Obama senior lawyer says “military pursuit of al-Qaida” should end soon

Because, you see, they are so severely damaged that we will soon reach a “tipping point” after which military action against them will no longer be necessary, and local police can handle it. This astounding manifestation of an overconfidence of Baghdad Bob proportions, or else of a capitulation attempting to disguise itself as a victory, comes from November 30, but has not been widely reported. It is bitterly ironic coming at a time when al-Qaeda is “carving out its own state” in Mali, is operating with apparent impunity in Libya, and its friends and allies the Taliban are on the offense in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Viewed alongside the Obama Administration’s unstinting support for the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt and support for jihadist rebels elsewhere, along with its active work to further the agenda of Islamic supremacist Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the U.S., this raises questions about whether Obama is preparing to abandon the last elements of any U.S. resistance to jihad in any form.

Remember how the war was not against Islam, as both Bush and Obama have repeatedly insisted since 2001, but against al-Qaeda, as Obama has characterized it in increasingly narrow terms? Soon, apparently, the U.S. won’t even be fighting that.

“US heading for point when ‘military pursuit of al-Qaida should end,'” by Nick Hopkins in The Guardian, November 30, 2012 (thanks to David Selbourne):

The US is heading for a “tipping point” beyond which it should no longer pursue al-Qaida terrorists by military means, one of the Obama administration’s most senior lawyers has said.

Jeh Johnson suggested the group would become so degraded that a time would come when the legal authority given to the White House by Congress should no longer be used to justify waging the war that has been fought since 2001.

Johnson said that when this happened, America had to “be able to say … that our efforts should no longer be considered an armed conflict against al-Qaida and its affiliates”.

Instead, the responsibility for tackling al-Qaida should pass to the police and other law enforcement agencies.

Johnson has been general counsel at the US defence department for the past four years and has given advice on every military operation that needs the approval of the president or defence secretary….

Iran licks its chops over Chuck Hagel, Obama's anti-Israel choice for Defense Secretary
Egyptian lawyers say Obama gave Muslim Brotherhood $1.5 billion
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    Well, let’s propose a different tactic altogether.

    Since al Qaida and all the rest, and those who funnel money and arms to them, and those who trot off to assorted theatres of jihad to join them, bubble up continuously out of the Ummah, which forms the nurturing and sheltering sea within which the jihad terror raiders and sharia-pushers swim – and hide – and from which, ceaselessly, they emerge, the logical thing for ALL free majority-non-Muslim states to do is…to STOP importing Muslims, any kind of Muslims at all.

    When in a hole, stop digging.

    The fewer Mohammedans there are in any locality, the less Jihad one will have.

    The next step, after stopping importing them, is to do nothing at all to stop them from *leaving* – as, at present, quite a few of them are doing, waltzing off to assorted theatres of jihad within dar al Islam – but, once one has ascertained that they *have* gone off a-jihadding, to..cancel their citizenship or residency papers and make sure that they *can’t come back in*.

    Don’t let Muslims currently present – but without citizenship or residency – *obtain* citizenship or residency. Because you can’t know which ones are going to suddenly spin round and start waging Jihad, like the Times Square would-be bomber, who attempted to detonate his big bomb on Valentine’s Day, *after* he had gained his US citizenship.

    Carefully investigate all that *do* have citizenship or residency and if there’s any hint of thir having obtained such under false pretences…out they go.

    Fomenting jihad, plotting jihad, financing Jihad, attempting or carrying out jihad attacks, threatening or attempting or carrying out sharia executions of ‘apostates’ and ‘blasphemers’, threatening or attempting or carrying out ‘honor’ murders of deemed-uppity womenfolk, or forced and/ or underage ‘marriages’, or polygyny (usually combined with welfare fraud), or the advocating or plotting or carrying out of FGM, should see the Mohammedan/s responsible on a one-way ticket out, back to dar al Islam. In the case of honor murders, one could boot out whole families, since these affairs are usually cold-bloodedly decided upon by the whole Mob acting together.

    If a mosque is firmly associated with any kind of illegal, criminal, sharia-compliant human-rights-violating (e.g. FGM, forced/ child ‘marriage’) or jihad activity: shut it down, raze it to the ground, and deport the imam.

    If a Mohammedan commits a major crime, and then flits off to dar al Islam; don’t bother pursuing him, just …cancel his citizenship, so he can’t come back.

    Take Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s advice, and don’t allow any more Mohammedan ‘schools’.

    Don’t allow any more mosques.

    The first Infidel state that bites the bullet and starts doing this sort of thing, will see its Mohammedans becoming a/ a lot fewer, quite quickly and b/ somewhat better behaved.

  2. says

    barry hussein,

    you are fooling no one, oh muslim POTUS,

    … the Real Threat is all of islam, not JUST al-Qaidae

    … you are ruining this country just like the islamic manchurian candidate that you are

    tell me something, and be truthful … You never played a day of baseball in your life.

    Cricket, which they play where you were born, Kenya Africa, you may have played cricket, but NEVER baseball, you fraud.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCdVUYa9ZTo

  3. says

    Surrender we much…I bet Ayman Zawahiri will laugh when he hear’s that..Stupid Americans…Go ahead, let your guard down…Do we have surprises for you, infidel filth…
    Attacks will not only continue, they will increase…Al-Qaeda has the kufr enemy on the run, why should they stop now?

  4. says

    I don’t buy most of what Glen Greenwald is selling, but in this case I think he makes a pretty good counter-argument that, despite Jeb Johnson’s statement, the US govt is designing the foreign war on terrorism to continue for a long time.
    ——————————————–
    Published on Friday, January 4, 2013 by The Guardian
    The ‘War on Terror’ – by Design – Can Never End. As the Pentagon’s former top lawyer urges that the war be viewed as finite, the US moves in the opposite direction.

    Greenwald makes the following valid point.
    “In other words, more than a decade of occupying and brutalizing that country [Afghanistan] has turned large swaths of the population into the “Taliban”, to the extent that the “Taliban” means: Afghans willing to use violence to force the US and its allies out of their country. As always, the US – through the very policies of aggression and militarism justified in the name of terrorism – is creating the very “terrorists” those polices are supposedly designed to combat. It’s a pure and perfect system of self-perpetuation.”
    For the entire Guardian piece see http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/01/04-6

    Quite apart from predicting whether or not the US will continue the war on terrorism on foreign soil, I find the position RS takes in this piece at odds with what I understood his position on foreign entanglements was and presumably still is. I thought RS was in favor of exiting Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and other Islamic oriented, strife-laden places because our efforts to win the hearts and minds of local, anti-Taliban, secular forces was a waste of time, money and American lives. I agree with THAT position. However, the US should not abandon the war of domestic terrorism and no one, not Johnson or any anyone in the Obama administration, even suggests that we should.

    Have I misunderstood RS’s position on US involvement in FOREIGN in Islamic hellholes? Or can it be that in another compulsive effort to vilify Obama as unpatriotic, RS is now contradicting himself on whether the US should continue such its futile strategy of throwing our national treasure down foreign toilets?

    Can someone help me out here? Have I misunderstood RS’s position on the war on terrorism on foreign soils?

  5. says

    From being a regular reader I know not to expect much in the way of intelligent discourse among the comments here. That’s the sad truth and it should cause RS to stop and think about what kind of minds he is appealing to when he engages in broad political analysis beyond his expertise in matters dealing with Islam.

    I am not a believer in an omniscient, omnipotent god so I guess that makes me a non-religious person, however I am particularly anti-Islam for all the reasons regularly recited by RS especially the civil and human rights abuses inherent in sharia and totalitarian Islamic societies. I am appreciate of RS’s scholarship in the area of Islam. I often read the links he provides which constitute the basis his reports on Islamic human rights abuses. Moreover, I frequently send emails to many of my acquaintances reiterating the Islamic wrongdoing on which RS reports.

    Nevertheless, I must admit I am embarrassed to link the JW site directly to my emails. The reason for this is that I sincerely believe it would detract from the message informing recipients of Islamic abuses. Why? Because most of my acquaintances are intelligent progressive people who would find the level of general political analysis found at this site to be unconvincing dribble. It would undermine the validity of the message rightfully condemning Islamic immorality.

    The general political commentary coming from RS is severely limited in scope. Everything is analyzed through the prism of Islamic theology. In deed, all psuedo-political debate at JW is limited to whether one’s conduct is perceived as sufficiently anti-Islamic. Nary a word from RS about any other socioeconomic issues, e.g. the distribution of wealth, taxing the rich, health care and energy policy, the financial crises, jobs? These issues never appear on the JW radar screen. Left and right are defined only by how one behaves vis a vis Islam and Muslims. It is beyond his ken for RS to engage in real political analysis. I fault him not because of his lack of expertise in the area of politics, but for his ill-considered attempts to pass himself off as expert in general political debate.

    The obsfucation of the anti-Islam message is particularly exacerbated by the compulsive and poorly reasoned anti-Obama tirades RS so often delivers. RS’s efforts to portray Obama as dangerously unpatriotic and evil are, of course, limited to RS’s perception of Obama’s attitudes toward the war on terrorism and his position on the mideast strife.

    Besides being so limited in scope the Obama attacks are so poorly reasoned, so devoid of sound factual basis and logic that many, if not most, readers of average intelligence would evaluate them simply as transparent attempts to demonize Obama because he doesn’t take a sufficiently strong stand against Islamic entities as RS would prefer.

    In my opinion it is RS’s ill-reasoned foray into general political debate that has been the reason his important message about Islamic immorality has failed to gain greater traction with the general public and mainstream media.
    When RS abandons his ineffective attempts to analyze politics in general, when he focuses his blog on exposing the human and civil rights deprivations inherent in Islam, he will become a more effective force to defeat the dangerous spread of Islamic totalitarianism and the immorality associated therewith.

  6. says

    Wow, Darmanad, for being such a superior intellect, you surely like hanging around here in the intellectual dumpster, attempting to engage us cretins, eh? Wouldn’t that be an embarrassment for you if your “intelligent, progressive” acquaintances found out?

    Of course, that’s not really the point, is it? Your self-proclaimed intellectual superiority, cheap-shots at Spencer, denigration of the regulars here–all smack of a hackneyed pattern that’s been tried–and failed–countless times before. Let’s see…who might be harmed (you vainly hope) and who might gain from your transparent little “that’s my opinion” tactic? Well, if you can discredit Spencer (and all the rest of us) then we lose and our loss is islam’s gain, right? So, if you’re such an anti-islamist why would you want to do that?

    Nice try, Darmanad, no sale. Thanks for playing, though. We have some lovely parting-gifts, sure to meet the approval of your “intelligent, progressive acquaintances…”

  7. says

    Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me. Nah,nah,na,nah,nah.

    I am not surprised by the accusation of being condescending to (most) JW commenters. Unfortunately, it is required, though in truth I was not being condescending as much as outright insulting. There is a difference, right?

    As for examples when RS irrationally paints Obama as unpatriotic and evil, pls see this very piece which attempts to portray Obama as soft on terrorism. If one actually reads Jeh Johnson’s statements about which RS rails, it is easy to see that RS mischaracterized their import.
    Moreover, what about my question? Isn’t RS stated position to support yanking US troops and aide from Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan etc? Why would he oppose doing just that now?

    For another example of an ill-reasoned Obama hit piece by RS, see the Jan 5 Hagel piece in which he attempts to paint Hagel and Obama as anti-semites. http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/01/obama-to-nominate-virulently-anti-israel-chuck-hagel-for-defense-secretary.html#comments
    You might want to read both my comments thereto. I think you will find them highly informative…if you care to get informed, that is (now that is condescending).

    Other examples of unreasonable, unsupported Obama bashing abound. I’m not inclined to go on a search for others as these two bring home my point.

    I like RS. I just think his anti-Islamic mindset overly influences every psuedo political thought that appears on JW in particular those that deal with foreign policy and especially as concerns the mideast. And by the way, before you or other intellectually challenged JW regulars attack me as being an Islamic troll or, as I once was, a black skinned soul mate of Obama, I hereby declare I am a white skinned, born Jew, who supports Israel, opposes Hamas and Hezbollah, hates the Islamic belief system, and regularly defends Israel on other websites which share a more diverse readership to the point of being attacked as a Nazi Zionist. If that matters.

  8. says

    “Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me. Nah,nah,na,nah,nah.”

    Aw, “intelligent discourse” in action …

    and only a deeply insecure person feels the need to explain just how *smart* he or she thinks they are. I must say, this poster is very entertaining.

  9. says

    Thanks, Champ.

    Looks like darmanad has already taken an intellectual beating by some of the finest readers here – Wellington, Buraq, etc.

    darmanad must be a masochist.

  10. says

    “Nah,nah,na,nah,nah.”

    Is this an example of the rarefied, intellectual dialogue extant among you and your progressive pals? And…you admittedly come here to insult us, then use the “sticks and stones” schtick (sic) about YOUR bones? Why, that’s right out of the islamic playbook, chapter 3, PROJECTION! And, you then tell us that you’re seen as a “Nazi Zionist?” Say, there’s a study in paradox, eh, Mr. “Progressive?” Or is it, “Mr. Islamic Apologist?” Hmmm?

    Somehow your supposedly superior synapses (love that alliteration) have mis-fired on a fundamental point here: This site is called JIHAD WATCH. And Jihad is, of course (contrary to what CAIR might have you believe) a purely islamic concept. And we have a sitting president–and his entire administration–who have proven themselves not just tolerant, but friendly and supportive to islam (and hence jihad) in just about every way one can imagine.
    And…you’re saying that Spencer (or any other freedom-loving person) should give Obama a pass on this? That to call this what it is amounts to “bashing?” Well, I submit that you’re the one who came here to bash–you confessed this yourself–and to attempt to defend the irrefutable and indefensible. You’re wasting your time–but no more of mine…

    May I repeat, no sale, genious. In your case, both the pitch-man and the product are faulty. Funny, though, how you keep coming back to further engage us idiots? Perhaps you’re a bit less smart than you’d have us believe?

  11. says

    “Nah,nah,na,nah,nah.”

    Is this an example of the rarefied, intellectual dialogue extant among you and your progressive pals? And…you admittedly come here to insult us, then use the “sticks and stones” schtick (sic) about YOUR bones? Why, that’s right out of the islamic playbook, chapter 3, PROJECTION! And, you then tell us that you’re seen as a “Nazi Zionist?” Say, there’s a study in paradox, eh, Mr. “Progressive?” Or is it, “Mr. Islamic Apologist?” Hmmm?

    Somehow your supposedly superior synapses (love that alliteration) have mis-fired on a fundamental point here: This site is called JIHAD WATCH. And Jihad is, of course (contrary to what CAIR might have you believe) a purely islamic concept. And we have a sitting president–and his entire administration–who have proven themselves not just tolerant, but friendly and supportive to islam (and hence jihad) in just about every way one can imagine.
    And…you’re saying that Spencer (or any other freedom-loving person) should give Obama a pass on this? That to call this what it is amounts to “bashing?” Well, I submit that you’re the one who came here to bash–you confessed this yourself–and to attempt to defend the irrefutable and indefensible. You’re wasting your time–but no more of mine…

    May I repeat, no sale, genius. In your case, both the pitch-man and the product are faulty. Funny, though, how you keep coming back to further engage us idiots? Perhaps you’re a bit less smart than you’d have us believe?

  12. says

    “Nah,nah,na,nah,nah.”

    Is this an example of the rarefied, intellectual dialogue extant among you and your progressive pals? And…you admittedly come here to insult us, then use the “sticks and stones” schtick (sic) about YOUR bones? Why, that’s right out of the islamic playbook, chapter 3, PROJECTION! And, you then tell us that you’re seen as a “Nazi Zionist?” Say, there’s a study in paradox, eh, Mr. “Progressive?” Or is it, “Mr. Islamic Apologist?” Hmmm?

    Somehow your supposedly superior synapses (love that alliteration) have mis-fired on a fundamental point here: This site is called JIHAD WATCH. And Jihad is, of course (contrary to what CAIR might have you believe) a purely islamic concept. And we have a sitting president–and his entire administration–who have proven themselves not just tolerant, but friendly and supportive to islam (and hence jihad) in just about every way one can imagine.
    And…you’re saying that Spencer (or any other freedom-loving person) should give Obama a pass on this? That to call this what it is amounts to “bashing?” Well, I submit that you’re the one who came here to bash–you confessed this yourself–and to attempt to defend the irrefutable and indefensible. You’re wasting your time–but no more of mine…

    May I repeat, no sale, genius. In your case, both the pitch-man and the product are faulty. Funny, though, how you keep coming back to further engage us idiots? Perhaps you’re a bit less smart than you’d have us believe?

  13. says

    I am so sorry that multiple post happened–apologies to all…except Darmanad–go ahead and read it 3 times, Mr. Grey Matter…

  14. says

    Everyone: let’s ignore “darmanad”. He is wasting our time. Anyone who pronounces himself to be a “progressive” of superior intelligence and yet doesn’t even “get” the purpose of this site doesn’t warrant such attention. Besides, he is here to talk not about issues of the day but about himself.

    Robert Spencer is, I believe, not being inconsistent with his views on this issue. Of course the US should get out of Afghanistan, but if al-Qaida was ever an enemy – as it was, and is – the US administration should wake up to its source, its links, and how this source (Islamic texts and their calls to Islamic world domination etc) and links (including the Muslim Brotherhood…hello, Obama?) threaten the US and its interests from without and within.

    It seems simple to me, but I am not burdened by superior intelligence or “progressive” sentiments (what does “progressive” mean, actually? Progress beyond what, exactly, and TO what? If you don’t agree with gay marriage, does that mean you’re out of the progressive club? Does it mean different things in different countries? Do I really want to know?)

  15. says

    Douse,
    Great intelligent comeback. OK, I can see why you would call me stupid for misspelling your name. No argument there. However,
    1) The Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare is not universal health care desired by liberals. You seem to ignor the distinction (assuming you know there is one).

    2. What is the import of your reference to fiscal cliff and my prior comments? Is there some connection between the Congressional budget impasse and my assertion that Obama has been harshly criticized on many domestic and foreign policy issues by many leftists and those who form a substantial part of his liberal base?

    3. I said Obama has failed to enact strong tax increases on the rich. He originally proposed increasing taxes on individuals that earned more than 250K per year. That figure was increased to 400K per year. All tax brackets below that will see no tax increase. I don’t earn 400K per year so I don’t expect my tax bill to increase. Since rates for those earning over 400K are still lower than they were during the Reagan administration I describe any such increases as not strong.
    Moreover, I believe low cap gain tax rates remain in tact. Who makes cap gains – the poor? The estate tax exemption amount was increased to 10 million. I have not amassed 10 million. Can you clarify your claim that my tax bill will increase?

    4. Do you deny that a significant portion of people who would describe themselves as leftists harshly criticize Obama for the foreign policy reasons I enumerated in my above post?

    Contrary to the JW view that the US has failed to maintain strong support for Israel, many, if not most, leftists criticize the Obama administration as too supportive of Israel. For example, in a cosmetic way the US nay vote on the change of the Palestinian UN status. In a much more important way, the continued financial and military weapons aide despite what many perceive as an unwise land grab and settlement construction policy.

    As you have sworn off devoting any more time to me perhaps one of the other regulars could respond for you.
    p.s. I am not a Marxist, but I do favor a fairer distribution of the wealth in the US. The increasing discrepancy between rich and poor in the US has been clearly documented. This phenomenon has been commented upon by economists and policy wonks as a real danger to our society.

  16. says

    Any poster who attempts to belittle other posters by quite deliberately misspelling their monikers (so as to achieve a bad and supposedly-funny pun) does not aid their cause by so doing.

    It is one thing to abbreviate a poster’s moniker for convenience, or to employ an affectionate nickname, or to spell a name wrong in an honest mistake subsequently corrected; it is quite another to repeatedly distort their ‘handle’ in a hostile manner.

    Such treatment should be reserved for one and one target only: the most totally obnoxious variety of openly-declared boasting, threatening and obscene Mohammedtroll.

  17. says

    I hate to say this but we deserve what has been coming to us from our enemy, Islam and the traitor, Obama.

    No we don’t deserve it…It’s not possible to deserve the wrath of a deity that does not in reality exist…We certainly do not deserve Rasool Obama…Lots of people have been victimized by the fool on a mission from Allah, Rasool…We shouldn’t blame the victims for crimes committed against them…We can say that someone who is taken in by a con man, deserve what they get, but if your Mom got ripped off by a traveling salesman selling Qurans, would you tell her she deserved it? Some people are too trusting or stupid, and get taken advantage of, but they do not deserve it…If everyone got what they deserved, there would be a lot more people pushing up daisies…

  18. says

    It’s simple, me. Why do you think that I often introduce myself as a professional swindler of the young rather than as a teacher?

  19. says

    … you are ruining this country just like the islamic manchurian candidate that you are

    He is…The second most interesting man in the world…He golfs overhanded and does everything else underhanded, he is the most underhanded President in all American history…His underhandedness will go down in history as his greatest ability…He wears the ‘Golden Wedding Ring of Allah’…he can do no wrong, and lives a charmed life…That’s the upside…The downside is that he resembles Gullum more and more every day…There is a price to pay for selling your soul to the Devil…

  20. says

    “From being a regular reader I know not to expect much in the way of intelligent discourse among the comments here”.

    Yes. We are all idiots here, you condescending fool.

    “Why? Because most of my acquaintances are intelligent progressive people who would find the level of general political analysis found at this site to be unconvincing dribble”.

    Gee, it would be nice to hear from them. Maybe you and your pals can set everyone straight on the dribble and non dribble.

    “The general political commentary coming from RS is severely limited in scope. Everything is analyzed through the prism of Islamic theology. In deed, all psuedo-political debate at JW is limited to whether one’s conduct is perceived as sufficiently anti-Islamic. Nary a word from RS about any other socioeconomic issues, e.g. the distribution of wealth, taxing the rich, health care and energy policy, the financial crises, jobs?”.

    You must have missed the description of this blog. And Spencer often links ” progressive ” issues with the Islamic supremacists. But this must be dribble to you.

    “Besides being so limited in scope the Obama attacks are so poorly reasoned, so devoid of sound factual basis and logic that many, if not most, readers of average intelligence would evaluate them simply as transparent attempts to demonize Obama because he doesn’t take a sufficiently strong stand against Islamic entities as RS would prefer”.

    Show me one example of an attack against Obama that is ” poorly reasoned “.

    “In my opinion it is RS’s ill-reasoned foray into general political debate that has been the reason his important message about Islamic immorality has failed to gain greater traction with the general public and mainstream media.
    When RS abandons his ineffective attempts to analyze politics in general, when he focuses his blog on exposing the human and civil rights deprivations inherent in Islam, he will become a more effective force to defeat the dangerous spread of Islamic totalitarianism and the immorality associated therewith”.

    Since Spencer is so ill reasoned about political topics, why haven’t you started your own blog with your progressive and intelligent friends to combat Islam ?

    Your post is a lot of dribble…

  21. says

    Like I said, I enjoy reading Spencer. I respect his scholarship. I learn by reading his blog (and a book or 2). My professed embarrassment at being a regular reader of JW was an exaggeration that speaks more to my desire not to dilute the value of the anti-Islamic lesson by unnecessarily associating it with RS than any character flaw I possess. As you can gather, I am hardly reicient when it comes to expressing an opinion.
    As for the put down of JW regulars, sorry, but my take on the vast majority of regular JW commenters is that they are not very bright, are often religious freaks, and don’t generate much interesting or astute political debate. Most are not very well informed.
    For example, anyone who criticizes Israeli foreign policy is immediately attacked as anti-semitic. It’s the other side of the Islamophobia coin. Such mindless accusations only serve to prevent serious discussion of issues.

    RS’s politics are another matter. Why are my criticisms, quite specific and fairly documented, cheap shots? More importantly, why do you claim that my ulterior motive is to benefit Islam? Are Spencer or JW commenters immune to criticism? Is criticism of them ipso facto a game geared to benefit Islam? Sorry, but that comment is a good example of the lack of political astuteness about which I speak.

  22. says

    My nah nah shtick was in reply to Paul Hoffman’s prior name calling (i.e.condescending fool”) though I neglected to hit the reply link so that post didn’t appear as a reply.
    Meanwhile, all subsequent posts only serve to confirm my opinion about the low level of intelligence of JW regulars. No one has bothered to respond to any of the factual arguments I have made regarding RS’s myopic view of world politics including his unreasoned vilification of Obama…just name calling and ad hominem garbage.

  23. says

    Precisely what I was thinking. The trouble is that many Americans erroneously believe that the President is the sole decider, when in fact he is just the public figure that is presented to the people – most decision have been pre-ordained by those above him. He just has to read the script. There was only one President who thought he was actually steering the ship of State. His name was John F. Kennedy and we all know what happened to him.

  24. says

    Obama senior lawyer says “military pursuit of al-Qaida” should end soon
    ………………………

    This is meant to imply that al-Qaida is no longer a threat. Instead, it means that we will no longer be defending against al-Qaida”let alone any other Jihadist terrorists.

    More:

    Remember how the war was not against Islam, as both Bush and Obama have repeatedly insisted since 2001, but against al-Qaeda, as Obama has characterized it in increasingly narrow terms? Soon, apparently, the U.S. won’t even be fighting that.
    ………………………

    How could we forget? Now we are abandoning the last vestiges of defending against Jihad.

    More:

    It is bitterly ironic coming at a time when al-Qaeda is “carving out its own state” in Mali, is operating with apparent impunity in Libya, and its friends and allies the Taliban are on the offense in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
    ………………………

    Absolutely. Not only is al-Qaida not on the ropes, it is more successful and wides-spread than ever. The only question is whether this is self-delusion or lying to the public”and if the latter, whether it is pathetic “CYA” or actual collusion.

    darmanad wrote:

    Greenwald makes the following valid point.
    “In other words, more than a decade of occupying and brutalizing that country [Afghanistan] has turned large swaths of the population into the “Taliban”, to the extent that the “Taliban” means: Afghans willing to use violence to force the US and its allies out of their country. As always, the US – through the very policies of aggression and militarism justified in the name of terrorism – is creating the very “terrorists” those polices are supposedly designed to combat. It’s a pure and perfect system of self-perpetuation.”
    ………………………

    What *utter rot*. The idea that we have been “brutalizing” Afghanistan in ousting the vicious Taliban could not be more grotesque.

    The idea that the monstrous Taliban, who slaughtered minority Hazaras, imposed brutal Shari’ah law, and stoned women in the streets are nothing but “freedom fighters” against the “oppressive” Americans is just sickening.

    And the idea that it is the Americans who created Jihad terror with their involvement in Afghanistan could not be more ludicrous.

    Despite our terrible mishandling of the situation, our involvement in Afghanistan was a *defense* against Jihad, not its cause.

    Unless you, like so many other people of unbelievably short memory, have forgotten that we were not in Afghanistan when Osama bin Laden sent planes into the the Pentagon and WTC?

  25. says

    I can see what darmanad is trying to say. I for one have been following this site for many years and find it most informative about Islam and the evils inherent therein. I also admire Robert Spencer immensely and his knowledge of Islam is second to none. That said, I find that lately the foray into politics, especially the blaming of ‘the Left’ for everything under the sun pretty unconvincing, especially since by world standards, American politics is always Centre Right to exteme Right and vascilitates between those two points, never venturing left to be seriously considered Socialist in the real sense of the word.

    What I see is a continuation of the same policies as before, perhaps now becoming more bold, focused, codified and more extreme.

    I therefore agree with darmanad that those that hate Islam because of the injustices and cruelty, also hate social injustice and poverty and exploitation of the poor to satisfy the rapacious few at the top. For this economic creed too, along with Islam, is an abomination that should be wiped off the face of the earth.

    Robert Spencer should not dilute his brilliant and inciteful message about the evils of Islam’s teaching with partisan politics, for if truth be told both political parties have supported Islam under one guise or another throughout the years.

  26. says

    Oh, Douse , you old Vietnam war supporter,

    RS’s pathetic, obsessive attempts to demonize Obama as unpatriotic and anti-Israel would be laughable were they not so damaging to the movement to educate the public about the inherent evils of Islam.

    Most leftists as that word is commonly interpreted (and not simply by reference to one’s position on Muslims) harshly criticize Obama’s administration for:
    1) continually supporting Israel’s positions vis a vis the Palestinians;
    2) abandoning US constitutional protections of the rights of US citizens in carrying out the war against terrorists;
    3) Abusing executive power by allowing for the use of off shore torture centers, unlawful secret detention, and abusing the use of imprecise deadly drones to target individuals without legal process.

    And for Obama’s leftist critics, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Nevermind the failure to accomplish significant liberal domestic policies (e.g. failure to close Guantanamo, enact universal health care, or pass strong tax increases for the wealthy) due to a perceived failure to confront unjust Republican demands that cater to the haves. It just goes to show how far to the right RS is that he obsessivly rants about Obama’s supposed wildly leftist, pro-Muslim, anti-Israel bias. No, not even a bias, but a secret agenda to turn the USA into an Islamic haven. More often than not, RS’s arguments about the dangers of anything outside his area of expertise lack convincing facts and logic (as is this attempt to paint Hegel as an anti-Semite). Tautological argument is common. “Leftist” is simply defined as anyone who does not vehemently demonstrate outspoken antipathy towards Islam/Muslims. Then such persons are vilified as leftists because they do not sufficiently oppose Islam/Muslims. Not very enlightening or persuasive, but typical here.

    To many intelligent neutrals, RS lacks credibility precisely because of his misguided, some might argue pathologically obsessive, attacks on anyone or anything to the left of Attilla the Hun. It is why his scholarship and expertise on all things Islam have failed to gain more traction with the general public and mass media. He comes across as the same kind of fanatic that he exposes in the Islamic world. He is his own worst enemy.

    When RS abandons his ineffective attempts to analyze and influence politics in general, when he focuses his blog on exposing the human and civil rights deprivations inherent in Islam, he will become a more effective force to defeat the dangerous spread of Islamic totalitarianism and all the evils associated therewith.

  27. says

    Well, thank you for proving darmanad’s point about the intellectual level of some of the commentators here. You pick on me for misspelling a word yet at the same time you cannot define the difference between the political left and the political right. But you do not care do you, since in your myopic tunnel world-view, the only opinions and facts that count are those that come out of the political Right (heavens, they must all be multi-millionaires who post here, not one wage-donkey amongst them). Just as black does not become white when it touches American soil, neither does the political definitions of what constitutes political Left and political Right. Admittedly, many Americans are very, very confused about what constitutes what (purposely made to be so) but that does not mean that there is not a world standard definition, no matter how much you negate it. That you do not care to find out, that is another story and not something that one should be proud of.

    What is sad is that most of the rabid Rightist commentators here do not see that they are just like the Islamist that they hate so much, slaves to belief system that they cannot see out of.

  28. says

    darmanad wrote:

    Most leftists as that word is commonly interpreted (and not simply by reference to one’s position on Muslims) harshly criticize Obama’s administration for:
    1) continually supporting Israel’s positions vis a vis the Palestinians;
    2) abandoning US constitutional protections of the rights of US citizens in carrying out the war against terrorists;
    3) Abusing executive power by allowing for the use of off shore torture centers, unlawful secret detention, and abusing the use of imprecise deadly drones to target individuals without legal process.

    And for Obama’s leftist critics, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Nevermind the failure to accomplish significant liberal domestic policies (e.g. failure to close Guantanamo…
    …………………………….

    Well, this is just odd. darmanad’s main talking point here has always been to criticize Robert Spencer for positing that most leftists fail to take the Jihad threat seriously at best, and are active enablers of Jihad at worst.

    And yet, here is darmanad characterizing leftists as being anti-Israel, pro “Palestinian”, and against any and all attempts to counter Jihad terror.

    More:

    He (Robert Spencer) comes across as the same kind of fanatic that he exposes in the Islamic world.
    …………………………….

    What *absolute rot*. The idea that exposing Muslim savagery is somehow the save as that savagery is grotesque.

    Pious Muslims are blowing up buses, kidnapping and raping Infidels, and stoning women to death”and Robert Spencer is pointing out that fact. How are these things morally equivalent?

    More:

    The general political commentary coming from RS is severely limited in scope. Everything is analyzed through the prism of Islamic theology. In deed, all psuedo-political debate at JW is limited to whether one’s conduct is perceived as sufficiently anti-Islamic. Nary a word from RS about any other socioeconomic issues, e.g. the distribution of wealth, taxing the rich, health care and energy policy, the financial crises, jobs? These issues never appear on the JW radar screen…

    When RS abandons his ineffective attempts to analyze and influence politics in general, when he focuses his blog on exposing the human and civil rights deprivations inherent in Islam, he will become a more effective force to defeat the dangerous spread of Islamic totalitarianism and all the evils associated therewith.
    …………………………….

    Well, the two paragraphs above just completely contradict each other. In the first, darmanad moans that Spencer is not covering issues far beyond the range of Jihad Watch, and in the second he is bemoaning Spencer not sticking more closely to exclusively exposing the horrors of Islam.

    I believe what he means is that Spencer does not regularly tout the glories of “Occupy” and other idiots, so his political criticism is not something he considers valid…

  29. says

    You demonstrate an inability to correctly comprehend what I have written. Your reply is inapposite and warrants no further comment.