web analytics
April 21, 2014 / 21 Nisan, 5774
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘Islam’

Muslim Brotherhood Digging Roots in Boston

Tuesday, June 11th, 2013

Good American Muslim citizens in Boston have been shocked to find material in local mosques backed by the Muslim Brotherhood movement and calling for jihad against the United States.

Boston has been eyeballed by anti-jihad monitors since the Boston Massacre in April, carried out by Islamic terrorists Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. They were not known to be part of the Muslim Brotherhood, but they attended mosques that preach radical Islam.

“The fact is that these fellows attended, blocks from their house, a radical mosque that has been the center of controversy in Boston for 10 years,” according to CBN (Christian Broadcast Network), quoting  Charles Jacobs, who heads Americans for Peace and Tolerance. The organization monitors local Islamic radicals.

Referring to the Islamic Society of Boston mosque in Cambridge, Jacobs said, “The founder of that mosque, blocks from where the Tsarnaevs lived and where they prayed, was Abdulrahman Alamoudi.. He is the model of deception in American-Muslim history…

“He…convinced President Clinton and also President George W. Bush that he was precisely the kind of moderate Muslim leader that America was looking for,” Jacobs said. “In fact, he deceived everyone. He’s now in jail for 23 years for giving money, for funding al Qaeda.

Other worshippers at the Cambridge mosque have included an al Qaeda member convicted of plotting attacks on New York City and a man sentenced to 17 years in prison for planning a shooting spree on a Boston-area shopping mall.

One former trustee of the mosque is Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader and terrorist supporter who’s banned from entering the United States.

The explosive material found in the mosque is not new.

One moderate Muslim leader who visited the mosque 10 years ago told CBN. “We go upstairs and I find the library and it’s full of flyers, full of newsletters in Arabic,” Dr. Ahmed Mansour of the International Quranic Institute said. “And they call for jihad against America and against the Jews and against the Christians.”

The Muslim Brotherhood in the United States hides under the name Muslim American Society (MAS), which the Muslim Brotherhood founded in 1993. and which federal prosecutors have called “the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.”

MAS opened up another mosque four years the Boston neighborhood of Roxbury and goes by the lovely-sounding name of the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center.

It cost $15,5 million to build. Getting money was no problem. More than half of it reportedly came from Saudi Arabia, the country whose terrorists pulled off the 9/11 terrorist attack.

Both mosques are run by the same leadership and have the same ideology, according to Jacobs.

Massachusetts politicians endorsed the Roxbury mosque although two months earlier, the mosque’s cleric incited Muslims who had been arrested for terrorism.

“Grab onto the typewriter, grab onto the shovel, grab onto the gun and the sword,” Imam Abdullah Farooq told his listeners.

The current imam of the mosque was supposed to attend an event in memory of the victims of the Boston Marathon terror attack, but the governor, the same man who endorsed the Roxbury mosque in 2009, told him he could stay home. The imam, William Suhaib Webb, has been called by many to be a moderate Muslim leader.

But many in his mosque are not happy with his moderation.

When Webb spoke favorably about President Barack Obama, Muslims complained on line, charging the Obama is a “war criminal.”

Webb also said he could nit publicly pray over the body of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon terrorist who was killed in a shootout. Tweet responses scolded him..

However, the situation in Boston and other American cities is approaching that of most European countries where radical Muslims have gained a foothold in their communities to the point that leaders are charged with racism if they oppose them.

“If you question them, even if you question them, you’re a racist, Islamophobic bigot,” Jacobs said.

Things to come

Monday, June 10th, 2013

It’s 2018. Israel is still beleaguered, but not by its traditional foes.

In a short, bloody war in 2015, Israel crushed Hezbollah. Shortly thereafter, it launched a series of strikes against the Iranian nuclear infrastructure, using new non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse (NNEMP) technology against above-ground installations, plus ultra-precise multiple-strike penetrating bombs to open the underground bunkers. Without Hizballah and without an answer to NNEMP weapons, Iran was forced to defer its nuclear ambitions indefinitely.

Syria’s civil war still sputters and flares, with Assad’s Russian-supported forces in control of the coastal areas and Damascus, while various rebel groups hold the rest. An independent Kurdistan has been declared (although it hasn’t been recognized by the UN), including parts of Iraq and Syria.

Insurrections also continue with various levels of violence in Iraq, Bahrein, Saudi Arabia, and other states. Jordan, which received a massive amount of military aid from Israel, is still under control of the Hashemite king, although there are insurgents operating there too.

With the destruction of Hizbollah and the partial neutralization of Iran, organized terrorism worldwide has declined. But there are still multiple radical Islamist organizations that are challenging their perceived enemies wherever they can.

After the Egyptian economy disintegrated in 2014-15, the Islamist regime was overthrown by the military. Some food aid was received from the US, but nowhere near enough to prevent food riots, widespread malnutrition and some actual starvation. Israel is providing the military government with large amounts of water (from gas-powered desalinization plants) to irrigate parts of the Sinai. Partly in return (and partly to protect its own existence) Egypt has been cooperating with Israel in keeping weapons away from Hamas and fighting radical Islamists in the Sinai.

Although greatly weakened during the years of AKP dominance, the Turkish military has reasserted itself and with much popular support has reined in the excesses of Erdoğan’s regime. Many officers that were imprisoned (with or without trials) have been rehabilitated, and the army has made it clear that it will not stand for further erosion of secular institutions. Relations with Israel have also improved, as the pragmatic officers overrode the AKP’s ideological rigidity.

Meanwhile, Israel’s economy is continuing to do well. Its huge natural gas reserves have enabled it to produce large amounts of electricity at very low cost, which it uses in part to desalinate sea water. For the first time in history, Israel has enough water! Natural gas is also exported to Turkey and Eastern Europe, in accordance with an agreement with Russia to maintain prices.

The PLO still exists and still rules most of the Arabs of Judea and Samaria. It still receives subsidies from Europe and the US, and still tries to engage in ‘popular resistance‘ (murder by means of weapons other than guns and explosives) when possible.

Hamas, cut off from aid from Hizballah and the Muslim Brotherhood, now exists primarily on UN aid, a massive expansion of UNRWA.

So where does the threat that I mentioned above come from?

In two words, Western Europe.

The UK has its first Muslim Prime Minister, elected after the escalating riots of 2014-5. Considered by all a ‘moderate’, he managed to quiet the uprisings by promising to establish shari’a courts with authority over Muslim towns and enclaves throughout the country (very few non-Muslims remain in those areas). British Jews have taken a very low profile since the riots, during which many were targeted by the rampaging mobs. Many of those whose Zionist sympathies were known fled to Australia or Canada, and some went to Israel. Although the PM publicly says that he supports the continued existence of Israel, he favors a right of return for all Arab ‘refugees’ — there are now 10 million claiming refugee status — release of all Arab prisoners, and “an end to apartheid.”

The rest of the EU states are more or less the same, although they do not yet have Muslim heads of state. The French Jewish community has almost entirely left, most going to Israel. Antisemitic acts by Muslims — but also by non-Muslims who blame Israel and Jews for the violence of Muslims and for economic problems — have multiplied. Jews in Holland, the Scandinavian countries, etc. are also fleeing because they feel they cannot depend on their governments to protect them from pervasive Jew-hatred.

Muslim demands have a history of being quickly accommodated, since if they are not the result is often violent. Most such demands relate to local autonomy, shari’a courts in Muslim areas, compliance with Muslim sensibilities about food, animals, alcohol, ‘blasphemy’ and ‘immorality’ in media, school curricula, etc.

But as happened in 2013 with the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby, we see more and more violent acts ‘explained’ in terms of foreign policy. The EU has long since removed any military presence from Afghanistan (as did the US; Afghanistan is today ruled by the Taliban); but now demands center on policy toward Israel.

Antisemitism in Europe is taken for granted, even in countries where there are few Jews (most of them, now). In Germany, for example, politicians can safely say that while the Holocaust was a great evil, it is possible to understand how Jewish behavior, if it did not cause it, at least created the conditions that made it possible. Likewise, there is little sympathy for Israel, which is seen as an instigator of violence, not its victim.

As the threats from Israel’s neighbors recede, we find the danger from nuclear-armed, unstable Europe increasing.

Visit Fresno Zionism.

Tony Blair Finally Has a Problem with Islam

Wednesday, June 5th, 2013

The Quartet’s Middle East envoy Tony Blair, who for years has tried to “engage” Hamas and Fatah terrorist regimes, wrote this week, “There is a problem within Islam – from the adherents of an ideology that is a strain within Islam. We have to put it on the table and be honest about it.”

Blair wrote his new enlightenment in the London Daily Mail following the recent beheading of a British soldier by a Muslim who attacked him on a London street in broad daylight.

While agreeing that every religion has its extremists, Blair wrote, “I am afraid this strain is not the province of a few [Islamic] extremists. It has at its heart a view about religion and about the interaction between religion and politics that is not compatible with pluralistic, liberal, open-minded societies.”

Blair has close contact with Muslims. His sister-in-law Lauren Booth who converted to Islam in 2010 and secretly wed social worker Sohale Ahmed in a Muslim ceremony months ago, although his first wife said he still is married to her.

“She stole my husband from under my nose. It’s absolutely disgusting,” said the woman,” quoted by the London Sun. ”I regarded her as a friend, a Muslim sister. But she’s not even a good woman, never mind a good Muslim.”

Booth is a good radical Muslim. She sailed to Gaza three years to support Hamas and was arrested by Israel when she tried to set foot in Israel.

Egypt, the Land of ‘Total Loss’

Tuesday, May 28th, 2013

Everyone knows what a “total loss” is: the general loss of a vehicle’s value as the result of an accident, when the vehicle becomes either impossible or impractical to repair and is sent for scrap metal.

It seems that Egypt’s situation today very much resembles a “total loss” situation following a series of accidents and misfortunes that it has experienced over the past two years, since Mubarak was sent to the defendant’s cage. As long as he was in power, the country was functional. And although it did not function well, there was a sort of dictatorial stability. But since he was overthrown nothing works in that dismal country, whose residents number today ninety million. Egypt is like a car with ninety million problems, and to describe it as a “total loss” is to understate the situation.

The problems began on November 11, 2011, with the resignation of President Mubarak after the demonstrations against him degenerated into a state of general chaos, prompting the minister of defense, General Tantawi, to demand that Mubarak step down in order to calm the raging street. Tantawi took the reins of power for half a year, to stabilize the governmental system and then transfer it to the civilian branch, the dictatorial stability of the Mubarak era turned into public chaos with increasingly anarchistic characteristics, despite the fact that the group in power had won the right to rule democratically. It seems that the governmental situation in Egypt will become a new concept in the field of political science: “democratic anarchy” or “anarchistic democracy”.

Despite Egypt’s having a president, an army, police and judicial system, it seems that these components of government do not all function as one system, but rather each one behaves according to it’s own private agenda, as if it exists as a separate country: the public elects a parliament and the court disperses it, the president issues edicts overriding the laws of parliament and the court cancels his edicts, the majority of the public elects a president but large sectors of the public want to get rid of him, an Islamist president is elected but he is forced to manage the state according to laws that contradict Shari’a, the Bedouins in Sinai are citizens of Egypt, but they behave as if Egypt is their enemy.

The straw that broke the camel’s back was when seven soldiers were kidnapped in Sinai. The Bedouins kidnapped them in order to pressure the government into freeing some imprisoned Bedouins, and Morsi found himself between a rock and a hard place: if had given in to the Bedouins, thus freeing the soldiers this would have been interpreted – and rightly so – as the state surrendering to a violent group of criminals, and this surrender would have encouraged them as well as other groups to take similar steps to achieve their ends.

In such a situation, when every law breaker can pressure the government to submit to his demands, there is no state. So what can be done? Attack the Bedouins with a large military force? This is problematic because the present government claims to have a religious basis, and how can such a regime kill Muslims?

On Wednesday of this week the seven soldiers were freed healthy and whole after representatives of the army met with heads of the Jabal Halal tribes and warned them that the army would destroy anything that moved in the area. What was promised to the heads of the tribes in exchange for freeing the soldiers was not divulged, but the fact that the government was forced to appease the heads of the tribes proves who is in charge in Sinai.

The government again had to play according to the rules of the desert, where anyone who has a request must close the deal with the tribal heads. The struggle between the state and the Bedouins will continue in the next round, which is just a matter of time. Because the state has not yet freed the Bedouin prisoners accused of terrorist activity, and their liberation was the original reason for kidnapping the seven soldiers.

And this was not the first time that the Bedouins have challenged Morsi’s government: last August they murdered 16 soldiers, and during the past year they attacked a police station and security patrols, and sabotaged the gas pipe that provides Egypt with its livelihood. The Bedouins collaborate with Hamas and there were rumors that the kidnapped soldiers were already in Gaza. The families of the kidnapped soldiers appeared in the media and put pressure on the government to submit to the kidnappers demands, and Morsi had already requested and received religious permission to fight the Bedouins from the Mufti of Egypt. The army wanted to seal the tunnels that connect Sinai with the Gaza Strip, and Morsi feared Hamas’ negative propaganda and Hamas’ big brother, the Emir of Qatar.

An Apology Posing as Bibliography

Tuesday, May 28th, 2013

At this moment of sequester and belt-tightening, the U.S. government has delivered a reading list on Islam.

The National Endowment for the Humanities has joined with two private foundations, Carnegie and Duke, to fund “Muslim Journeys,” a project that aims to present “new and diverse perspectives on the people, places, histories, beliefs, practices, and cultures of Muslims in the United States and around the world.” Its main component is the “Muslim Journeys Bookshelf,” a selection of 25 books and 3 films on Islam sent to nearly 1,000 libraries as well as a website and some other activities. Marvin Olasky, who brought this project to public attention, estimates the whole project cost about US$1 million.

As one of the taxpayers who unwittingly contributed to this project as well as the compiler of my own bibliography on Islam and the Middle East, I take interest in the 25 books NEH selected for glory, spreading them around the country.

Softness characterizes its list: the 25 books quietly ignore current headlines so as to accentuate the attractive side of Islamic civilization, especially its medieval expression, and gently promote the Islam religion. It’s not so exuberant an exercise as the British 1976 World of Islam Festival, described at the time as “a unique cultural event that … was no less than an attempt to present one civilization—in all its depth and variety—to another.” But then, how can one aspire to such grandeur with all that’s happened in the intervening years?

NEH’s list and mine do share minor commonalities: for example, one author (the Moroccan writer Fatima Mernissi) and one series (the Very Short Introductions series issued by Oxford University Press).

But our purposes could not be more different: whereas I help readers understand why Muslims fill 30 out of 32 slots on the most wanted terrorists listand how Islamism came to be the main vehicle of barbarism in the world today, the endowment’s list shields the reader’s eyes from all this unpleasantness. Where I provide background to the headlines, NEH ignores them and pretends all is well with Islam, as is the federal government’s wont.

I seek to answer burning questions: Who was Muhammad? What is the historical impact of Islam? When is warfare jihad? Why did Islamism arise? How does tribal culture influence political life? Where can one locate signs of hope for Islam to moderate? In contrast, the NEH list offers a smattering of this and that – poetry, personal accounts, antiquities, architecture, religion and history, original texts, and a smidgeon of current events, preferably presented fictionally. For example, In the Country of Men by Hisham Matar, tells about a boy growing up in Qaddafi’s Libya).

I suggest Marshall G. S. Hodgson’s 3-volume scholarly masterpiece, The Venture of Islam, while NEH proffers Jim Al-Khalili’s derivative House of Wisdom: How Arabic Science Saved Ancient Knowledge and Gave Us the Renaissance. I offer up books by sturdy anti-Islamist Muslims such as Khalid Durán’s introduction to Islam or Bassam Tibi’sChallenge of Fundamentalism. The endowment, of course – for what else does a government agency do? – promotes Islamists, including the Canadian phony moderate Ingrid Mattson and the Obama administration’s favorite Eboo Patel.

My books are personal selections based on decades in the field; theirs is a mish-mash brokered by acommittee of four standard-issue academics (Leila Golestaneh Austin, Giancarlo Casale, Frederick Denny, and Kambiz GhaneaBassiri) and one don’t-rock-the-boat journalist (Deborah Amos).

The NEH bibliography reminds one of the Middle East Studies Association’s annual meetings, which often avoid interesting or important topics in favor of such obscure feminist issues as “Problematizing ‘Women’s Place’ in the Multiple Borderzones of Gender and Ethnic Politics in Turkey” and “The Turkish Women’s Union and the Politics of Women’s Rights in Turkey, 1929-1935.”

As these titles suggest, today’s scholars have a strange tendency to focus in on questions no one is asking, as do many of the NEH books. Anthony Shadid recounts in House of Stone: a Memoir of Home, Family, and a Lost Middle East his efforts to restore an ancestral home in Lebanon; Kamila Shamsie’s Broken Verses: a Novel tells the story of a television journalist in Karachi.

As taxpayer and as specialist, I condemn the NEH list. Far from presenting “new and diverse perspectives,” it offers the usual academic obfuscation mixed with Islamist triumphalism. It reminds us that of the many things governments should not do, one of them is to compile bibliographies.

Muslim Acts of Beheading in the West

Sunday, May 26th, 2013

The gruesome murder of a soldier outside London by a Muslim convert, Michael Adebolajo, brings to mind that throat slitting and beheading are Islamically sanctioned forms of execution. Although these occur particularly often in the course of family-related crimes – think, for example, of the case of Aasiya Hassan in suburban Buffalo, N.Y., killed by her husband in 2009, stabbed with two hunting knives more than forty times in the face, back and chest, then beheaded – this monstrous form of violence is also used in non-family instances. Some of those that took place over the past decade in the West in chronological order include:

In addition, Ibragim Todashev, who was shot and killed yesterday while being interviewed about the Waltham murders, reportedly grabbed a knife and stabbed an officer several times, including in the head, possibly an attempt on his neck. In any case, it was so threatening that the officers used deadly force and on the spot killed Todashev.

This list (to be updated as needed) is only part of the story: other characteristically Muslim crimes taking place in Western countries include honor killingsfemale genital mutilation, and slave holding. These, sadly, are among Islam’s contributions to the lands of immigration.

Postscript: What this analysis does not cover: (1) Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, and other Westerners murdered in Pakistan, Iraq, and other non-Western places. (2) Meir Kahane, Hitoshi Igarashi, and other prominent individuals assassinated in the West but not beheaded; Theo van Gogh is the only person listed both here and at “Islamist Assassinations in the West.” (May 23, 2013)

Originally published at DanielPipes.org and The National Review Online, The Corner.

History of Israel: Eilat, City of Sin

Sunday, May 26th, 2013

Sura 7 in the Quran relates the following story about a Jewish town:

(162) And ask them about the town that was by the sea – when they transgressed in [the matter of] the sabbath – when their fish came to them openly on their sabbath day, and the day they had no sabbath they did not come to them. Thus did we give them trial because they were defiantly disobedient. (163) And when a community among them said, “Why do you advise [or warn] a people whom Allah is [about] to destroy or to punish with a severe punishment?” they [the advisors] said, “To be absolved before your Lord and perhaps they may fear Him.” (164) And when they forgot that by which they had been reminded, We saved those who had forbidden evil and seized those who wronged, with a wretched punishment, because they were defiantly disobeying. (165) So when they were insolent about that which they had been forbidden, We said to them, “Be apes, despised.”

Sound like a fractured Midrash to me.  In any case, where is this town by the sea?  According to most Islamic scholars, the city is Eilat(*).

Islamic sources mention four Jewish settlements in the Gulf of Eilat area: Adhruh, Jarba, Maqna and Eilat.  Maqna and Eilat were situated on the coast, Maqna being further south than Eilat.  Adhruh and Jarba were to the north, further inland.  These Jews grew dates (an occupation common among the Jews of Arabia), fished and kept horses.  Their women spun and wove textiles.  They carried weapons and owned slaves.

When Muhammad approached Israel, after arriving at Tabuk, these communities sent delegations to the new conqueror.

Izhak Ben-Zvi brings the following in his book “Remnants of Ancient Jewish Communities in the Land of Israel”, written by Ibn Sa’d in the 9th century (translation mine):

“Yuhanna son of Ru’ba, king of Eilat, came to the Prophet, and with him the residents of Jarba and Adhruh.  And they came to the Prophet, and he taxed them, and he wrote them a letter saying: ‘In the name of Allah the Merciful, this treaty is given from Allah and his messenger Muhammad to Yuhanna son of Ru’ba and to the residents of Eilat, their ships and their services, in sea and land.  The protection of Allah and Muhammad is given to them, and to the Syrians and Yemenites and peoples from across the sea who live with them.  And if any of them break the law, his property will not protect him, and will be to whoever takes it.  And they are not to be prevented from the water they want to access, or the way they want to pass in, in sea and land.  Written by Juhim bin-Salat and Shurhavil bin-Hasana, written with permission of the Messenger of Allah.”

And he continues: “Muhammad Ibn ‘Omar (Al-Waqidi, 8th century) says: I copied the letter of the people of Adhruh that says: In the name of Allah the merciful!  This is the treaty of Muhammad the Prophet with the residents of Adhruh, which gives them the protection of Allah and Muhammad, and they must pay 100 dinars, pure gold, on the month of Rajab, and they guarantee in the name of God that they’ll be loyal friends and act well towards the Muslims who turn to them for shelter due to fear or danger when they fear Muslims, and they can be certain Muhammad will not attack them without meeting with them first.”

“And the Messenger of Allah taxed the people of Eilat 300 dinars, and they numbered 300 men.”

“And the Messenger of Allah wrote to the residents of Jarba and Adhruh.  This is the letter of Prophet Muhammad to the residents of Jarba and Adhruh, that a treaty is given to them by Muhammad, and they need to pay 100 dinars of pure gold every month of Rajab.  And they guarantee this in the name of God.  and the Messenger of Allah wrote to the residents of Maqna, that they are to receive the protection of Allah and the protection of Muhammad, and they must give a quarter of their property and their boats.”

“Muhammad Ibn ‘Omar said Ibn Abu Zueiba said in the name of Salah, who lived under al-Tuema’s protection, that the Messenger of Allah made a pact with the residents of Maqna, in order to take a quarter of their fruits and a quarter of their textiles.  Muhammad Ibn ‘Omar said: The residents of Maqna were Jews who lived on the coast.  And the residents of Jarba [Prof. Moshe Gil adds: and Adhruh] were Jews as well.”

Jarba, Adhruh and Maqna are specified as Jewish.  Eilat had a significant Jewish community, and as we saw before, Muslim scholars throughout the ages fingered it as the town of Jews mentioned in the Quran.

Obama’s Head-in-the-Sand Speech About Terror

Sunday, May 26th, 2013

Originally published at Rubin Reports.

President Barack Obama’s speech at the National Defense University, “The Future of Our Fight against Terrorism” is a remarkable exercise in wishful thinking and denial. Here is basically what he says: the only strategic threat to the United States is posed by terrorists carrying out terrorist attacks.

In the 6400 words used by Obama, Islam only constitutes three of them and most interestingly in all three the word is used to deny that the United States is at war with Islam. In fact, that is what President George Bush said precisely almost a dozen years ago, after September 11. Yet why have not hundreds of such denials had the least bit of effect on the course of that war?

In fact, to prove that the United States is not at war with Islam, the Obama Administration has sided with political Islam throughout the Middle East, to the extent that some Muslims think Obama is doing damage to Islam, their kind of non-revolutionary Islam.

And how has the fight against al-Qaeda resulted in a policy that has, however inadvertently, armed al-Qaeda, as in Libya and Syria?

Once again, I will try to explain the essence of Obama strategy, a simple point that many people seem unable to grasp:

Obama views al-Qaeda as a threat because it wants to attack America directly with terrorism. But all other Islamist groups are not a threat. In fact, they can be used to stop al-Qaeda.

This is an abandonment of a strategic perspective. The word Islamism or political Islam or any other version of that word do not appear even once. Yet this is the foremost revolutionary movement of this era, the main threat in the world to U.S. interests and even to Western civilization.

If one wanted to come up with a slogan for the Obama Administration it would be that to win the war on terrorism one must lose the war on revolutionary Islamism because only by showing that America is the Islamists’ friend will it take away the incentive to join up with al-Qaeda and attack the United States.

Please take the two sections in bold above very seriously if you want to understand U.S. Middle East policy.

According to Obama:

If the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Egypt that is not a strategic threat but a positive advantage because it is the best organization able to curb al-Qaeda. And that policy proves that the United States is not at war with Islam.

If the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Tunisia that is not a strategic threat but a positive advantage because it is the best organization able to curb al-Qaeda. And that policy proves that the United States is not at war with Islam.

If the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Syria that is not a strategic threat but a positive advantage because it is the best organization able to curb al-Qaeda. And that policy proves that the United States is not at war with Islam.

If a regime whose viewpoint is basically equivalent to the Muslim Brotherhood—albeit far more subtle and culture—dominates Turkey that is not a strategic threat but a positive advantage because it is the best organization able to curb al-Qaeda. And that policy proves that the United States is not at war with Islam.

These and other strategic defeats do not matter, says Obama in effect:

After I took office, we stepped up the war against al Qaeda, but also sought to change its course. We relentlessly targeted al Qaeda’s leadership. We ended the war in Iraq, and brought nearly 150,000 troops home. We pursued a new strategy in Afghanistan, and increased our training of Afghan forces. We unequivocally banned torture, affirmed our commitment to civilian courts, worked to align our policies with the rule of law, and expanded our consultations with Congress.

And yet the Taliban is arguably close to taking over Afghanistan in future. The group has spread to Pakistan. The rule of law in Afghanistan is a joke and soldiers there know that the Afghan government still uses torture.

Today, Osama bin Laden is dead, and so are most of his top lieutenants. There have been no large-scale attacks on the United States, and our homeland is more secure. Fewer of our troops are in harm’s way, and over the next 19 months they will continue to come home. Our alliances are strong, and so is our standing in the world. In sum, we are safer because of our efforts.

Well, it is quite true that security measures within the United States have been largely successful at stopping attacks. But the frequency of attempted attacks has been extensive, some of which were blocked by luck and the expenditure of one trillion dollars. Country after country has been taken over by radical Islamists who can be expected to fight against American interests in future. Obama continues:

So America is at a crossroads. We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us…

But he never actually defines it except to suggest that (1) al-Qaeda has spread to other countries (which does not sound like a victory for the United States) and (2) That its affiliates and imitators are more amateurish than those who pulled off the September 11, 2001 attack. Yet they got away with the September 11, 2012 attack.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/analysis/rubin-reports/obamas-head-in-the-sand-speech-about-terror/2013/05/26/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: