Happy fantasies vs unpleasant realities about Islam


Here’s an excellent analysis of Islam through the ages and now. It is one of the best I have seen.

I do what I do because I am what I am.

I do what I do because I am what I am.

Dr. Durie lives in Australia and is a life-long adherent to the Anglican religion. He focuses on Islam as it is — violent and demanding the submission of everyone — not peaceful and accommodating of others — as multiculturalists want to believe and to convince others to believe.

Until our citizens, media, “foreign policy” savants and political “leaders” cease their insufferable political correctness, comprehend the realities of Islam and behave in accordance with those realities, our chances of restoring and retaining our freedoms will continue to decline. So will Western civilization.

obama-with-muslims-450x300

 

ADDITION:

An article by Roger L. Simon titled Barack Obama’s  Biggest Lie appeared last night
at PJ Media. Obama has told so many lies that it is difficult to evaluate which is the “biggest.” However, His lies about Islam are likely to have a far wider and far worse impact on Western civilization than any of the others.

So everybody in our administration, and even most of our military, seems to lie these days, but the source of the lies comes from the top, POTUS.  He governs our land where the truth dare not be uttered, the enemy never named.  We all know we’re in a civilizational war with Islam, have been for quite some time and likely to be for a lot longer, but our officials and our mainstream media will do everything possible not to admit it.  They assume, I guess, if we tell the Islamic world they’re peaceful often enough, they will become it.  That’s the most optimistic view of it.  The pessimistic view is that a number of our leaders and media want us to lose.  Either way we’re in a pack of trouble. [Emphasis added.]

Obama can, on rare occasions, be almost truthful. His statement in the graphic presented above, taken from His (or William Ayers’) Audacity of Hope, was almost truthful.

Although the political winds have yet to shift “in an ugly direction” against Islam, Obama nevertheless stands with the Muslims, which He depicts as He wants us to see them. Perhaps Obama, along with other multicultural purveyors of religious and ideological blather, can take credit for the prevailing Western apathy about the dangers presented by the religion of peace death. Will He ever get the blame He deserves?

Posted in Apathy, Appeasement, Belief, Christians, Culture of violence, Fantasy, Foreign policy, free speech, Freedom, Freedom of religion, History, Ideology, Iran, Iraq, Islamic Caliphate, Islamic Jihad, Islamic State, Islamists, Islamophobia, Korans, Leftists, Mark Durie, Middle East, Multicuralism, Muslims, Obama, Obama Nation, Obama's America, Peace in our time, Political Correctness, Reality, Religion, Religion of death, Sharia law, Submission | Tagged , , , , , | 6 Comments

Obama understands neither war nor Islam


Winston Churchill understood both. Instead of “blood, toil, tears and sweat,” Obama offers a coalition of unwilling nations which reject our basic values of freedom. He intends to arm and train “moderate” Islamists who not only reject our basic values but are likely to help the Islamic State and its various cohorts and permutations. 

ISIS scared

Islam is as Islamists do

Is Islam the “religion of peace? Here’s a video of a debate held nearly three years ago in New York City.

While arguing that Islam is now peaceful, the debaters so arguing also argued that they hoped it would become so. One even urged those watching the debate to vote that it is a peaceful religion to help it to become one.

Please see also the current discussion at Yale on whether Hirsi Ali should be permitted to speak. The Muslim Students’ Association,

along with 35 co-signing student organizations, including the Yale Women’s Center, the Slifka Center (Yale’s hub for Jewish life), the Black Student Alliance, and Yale Students for Israel, sent a campus-wide e-mail that argued that Hirsi Ali’s history of “hate speech” and provocative statements, which include advocating the “defeat” of Islam, ought to disqualify her from speaking at Yale. They felt “disrespected,” they said, by the very act of inviting her; evidently they found her ideas too dangerous and her words too caustic for the virgin ears of their fellow undergraduates.

Some fine day, Islam may become peaceful and tolerant of other religions. However, we are stuck with Islam as it is now, not as it once may have been and not as it may eventually become. Islam, despite fantasies about the cataclysmic horrors of man-made global warming climate change, is the greatest threat to Western civilization and must be dealt with accordingly.

Obama and the Islamic State

On September 12th, Mark Steyn opined that

When it comes to war, [Obama] 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.]

Unlike Obama, Churchill left no doubt that he understood war and that he intended to achieve victory over the horrors of Nazism. That is what happened.

Churchill had long urged the civilized world to halt the advance of Nazism. Nazism, Communism and Islam are similar.

[A]ll three are predicated on supremacist propositions – namely that a group of people is inherently superior to all the others.  What exactly that Master Group is depends on the specific differentiator that the particular ideology is centred upon.  Since Nazism saw the world through a ‘racial’ perspective, its fundamental proposition was the superiority of the ‘Aryan race’ (the Master Race or Herrenvolk); centred on ‘social’ differences, the Communists decreed that the ‘proletariat’ was inherently loftier than every other class; for the Islamists, whose particular angle is ‘religious’, it is the adherents of Islam that are ‘entitled’ to unquestioned, divinely-ordained supremacy. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

[A]ll three extreme ideologies promote a world view in which there is an inherent, perpetual and inevitable conflict between the superior or ‘Master Group’ (race, class or religion) and ‘the others’.  ‘The others’, needless to say, despite being fundamentally inferior, are intent on subjugating the Master Group.   The conflict (call it ‘Kampf um Lebensraum’, ‘class struggle’ or ‘jihad’) is fundamental not just to the ideology, but also to its practical implementation.  Conflicts (especially when portrayed as global and quasi-existential) represent ‘exceptional circumstances’ or ‘force majeure’; as such, they justify employing ‘exceptional means’. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

ll three ideologies have a similar ultimate goal: to do away with the extant ‘injustice’ and replace it with a ‘new global order’.  The end is thus, invariably, the ‘Perfect World’; so perfect, in fact, that that end justifies and even sanctifies the murderous means.  That ‘Perfect World’ – call it Millenarian Reich, Global Commune or Islamic Caliphate – will be achieved as a result of the Master Group’s final victory over ‘the others’. [Emphasis added.]

Going to war with Islam may not be enough and “reeducation” may also be necessary. However, it is necessary to get their attention, in ways they can understand, first.

A coalition of the unwilling

Who is in the alleged coalition and what does Obama want them to do? The Obama Administration is not saying.

White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough repeatedly declined to say whether any other countries have agreed to provide troops on the ground in Syria as a part of President Obama’s efforts to build a coalition.

He repeatedly said Americans would hear the news from Secretary of State John Kerry later this week.

But then he said that the president wasn’t looking for boots-on-the-ground troops, after all.

“Other [countries] have suggested that they’re willing to do that, but that’s not what we’re looking for right now,” McDonough said.

What does Obama want His alleged coalition to do? Send imams armed with fatwas urging that the IS, et al, repent and become true (and therefore peaceful) Islamists?

Please see also Coalition of the unwilling, US Gen. John Allen named to lead coalition war on ISIS, but allies deterred by Obama’s ambiguities, Turkey’s Frankenstein Monster and Obama, the Islamic State and Islam, the enemy which shall not be named.

“Moderate, vetted rebels”

As noted by Patrick Poole at PJ Tatler on September 13th in an article titled Yet Another US-Backed Syrian Rebel Group Makes Peace With ISIS,

Obama’s hopes to do anything of substance in Syria has taken another severe blow as the US-backed and armed Syrian Revolutionaries Front (SRF) has struck a peace deal with ISIS yesterday according to both Arabic and English language news reports. [Emphasis added.]

The SRF had only a few months ago been deemed by the US foreign policy establishment as “the West’s best fighting chance against Syria’s Islamist armies.”

Now AFP reports:

Syrian rebels and jihadists from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria have agreed a non-aggression pact for the first time in a suburb of the capital Damascus, a monitoring group said on Friday.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the ceasefire deal was agreed between ISIS and moderate and Islamist rebels in Hajar al-Aswad, south of the capital.

Under the deal, “the two parties will respect a truce until a final solution is found and they promise not to attack each other because they consider the principal enemy to be the Nussayri regime.”

Nussayri is a pejorative term for the Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shiite Islam to which President Bashar al-Assad belongs.

According to the media reports other groups joining the ceasefire with ISIS include Liwa Ahrar Turkman al-Golan, Liwa Hittin & Liwa al-Umma al-Wahida.

As Congress takes up a bill to fund Obama’s plan to arm and train so-called “vetted moderate” Syrian rebels, even some analysts are beginning to admit that finding the right allies in Syria will be difficult. With the State Department’s disastrous record so far of identifying “vetted moderate” rebel groups who refuse to ally with Al-Qaeda and ISIS, and ISIS leaders openly bragging about the US arming and training rebels groups that have now defected to ISIS, some prudent caution on the part of Congress is in order before throwing more money and weapons into Syria and Iraq.

Conclusion

Obama claims to believe that Islam, like all other religions, rejects violence and those who use it. However, Christians, Jews and others neither torture nor behead infidels and apostates. The IS, et al, do that. Nor do Christians and Jews fight wars to force others to embrace their religions. The IS, et al, also do that. However, based on the words and actions of the United Nations against Israel, one might conclude that “Zionists” are worse than the Islamic State and its affiliates.

Is the legacy that Obama wants to leave behind when He vacates the White House one of peace through submission to Islam? It seems so, and far too many appear to react with apathy rather than alarm. Will there be enough time — and sufficient will — after He leaves office to pursue a policy of peace through victory? If not, Islam will continue to be violent and, most likely, will become even more violent than now.

Mr. Magoo

Here, as a public service, is a video on how to behave during an Islamic massacre:

UPDATE:

FURTHER UPDATE:

Are we ready?

Posted in al Qaeda, Andrew Klavan, Apathy, Appeasement, Brutality, Christians, Churchill, Climate change, Culture of violence, Fatwa, Foreign policy, Freedom, History, Ideology, Iran, Iraq, Islamic Caliphate, Islamic Jihad, Islamic rage, Islamic State, Korans, Middle East, Military, Obama, Obama Nation, Obama's America, Religion, Religion of death, Sharia law, Taliban, Turkey, U.S. Military | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

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


Islam is the greatest threat to the civilized world. Obama denies that it is any threat and maintains that it is peaceful.

Obama's excellent foreign policyMinutes 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?

 

UPDATE, September 12th

David Solway has a good article today at PJ Media titled The Obama Bomb. He analyzes Obama’s past and current paeans to Islam — “the religion of peace” — with which Obama does not want us to confuse the “non-Islamic” Islamic State. Mr. Solway then opines,

If I were asked to define the central attribute of Barack Obama, I would be inclined to adapt Senator Inhofe’s terminology about a method of “blowing up,” not with respect to ISIS but to the policy maker who occupies the Oval Office. It makes no difference whether he is a frivolous and overgrown teenager ruled by his impulses, or a socialist “progressivist” laboring to turn the most successful country on the planet into a redistributive dystopia. Nor does it matter if he’s a preceptorial savant mired in abstraction, pedantry and oratorical magniloquence, an under-the-radar Islamist with caliphal pretensions or simply, to use a term coined by National Post columnist Barbara Kay, a “useful jihadiot” who runs interference for Islam at every turn, or, in Rotberg’s estimation, a postmodern intersection of relativistic values and fragmentary motives capable of being a glitterati Marxist with powerful Islamic sympathies all at the same time. My own settled view of the president is strictly pragmatic. Obama is political ordnance, an explosive device whose detonation is crippling the nation socially, racially, economically, politically and militarily. [Emphasis added]

However, what Obama is and why do make a difference. Like the Islamic State and “extremist” Islam, Obama is unlikely to be rendered less dangerous than at present by ill-aimed and readily deflected scatter shots. We need to learn — not merely speculate about — what He is, why He does what He does and refuses to do what He doesn’t. With solid information about that, we can be far better prepared to defuse the explosive device which is Obama. There is much anecdotal evidence; how can we get more than that?

Posted in 9-11, al Qaeda, Apathy, Appeasement, Brutality, Cairo address, Chamberlain, Churchill, Commander in Chief, Culture of violence, Europe, Fantasy, Foreign policy, Freedom, Hamas, History, Hitler's Germany, Ideology, Iran, Iraq, Islamic Caliphate, Islamic Jihad, Islamic State, Islamists, Leftists, Middle East, MSNBC, Muslim Brotherhood, Netanyahu, Obama, Obama Nation, Obama's America, Peace in our time, Political Correctness, Religion, Sharia law, Taliban, U.S. Military | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Clusterdunk in Benghazi


Here’s what happened on the ground in Benghazi. Good men died there needlessly because of delays in sending reinforcements. “No Bergdahl left behind” Obama should have to explain, fully. He has not done so. 

Here’s the September 5th Fox News video, via You Tube, of interviews with survivors of the Benghazi clusterdunk. It does not deal with what was happening in Washington or why the Obama Administration failed to take prompt action. The survivors were not in any position to discuss that because they were in Benghazi, not Washington. They were fighting for the lives of those they were there to protect and for their own their lives.

The only “prompt action” Obama took was to prepare for a fund raiser and then blame a You Tube video. Has He no honor? Has He no shame? Evidently, He does not even understand the concepts of honor and shame.

Posted in Benghazi, Brutality, Culture of violence, Duty, Foreign policy, Honor, Islamists, Libya, Middle East, Muslims, Obama, Obama's America, Shame | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Obama’s Islamic terrorism “strategy” and Islam


The “I” word — Islam — shall not be used other than respectfully, as in “the religion of peace.”

Do the Islamic State (IS) and its terrorist cohorts practice an “extremist” version of Islam? Does Obama know enough about Islam to decide?

Secretary Kerry (consistently with Obama’s position), said “The real face of Islam is a peaceful religion based on ‎the dignity of all human beings:”

“America’s faith communities, including American Muslims, are sources of strength for all of us. They’re an ‎essential part of our national fabric, and we are committed to deepening our partnerships with them. We’re ‎making these efforts to unite religious communities a core mission here at the State Department.‎” [Emphasis added.]

Neither Kerry nor Obama understands “the real face of Islam,” only their fantasies concerning it. What could go wrong? Might a Cabinet level Department of Religious Truth and Enlightenment someday be established to further what has become “a core mission of the State Department?” Odd things sometimes happen.

Islam, as a political force and as a religion, seeks world domination through Koranic interpretations which, its proponents hope, potential converts will find appealing. Many do. If that is inadequate, the next steps include threats and violence. The Islamic State (IS) and its cohorts seek world domination to spread their religion worldwide. Of course they want power, to use for that purpose.

They also want it, perhaps at least incidentally, to garner increasing numbers of “infidel” sex slaves for their own enjoyment as encouraged by Islam as well as to motivate others to join their groups. Perhaps this is a variant on sexual jihad, which encourages women and girls to become sex companions for jihadists. Sex might seem an insignificant motivation, but consider for a moment the power of sex as a motivational tool in another context: in the West automobiles, appliances and other goods one would not rationally associate with sexual conquest are advertised by attractive models. It has apparently worked rather well, otherwise substantial advertising funds would not have been devoted to it.

pretty girl in car ad

Sex slavery is Islamic

Western civilization has often abetted Islamists in acquiring and keeping sex slaves.

Islamic sex slavery is a global problem.

As shocking as the Muslim-run sex ring in Rotherham, England may seem to some—1,400 British children as young as 11 plied with drugs before being passed around and sexually abused in cabs and kabob shops—the fact is that this phenomenon is immensely widespread. In the United Kingdom alone, it’s the fifth sex abuse ring led by Muslims to be uncovered.

Some years back in Australia, a group of “Lebanese Muslim youths” were responsible for a “series of brutal gang rapes” of “Anglo-Celtic teenage girls.” A few years later in the same country, four Muslim Pakistani brothers raped at least 18 Australian women, some as young as 13. Even in the United States, a gang of Somalis—Somalia being a Muslim nation where non-Muslims, primarily Christians, are ruthlessly persecuted—was responsible for abducting, buying, selling, raping and torturing young American girls as young as 12.

The question begs itself: If Muslim minorities have no fear of exploiting “infidel” women and children in non-Muslim countries—that is, where Muslims themselves are potentially vulnerable minorities—how are Muslims throughout the Islamic world, where they are dominant, treating their vulnerable, non-Muslim minorities? [Emphasis added.]

The answer is a centuries-longcontinents-wide account of nonstop sexual predation. Boko Haram’s abduction and enslavement of nearly 300, mostly Christian, schoolgirls last April in Nigeria is but the tip of the iceberg. [Emphasis added.]

The difference between what happens in Nigeria and what happens in Western nations is based on what I call “Islam’s Rule of Numbers.” Wherever Muslims grow in numbers, Islamic phenomena intrinsic to the Muslim world—in this case, the sexual abuse of “infidel” children and teenagers—comes along with them. [Emphasis added.]

Thus in the United Kingdom, where Muslims make for a sizeable—and notable—minority, the systematic rape of “subhuman infidels” naturally takes place. But when caught, Muslim minorities, being under “infidel” authority, cry “Islamophobia” and feign innocence.

In Nigeria, however, which is roughly 50 percent Islamic, such “apologetics” are unnecessary. After seizing the nearly 300 schoolgirls, the leader of Boko Haram appeared on videotape boasting that “I abducted your girls. I will sell them on the market, by Allah…. There is a market for selling humans. Allah says I should sell.”  [Emphasis added.]

 

Islam is not “peaceful”

Many apologists for Islam try to portray the IS and other terror groups as something other than Islamic. According to Andrew McCarthy in an article titled The Islamic State is Nothing New, they are wrong. Islamists who favor the IS, as well as those which claim to oppose it,

regard the West as the enemy to be conquered. Their differences are germane only to the extent that sharia fidelity, in addition to sheer brute force, will determine who comes out on top in their intramural warfare. As we have been observing here for years with respect to al-Qaeda and the Brotherhood, their disputes are mostly tactical; their splits on the finer points of Islamic-supremacist ideology bear only on how they regard each other. When it comes to the West, both see us as the enemy — and they put aside their differences to attack us. [Emphasis added.]

The same has also always been true of the ideological/doctrinal divide between Sunni and Shiite jihadists. For example, al-Qaeda has had cooperative and operational relations with Iran since the early 1990s. Iran collaborated with al-Qaeda in the 1996 Khobar Towers attack that killed 19 U.S. airmen; probably in the 9/11 attacks; certainly in the aftermath of 9/11; and in the Iraq and Afghan insurgencies. Al-Qaeda would not be what it is today without state sponsorship, particularly from Iran. The Islamic State might not exist at all. [Emphasis added.]

The point is that al-Qaeda has never been anything close to the totality of the jihadist threat. Nor, now, is the Islamic State. The challenge has always been Islamic supremacism: the ideology, the jihadists that are the point of the spear, and the state sponsors that enable jihadists to project power. The challenge cannot be met effectively by focusing on one element to the exclusion of others. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

I opined at the start of this piece that the threat to the United States is more dire now than it was before 9/11. How could it be otherwise? What jihadists need to attack the United States is safe haven and state sponsorship, which enable them to plan and train; financial and weapons resources; and lax immigration enforcement. On every one of those scores, the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, and other violent Islamic supremacists are in a better position than they were circa 1998–2001. The Islamic State, to take the most prominent example, controls a country-size swath of territory; has seized riches and advanced weaponry during its rampage; has enjoyed support from several countries; and targets an America in which border security is a joke, no effort is made to police visa overstays, and the federal government has actually discouraged and prevented state and federal agents from enforcing immigration laws. [Emphasis added.]

The threat is worse, and worsening. But it is not confined to the Islamic State, and we cannot protect ourselves from it — cannot even grasp that it is a threat to us rather than simply to a faraway region — unless we understand the totality of it. [Emphasis added.]

Here is a one lour and six minute video of a recent Oxford University debate on whether Islam is peaceful. The keynote speaker supporting the proposition that Islam is peaceful appears to emulate Obama, although presenting his arguments more cogently. It is useful to watch the entire debate, because the “Islam is Peaceful” proponents use the types of arguments with which “Islamophobes” need to deal. One is that Islam is peaceful because it seeks peace through “justice.” In Islam, “justice” is to be achieved through Sharia law, brutally antithetical to Western concepts of justice. Judaism and Christianity have evolved over the centuries. Islam has not. Islam is as Islam does.

Based on which side made the most effective debating points, the “Islam is Peaceful” side won by subtle and not-so-subtle distortions. An interesting point — that Islamists are superior to Non-Islamists — was not made during the debate by debater Mehdi Hasan, who argued in favor of the proposition that Islam is peaceful. He presumably omitted it because it would have lent force to the arguments of the opposing side. He articulates it in this short video.

Religious tolerance in Islam

Saudi Arabia, one of the allies of Obama’s America, conducts “interfaith outreach programs,” of sorts.

Arabic media reports indicate that Saudi authorities raided a house church in Khafji province, arresting 27 men, women and children. The raid was conducted by the Saudi Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, according to reports.

. . . .

The raid is another part of an ongoing harassment campaign directed at Christians at the exact same time that the Saudi Kingdom is making a major “interfaith outreach” push internationally. [Emphasis added.]

Sources of Islamist terror funding and other support

Iran

GENEVA — The State Department reiterated Iran’s status as a state sponsor of terrorism and as a destabilizing force in the region and also stood by a May report stating that Iran had increased its terrorist activity in a list of responses sent to Capitol Hill last month after the first round of Iran nuclear negotiations.

Turkey

Turkey has become a principal financial hub for terrorists under the leadership of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whose government has helped Iran skirt sanctions, supported jihadi groups in Syria, and provided financial backing to Hamas, according to a new report by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD).

Turkey, a key U.S. ally, “has turned a blind eye” to terror financing and is potentially on the verge of crossing the line to becoming an official state sponsor of terrorism, according to the Friday report, which cites the Erdogan government’s close ties to some of the world’s top terror organizations and operatives.

The report comes just a day after 84 U.S. lawmakers and former government officials urged President Barack Obama to confront Erdogan over his harsh repression of political opponents.

As Turkey’s support for terrorism expands, the Obama administration has remained silent out of fear of offending Erdogan, whom the White House considers a strategic asset, according to the report authored by FDD’s Jonathan Schanzer, a former terrorism finance analyst at the U.S. Treasury Department. [Emphasis added.]

Qatar

Some international leaders have implicated Qatari officials—accusing them of financing the Islamic State (IS) terror group that is rampaging through Syria and Iraq and continuing to expand its self-proclaimed Sunni caliphate.

In late August, German aid development minister Gerd Mueller openly commented on IS’s funding: “Who is financing these troops? Hint: Qatar,” he said, after being forced to walk back the comments due to their lack of political correctness.

Even former Israeli President Shimon Peres—a 91-year-old left-wing dove—took notice of the Qataris, recently warning that they were becoming “the world’s largest funder of terror.”

In June, The Long War Journal’s Thomas Joscelyn said in an exclusive interview with Breitbart News:

Look no further than a series of official documents from the Obama administration about Qatar, and you will see that it is a major financial hub, fundraising for jihadist groups including the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and others. In April, in the State Department’s country reports on terrorism, they specifically worried about Qatar’s relationship with Islamist groups. They worried Qatar had enabled a very permissive environment for fundraising for jihadist groups. It’s obvious why the Taliban set up its political office in Doha and why the Taliban wanted these five to send off to Qatar. They know it’s a very permissive environment with Islamist sympathies. [Emphasis added.]

Qatar is also unapologetically supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood, a global organization founded by a stout Hitler admirer that seeks the same endgame as Al Qaeda and the Islamic State: a worldwide Sunni caliphate. [Emphasis added.]

Last week, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi said that Qatar has been unloading millions to create chaos in the Middle East. Sisi said: “Qatar, Turkey and the international organization of the Brotherhood are currently establishing many companies, newspapers, and websites. They allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to spread chaos among the Arab nation, destabilizing Egypt and destroying the Egyptians.”

. . . .

Meanwhile, the United States continues its confusingly close relationship with the ruthless Emirs. [Emphasis added.]

The United States signed in July a massive $11 billion dollar arms deal with Qatar that included Apache Helicopters, Patriot missile defense systems, and Javelin MANPADS (Man-portable air-defense systems), capable of bringing down a commercial airliner.

In June, the United States negotiated an agreement with Qatar as an intermediary that freed five top Taliban commanders in exchange for Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl. When the Taliban officials touched down in Qatar, they were met with open arms and given heroes’ welcomes.

The Islamic State and it cohorts have a broad global reach.

A lengthy article at Long War Journal provides

a partial list of reported or suspected ISIS/Islamic State activity outside Iraq and Syria since Jan. 1, 2013. It does not include many reports that referred only to “an Islamist group”; authorities in a number of countries have been reluctant to specify the nature and extent of extremist activity within their borders. The list below, organized by continent and then alphabetically by country, is not exhaustive. Nonetheless, its extensiveness indicates the global reach of the IS, even if the reported activity does not consist of spectacular attacks.

The list is voluminous, but here’s one directly pertinent to the United States:

On Sept. 3, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said that over 100 US citizens are fighting in the ranks of the Islamic State; intelligence officials have estimated that the number is as high as 300. Hagel warned that the IS controls half of Iraq and half of Syria, and that “we better take them seriously.”

Survivors are likely to return to the United States to pursue their interests there.

The Obama strategy

Obama still views Islam as the benign religion of peace. Here are some reasons why He shouldn’t.

Islamists have a strategy, and it appears to have been successful thus far. What is Obama’s strategy? As to the IS and similar Islamic jihadists, Obama has not yet told the Congress what His plans (if any) are so that congressional approval can be given or withheld.

There’s widespread frustration in both chambers and both parties about President Obama’s admission that “we don’t have a strategy yet” to deal with ISIS in Iraq and Syria. But now the lack of strategy is actually protecting Obama from oversight because Congress can’t authorize or reject what it can’t understand.

In fact, the White House has been totally mum on how it plans to legally justify the air war in Iraq after the temporary authority granted to it in the War Powers Resolution expires. According to the 1973 law, the president must report to Congress when he uses U.S. military force in a hostile environment; Congress must then specifically authorize such action within 60 days or the president has to stop. The president can invoke a one-time, 30-day extension.

But, so far, there have been no substantial consultations with Congress about such an authorization. The White House declined to say whether it even cared if Congress acts or not.

When Obama meets with members of Congress on September 9th and makes a speech on September 10th —  the eve of the 2001 and 2012 terrorist attacks — will He provide substantive information as to what He wants and intends? Or will He simply continue to utter His customary platitudes? What He says He intends to do, and what He claims to want, are unlikely to coincide.

President Coward:

Is Obama merely cowardly, or is He also charmingly devious?

Does Obama even have a strategy?

Even absent attacks inside the United States, the jihadists threaten us significantly. The attacks on the U.S. Mission and Annex in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012, killed the ambassador and three other Americans. This was the first murder of an American ambassador in decades. Nearly one year later, in August 2013, the Obama administration was forced to shutter more than 20 diplomatic facilities after learning that al Qaeda was planning to attack one or more of them.

In the end, President Obama thinks that these types of attacks on American interests abroad are a fact of life. During a speech at National Defense University on May 23, 2013, Obama outlined his vision of the fight ahead. The president described “the current threat” as coming from “lethal yet less capable al Qaeda affiliates; threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad; homegrown extremists.” Obama added, “This is the future of terrorism. We have to take these threats seriously, and do all that we can to confront them. But as we shape our response, we have to recognize that the scale of this threat closely resembles the types of attacks we faced before 9/11.”

Notably absent from Obama’s threat matrix was a jihadist group capturing a significant amount of territory in the heart of the Middle East. In fact, the president downplayed the threat posed by groups he described as “simply collections of local militias or extremists interested in seizing territory.” [Emphasis added.]

His own officials are now telling a different story. In a speech on September 3, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center explained that “the terrorist threat emanates from a broad geographic area, spanning South Asia across the Middle East, and much of North Africa.” Matthew Olsen warned that the terrorists “are now active in at least 11 insurgencies in the Islamic world.” He added that the threat from the Islamic State “extends beyond the region to the West,” and the group “has the potential to use its safe haven to plan and coordinate attacks in Europe and the U.S.” The Islamic State’s rivals in al Qaeda’s Jabhat al Nusrah have the same deadly potential: “In Syria, veteran al Qaeda fighters have traveled from Pakistan to take advantage of the permissive operating environment and access to foreign fighters. They are focused on plotting against the West.” [Emphasis added.]

The president hasn’t been thinking strategically about the jihadists’ territorial ambitions. Unfortunately, our enemies have been. The threat they pose to the United States has only grown. [Emphasis added.]

On August 28th, Obama apparently decided that it “is impossible to be the leader of the world’s top superpower and always just hope for the best.” Now, He wants a coalition including Arab and Muslim states to deal with the Islamic State, et al, by putting boots on the ground.

Obama is right in seeking to include Arab and Muslim states in his coalition. ISIS is undoubtedly a cancerous tumor, which threatens, first and foremost, the Arab world from which it grew. Arab states, however, are so factious, so suspicious, so afraid of the reaction in the streets — but primarily so untrusting of Obama (the Gulf States, namely Saudi Arabia) — that they will not rush to join his campaign. [Emphasis added.]

The president believes in the “strong forces” of the states in the region to do the job in the field: The Iraqi army is supposed to cooperate with the Iranian army and the Kurdish Peshmerga forces. Syrian President Bashar Assad quickly realized the opportunity and jumped all over it, offering his assistance, which Washington and Paris promptly rejected. In actuality though, the regimes in Syria and Iran are the first in line to feel the Sunni threat posed by ISIS. The Islamic State is providing the Shiites with a certificate of integrity. [Emphasis added.]

According to an article at PJ Media by Jonathan Spyer titled The Islamic State vs. the Islamic Republic,

Is the president just talking, and will the Islamic State be permitted to continue in existence, at least west of the Syria-Iraq border?  Or is it possible that when the president refers to creating the right “regional” situation to allow for the defeat of “ISIL” he is referring to the one power that potentially could organize a ground attack on the Islamic State? That country is the sponsor and ally of the two governments that exist to the west and to the east of the boundaries of the Islamic State — that is, the Assad regime to its west and the Baghdad government to its east. [Emphasis added.]

The country in question is Iran, which has a clear interest in the destruction of the Islamic State. The IS domain, if it continues to exist, stands between Iran and its desire for a contiguous line of pro-Iranian entities between the Iraq-Iran border and the Mediterranean Sea. The problem is that an Iranian victory over IS would mean a general Iranian triumph in the Levant. That’s a bad outcome too. [Emphasis added.]

Iran has her own reasons for opposing the IS, and they do not coincide with those of Western civilization. Is Obama prepared let Iran get (or keep) “the bomb” in return for its “help” with the IS? His efforts during the P5 +1 Iran Scam suggest that as a real possibility. Please see also, Iran has not abandoned nuclear weapons ambitions.

Conclusions

Obama’s “strategy” appears to be that only in conjunction with the “international community,” particularly Islamic nations, can the IS and its cohorts be defeated or even contained. Apparently, the conclusion He asks us to draw is that He intends in that fashion to deal with the IS, et al. However, the “international community” has in its ranks few friends of Western freedom and many enemies, some of which actively support Islamic terror.

The “international community” is, at best, similar to a homeowners’ association, the members of which love to debate trivial matters while doing little or nothing of substance to advance the interests of the homeowners as a whole. In their defense, some of them do support pleasant golf courses.

Obama and ISIS

The “international community” is larger and in most respects far worse than homeowners’ associations. It has powerful anti-freedom, anti-democracy and anti-civilization members demanding (and not infrequently forcing) others to acquiesce in their demands. As a group, they are by no means suitable partners for peace other than in the Islamist sense.

UPDATE, September 8th

An article at PJ Media by Victor Davis Hanson is titled Are the Orcs Winning? Orcs were fictitious creatures created by J.R.R. Tolkien in The Lord of the Rings. They were horrid creatures with no redeeming virtues. Our multicultural society argues that there are no Orcs and that if there were even they would have redeeming virtues; if not, some would need to be invented.

Now we are glued on ISIS, the Mesopotamian killers who are beheading on video streams American journalists, as they murder, rape, and mutilate their way from Syria to central Iraq. One of the beheaders, Jihadi John, has a British accent, and seems to enjoy shocking Westerners with the fact that he is more familiarly savage than his fellow Arab-speaking masochists. Apparently his family immigrated from the Muslim world to the affluence and freedom of the United Kingdom for a more civilized life so that their pampered son could one day leave it to seek to destroy all that had enabled him— and thereby find “meaning.”

If a British politician demanded to strip Jihadi John and those like him of their passports or an American senator demanded that we not let in any more Tsarnaev-like jihadists, the outcry would be such that the crimes of beheading and blowing up people at a marathon might pale in comparison. Cutting off somebody’s head or blowing off a leg is one thing, but casting aspersions on the Other is quite another. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

Evil is ancient, unchanging, and with us always. The more postmodern the West becomes — affluent, leisured, nursed on moral equivalence, utopian pacifism, and multicultural relativism — the more premodern the evil among us seems to arise in nihilistic response, whether it is from the primordial Tsarnaev brothers or Jihadi John.  We have invented dozens of new ways to explain away our indifference, our enemies hundreds of new ways of reminding us of our impotence. I suppose we who enjoy the good life don’t want to lose any of it for anything — and will understandably do any amount of appeasing, explaining, and contextualizing to avoid an existential war against the beheaders and mutilators, a fact well-known to our enemies. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

So we wait behind our suburban Maginot Lines, arguing over our quarter- and half-measure responses, refighting Iraq and Afghanistan as if they were the Somme and Verdun, assured that we can distract ourselves from the horrors abroad with psychodramas about Ferguson, the president’s golfing, his lectures on fairness, and which naked celebrity photo was hacked on the Internet.

Meanwhile the orcs are busy and growing and nearing the ramparts… [Emphasis added.]

Perhaps when Obama deigns on the eve of September eleventh to enlighten us on His strategy for dealing with the Islamic State He will patiently explain that there is no such thing as a bad boy. Perhaps He will then announce and that He has invited the supreme leader of the IS to the White House, where He will persuade him to stop being naughty. Success will come as it always does due to Obama’s charisma and multicultural understanding of all humanity. They will then enjoy a pleasant round of golf.

Obama will not, of course, do those things. That would be a step too far toward an independent strategy of the Obama Nation and therefore inconsistent with His plans to lead the International Community from behind to victory, whatever that is.

Posted in Obama Ramadan Speech, Advertising, al Qaeda, Appeasement, Atomic bomb, Bill Whittle, Border closings, Cairo address, Charles Hagel, Congress, Culture of violence, Department of State, England, Foreign policy, Formerly Great Britain, Freedom, Freedom of religion, Hamas, Illegal immigration, Iran, Islamic Caliphate, Islamic Jihad, Islamic State, Islamists, Jews, Kiking the can down the road, Korans, Leftists, Middle East, Muslim Brotherhood, Muslims, Nuclear weapons, Obama, Obama Nation, Obama's America, P5+1, Pat Condell, Peace in our time, Political Correctness, Racism, Religion, Saudi Arabia, Sharia law, Turkey | Tagged , , , , , | 4 Comments

What would Churchill say and do about World War Three?


Winston Churchill was principally engaged in warning about, and later pursuing the defeat of, the Nazi threat to civilization. He also had much to say about the dangers of Islam. Today, the Islamic threat increases as multicultural voices assure us that Islam is not a threat and that Islamists merely seek peace and prosperity. The same was said many years ago of Nazi Germany.

Churchill

I closed a recent article with the rhetorical question, “What would Winston Churchill do?” and answered it as follows:

That’s an interesting question, helpful answers to which can be found in The Gathering Storm. Answers to the question are, unfortunately, not relevant because Churchill is dead and there is no one living who even approaches him in prescience, resolve and ability to do what needs to be done.

Churchill there spoke of Nazis. Would he now speak in similar ways about Islamists, as he did many years ago?

Might he be arrested for doing so?

Are we still the masters of our fate, as Churchill proclaimed us to be in 1942? Assuming that we are — a dubious assumption — how long will we remain so?

Churchill is dead. Does his spirit linger within us?

I very much hope, but doubt, that it does. Might it revive and persist?

The Gathering Storm offers some answers to my rhetorical question and they may be useful. Here are some from the early-mid 1930’s, after Hitler had gained control over the German Government. Page references are to a battered Bantam Books paperback edition I have long had and, fortuitously, to the Kindle version which has the same pagination but is easier to read.

Page 80, referring to 1933:

We must regard as deeply blameworthy before history the conduct not only of the British National and mainly Conservative Government, but of the Labour-Socialist and Liberal Parties, both in and out of office., during this fatal period. Delight in smooth-sounding platitudes, refusal to face unpleasant facts, desire for popularity and electoral success irrespective of the vital interests of the State, genuine love of peace and pathetic belief that love can be its sole foundation, obvious lack of intellectual vigour in both leaders of the British Coalition Government, marked ignorance of Europe and aversion from its problems in Mr. Baldwin, the strong and violent pacifism which at this time dominated the Labour-Socialist Party, the utter devotion of the Liberals to sentiment apart from reality, the failure and worse than failure of Mr. Lloyd George, the erstwhile great war-time leader, to address himself to the continuity of his work, the whole supported by overwhelming majorities in both Houses of Parliament: all of these constituted a picture of British fatuity and fecklessness which, though devoid of guile, was not devoid of guilt, and, though free from wickedness or evil design, played a definite part in the unleashing upon the world of horrors and miseries which, even so far as they have unfolded, are already beyond comparison in human experience. [Emphasis added.]

Soothing and pleasing (to some) platitudes abound today. According to a Washington Post opinion piece of September 2nd,

President Obama is not worried. And that is unnerving.

British Prime Minister David Cameron presented to Parliament on Monday the alarming conclusions of European leaders who had met in Brussels over the weekend: “The European Council believes the creation of an Islamic caliphate in Iraq and Syria and the Islamist extremism and export of terrorism on which it is based is a direct threat to every European country.”

Cameron added: “To confront the threat of Islamist extremism, we need a tough, intelligent, patient and comprehensive approach to defeat the terrorist threat at its source. We must use all the resources at our disposal, our aid, our diplomacy and our military.”

But three days earlier — the day Britain raised its terrorism threat level to “severe” — Obama delivered a very different message when he spoke to donors at a fundraiser in New York’s Westchester County. “Yes, the Middle East is challenging, but the truth is it’s been challenging for quite a while,” he said. “I promise you things are much less dangerous now than they were 20 years ago, 25 years ago or 30 years ago. This is not something that is comparable to the challenges we faced during the Cold War.” [Emphasis added.]

Speaking to another group of contributors that same day in Newport, R.I., the president said that the post-9/11 security apparatus “makes us in the here and now pretty safe” and that the threat from ISIS “doesn’t immediately threaten the homeland.”

I hope Obama’s chillax message turns out to be correct, but the happy talk is not reassuring. It’s probably true that the threat of domestic radicalization is greater in Europe than in the United States (hence the British plan to confiscate some passports) but Obama’s sanguinity is jarring compared with the mood of NATO allies Obama is meeting in Europe this week.

Obama has been giving Americans a pep talk, essentially counseling them not to let international turmoil get in the way of the domestic economic recovery. “The world has always been messy,” he said Friday. “In part, we’re just noticing now because of social media and our capacity to see in intimate detail the hardships that people are going through.” [Emphasis added.]

So we wouldn’t have fussed over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine if not for Facebook? Or worried about terrorists taking over much of Syria and Iraq if not for Twitter? This explanation, following Obama’s indiscreet admission Thursday that “we don’t have a strategy yet” for military action against the Islamic State, adds to the impression that Obama is disengaged.

In short, Americans would worry less if Obama worried more.

In his pep talk to the donors, Obama spoke optimistically about U.S. influence in the world. “The good news is that American leadership has never been more necessary,” he said, “and there’s really no competition out there for the ideas and the values that can create the sort of order that we need in this world.” [Emphasis added.]

Yes. And the necessity of American leadership — in Ukraine, Syria and elsewhere — is precisely why Obama needs to show more of it. [Emphasis added.]

Would Obama even know how to provide the necessary leadership? Would He lead competently and in the right directions?

Churchill had a dream. Does Obama” If so, what is it? Will His dream be a nightmare for western civilization?

It would be refreshing were a modern day Churchill to respond to Obama’s happy talk and question the nature of His dreams for Obama’s America.

Back to Churchill’s The Gathering Storm, at Page 91 referring to 1934:

In the course of June 1934 the Standing Committee of the Disarmament Conference at Geneva was adjourned indefinitely. On July 13 I said:

I am very glad that the Disarmament Conference is passing out of life into history. It is the greatest mistake to mix up disarmament with peace. When you have peace you will have disarmament. But there has been during these recent years a steady deterioration in the relations between different countries, a steady growth of ill-will, and a steady, indeed a rapid increase in armaments that has gone on through all these years in spite of the endless flow of oratory, of perorations, of well-meaning sentiments, of banquets, which have marked this  epoch. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

This is not the only Germany which we shall live to see, but we have to consider that at present two or three men, in what may well be a desperate position, have the whole of that mighty country in their grip, have that wonderful, scientific, intelligent, docile, valiant people in their grip, a population of seventy millions; that there is no dynastic interest such as a monarchy brings as a restraint upon policy, because it looks long ahead and has much to lose; and that there is no public opinion except what is manufactured by those new and terrible engines–broadcasting and  a controlled Press. Politics in Germany are not as they are over here. There you do not leave office to join to Opposition. You do not leave the Front Bench to sit below the Gangway. You may well leave your high office at a quarter of an hour’s notice to drive to the police station, and you may be conducted thereafter very rapidly to an even graver ordeal.

It seems to me that men in that position might very easily be tempted to do what even a military dictatorship would not do, because a military dictatorship, with all its many faults, at any rate is one that is based on a very accurate study of the real facts; and there is more danger in this kind of dictatorship than there would be in a military dictatorship, because you have men who, to relieve themselves from the great peril which confronts them at home, might easily plunge into a foreign adventure of the most dangerous and catastrophic character to the whole world.

Again in 1934, at page 102, Churchill wrote:

Although Germany had not yet openly violated the clauses of the Treaty which forbade her a military air force, civil aviation and an immense development of gliding had now reached a point where they could very rapidly reinforce and extend the secret and illegal military air force already formed. The blunt denunciations of Communism and Bolshevism by Hitler had not prevented the clandestine sending by Germany of arms to Russia. On the other hand, from 1927 onwards a number of German pilots were trained by the Soviets for military purposes. There were fluctuations, but in 1932 the British Ambassador in Berlin reported that the Reichswehr had close technical liaison with the Red Army. Just as the Fascist Dictator of Italy had, almost from his accession to power, been the first to make a trade agreement with Soviet Russia, so now the relations between Nazi Germany and the vast Soviet State appeared to be unprejudiced by public ideological controversy.

Are a nuclear armed and Islamist Iran, along with its friends and allies, now less worrisome than Nazi Germany was during the 1930’s and 1940’s?

Obama’s happy talk is apparently intended to assure us that we face no problems which He will not face forcefully and effectively — but only if and when, if ever, He deems it necessary and convenient. He, and our acceptance of His happy talk, are symptoms of the disease that affects Obama’s America as well as Europe and even Britain.

UPDATE:

Bryan Preston posted an article today at PJ Tatler titled The Islamic State: A Time to Hate and notes a “tweet” by Donna Brazile that “Hate is not a family value.” Bryan observes,

Islamic State’s operators are, among other things, serial killers.

Brazile’s tweet of a cliche might not seem to matter, but it does, because she is a big name in the media and a bigger name in the Democratic Party. That party controls American foreign policy as the Islamic State threat rises. Brazile has the ear of President Barack Obama like very few do. Her reactions are likely to align with those of most Democrats including President Obama.

Brazile surrounded that sentiment with others that indicate confusion over the Islamic State and what to do about it. She tweeted that “hate is not a strategy for victory.” Who said that it is? No one who has ever spent any time in the American military would substitute hate for a battle plan. That’s a recipe for defeat.

She called for a “full debate,” but immediately took the military option off the table. That’s not a “full debate.”

Perhaps she would prefer that we send the Islamic State bushels of love. Sure. That might work, in Obama’s fantasy world.

FURTHER UPDATE:

An article by Richard Fernadndez at PJ Media is titled Writing on the Wall. Mr. Fernandez observes,

When you lead from the front, you control the coalition. When you lead from behind, the coalition controls you. This indecision can be disguised under the pose of “sophistication” or “nuance,” where you claim to adapt your behavior to the “context.” But it is really a euphemism for spinelessness. When you’re not in charge, someone else is.  Since Obama has declined to take charge, someone else has. Because in the last analysis, no game theoretic and certainly no war can have meaning unless it defines at least two terms: us and them. [Emphasis added.]

This explains why everything is so confusing. Why nothing makes sense to lesser mortals. Without a course of his own to steer, Obama’s ship of state seems blown this way and that by every puff of wind.  Don’t worry that he’s relinquished the stick and rudder of the airplane to the foe, because he has the trim wheel firmly in hand.  Yet if you can’t explain policy even to your supporters, there’s a good chances the policy is actually inexplicable. This is a possibility Obama’s most ardent supporters cannot admit. It is pitiful to watch them reduced to deciphering hieroglyphics on a wall. They’ll be damned if they can understand it, but assume it says something profound. [Emphasis added.]

Please read the whole thing.

MORE:

Posted in Afterburner, al Qaeda, Apathy, Appeasement, Bill Whittle, Chamberlain, Churchill, Culture of violence, David Cameron, Europe, Foreign policy, Formerly Great Britain, Freedom, History, Iran, Iraq, Islamic Caliphate, Islamic Jihad, Islamists, Media, Middle East, Multicuralism, Muslims, Nuclear weapons, Obama, Obama Nation, Obama's America, P5+1, Peace in our time, Political Correctness, Sharia law | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Obama needs to get more serious about Islamic State opportunities


Editor’s note: This is a guest post by my (imaginary) friend, the Very Honorable Ima Librul, Senator from the great State of Confusion Utopia. He expresses leftist perceptions of magical reality with refreshing clarity, for which we thank him. 

Senator Librul is a founding member of CCCEB (Climate Change Causes Everything Bad), a charter member of President Obama’s Go For it Team, a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Chairman of the Meretricious Relations Subcommittee. He is also justly proud of his expertise in the care and breeding of green unicorns, for which his Save the Unicorns Foundation has received substantial Federal grants. We are honored to have a post of this caliber by a quintessential Librul such as the Senator. Without (much) further delay, here is the Senator’s article, followed by my own observations. But first,

The world needs peace in our time which, if properly structured by the best and brightest leaders of the International Community, will become peace everlasting. Secretary Kerry is the very best of the International Community’s best and brightest.

Kerry I'm an idiot

Secretary Kerry, under the direction of our beloved leader President Obama, has demonstrated that he is fully capable of negotiating peace among the Islamic State (“IS”), Iran, Iraq, Syria and all other free and democratic states that feel threatened by its sudden emergence. True, he has not yet been able to implement even his brilliant final two state solution to for Israel, but that’s only because of the wicked obstinance of far right — but equally far wrong — Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. It is devoutly to be hoped that PM Netanyahu will soon be compelled by the International Community to do as he is told and stop being offensive to President Obama and, indeed, to all in the enlightened International Community.

The IS, like all other true believers in the religion of peace, is and will be far more accepting of Secretary Kerry’s initiatives than was the monster Israel. Secretary Kerry should:

1. Travel immediately to our greatest ally, Iran, and beg for an audience with President Rouhani, a true moderate. During the audience, Secretary Kerry should promise that Obama’s America will lift all sanctions heretofore imposed, wrongfully, against Iran. He should affirm that Obama’s America considers Iran a staunchly peaceful nation that desires nuclear weaponry only for peaceful purposes. To do otherwise would be to agree with and to promote the vile ideology of racist conservatives (please pardon me for repeating myself). On that basis, he should implore Iran to demand that Iraq, Syria and the IS seek, with his guidance and mediation, a one state solution for the entire Middle East including Iran and beyond. By doing so, Iran will succeed in her long quest for understanding and world peace everlasting.

Hang in there Iranians. Obama will help.

Hang in there Iranians. Kerry is coming.

2. A gallant war hero, Secretary Kerry should next travel fearlessly to Iraq and Syria to arrange ceasefires with the IS. As was the case with Hamas in Gaza, the IS is certain to agree, given the promise of a one state solution for the entire Middle East, under which a coalition government will be formed with representatives of Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, Assyrians, Yazidis, Turkmen, Martians, a token Christian and perhaps even a Jew (if one can still be found).

3. That done and agreed upon, Secretary Kerry should next go to Africa and convince Boko Haram not only to #Bring Back Our Girls as forcefully demanded by our gracious First Lady, but also to join with the IS in implementing a similar one state solution there.

Ms Obama and girls

4. Secretary Kerry’s monumental missions accomplished, he should return to the bosom of President Obama and find room for a Nobel Peace Prize in his treasure trove of heroism medals awarded by a grateful nation for his gallant military service during the Vietnam conflict.

The science is settled, so there can be no doubt that Secretary Kerry can and will succeed in this, his most heroic mission yet.

**********

Editor’s Note:

Senator Librul’s magical musings about the Islamic State and what needs to be done are clearly superior to those of President “I Have No Strategy” Obama, and I did my best to help by inserting inappropriate graphics.

Unless grossly offended by the senator’s words, President Obama will do as suggested. Should Secretary Kerry then fail to do precisely as told, or to succeed, President Obama is likely to appoint either Senator Librul or Pajama Boy as our new Secretary of State. That would produce only a modest lateral change in President Obama’s foreign policies for us to believe in.

obama_mirror_pajama_boy-450x321

UPDATE:

An article by Roger Kimball at PJ Media titled Evolution of the Obama Doctrine points out,

“Nature,” Galileo observed four hundred years ago, “abhors a vacuum”  That sucking sound you hear when reading the alarming list of what Secretary of State John Kerry might have dismissed as “19th-century” behavior, unbecoming of a modern, blow-dried state, that rushing wind is the sound of a profound leadership deficit. It’s what happens when a great power abdicates, when it stops acting like an adult and gives free rein to its inner community organizer, its inner selfie. It’s Lord of the Flies writ large. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

[B]etween those endless outings on the links, Obama finally seems to be waking up to the fact that all is not well. Unfortunately, in a rare moment of candor, he uttered the now infamous confession “We don’t have a strategy yet” for dealing with the Islamic State. (Panicked by the response to that little glimpse of the truth, the White House press secretary clarified: when he said “we don’t have a strategy,” Obama really meant that “we have a comprehensive strategy.” Right.) [Emphasis added.]

Perhaps the prescient Senator Librul has finally discovered President Obama’s “comprehensive strategy.”

Posted in Andrew Klavan, Bill Whittle, Chamberlain, Christians, Conservatives, Culture of violence, Foreign policy, Freedom, Gaza, Genocide, Hamas, Humor, Ideology, Iran, Iraq, Islamic Caliphate, Islamic State, Islamists, Israel, Jews, John Kerry, Leftists, Libruls, Middle East, Netanyahu, Nigeria, Nuclear weapons, Obama, Obama Nation, Obama's America, Palestinian heroes, Peace in our time, Political Correctness, Religion, Right Wing, Rouhani, Satire, Sharia law | Tagged , , , , , , , | 3 Comments