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

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.

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

How could USA choose a president who is in bed with the enemy so openly, twice? I hate to say this but we deserve what has been coming to us from our enemy, Islam and the traitor, Obama.

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?

And they waited to tell the American public about this new unilateral surrender strategy until after the election?

Par for the course.

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?

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.

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..."

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.

"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.

George, Paul Hoffman and others ...

Check out the trouble "darmanad" caused on this thread only a few months ago:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/11/hillary-clinton-the-goal-must-be-a-durable-outcome-that-promotes-regional-stability-and-advances-the.html

This guys only a troublemaker and a troll ...

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.

"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?

"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?

"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?

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

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?)

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.

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.

Douse,
By the way, since you seem to be a Vietnam war buff here is an article that should be of great interest to you. It should also be read by those who favored prolonged presence of US troops in Afghanistan.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175635/tomgram%3A_nick_turse%2C_a_war_victim%27s_question_only_you_can_answer/?utm_source=TomDispatch&utm_campaign=5c52ee1e42-TD_Turse1_8_2013&utm_medium=email#more

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.

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.

[d]aramand is Ramadan D... Ramadan deadly.