recounted a discussion with two Harakat al-Hazm fighters who admitted, “But Nusra doesn’t fight us, we actually fight alongside them. We like Nusra.”
Despite a claim by the L.A. Times that Harakat al-Hazm had released a statement of “rejection of all forms of cooperation and coordination” with al-Nusra Front, I published in my article earlier this week an alliance statement signed by both Jabhat al-Nusra and Harkat al-Hazm forging a joint front in Aleppo to prevent pro-Assad forces from retaking the town.
As the Obama administration began to provide heavy weaponry to Harakat al-Hazm, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy published an analysis hailing Harakat Hazm as “rebels worth supporting,” going so far as to say that the group was “a model candidate for greater U.S. and allied support, including lethal military assistance.”
That error was not as egregious as the appeal by three members of the DC foreign policy establishment “smart set” (including one former senior Bush administration National Security Council official) who argued in the pages of the January issue of Foreign Affairs for U.S. engagement with another Syrian “rebel” group, Ahrar al-Sham.
At the time their article appeared, however, Ahrar al-Sham was led by one of al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri’s top lieutenants and former Bin Laden courier, Mohamed Bahaiah (aka Abu Khaled al-Suri). This is why the article was originally subtitled “An Al-Qaeda affiliate worth befriending.” Giving too much of the game away for non-Beltway types, that subtitle was quickly changed on the website to “An Al-Qaeda-linked group worth befriending.”
That dream of “befriending al-Qaeda” was dealt a major blow earlier this week when a blast of unknown origin killed most of Ahrar al-Sham’s senior leadership. Bereft of leadership, many analysts have rightly expressed concern that the bulk of Ahrar al-Sham’s forces will now gravitate towards ISIS and other terrorist groups.
While a McClatchy article on the explosion laughably claimed that the dead Ahrar al-Sham’s leaders represented the group’s “moderate wing” who were trying to come under another fictional “vetted moderate” alliance to obtain the next anticipated flood of U.S. weapons, others have observed that tributes to the dead leaders have poured in from al-Qaeda leaders for their “moderate wing” allies.
This is what the D.C. foreign policy establishment has reduced itself to when it comes to Syria — cozying up to al-Qaeda (or Iran and Assad) in the name of “countering violent extremism,” namely ISIS, and entertaining each other with cocktail party talk of “moderate wings” of al-Qaeda. As my colleague Stephen Coughlin observes, our bipartisan foreign policy establishment has created a bizarre language about Iraq and Afghanistan to avoid the stark reality that we lost both wars. This is the state American foreign policy finds itself in on the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks by al-Qaeda.
As congressional Republicans and Democrats alike will undoubtedly rush in coming days to throw money at anyone the Obama administration deems “vetted moderates” to give the appearance of doing something in the absence of a sensible, reality-based strategy for understanding the actual dynamics at work in Syria and Iraq, an urgent reexamination of who the “vetted moderates” we’ve been financing, training and arming is long overdue. It is also essential to know to whom the State Department has contracted the “vetting.” This is especially true as ISIS leaders are openly bragging about widespread defections amongst FSA forces that have been trained and armed by the U.S. to ISIS.
Predictably, the usual suspects (John McCain and Lindsey Graham) who have been led wide-eyed around Syria by the “vetted moderate” merchants and have played the administration’s “yes men” for a fictional narrative that has never had any basis in reality will undoubtedly hector critics for not listening to their calls to back the “vetted moderate” rebels last year when they could have contained ISIS — an inherently false assumption. These usual suspects should be ashamed of their role in helping sell a fiction that has cost 200,000 Syrians their lives and millions more their homes while destabilizing the entire region. Shame, sadly, is a rare commodity in Washington, D.C.
Notwithstanding Obama’s siren call for immediate action, Congress should think long and hard before continuing to play along with the administration and D.C. foreign policy establishment’s “vetted moderate” fairy tale and devote themselves to some serious reflection and discussion on how we’ve arrived at this juncture where we are faced with nothing but horribly bad choices and how to start walking back from the precipice. As we remember the thousands lost on that terrible day thirteen years ago, truly honoring their memory deserves nothing less.
“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.
In my report last week I noted that buried in a New York Times article last month was a Syrian “rebel” commander quoted as saying that his forces were working with ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra in raids along the border with Lebanon, including attacks on Lebanese forces. The Times article quickly tried to dismiss the commander’s statements, but the Daily Star article now confirms this alliance.
Among the other pertinent points from that PJ Media article last week was that this 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.
Another relevant phenomenon I noted was that multiple 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.
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.
But the Free Syrian Army is not the only U.S.-armed and trained “rebel” force in Syria that the Obama administration is having serious trouble keeping in the “vetted moderate” column.
Earlier this week I reported on Harakat al-Hazm, which was the first of the “vetted moderates” to receive U.S. anti-tank weaponry earlier this year. Harakat al-Hazm is reportedly a front for the Muslim Brotherhood as well as Turkey and Qatar, its Islamist state sponsors.
An LA Times article published this past Sunday from the battle lines in Syria where their reporter recounted a discussion with two Harakat al-Hazm fighters who admitted, “But Nusra doesn’t fight us, we actually fight alongside them. We like Nusra.”
Despite a claim by the L.A. Times that Harakat al-Hazm had released a statement of “rejection of all forms of cooperation and coordination” with al-Nusra Front, I published in my article earlier this week an alliance statement signed by both Jabhat al-Nusra and Harkat al-Hazm forging a joint front in Aleppo to prevent pro-Assad forces from retaking the town.
As the Obama administration began to provide heavy weaponry to Harakat al-Hazm, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy published an analysis hailing Harakat Hazm as “rebels worth supporting,” going so far as to say that the group was “a model candidate for greater U.S. and allied support, including lethal military assistance.”
That error was not as egregious as the appeal by three members of the DC foreign policy establishment “smart set” (including one former senior Bush administration National Security Council official) who argued in the pages of the January issue of Foreign Affairs for U.S. engagement with another Syrian “rebel” group, Ahrar al-Sham.
At the time their article appeared, however, Ahrar al-Sham was led by one of al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri’s top lieutenants and former Bin Laden courier, Mohamed Bahaiah (aka Abu Khaled al-Suri). This is why the article was originally subtitled “An Al-Qaeda affiliate worth befriending.” Giving too much of the game away for non-Beltway types, that subtitle was quickly changed on the website to “An Al-Qaeda-linked group worth befriending.”
That dream of “befriending al-Qaeda” was dealt a major blow earlier this week when a blast of unknown origin killed most of Ahrar al-Sham’s senior leadership. Bereft of leadership, many analysts have rightly expressed concern that the bulk of Ahrar al-Sham’s forces will now gravitate towards ISIS and other terrorist groups.
While a McClatchy article on the explosion laughably claimed that the dead Ahrar al-Sham’s leaders represented the group’s “moderate wing” who were trying to come under another fictional “vetted moderate” alliance to obtain the next anticipated flood of U.S. weapons, others have observed that tributes to the dead leaders have poured in from al-Qaeda leaders for their “moderate wing” allies.
This is what the D.C. foreign policy establishment has reduced itself to when it comes to Syria — cozying up to al-Qaeda (or Iran and Assad) in the name of “countering violent extremism,” namely ISIS, and entertaining each other with cocktail party talk of “moderate wings” of al-Qaeda. As my colleague Stephen Coughlin observes, our bipartisan foreign policy establishment has created a bizarre language about Iraq and Afghanistan to avoid the stark reality that we lost both wars. This is the state American foreign policy finds itself in on the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks by al-Qaeda.
As congressional Republicans and Democrats alike will undoubtedly rush in coming days to throw money at anyone the Obama administration deems “vetted moderates” to give the appearance of doing something in the absence of a sensible, reality-based strategy for understanding the actual dynamics at work in Syria and Iraq, an urgent reexamination of who the “vetted moderates” we’ve been financing, training and arming is long overdue. It is also essential to know to whom the State Department has contracted the “vetting.” This is especially true as ISIS leaders are openly bragging about widespread defections amongst FSA forces that have been trained and armed by the U.S. to ISIS.
Predictably, the usual suspects (John McCain and Lindsey Graham) who have been led wide-eyed around Syria by the “vetted moderate” merchants and have played the administration’s “yes men” for a fictional narrative that has never had any basis in reality will undoubtedly hector critics for not listening to their calls to back the “vetted moderate” rebels last year when they could have contained ISIS — an inherently false assumption. These usual suspects should be ashamed of their role in helping sell a fiction that has cost 200,000 Syrians their lives and millions more their homes while destabilizing the entire region. Shame, sadly, is a rare commodity in Washington, D.C.
Notwithstanding Obama’s siren call for immediate action, Congress should think long and hard before continuing to play along with the administration and D.C. foreign policy establishment’s “vetted moderate” fairy tale and devote themselves to some serious reflection and discussion on how we’ve arrived at this juncture where we are faced with nothing but horribly bad choices and how to start walking back from the precipice. As we remember the thousands lost on that terrible day thirteen years ago, truly honoring their memory deserves nothing less.
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
IS/ ISIS/ ISIL (Islamic State) and the MB are one and the same
First and foremost when Islam Shiite/Sunni declare a Caliphate they band together under the banner of the Muslim Brotherhood and adhere to Wahhabi Islam the most radical form of Islam which adheres to the old and complete teachings of the Qur'an and Sharia Law to the maximum. And for the record : For more than two centuries, Wahhabism has been Saudi Arabia's dominant faith. It is an austere form of Islam that insists on a literal interpretation of the Qur'an (Koran).
Barack Obama's speech tonight signaled IS/MB that he was not serious about a full out war on Wahhabism he took boots on the ground off the table! same ol' BS nothing to see or hear on his speech of any consequences to the Islamic State
When are people going to wake up to the fact that Barack Obama aligns himself with the Muslim Brotherhood...he is not a friend of the United States of America...hello
http://sharlaslabyrinth.blogspot.com/2014/09/obamas-pro-mb-homeland-security-advisor.html
Please people do the homework on who and what Islam is all about... it has not changed since it's inception during the 7th century...many caliphates have transpired over the centuries, the last one ended in 1929 under the Ottoman Empire...they went underground and have now resurfaced as IS/MB
http://sharlaslabyrinth.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-life-and-times-of-muhammad_5191.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)