The New York Times Destroys Obama

nytoSo pathetically, in a bid to defend Obama and Clinton and the rest of the Democrats, the Times published a report that showed that Obama’s laser like focus on the Zawahiri-controlled faction of al Qaida has endangered the US.

By failing to view as enemies any other terror groups — even if they have participated in attacks against the US – and indeed, in perceiving them as potential allies, Obama has failed to defend against them. Indeed, by wooing them as future allies, Obama has empowered forces as committed as al Qaida to defeating the US.

Again, it is not at all apparent that the Times realized what it was doing. But from Israel to Egypt, to Iran to Libya to Lebanon, it is absolutely clear that Obama and his colleagues continue to implement the same dangerous, destructive agenda that defeated the US in Benghazi and will continue to cause US defeat after US defeat.

By Caroline Glick:

The New York Times just delivered a mortal blow to the Obama administration and its Middle East policy.

Call it fratricide. It was clearly unintentional. Indeed, is far from clear that the paper even realizes what it has done.

Last Saturday the Times published an 8,000 word account by David Kirkpatrick detailing the terrorist strike against the US consulate and the CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. In it, Kirkpatrick tore to shreds the foundations of President Barack Obama’s counter-terrorism strategy and his overall policy in the Middle East.

Obama first enunciated those foundations in his June 4, 2009 speech to the Muslim world at Cairo University. Ever since, they have been the rationale behind US counter-terror strategy and US Middle East policy.

Obama’s first assertion is that radical Islam is not inherently hostile to the US. As a consequence, America can appease radical Islamists. Moreover, once radical Muslims are appeased, they will become US allies, (replacing the allies the US abandons to appease the radical Muslims).

Obama’s second strategic guidepost is his claim that the only Islamic group that is a bona fide terrorist organization is the faction of al Qaida directly subordinate to Osama bin Laden’s successor Ayman al-Zawahiri. Only this group cannot be appeased and must be destroyed through force.

The administration has dubbed the Zawahiri faction of al Qaida “core al Qaida.” And anyone who operates in the name of al Qaida, or any other group, that does not have courtroom certified operational links to Zawahiri, is not really al Qaida, and therefore, not really a terrorist group or a US enemy.

These foundations have led the US to negotiate with the Taliban in Afghanistan. They are the rationale for the US’s embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood worldwide. They are the basis for Obama’s allegiance to Turkey’s Islamist government, and his early support for the Muslim Brotherhood dominated Syrian opposition.

They are the basis for the administration’s kneejerk support for the PLO against Israel.

Obama’s insistent bid to appease Iran, and so enable the mullocracy to complete its nuclear weapons program is similarly a product of his strategic assumptions. So too, the US’s current diplomatic engagement of Hezbollah in Lebanon owes to the administration’s conviction that any terror group not directly connected to Zawahiri is a potential US ally.

From the outset of the 2011 revolt against the regime of Muammar Qaddafi in Libya, it was clear that a significant part of the opposition was comprised of jihadists aligned if not affiliated with al Qaida. Benghazi was specifically identified by documents seized by US forces in Iraq as a hotbed of al Qaida recruitment.

Obama and his advisors dismissed and ignored the evidence. The core of al Qaida, they claimed was not involved in the anti-Qaddafi revolt. And to the extent jihadists were fighting Qaddafi, they were doing so as allies of the US.

In other words, the two core foundations of Obama’s understanding of terrorism and of the Muslim world were central to US support for the overthrow of Muammar Qaddafi.

With Kirkpatrick’s report, the Times exposed the utter falsity of both.

Read more at Front Page

Related articles

Yes, Al-Qaeda ‘Infiltrated’ Libya

ben4by :

The New York Times’ conclusion that Al-Qaeda was not involved in last year’s attack on Ambassador Stevens in Libya—or even “infiltrated” Libya to begin with—is an example of a misleading game of semantics. The definition of “enemy” and even “Al-Qaeda” is becoming narrower and narrower, moving us closer to a more comforting (but incomplete) picture of the danger the West faces from Islamism.

The Times writes that an Islamist militia leader named Ahmed Abu Khattala is the almost certain culprit behind the Benghazi attacks, even if he denies it. This fact is used to deny Al-Qaeda’s role, along with the premise that there are two distinctly separate groups named Ansar al-Sharia and the one linked to Al-Qaeda cannot be implicated.

Khattala denies that he and his Obeida Ibn Al-Jarra militia are tied to Al-Qaeda. To the Times, the lack of an operational link is equivalent to no link at all, but the two are connected ideologically. Khattala is openly anti-American and approved of the Benghazi attacks. Both agree in violent retribution for mockery of their faith because of their common Sharia doctrine.

According to the Times’ own previous reporting, an Islamist group named Ansar al-Sharia is suspected of involvement. The Times confirms, “Witnesses at the scene of the attack identified many participants associated with Ansar al-Shariah.

Its leader, Mohammed Ali al-Zahawi, said he disagrees that Western diplomats in Libya are legitimate targets and, “If it had been our attack on the U.S. Consulate, we would have flattened it.”

There are two groups named Ansar al-Sharia in Libya, one in Benghazi that may share responsibility, and one in Derna, led by Sufian bin Qumu.

Qumu was once a driver for a company owned by Osama Bin Laden. He was captured in Pakistan and spent six years in Guantanamo Bay before returning to Derna. His Al-Qaeda links are solid, but the Times reports that his Ansar al-Sharia was uninvolved in the Benghazi attacks.

Thomas Joscelyn persuasively argues that this is not the case. The two have a common name, branding and propaganda publisher. The Times also fails to answer an important question: If the two groups are truly separate, why wouldn’t one avoid the confusion by changing its name?

Even the use of the name “Ansar al-Sharia” is rooted in Al-Qaeda. The name first appeared in Yemen as a front for Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. We know from Osama Bin Laden’s records that were captured in Pakistan that he planned to change Al-Qaeda’s name and wanted affiliates to portray themselves as wholly independent.

study by the American Federation of Scientists in August 2012, one month before the Benghazi attacks, confirmed that Al-Qaeda had a “core network” in Libya “but it remains clandestine and refrains from using the Al-Qaeda name.” It predicts that Al-Qaeda will continue to “mask its presence under the umbrella of the Libyan Salafist movement.”

Read more at Front Page

House Intelligence chair: Benghazi attack ‘Al Qaeda-led event’

565x264xliars-benghazi1-e1350921614537.jpg.pagespeed.ic.ZXNibWKeYuBy Catherine Herridge:

The 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya was an “Al Qaeda-led event” according to multiple on-the-record interviews with the head of the House Intelligence Committee who receives regular classified briefings and has access to the raw intelligence to make independent assessments.

“I will tell you this, by witness testimony and a year and a half of interviewing everyone that was in the ground by the way, either by an FBI investigator or the committee: It was very clear to the individuals on the ground that this was an Al Qaeda-led event. And they had pretty fairly descriptive events early on that lead those folks on the ground, doing the fighting, to the conclusion that this was a pre-planned, organized terrorist event,” Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., told Fox News in a November interview.

“Not a video, that whole part was debunked time and time again,” Rogers added of the attack which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, Foreign Service officer Sean Smith and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, “which just leads to questions of why the administration hung with that narrative for so long when all the folks who participated on the ground saw something different.”

The comments challenged the findings of a New York Times “investigation” which pointed instead to local militias and claimed an anti-Islam video played a role in inciting the attackers.

Asked in November what might explain the initial narrative that an anti-Islam film triggered the attack, Rogers did not answer directly but said all evidence points to the State Department, whose leadership skirted the security requirements for the Benghazi mission. “We think we can fairly sense what was going on here and I will tell you, the answers, I think, are going to lie within the State Department and the decision-making in the State Department,” he said. “Lots of questions to be answered there.”

In the same interview,  Rogers also suggested there were attempts to connect between the assailants and the Al Qaeda senior leadership in Pakistan. “I can tell you we know the participants of the event were clearly Al Qaeda affiliates, had strong interest and desire to communicate with Al Qaeda core and others, in the process — we believe before and after the event.”

While there was no immediate response from the White House, State Department, National Security Council or Rogers to a New York Times investigation that “turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault,”  the Republican congressman who leads the House Intelligence Committee has consistently maintained, in on-the-record interviews, that the attack was premeditated terrorism and not linked to the anti-Islam film initially blamed by the Obama White House.

Read more at Fox News

Failing to Know Our Enemies

pic_giant_121913_SM_Failing-to-Know-Our-EnemeisBy Clifford D. May:

Less than a generation after World War II, in the midst of a cold war whose outcome was far from certain, John F. Kennedy famously proclaimed that Americans would “support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” More than half a century later, in an era fraught with conflict and tension, it may be time to ask: Is that still our credo?

In particular, are Americans still committed to liberty — a word that has come to sound old-fangled? Can our friends still rely upon our support — even when the going gets tough? Do foes still have reason to fear us — or have we become too war-weary to effectively oppose them? And those nations that profess friendship but seek to ingratiate themselves with our foes — what are we to do about them?

These questions, I suspect, will require a great deal more study, thought, and debate before they can be adequately answered. But 34 years after the Iranian Revolution, and twelve years after the attacks of 9/11, we at least should know our enemies. And we should have settled on a strategy aimed at defeating them. But we don’t. And we haven’t.

Many of us turn away from an uncomfortable truth: The ideologies most hostile to America and the West have arisen in what we have come to call the Muslim world. These ideologies are not just intolerant but supremacist — which is why, within the Muslim world, religious minorities face increasing oppression and, in many cases, “religious cleansing,” a trend Western governments, the U.N., and most of the media avoid discussing.

Most Muslims do not embrace these ideologies. But for a host of reasons — fear undoubtedly high among them — neither are most Muslims battling them or even denouncing them publicly and without equivocation.

There is this positive development: In the media, resistance to calling a spade a spade is, finally, breaking down. Take, for example, this recent New York Times headline: “Mali: French Troops Battle Islamists.” That’s accurate: The French have not intervened in Africa to battle “violent extremists.”

Read more at National Review

The End of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Syrian Scam

fsby :

The Free Syrian Army had one purpose. To fool America. Now the con is over.

In the deserts of the Middle East, political mirages appear easily and disappear just as easily. There are countries and armies that exist only on paper. And there are invisible tribal nations that have no flag and never appear on a map, but that have their own militias and govern themselves.

The Middle East as it exists neatly laid out in the pages of the New York Times or the Washington Post has little relationship to the messy realities of a region with few clean borders, only messy collections of tribes, families, ethnic groups and quarreling variations of Islam clinging to a few miles of dusty land, a handful of olive groves, some oil wells and their children and machine guns.

Out in Syria, the mirage of the Free Syrian Army, its camps full of soldiers defecting from the military to form a secular liberation force, has dissipated, vanishing into the sand. And all it took to knock down the Potemkin villages of the FSA that never existed was an attack on the only part of the Free Syrian Army that did exist—its warehouses full of American and European military aid.

The Free Syrian Army never existed. What did exist was neither free, nor Syrian, nor an army. The FSA was sold as an army of Syrian soldiers who had banded together under defecting officers to fight against the Assad government. The real FSA mostly consisted of Islamic brigades, indistinguishable for the most part from the other Salafist brigades in the war.  Some of these brigades were affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood whose local allies, Turkey and Qatar, were the war’s biggest backers.

Perhaps even the war’s inventors.

And yet even this FSA, the one that was later being described as a collection of “moderate” Islamic militias, was just as much of an illusion. Like the attempt to draw lines around tribal encampments and call the whole thing a country, the Free Syrian Army was really a collection of militias with little in the way of an organizing structure except a willingness to identify casually with the FSA in the hopes of scoring some loot from those warehouses of American aid … and the promised American air support.

The units in the Free Syrian Army were not monogamous. They operated with the Al Nusra Front, one of the Al Qaeda groups in Syria, and any of the wannabe Caliphs and Emirs of the other Islamist militias. Their commanders and their men were out for themselves, switching team alliances as easily as reality show contestants, but with much bloodier results.

Read more at Front Page

Also see:

 

Guest Column: Turkey’s Democratic Reforms Aren’t All That Democratic

by Abigail R. Esman:

 

Somali Norwegian Al Shabaab Suspects Revealed in Nairobi Westgate Mall Attack

Al Shabaab attackers inside Nairobi Westgate Mall Source:  Reuters

Al Shabaab attackers inside Nairobi Westgate Mall
Source: Reuters

By Jerry Gordon:

Both the New York Times and CNN have new reports discussing Norwegian Somali émigrés, including the planner involved in the  Al Shabaab attack on the Nairobi Westgate mall, September 21, 2013. See our NER report in the current October 2013 edition, “Al Shabaab is a Threat to the World at Large.” These latest reports resulted from Norwegian  Intelligence  (PST) investigations in both Norway and Kenya.   As noted in our October 10 Iconoclast post of a Long War Journal report , one of the Norwegian suspects was the subject of a failed US Navy Seals Raid at Baraawe in Somalia. We noted:

The Norwegian intelligence agency PST today announced the launch of an investigation into reports that a Norwegian was involved in the Shabaab massacre at the Westgate Mall in Kenya. The suspect is a Norwegian of Somali origin, and may be an acquaintance of the al Qaeda affiliate’s external operations chief, Abdulkadir Mohamed Abdulkadir, also known as Ikrima.

According to the BBC, the PST has dispatched investigators to Kenya to determine the extent of the Norwegian suspect’s involvement and to help prevent new terror threats. The inquiry also aims to see if the suspect is linked to Shabaab. PST section leader Jan Glent also said he could not rule out “more Norway-linked suspects,” Reuters reported.

These latest reports also reflect the forensic remains  that were found of only four Al Shabaab fighters secured from the rubble of the Westgate Mall in the rampage that killed 67 and wounded hundreds.  More than 1,000 escaped the upscale Nairobi mall that sustained significant and extensive damage from the counter attack by Kenyan security forces.

Watch this latest Reuters footage of the Westgate Mall CCTV video from the attack that was released on Thursday, October 17, 2013.

Counterterrorism officials who follow Al Shabaab movements in the West warn about the al Qaeda affiliate group’s ability to range beyond war torn Somalia to hit targets in major émigré centers.  The  US and Scandinavia being illustrative of what we have discussed in several Iconoclast posts and a major NER article, Foot Soldiers of IslamOne expert quoted in the CNN report on these latest developments in Norway commented:

“What you have to look out for, also in the United States and the United Kingdom and all these other Scandinavian countries, are these small  networks that are in one sense detached also from the Somali community leaders — radicalized groups of youths and radical preachers, sheikhs, that go traveling around the various countries to try to incite,” he said. “That’s what we have to watch these days.”

CNN profiled  Shabaab commander, Ikrima, a Kenyan Somali Muslim who spent time in Norway:

Kenyan intelligence sources say that Ikrima, who speaks six languages and grew up in Kenya, is the main “point person” between al Qaeda in Somalia and al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and that he has helped pinpoint Kenyan targets.

Morten Storm, a former informant who has worked for several Western intelligence agencies, has told CNN that he developed a close relationship with an Al-Shabaab figure called Ikrima between 2008 and 2012. He said he is confident that it’s the same person who was targeted by U.S. forces.

Read more at New English Review

Kenya mall attackers prayed, talked on cell phone between shootings:

Funding Jihadists while Denying Military Benefits

download (51)By Andrew C. McCarthy:

Here is where we’re at: The Republican establishment — the guys who told us that for a trillion dollars and several thousand American casualties, we could build “Islamic democracies” that would be reliable U.S. allies in the War on Terror — say it is Ted Cruz who is “delusional” and the effort to stave off Obamacare that is “unattainable.”

These self-appointed sages are, of course, the same guys who told us the way to “stabilize” and “democratize” Libya was to help jihadists topple and kill the resident dictator — who, at the time, was a U.S. ally, providing intelligence about the jihadists using his eastern badlands as a springboard for the anti-American terror insurgency in Iraq. That’s probably worth remembering this week, during which some of our new “allies” abducted Libya’s president while others car-bombed Sweden’s consulate in Benghazi — site of the still unavenged terrorist massacre of American ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. officials 13 months ago.

Not to worry, though. So successful do they figure the Libyan escapade was, GOP leaders are backing a reprise in Syria. It is there, we learn from a Human Rights Watch report issued this week, that our new “allies,” the al-Qaeda-rife “rebels,” executed a savage atrocity just two months ago. Sweeping into the coastal village of Latakia, the jihadists slaughtered 190 minority Alawites. As the New York Times details, “at least 67 of the dead appeared to have been shot or stabbed while unarmed or fleeing, including 48 women and 11 children.” More than 200 other civilians were captured and are still being held hostage.

So that’s going well.

And, you’ll be pleased to know, supporting the Syrian “rebels” is a high enough priority that it’s not part of the 17 percent of the federal government affected by the “shutdown.” America’s enemies are still receiving taxpayer-funded weapons, so that they can fight America’s other enemies, the Assad regime, to what Washington hopes will be a resounding victory. Er . . . check that — to what the administration hopes will be . . . a tie. The administration also let slip this week that it is arming our preferred jihadists so they can grind to a stalemate with Russia’s preferred jihadists — after all, we wouldn’t want to upset Iran’s ruling jihadists after they’ve just finally deigned to take, yes, a phone call from our pleading president after blowing him off in New York.

Read more at National Review

 

“U.S. and Turkey to Create Fund to Stem Extremism”

2427by Daniel Pipes:

That looks like a parody headline but it’s the entirely serious title of a New York Times article by Eric Schmitt. Some details: John Kerry and Ahmet Davutoğlu announced today at a meeting of the Global Counterterrorism Forum

the creation of a $200 million fund [over a ten-year period] to combat violent extremism by undercutting the ideological and recruiting appeal of jihadists in places like Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan. …

 

The new fund, formally called the Global Fund for Community Engagement and Resilience, will for the first time combine financing from both government and nongovernment entities to identify credible local organizations; develop, monitor and evaluate programs; and channel funds to local projects that target groups and individuals vulnerable to appeals from terrorist groups. It is expected to be operational by mid-2014, officials said. …

Grants from the fund would provide vocational training to youths at risk of being recruited by terrorist organizations; new school curriculums that teach tolerance and problem solving; and Web sites and social networks to educate youth about the dangers of violent extremist ideologies.

So, Washington will partner with the government of Turkey, arguably the most consequential Islamist organization in the world after the Islamic Republic of Iran, to combat the radicalization of Muslim youth. Put differently, American taxpayer dollars will help members of a non-violent extremist ideology to educate youth “about the dangers of violent extremist ideologies.”.

To make matters worse:

  • The Global Counterterrorism Forum that was opened in Istanbul by Hillary Clinton and Davutoğlu in June 2012 included 30 founding members, but excluded Israel. (State Department officials argued, of course, that this actually benefits the Jewish state.)
 

Hillary Clinton and Ahmet Davutoğlu, smiling at their handiwork.

  • Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the prime minister of Turkey, in recent days conspicuously avoided condemning the Nairobi mall attack that killed 67 civilians and soldiers.
  • His AKP government is supporting Al-Qaeda-linked jihadis fighting the Assad government in Syria.
  • Note the totally euphemistic name of the new organization, the “Global Fund for Community Engagement and Resilience.” As I keep saying, you can’t defeat an enemy if you dare not mention its name.

This whole things sounds really smart to me. Just the sort of thing the Obama administration geniuses would come up with. (September 27, 2013)

Egyptian Court Bans the Muslim Brotherhood

MB supporters in EgyptBY RYAN MAURO:

The Muslim Brotherhood has been banned by an Egyptian court and all of its assets frozen. An arrest warrant was also issued for SheikhYousef al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader who is based in Qatar. Fears of a backlash from the Brotherhood are well-grounded, but it won’t be a popular backlash.

Aware of how the Muslim Brotherhood often operates through fronts with different names, the court ruling left no wiggle room. It stated that the ban also applies to “any institution breathing out of it or … receiving financial support from it.”

The Brotherhood will make a lot of angry noise and its ideological colleagues in America, like the Islamic Circle of North America and the Muslim American Society, will again come to its side. But don’t let the media-savvy Brotherhood trick you into thinking there is popular outrage about its treatment.

After the violent crackdown on the Brotherhood’s “peaceful” sit-ins began, the Egyptian military was criticized by the U.S., but a statement buried in a New York Times article told the truth: “[M]any Islamists waited confidently for a surge of sympathetic support from the broader public. But it failed to materialize.”

The banning of a political party like the Brotherhood may repulse Westerners, but most Egyptians no longer view the Brotherhood as a legitimate political party. And, remember, this is the same Egyptian population that voted it into power.

The Egyptian Center for Public Opinion Research found that 69% of Egyptians completely oppose a political role for the Brotherhood. Another 13% want to ban the Brotherhood as a political party, but not as a religious organization. An astonishingly small portion, only 6%, said they support future Brotherhood political involvement.

Read more at The Clarion Project

Also see:

 

The Only Commonality is Mass Killing

by Anat Berko:

 

Syria Round-Up: Tests, Posturing and Politics

syriaForMax-2by IPT News:

Egyptian Anti-Islamists: 10 Videos the Media Isn’t Showing

An Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood supporter vows jihad and terror against those who oppose former Egyptian Islamist president Mohammed Morsi. (YouTube screenshot)

BY RYAN MAURO:

If you’re getting your news about Egypt from the mainstream media and the Obama Administration, you’re probably feeling sorry for the “peaceful demonstrators” of the Muslim Brotherhood—but there’s a different side to the story; one that the Egyptian anti-Islamist activists are eager to show.

“Egypt is feeling severe bitterness towards some Western media coverage that is biased to the Muslim Brotherhood and ignores shedding light on violent and terror acts that are perpetrated by the group … ,” the Egyptian State Information Service said in an official statement on August 17.

The statement details facts that the Western media is not covering, such as the “peaceful” protestors’ damaging of public and private property including the burning and destruction of churches, storming of and damage to police stations and blocking of roads.

Foreign extremists from the Palestinian territories, Syria and Pakistan have joined the Egyptian militants in committing these acts of violence.

“[V]ehicles have entered Ramsis square, in Cairo downtown, carrying masked elements carrying the black flag of Al-Qaeda along with automatic weapons amid celebrations by the Muslim Brotherhood elements who were present in the square,” the State Information Service said.

The defection of a Muslim Brotherhood official named Amr Amara substantiates the accounts of the Egyptian government and the anti-Islamist activists. He was a strong Brotherhood supporter until he saw the group provoke the violence that caught the world’s attention.

“[W]e realized that the group [MB] was trading with the blood of its youth and innocent demonstrators, which pushed us to leave the sit-in on Tuesday August 6 and found this coalition [which] aims to pull the group off the wrong track which might endanger its own existence and extinguish it forever,” he says.

The tone of Egyptian social media outlets and activists, including some specifically translated for the Clarion Project, reflects this frustration. You won’t blame them after watching these videos. 

Conclusions

The Western media needs to be taken to task. The violence in Egypt — and the Brotherhood’s manipulation of it — is going to continue. Brotherhood spiritual leader Yousef al-Qaradawi recently declaredthat the Egyptian government is guilty of a greater massacre than even Israel.

Think about that. The top Brotherhood spiritual guide claims that the Egyptian government has shed more Muslim blood than Israel — its number one enemy. And we know the type of violence that Qaradawi and the Brotherhood/Hamas support against Israel.

Comparing the Egyptian government’s alleged sins to those of Israel is nothing less than a declaration of war—or, in Islamic terminology, jihad.

Read the rest at The Clarion Project

A Terror Leader Behind Bars in Egypt

000_Nic506946by :

The supreme leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, the head of the Islamist snake, Muhammad Badie—who had slipped security forces by traveling in and out of the Brotherhood torture camps (known as “peaceful sits ins” by the mainstream media”)—has finally been arrested in Egypt and is awaiting trial.  Not only was he the leader of the Brotherhood, but, according to Brotherhood members themselves, he was giving orders to his underling, Muhammad Morsi, the now ousted Egyptian president.

Among other serious accusations, Badie is being charged with inciting widespread terrorism and murder and playing a key role in the current violence and unrest in Egypt—also known as “the jihad”—which has led to the destruction of some 80 Christian churches and monasteries, the violent slaughters of Egyptian police, and any number of other criminal activities.

If Badie, as a Brotherhood member on live TV inadvertently admitted, used to order president Morsi around, surely his authority over the average Brotherhood member—the very fellows now burning and slaughtering—was ironclad.

Nor was Badie’s terrorism limited to domestic Egypt. After his protégée Morsi became president, an emboldened Badie publicly proclaimed “the necessity for every Muslim to strive to save al-Quds [Jerusalem] from the hands of the rapists [Israelis] and to cleanse Palestine from the clutches of the occupation, deeming this an individual duty for all Muslims.”  More specifically, he “called on all Muslims to wage jihad with their money and their selves to free al-Quds”—the same exact language one finds in al-Qaeda’s tracts.  Unsurprisingly, the Wiesenthal Center named him the top anti-Semite of 2012.

Nor did the United States escape his venom.  Badie has described the U.S. as an infidel nation that “does not champion moral and human values and cannot lead humanity,” while referring to both the U.S. and Israel as “the Muslim’s real enemies,” asserting that “[w]aging jihad against both of these infidels is a commandment of Allah that cannot be disregarded.” And he maintains that the “change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life.”

In a normal world, then, Americans—like millions of anti-Brotherhood Egyptians—should be glad to hear that this leading inciter of terrorism and hate has been arrested.

But of course, in the bizarro world that is the mainstream media of America, the arrest of the Brotherhood chieftain is bad news.  For example, the consistently pro-Islamist and terrorist-apologist David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times is portraying the arrest of Badie and possible release of president Hosni Mubarak—whose predictions concerning the Brotherhood, including how they exploit democracy to eliminate democracy and engage in terrorism but then portray themselves as victims before the world, have all come true—as “a measure of how far and how quickly the tumult shaking Egypt in recent days and weeks has rolled back the changes brought by the revolution of 2011.”  In other words, arresting the man responsible for the slaughter of innocent officers, the burning of dozens of Christian churches, and the sexual harassment of nuns—is a return to “autocracy.”  Such is the whole tone and tenor of the silly NYT report.

Read more at Front Page

 

A Middle East Without Christians

Mideast-Egypt-Anxious_HoroBy :

Islamist terrorists have exploited the lawless Sinai to perpetrate vicious attacks on Egyptian Christians there, as reported earlier this week in the New York Times. Indeed, throughout Egypt, the Copts continue to be targeted and scapegoated for the ousting of the Muslim Brotherhood.

As defenseless and abandoned as Mideast Christians seem today, it is worth remembering their historical roots, and recognizing just how much the plight of Middle East Christians has deteriorated. Over 2,000 years ago, Christianity was born as a religion and spread from Jerusalem to other parts of the Levant, including territories in modern Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Egypt. The Christian faith flourished as one of the major religions in the Middle East until the Muslim conquests of the 7th century.

Despite Muslim domination of the region, Christians comprised an estimated 20% of the Middle East population until the early 20th century. Today, however, Christians make up a mere 2-5% of the Middle East and their numbers are fast dwindling. Writing in the Winter 2001 issue of Middle East Quarterly, scholar Daniel Pipes estimated that Middle East Christians would “likely drop to” half of their numbers “by the year 2020″ because of declining birth rates, and a pattern of “exclusion and persecution” leading to emigration.

The “Arab Spring” has only worsened conditions for the indigenous Christians of the Middle East. Like the Kurds, Middle East Christians are a stateless minority, struggling to survive in the world’s toughest neighborhood. But the Kurds at least have enjoyed partial autonomy in Iraqi Kurdistan since 1991 and most of them are Sunni Muslim, making it easier for them to survive in the Muslim-dominated Middle East. Christians, on the other hand, are a religious minority that controls no territory and is entirely subject to the whims of their hosts. These host countries – with the exception of Israel – offer a grim future to Middle East Christians. Home to one of the oldest Christian communities in the world, Egypt also has the largest Christian population in the Middle East, totaling 8-12 million people. But because Christian Copts make up only about 10-15% of Egypt’s estimated 80 million people, they have for decades lived in fear as second-class citizens, subjected to attacks on churches, villages, homes, and shops; mob killings; and the abduction and forced Islamic conversion of Christian women compelled to marry Muslim men. Such abuse took place under the staunchly secular regime of Hosni Mubarak, but grew much worse under the rule of Mohammed Morsi, the jailed Muslim Brotherhood activist who succeeded Mubarak, and they are now being blamed for Morsi’s ouster.

Read more at Front Page

Also see:

Christians Are Being Slaughtered By Wahhabi Islamists All Over the World (aina.org)