web analytics
February 26, 2015 / 7 Adar , 5775
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘war on terror’

Jordan Bombs ISIS while US Debates

Friday, February 6th, 2015

Jordan vowed to chased the Islamic State (ISIS) “wherever they are” in Iraq as well as in Syria while President Barack Obama is afraid to be more aggressive in the face of Congressional ambivalence.

Following Thursday’s raids by Jordan that hit ISIS training centers and weapons storage sites, Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh told Fox News:

We said we are going to take this all the way, we are going to go after them wherever they are and we’re doing that.They’re in Iraq and they are in Syria and therefore you have to target them wherever they are.

U.S. military aircraft provided intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance to Jordan.

Jordan has a stronger reason than the United Starts to attack ISIS because the terrorist organization controls parts of two countries on Amman’s borders, and Kong Abdullah does not have to deal with the Constitution, Congress and leftist media. However, the ISIS has been a golden opportunity for President Obama to show the world that the United States still is a world leader.

The U.S. Air Force has joined the strike force. That helps Obama “spread the blame” but he also will to spread the credit when ISIS finally is defeated.

Most Americans favor the U.S. Air Force’s bombing of ISIS targets, and Obama has the back of the Western world, shocked by ISIS barbarity. The ISIS is an easier target than a country with established leaders, such as Syrian president  Bashar al-Assad, but Obama reflects the timidity of an American that has lost its confidence.

Previous presidents have launched military attacks on Serbia, Panama, Grenada, and even the Korean War was carried out without Congressional approval. Obama authorized bombing Libya without asking Congress.

Obama has not relied on his presidential power to  bomb the ISIS to smithereens.

Instead, he has been leaning on previous authorization from Congress to support the American participation in the war on terror.

Despite polls that show backing for U.S. bombing missions against ISIS, Americans are paralyzed by dumb, costly and useless wars, dating back to the war in Vietnam and including the supposed “defeat” of terror in Iraq and Afghanistan.

President Obama is prepared to ask Congress for specific authority to bomb the ISIS, but Congress is doing a good of talking. Wimpy Democrats want a time frame that would place a deadline so that military operations won’t drag on like previous wars.

Republican House Speaker John Boehner put the onus on the president to convince the American people. He said Thursday:

His actions are going to be an important part of trying for us to get the votes to actually pass an authorization. This is not going to be an easy lift.

Democrats are hesitant and want any authorization to be limited for three years, while most  Republicans want a broader authorization.

Republican Sen. John McCain said Thursday, “Overall, there’s still no strategy from this administration as to how to combat ISIS.”

Secretary of Defense nominee Ashton Carter told McCain at a Senate hearing on Wednesday that he “absolutely” believes the U.S. needs an ISIS strategy, but he disappointed McCain when asked for specifics.

“I think the strategy connects ends and means…to strengthen” Iraq’s security forces…and to try to build the forces to keep them defeated” in Syria, he said.

McCain shot back, “Well, it doesn’t sound like a strategy to me.”

Obama Wins War on Terror By Saying It Doesn’t Exist [video]

Friday, January 30th, 2015

The White House said that Taliban is an “armed insurgency” and not a terrorist group, a handy semantic tactic to allow President Barack Obama to declare he was won the war on terror.

It is strange why no one thought of this solution before. You get rid of terror simply by re-defining it. Perhaps he has learned from the Palestinian Authority how to re-write the dictionary. Mahmoud Abbas has convinced the world that “ultimatum,” as in “Israel must agree to my terms or else,” actually mean “negotiations.”

So is Taliban a terrorist organization?

ABC News’ Jon Karl asked White House Press Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz Wednesday how the government can explain if there is any difference between a Jordanian and Americans agreement to free terrorists in return for the release of hostages.

Jordan has agreed to trade a convicted terrorists for the release by the ISIS of one of their air force pilots. Karl asked if Jordan simply is not doing exactly what the United States did when it agreed to release five Taliban leaders from Guantanamo Bay in return for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

Karl pointed out that Taliban ”is clearly a terrorist organization,” like ISIS.

No, no, no, said Schultz.

“We don’t make concessions to terrorist groups,” he said, assuring reporters that the Islamic State “is a terrorist group.”

But what about Taliban?

Wasn’t Taliban once the ruling government of Afghanistan that refused to hand over members of Al Qaeda who were allegedly involved in the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington?

Doesn’t Taliban maintain a powerful force in Afghanistan and Pakistan from where it attacks U.S. soldiers as well as children in a Pakistani school?

Isn’t Taliban included in the State Dept.’s Specially Designated Global Terrorist list?

Doesn’t the  National Counterterrorism Center list the “Taliban Presence in Afghanistan” on a map of global terrorism presences?

The answer to all of these questions is, “yes.”

So Taliban is a terrorist group,. right?

Schultz said:

     I don’t think that the Taliban, um — uh – the Taliban is an armed insurgency.

White House Press Secretary tried a bit of damage control on Thursday.

 “They [Taliban] do carry out tactics that are akin to terrorism. They do pursue terror attacks in an effort to try to advance their agenda,” he told reporters.

Nu?

Well, says Earnest, “it’s important to draw a distinction between the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The Taliban has resorted to terror tactics, but those terror tactics have principally been focused on Afghanistan” although many American personnel and soldiers in Afghanistan “are in harm’s way.

Got it? Taliban only uses “terror tactics.” If it quacks, it doesn’t mean it’s a duck. Maybe it’s a ventriloquist.

“The Taliban is a very dangerous organization,” Earnest admitted but it still is different from ISIS.

His twisted narrative goes like this:

         What the President has pursued is a clear strategy for building up the central government of Afghanistan and the Afghan security forces, so that they could be responsible for security in their own country and take the fight to the Taliban

That, however, is different than the strategy that we have pursued against Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization that has aspirations that extend beyond just the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan..

Al-Qaeda and their affiliates around the globe have sought to carry out terror attacks against Americans and American interests all around the globe….

There’s no doubt that the threat from the Taliban is different than the threat that is posed by al-Qaeda.

By that reasoning, Hamas is not a terrorist group because it is not a worldwide threat.

Canadian Foreign Minister Baird ‘Shoulder-to-Shoulder’ with Israel

Monday, January 19th, 2015

Visiting Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird told Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu Monday, “Canada doesn’t stand behind Israel; we stand shoulder-to-shoulder with it.”

Baird won a warm welcome in Jerusalem after Sunday’s visit to his Palestinian Authority counterpart in Ramallah, where his car was pelted by eggs thrown by demonstrators waiting outside the Canadian offices in the city.

Netanyahu told Baird Monday, “To fight Islamist terrorism, we need clarity and courage. Canada has both. You know who is the aggressor; you know who is the defender. You know that Israel legitimately defends itself against the war crimes of Hamas and other terrorist groups. You know that it’s a travesty of justice to haul Israel to the dock in The Hague, and you know that the entire system of international law could unravel because of this travesty.”

Baird declared, “The great struggle of our generation is terrorism and far too often the State of Israel and the Jewish people around the world are on the front lines of that struggle.”

Netanyahu Thanks French Jews for Warm Welcome

Monday, January 12th, 2015

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu met with French Jewish leaders Monday morning and said that that terrorism will spread and worsen if the world does not join forces to fight it.

“Israel supports Europe in the struggle against terrorism and the time has come for Europe to support Israel in the exact same struggle, he said.

The Prime Minister tried to make believe that French officials did not want him to attend yesterday’s massive solidarity rally and said, “As soon as the security problem was resolved, thus allowing me to come, it was natural that I come here, it was important that I come here and therefore I came here.

“There is great significance in what the world saw, the Prime Minister of Israel marching with all the world leaders in a united effort against terrorism, or at least in a call for unity.”

Prime Minister Netanyahu also told French leaders, “Yesterday’s event in the La Victoire synagogue was emotional. I was also moved at the meeting with the bereaved families. I embraced the two brothers and I told them that I understand their feelings very well and that the entire Jewish People embraces the families. This was a moment of genuine Jewish solidarity. The visit to Paris was also a moment of general solidarity with humanity.”

Netanyahu Reassures Israel: War Mode until Total Quiet

Wednesday, August 20th, 2014

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu took to the air waves Wednesday night to reassure the country that the war against Hamas will continue until there is total security, peace and quiet not only for residents in southern Israel but also for all of the country.

The rah-rah speeches by the Prime Minister, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon and IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz included nothing that was not said in the past but were a clear message to the people of Israel and to Hamas that the resumption of missile attacks on Israel has deepened the government and military’s resolve to put an end once and for all to nearly a decade of rocket, mortar shell and missile s launched from Gaza at Israel, from the Gaza border to the north.

“We are taking all means to reach the objective and bring complete quiet,” Netanyahu said.” Operation Protective Edge has not ended, not even for a second,”

He recounted the heavy damage the IDF inflicted on the hams terrorist infrastructure but left unsaid that the “heavy blow” to Hamas has not deterred the terrorist organization from continuing to place most of Israel under daily and nightly rocket attacks.

“We will not stop until there is total security to southern Israel and to all citizens of the country,” he added.

“Our policy is simple. Shoot? You will get it back,” Netanyahu asserted. “If Hamas does not understand that today, it will understand tomorrow. If not tomorrow, then in two days because in the Middle East, it not just a matter of force but a matter of continued force.”

The IDF has called up more reservists and has recalled thousands of reservists who have been on an extended leave of absence. Plans for a massive ground incursion have been drawn out although it may be the last option the government and military want to exercise.

The Prime Minister sounds like he means what he says. The goal of the war has changed from destroying terror tunnels to a broader but an indefinite objective that will require an even stronger retaliation.

After nearly a decade, it’s about time, isn’t it?

Al-Qaeda Threat to Shutter US MidEast Embassies Sunday

Friday, August 2nd, 2013

The U.S. State Department Spokeswoman Marie Harf gave an initial heads up at the State Department press conference on Thursday afternoon, August 1, that “certain U.S. embassies and consulates to remain closed or to suspend operations on Sunday, August 4.”

It was later disclosed that all U.S. embassies and consulates across the Middle East and in parts of Asia will be closed on Sunday.

The reason for the unprecedented closure is a possible al-Qaeda-related threat to diplomatic posts.

As NBSNews.com noted, Sunday is President Barack Obama’s 52nd birthday, and it’s also the day Iran inaugurates Hassan Rowhani as its new president. But U.S. officials told NBC News they had heard nothing to indicate that the date was chosen for either of those reasons.

ABC news had even more specific information.  Reporters there claimed that a U.S. official had said the closings were due to a credible and serious security threat of the targeting of an “embassy or consulate in a Muslim country.”

“We just don’t know which one,” the official told ABC News.

According to CBSNews.com, as of 7:35 PM ET Thursday, at least 14 embassies had announced that they will close on Sunday in accordance with the State Department’s guidance.  These include the U.S. embassies in Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Afghanistan and Bangladesh.

“There could be other targets, not just embassies,” another U.S. official said. The threat is considered to be throughout the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia.

U.S. Ambassadors, and not the State Department, usually determine when an embassy will close.  This is an unusual step.

It is possible the diplomatic posts will remain closed past Sunday.

Winning the war on terrorism?  Defeated al-Qaeda?  Doesn’t sound like it.

The Jewish Press will continue to update this story as details become available.

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: