Aiding Islamic Terrorists Is Our Foreign Policy

Redheart

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Dec 26, 2014
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
319
Country
USA
Location
USA
He [Obama] isn’t fighting terrorists. He’s fighting us.
Do you agree?

Aiding Islamic Terrorists Is Our Foreign Policy | FrontPage Magazine

Obama says that we are not fighting a war on Islam. What he leaves out is that under his administration the United States is fighting in a civil war that is taking place within Islam.

It’s not a conflict between the proverbial moderate Muslim and the raging fanatic. That was an outdated Bush era notion. Instead Obama has brought us into a fight between Muslim governments and Muslim terrorists, not on the side of the governments we were allied with, but on the side of the terrorists.

It’s why Egypt is shopping for French planes and Russian nukes. Yemen’s government was run out of town by Obama’s new Iranian friends in a proxy war with Saudi Arabia. And the Saudis are dumping oil.

Iran and Qatar are the regional powers Obama is closest to. What these two countries have in common, is that despite their mutual hostility, they are both international state sponsors of Islamic terrorism.

Obama’s diplomats will be negotiating with the Taliban in Qatar. Among the Taliban delegation will be the terrorist leaders that Obama freed from Gitmo. And Iran gets anything it wants, from Yemen to the bomb, by using the threat of walking away in a huff from the hoax nuclear negotiations as leverage.

In Syria and Iraq, Obama is fighting ISIS alongside Islamic terrorists linked to Al Qaeda and Iran. In Libya, he overthrew a government in support of Islamic terrorists. His administration has spoken out against Egyptian air strikes against the Islamic State Jihadists in Libya who had beheaded Coptic Christians.

At the prayer breakfast where he denounced Christianity for the Crusades was the foreign minister of the Muslim Brotherhood government of Sudan that has massacred Christians. Unlike Libya, where Obama used a false claim of genocide to justify an illegal war, Sudan actually has committed genocide. And yet Obama ruled out using force against Sudan’s genocide even while he was running for office.

The United States now has a strange two-tier relationship with the Middle East. On paper we retain a number of traditional alliances with old allies such as Egypt, Israel and Saudi Arabia, complete with arms sales, foreign aid and florid speeches. But when it comes to policy, our new friends are the terrorists.

American foreign policy is no longer guided by national interests. Our allies have no input in it. It is shaped around the whims of Qatar and Iran; it’s guided by the Muslim Brotherhood and defined by the interests of state sponsors of terror. Our foreign policy is a policy of aiding Islamic terrorists.

It’s only a question of which terrorists.

Obama’s familiar argument is that ISIS and Al Qaeda fighters shouldn’t be called Islamic terrorists. Not even the politically correct sop of “Radical Islam” is acceptable. The terrorists are perverting Islam, he claims. The claim was banal even before September 11, but it bears an entirely new significance from an administration that has put Muslim Brotherhood operatives into key positions.

The administration is asserting the power to decide who is a Muslim. It’s a theological position that means it is taking sides in a Muslim civil war between Islamists.

This position is passed off as a strategy for undermining the terrorists. Refusing to call the Islamic State by its name, using the more derogatory “Daesh,” denying that the Islamic terrorists are acting in the name of Islam, is supposed to inhibit recruitment. This claim is made despite the flood of Muslims leaving the West to join ISIS. If any group should be vulnerable to our propaganda, it should be them.

But that’s not what this is really about.

According recognition to a state is a powerful diplomatic tool for shaping world politics. We refuse to recognize ISIS, as we initially refused to recognize the USSR. Obama resumed diplomatic ties with Cuba. His people negotiate and appease the Taliban even though it was in its own time just as brutal as ISIS.

Obama is not willing to recognize ISIS as Islamic, but he does recognize the Muslim Brotherhood as Islamic. Both are violent and murderous Islamists. But only one of them is “legitimate” in his eyes.

Those choices are not about terrorist recruitment, but about building a particular map of the region. Obama refuses to concede that ISIS is Islamic, not because he worries that it will bring them more followers, this is a tertiary long shot at best, but because he is supporting some of their rivals.

The White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism has brought a covert strategy out into the spotlight. Despite its name, it’s not countering violence or extremism.

The new director of the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications, the axis of Obama’s CVE strategy, is Rashad Hussain who appeared at Muslim Brotherhood front group events and defended the head of Islamic Jihad. In attendance was Salam Al-Marayati of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, yet another Muslim Brotherhood linked group, who had urged Muslims not to cooperate with the FBI and defended Hamas and Hezbollah.

In Syria, the United States is coordinating with Assad and backing the Syrian rebels, who have their own extensive ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and even Al Qaeda. This could be viewed as an “enemy of my enemy” alliance, but this administration backed the Brotherhood before it viewed ISIS as a threat. Top Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry, had focused on outreach to Assad under Bush.

They’re not allying with Assad and the Brotherhood to beat ISIS. They’re fighting ISIS to protect the Brotherhood and their deal with Iran.

In the White House, Obama has tried to shape an Islamist future for the Middle East, favoring Islamist governments in Turkey and Islamist movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood. He saw his role as paving the way for the next generation of regional regimes that would be explicitly Islamist.

The Arab Spring was a deceptive code name for a clean sweep that would push out the old leaders like Mubarak and replace them with the Muslim Brotherhood and other likeminded Islamists. Islamic terrorism, at least against the United States, would end because their mission had been accomplished.

Stabilizing unrest by putting the destabilizers in charge wasn’t a new idea. Carter helped make it happen in Iran. And the more violent an Islamic terrorist group is, the more important it is to find a way to stop the violence by putting them in charge. The only two criteria that matter are violence and dialogue.

So why isn’t Obama talking to ISIS? Because ISIS won’t talk back. It’s impossible to support a terrorist group that won’t engage in dialogue. If ISIS were to indicate any willingness to negotiate, diplomats would be sitting around a table with headchoppers in less time than it takes a Jordanian pilot to burn.

And that still might happen.

Obama isn’t trying to finish off ISIS. He’s keeping them on the ropes the way that he did the Taliban. Over 2,000 Americans died on the off chance that the Taliban would agree to the negotiations in Qatar. Compared to that price in blood, the Bergdahl deal was small potatoes. And if Obama is negotiating with the Taliban after all that, is there any doubt that he would negotiate to integrate ISIS into Iraq and Syria?

Obama’s foreign policy in the region has been an elaborate exercise in trying to draw up new maps for a caliphate. The inclusion of terrorist groups in this program isn’t a mistake. It’s not naiveté or blindness. It’s the whole point of the exercise which was to transform terrorist groups into governments.

Stabilizing the region by turning terrorists into governments may sound like pouring oil on a fire, but to progressives who believe in root causes, rather than winning wars, violence is a symptom of discontent. The problem isn’t the suicide bomber. It’s our power structure. Tear that down, as Obama tried to do in Cairo, and the terrorists no longer have anything to fight against because we aren’t in their way.

Bush tried to build up civil society to choke off terrorism. Obama builds civil society around terrorists.

Obama does not believe that the terrorists are the problem. He believes that we are the problem. His foreign policy is not about fighting Islamic terrorists. It is about destroying our power to stop them.

He isn’t fighting terrorists. He’s fighting us.
 

DeltaForce103

THINK TANK
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
145
Reaction score
62
Country
India
Location
India
Wow! 36 mentions of Obama on that page alone. It's a rightwing source, so fairly hysterical.

Of the many problems that riddle this article, the obvious red flag is the way it briskly speculates about the ulterior motives of Middle Eastern countries and terrorist organizations without providing any proof or reasoning for those claims. The article is full of claims that are hard to reconcile with reality and would not stand up to scrutiny.

To quote an example, the only relation between the Obama administration and the Muslim Brotherhood is a conspiracy theory which was immediately rejected when presented by a variety of sources and seems to be based on the premise that one of Hillary Clinton's staff was a Muslim, and it seems I was never made aware of the fact that the Arab Spring in Egypt was orchestrated by Obama in his spare time. The list goes on...

Even if, god forbid, all this were taken to be fact. The conclusion is still as far-fetched as they come. I don't agree in the slightest, this is just plain hogwash.
 

Rainshield7

MEMBER
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
73
Reaction score
3
Country
USA
Location
USA
Wow! 36 mentions of Obama on that page alone. It's a rightwing source, so fairly hysterical.

Of the many problems that riddle this article, the obvious red flag is the way it briskly speculates about the ulterior motives of Middle Eastern countries and terrorist organizations without providing any proof or reasoning for those claims. The article is full of claims that are hard to reconcile with reality and would not stand up to scrutiny.

To quote an example, the only relation between the Obama administration and the Muslim Brotherhood is a conspiracy theory which was immediately rejected when presented by a variety of sources and seems to be based on the premise that one of Hillary Clinton's staff was a Muslim, and it seems I was never made aware of the fact that the Arab Spring in Egypt was orchestrated by Obama in his spare time. The list goes on...

Even if, god forbid, all this were taken to be fact. The conclusion is still as far-fetched as they come. I don't agree in the slightest, this is just plain hogwash.
I too think it is hogwash the Middle Eastern countries have been at this war for ages. Islamic terrorist are not going to care about how other people feel when they kill them. I mean it would not be surprising if the year was 2025 and the same thing would happen with these people.
 

KimberlyD

MEMBER
Joined
Jan 4, 2015
Messages
370
Reaction score
47
Country
USA
Location
USA
Amazing how the article talks about Obama being in bed with the terrorist because did these same claims also come forward with every President we've had since Regan? I think I've heard these arguments over and over again for the past 30 years and it is always saying the same things with no proof to the claims. Whats more... why does it matter whether Clinton has a Muslim in her employ? How does having a Muslim or being a Muslim make you an automatic terrorist supporter? This article was not even worth the time I spent reading it. I could believe a lot of things about our President, but this is nonsense.
 

westmixxin

MEMBER
Joined
Feb 12, 2015
Messages
65
Reaction score
5
Country
USA
Location
USA
it seems like every single president is accused of being in bed with terrorists its incredibly interesting because when it comes down to it the only way you can identify terrorists is the moment they commit a terrorist act until someone does something you never know who's who.
 

Rainshield7

MEMBER
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
73
Reaction score
3
Country
USA
Location
USA
Amazing how the article talks about Obama being in bed with the terrorist because did these same claims also come forward with every President we've had since Regan? I think I've heard these arguments over and over again for the past 30 years and it is always saying the same things with no proof to the claims. Whats more... why does it matter whether Clinton has a Muslim in her employ? How does having a Muslim or being a Muslim make you an automatic terrorist supporter? This article was not even worth the time I spent reading it. I could believe a lot of things about our President, but this is nonsense.
People need to stop creating all these unnecessary comments about who is with who. If the president wants to have an Iranian for one of the presidential cabinet then let it be. So many folks who make some dumb claims.
 

KimberlyD

MEMBER
Joined
Jan 4, 2015
Messages
370
Reaction score
47
Country
USA
Location
USA
Exactly, it is ridiculous. WHO CARES! Worry about what the President is doing on his own accord not who is in his employ. I worked for a Muslim... does that make me a terrorist now? Many of you have had employers or co-workers who were Muslim... are you terrorist? Does being a Muslim automatically make a person a terrorist? NO! ISIS (a Islamic EXTREMIST group) are terrorist, Al Qida (a Islamic EXTREMIST group) are terrorist... being Muslim does not make a person a terrorist.
 

Rowe992

MEMBER
Joined
Feb 6, 2015
Messages
278
Reaction score
40
Country
Belize
Location
Belize
This article is just a load of bull in my opinion. What civil war with Muslims has Obama drawn America into??? Every other country in the world thinks the US is not doing enough to challenge ISIS while this article is stating that America is in a civil war with Muslims. This article seems to be the work of persons who are against Obama's presidency and so they write an article to spread their propaganda.
 

003

MEMBER
Joined
Jan 4, 2015
Messages
206
Reaction score
11
Country
Philippines
Location
Philippines
What? What they would have to do so? Why does America keep bothering itself in issues it shouldn't be really part of? Well, America has a different approach in strengthening and securing itself. It goes beyond expectation without giving up its decency. It's still decent and what's even more pronounced is just it's mission to help.
 

Scorpion

THINK TANK
Joined
Nov 27, 2014
Messages
2,758
Reaction score
1,898
Country
Saudi Arabia
Location
Saudi Arabia
What? What they would have to do so? Why does America keep bothering itself in issues it shouldn't be really part of? Well, America has a different approach in strengthening and securing itself. It goes beyond expectation without giving up its decency. It's still decent and what's even more pronounced is just it's mission to help.
Why you always brag about America and how might it is? Can you be sensible in your thoughts please.
 

Rainshield7

MEMBER
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
73
Reaction score
3
Country
USA
Location
USA
Exactly, it is ridiculous. WHO CARES! Worry about what the President is doing on his own accord not who is in his employ. I worked for a Muslim... does that make me a terrorist now? Many of you have had employers or co-workers who were Muslim... are you terrorist? Does being a Muslim automatically make a person a terrorist? NO! ISIS (a Islamic EXTREMIST group) are terrorist, Al Qida (a Islamic EXTREMIST group) are terrorist... being Muslim does not make a person a terrorist.
Totally agree, who cares about who the president has in his office or talks to. As long he is not committing treason then we should not worry. I see Muslims on the college campuses and some of them are mixed with Assyrian blood. The article is just another way to show how foolish some people can be.
 

Similar threads

Top