Obama has a way of making promises that aren’t credible…..

Hugh Fitzgerald

The Islamic State — the state that has nothing to do with Islam (Cameron, Hammond, Kerry, Obama, a cast of thousands) — has big plans for the next five years. Its quinquennium neronis includes the recovery of most of the lands of greatest immediate interest, that is those lands that, at some point, were ruled by Muslims: all of the Iberian peninsula, parts of both West and sub-Saharan Africa (on the theory of the grand but factitious empirate of Sokoto, the empire of Timbuktu, and so on and so fantastically forth), Sicily, Greece, the Balkans, much of central and eastern Europe, all of India, parts of what is now western China, all added to what is already, in their eyes, Dar al-Islam (but which will be a Dar al-Islam purged of the Shi’a and the insufficiently-Islamic “hypocrites” among the Sunnis).

Details in this article.

Robert Fulford: Obama’s world of wishes

obama-sickle“Now let’s make two things clear,” Barack Obama told the world on Wednesday, adopting a brisk schoolmaster’s tone. First, ISIS, the self-professed “Islamic state” that has taken over large parts of Syria and Iraq, is not actually Islamic. Why would he say that? Because, as Obama explained, “No religion condones the killing of innocents.”

(Islam doesn’t recognise a concept of “innocents”. Islam is not a religion but a monstrous ideology of genocide and eradication of unbelief.)

Since Obama is neither a Muslim nor a scholar, that judgement is above his pay grade, as he would put it. As Bernard Lewis, a great authority on Islam, puts it: “It is surely presumptuous for those who are not Muslims to say what is orthodox and what is heretical in Islam.”

It’s equally presumptuous for someone in Obama’s position to say what is a religion and what isn’t. If members of ISIS call themselves Muslims, they are Muslims. The U.S. President is relying on the world’s tolerance for politically correct claptrap, but this is going too far.

Even in his most confident moments, Obama falls into wish-it-were-true statements like that one. Now that he’s abandoned his moody disengagement and decided to lead the free world, what he says requires especially serious scrutiny.

American leadership is the one constant in an uncertain world, he declared. That was to explain why the United States is now leading a multi-national (including Canada) campaign to destroy ISIS, but it’s been a while since anyone considered American leadership “constant.”

Obama’s speech on Wednesday unquestionably was the major news event of the week, but on reflection it was not a happy experience for those who look for coherence and inspiration. In fact, it was standard Obama — its logic unsound, its rhetoric over-blown, its assumptions questionable. It contained little to reassure those who find ISIS threatening, and provided still less encouragement for those of Obama’s fellow Democrats who face the voters in the mid-term elections on Nov.4. Read it all…

2 thoughts on “Obama has a way of making promises that aren’t credible…..”

  1. 1. Bush 2006: World War III Coming If ‘Caliphate Capitol’ Established In Iraq


    I figured that out in 2006.

    My opinion is that the war on terror requires a caliphate to replace the USSR as an enemy. Thus, encouraging/supporting the founding of a caliphate is a Western policy requirement. A caliphate encompassing the entire ME with few exceptions, plus Afghanistan and Pakistan, allows the West to wage war on the entire region, instead of the piecemeal, each intervention requiring a SC resolution, sort of policy.

    Syria was going to be used as a target by Sunni/Muslim Brotherhood/ al Qaeda groups, under the cover of a free Syrian Army. Unfortunately, one group has gone just too far, and pressure from the public to attack ISIS has become intense. Note the hesitation in the US/UK power circles for attacking ISIS/ISIL. How can they?They funded it.

    A caliphate also allows a block policy of economic embargoes, and block restrictions on immigration, just as was done when dealing with the Warsaw pact. In addition, it allows the domestic surveillance and interdiction on a block basis ie Islam equivalent communism.

    The West is quite expert in handling a Cold war scenario.

    All done, while loudly insisting that Islam is the religion of peace, and the West is not at war with Islam.

    Surely it must excite curiosity by now, that ALL Western leaders, no exceptions, insist that 9/11, 7/7, Beslan, Madrid, beheadings, mass murder at Fort Hood, beheading of Lee Rigby etc etc have nothing to do with Islam, as Islam is the religion of peace. How can such unanimity exist for more then a decade, even when there changes changes in governments, unless there was some plan.

  2. Chloe Valdary: Stealing from the Palestinians

    Instead of condemning Abbas and the PA in the highest terms for their ill treatment of their people, we in the West have coddled them, made excuses for them, and have refrained from holding them accountable for their criminal activities. Moreover, we have proclaimed that in the name of peace, the Palestinian Arabs should be consigned to a life of perpetual misery and oppression by being made to live under the regime of the PA . We advocate for the sanctioning of the PA ’s war crimes vis-a-vis the creation of a Palestinian state while claiming that we care about the dignity and worth of Palestinian Arabs; this makes us accountable and guilty of giving the same lip service that Abbas gives to his people.
    Indeed, many in the West routinely praise Fatah as the more “moderate” party. Thus, reporters attempt to make it their business to be au courant with the Arab-Israeli conflict but often miss the nuances and idiosyncrasies that fuel and prolong they very hostilities they claim to hate.
    For example, in July, journalist and MSNBC commentator Rula Jebreal described Abbas in The Daily Beast as a “moderate,” who is allegedly “humiliated and ignored” by Israel. Haaretz columnist Peter Beinart also touts this line. He describes Abbas in an article as attempting “to bring [his] people dignity and justice” in contrast to Hamas. This is risible, to say the least; Abbas himself humiliates and ignores the plight of his own people. He encroaches upon their rights and rules by fiat; he is a dictator and there is no “justice” in this.
    Indeed, Abbas perpetuates and profits from his people’s misery – all while claiming it is Israel who is to blame. In this, Abbas is able to provide a smokescreen for his own misdeeds. Anytime poverty is rampant or some other ill befalls Arabs, Abbas can simply blame Israel — all while stealing money from his people.
    This is the real cycle of violence that fuels the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is a con game masterfully and brilliant played by Abbas and his ilk. The losers are the Arabs who are constantly told by the West that Abbas is the moderate savior who will rescue them from the sins of Israel. (h/t MtTB)

    The despicable Klintoons:
    Bill Clinton: Netanyahu ‘Not The Guy’ For Peace

Comments are closed.