It is a travesty that on the 12th anniversary of 9/11 President Barack Obama is poised to use our military to support Syrian rebels, many of whom pledge: “Death to America!”
Obama is prepared to take up arms against the Bashar Assad regime even though half of the anti-government rebels may be avid jihadists, some of whom have been busying themselves with SS-style executions of captured Syrian soldiers and attacks on Syrian Christians.
Last week, The Associated Press reported that “al-Qaida-linked fighters launched an assault on” the “Christian mountain village” of Maaloula, some 40 miles from Damascus. The rebels commandeered a mountaintop hotel and were shelling civilians, according to a nun who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Assad’s army, as brutal as it may be, had been protecting the village, whose residents speak a version of Aramaic, an ancient language that Christ is believed to have spoken.
“The stones are shaking,” a nun at Mar Takla told The AP. “We don’t know if the rebels have left or not. Nobody dares go out.”
The attacking of Christians by those supported by Obama is nothing new. It happened in Egypt. The recently overthrown Muslim Brotherhood destroyed churches and persecuted Christians. It is also an outspoken goal of some of the anti-Assad forces, including untold multitudes of al-Qaida affiliates that have entered the war and hail from as far away as Chechnya, the country of origin for the Boston bombers.
These are the same Syrian revolutionaries that Obama is risking world peace to defend with U.S. military might. The question we should ask is: Why? Some people within the Arab world think they know the answer, that Obama is a secret member of the Muslim Brotherhood.
So tweeted Shadi Hamid, director of research at the Brookings Center in Doha, Qatar.
If you missed it, “liberal” Egyptian newspaper has front page headline claiming Obama as full-on member of Muslim Brotherhood international.
— Shadi Hamid (@shadihamid) September 1, 2013
The allegation was printed in Egyptian newspaper Al-Wafd.
“One could hardly come up with a more explosive allegation about a U.S. president than secret membership in an Islamist group,” wrote The Blaze.
Jonathan Spyer, senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs Center and an Arabic speaker, talked to The Blaze about Al-Wafd’s allegation.
Spyer said Egyptians are angry at the Obama Administration for not taking a stand against the Muslim Brotherhood. “There is some degree of justification” in the accusation that Obama is pro-Muslim Brotherhood, according to Spyer, because the president has not condemned the group.
The truth is that Obama has come right to the edge of endorsing the Muslim Brotherhood. Last week, in a story titled “‘My Administration is Proud to be Your Partner’, Obama Tells Muslim Brotherhood Pro-Hamas Group,” Frontpage Mag wrote:
Obama taped a statement congratulating ISNA [Islamic Society of North America], an unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas Holy Land funding case, on its anniversary, telling the Muslim Brotherhood terror-linked front group, “My administration is proud to be your partner.”
ISNA’s president had met twice with Obama and Valerie Jarrett, making this a high end meeting. And Jarrett had addressed the ISNA convention back in 2009.
“Muslim Americans are integral part of our character and history and we rely on your innovation and entrepreneurship to help keep moving this country forward,” Obama told ISNA members. “Over the last half century, you have upheld the proud legacy of American Muslims’ contributions to our national fabric and this gathering is a testament of that tradition.”
Many people maintain that the ISNA is a front organization for the Muslim Brotherhood.
Obama’s Ridiculous ‘Red Line’ Excuse
Obama could write a book: How to Win Enemies and Influence Jihadists. The President has not improved the situation in the Mideast. And, after all, the region’s continual turmoil stems largely from American policy toward Saudi Arabia and Israel. Obama is simply aggravating the situation by attempting to drag America into another war in which some of those aided may bring terror to the United States in the future.
In May, I quoted the President in Paving the Road to Ruin with Islamists:
“We will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people.” Those are the words from President Barack Obama. He also warned that if the regime in Syria is using chemical weapons, it will have “crossed a red line” creating a “game changer” for his Administration.
The reasoning goes in Washington that America must stop Islamic religious and tribal factions from killing each other. Yet three thoughts come to mind:
- Does America not have bigger national security problems, namely North Korea and its long-range missiles, which may already carry nuclear warheads?
- If Muslims are killing each other, the Muslim extremists may be too busy to kill us.
- How in the world can military intervention in the Mideast do anything other than make things worse?
I have not seen a good answer from the Obama Administration on these issues. What I have seen is an Administration with help from neocons in the Republican Party itching to help radical elements in Syria, come whatever may. To have it their way, they are harping on the use of chemical weapons in Syria, allegedly by Assad. The warmongers are now saying it was not the President who set the red line on their use; it was the world.
Secretary of State John Kerry recently stated: “This really is not President Obama’s red line. The president drew a line that anyone should draw with respect to this convention that we have signed up to, and which has been in place since the horrors of World War I.”
Are you serious, Secretary Kerry? For someone who brags about his combat record in Vietnam and is a self-proclaimed “warrior,” you seem to know little about the facts of that war, a war which you later so vehemently opposed.
Some 388,000 tons of napalm were dropped on targets in Vietnam by the Pentagon, resulting in the death of countless women and children. Since Vietnam, the use of napalm has been banned.
When the US used firebombs against Saddam’s army in 2003, the Pentagon vociferously denied that it was napalm. It later explained it was another incendiary that did not yet have such a bad reputation.
In 2004, in Fallujah, Iraq, U.S. troops used white phosphorus against Iraqi insurgents. Only after the Pentagon was caught lying about its use did our government admit to it. That incident was documented in the Italian television report “Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre.” The ghastly images include video and photographs of dead Iraqi civilians not so different from those used by the Obama Administration to build its case for war against the Assad regime.
Imagine how our government would have reacted had Russia called those incidents the crossing of a red line and lined up an attack fleet off our coast to punish the Bush Administration. It is an absurd notion, mostly because America is strong. However, Syria is weak.
Dispense with these inconvenient truths, say the neocon Republicans and the Obama Democrats. After all, Obama has a war to be waged and just perhaps a greater jihad to inspire.
Today is a sad day, my friends, not only because it is the anniversary of 9/11 but also because, at the very least, our President is a penny wise and a pound stupid when it comes to preventing another 9/11.
Yours in good times and bad,