WH refuses to use Genocide word

White House says it is not convinced ISIS ethnic cleansing we’ve seen is “genocide”.
CNS News

The reporter asked Earnest, “But you’re not prepared to use the word ‘genocide’ yet in this situation?”

“The — my understanding is the use of that word involves a very specific legal determination that has, at this point, not been reached. But we’ve been quite candid and direct, exactly, about how — how ISIL’s tactics are worthy of the kind of international, robust response that the international community is leading. And those tactics include a willingness to target religious minorities, including Christians.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/wh-spokesman-cant-say-if-isis-slaughter-christians-genocide

Well, what number triggers that word, or definition? What kind of atrocity does it have to be? He can parse all he wants. People know a program when they see one. And what he qualified as the beginning at Mount Sinjar was not the beginning of the atrocities. So that is to admit that they had ignored it pretty much until that situation.

Funny though that they can toss around and use the word “torture” so loosely to suit, whenever they want to make a case of it. “Worthy” but not of using the ‘g’- word.

What do words tell us?

If I were a speech writer for Obama, I would have wondered, maybe highlighted a couple lines in the text either for clarification, revision, or removal. Sorry for the wordiness of this but it is unavoidable.

The line in question was about religion. Here is the text:

Jim Foley’s life stands in stark contrast to his killers. Let’s be clear about ISIL. They have rampaged across cities and villages — killing innocent, unarmed civilians in cowardly acts of violence. They abduct women and children, and subject them to torture and rape and slavery. They have murdered Muslims — both Sunni and Shia — by the thousands. They target Christians and religious minorities, driving them from their homes, murdering them when they can for no other reason than they practice a different religion. They declared their ambition to commit genocide against an ancient people.

So ISIL speaks for no religion. Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim, and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents. No just God would stand for what they did yesterday, and for what they do every single day. ISIL has no ideology of any value to human beings. Their ideology is bankrupt. They may claim out of expediency that they are at war with the United States or the West, but the fact is they terrorize their neighbors and offer them nothing but an endless slavery to their empty vision, and the collapse of any definition of civilized behavior.

And people like this ultimately fail. They fail, because the future is won by those who build and not destroy and the world is shaped by people like Jim Foley, and the overwhelming majority of humanity who are appalled by those who killed him. … And we act against ISIL, standing alongside others.

Emblem of Islamic State in Iraq and Sham.jpg

Seal of Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.

“Declared their ambitions to commit genocide” … and are carrying it out. The word is ‘committing.’

Lonely phrases

“So ISIS speaks for no religion.” Was that completely necessary? On what facts does he base that? They believe they speak for Islam. In fact, they believe they are the self-declared spokesman for it. And masses of the Islam faith have not argued that point. Why was it so critically important for Obama to state that? He tries to separate ISIS from the religion of Islam, writ large. Again, why is that necessary? Others would seem more suited to make that distinction, except they don’t. He tries to put ISIS outside the parameters of Islam. We don’t need to do that. It is what it is — self-asserted. They certainly speak for some segment of it. Just declaring they don’t is a lonely phrase in there.

So he seemed more concerned that their actions are hurting Islam. If they are hurting Islam, that should not be of great importance to us. There seems to be no shortage of Islam defenders to make that case — but they don’t. It is not up to our president to explain why ISIS and the terrorists are not spokespersons for Islam. Sure it seems a simple thing and some probably see his motivation, not that I do. But why is there a need for it?

I realize there is a large world-wide population of Muslims to which it should matter, but why is it a priority to separate this violence, horror, and evil from Islam? The fact that he feels compelled to speaks for itself. Again, where are their voices? If a religion this large cannot make a case against this uber-evil, then what does that tell us?

Territorial control of ISIS

Rather, I recommend that we pose the question to Muslims: “do you realize these actions are being done in the name of your religion?” And it is not the first time — probably not the last. Had it been any other religion they would follow that tack. They’d say, “well I don’t believe they do, but others can make the case why they don’t speak for their membership.” But the majority of any other religion would beat them to it, to make that case. Not here, we don’t have that.

Of course, the real reason is his apologetics. He felt a need to separate them from the religion of Islam to defend it from this bloody stain. Again, that could be left to cleric spokesman and their academics. The ironic thing is Obama has Muslim advocates and activists all around him. I was no fan of Bush doing it either. Sometimes things are what they are. It would help if others were making the case. Instead, we see Muslims either joining ISIS-fever or registering their approval by their silence.

Someone please help Obama because if he has a heart it is sure not in this. We’ve seen his critique of Iraq politics and laying the problem at their feet. Yes. However, if ISIS is a threat to us and other countries, then how is it logical and rational to trust Iraq to solve the ISIS problem? That dependency on them places our security in their hands. Is that what we want to do? That is what Obama is doing — putting them in charge of our security and the free world’s. It would be nice if one of our generals took Obama out back and explained the food chain to him. He doesn’t seem to get the basics.

So then, I guess Obama speaks for no country either, especially not the USA.

 
RightRing | Bullright

Obama switched sides

Mideast expert: Obama switched sides in war on terror

‘America has moved toward its Muslim enemies’
by Garth Kant | WND
August 28, 2014

WASHINGTON – It’s an explosive charge, one that puts the president’s motives into question.

A former CIA agent bluntly told WND, America has switched sides in the war on terror under President Obama.

Clare Lopez was willing to say what a few members of Congress have confided to WND in private, but declined to say on-the-record.

She said the global war on terror had been an effort to “stay free of Shariah,” or repressive Islamic law, until the Obama administration began siding with such jihadist groups as the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates.

Why the switch?

Lopez explained, when the so-called Arab Spring appeared in late 2010, “It was time to bring down the secular Muslim rulers who did not enforce Islamic law. And America helped.”

And why would Obama want to do that?

As she told WND earlier this month, Lopez believed the Muslim Brotherhood has thoroughly infiltrated the Obama administration and other branches of the federal government.

She also came to the conclusion Obama had essentially the same goals in the Mideast as the late Osama bin Laden: “to remove American power and influence, including military forces, from Islamic lands.”

Why would Obama order the killing of bin Laden?

Because the president “couldn’t delay any longer,” once the opportunity was presented, Lopez told WND.

There were “no more excuses” available to avoid it and he “thought it might look good,” she mused.

The former CIA operative’s perspective affects her prescription for what the U.S. should do about the terror army ISIS, as she called for caution and restraint.

While there has been a sudden chorus of politicians and military experts calling for the immediate elimination of the terrorist army after it beheaded American journalist James Foley last week, Lopez believes the U.S. should have an overall strategy in place before fully re-engaging in the Mideast militarily.

Any military action would be further complicated, she told WND, if it were not clear which side the U.S. is on, either in the short term or in the overall war on terror.

Lopez’s insights are backed by an impressive array of credentials.

Former CIA operations officer Clare Lopez

She spent two decades in the field as a CIA operations officer; was an instructor for military intelligence and special forces students; has been a consultant, intelligence analyst and researcher within the defense sector; and has published two books on Iran. Lopez currently manages the counter-jihad and Shariah programs at the Center for Security Policy, run by Frank Gaffney, former assistant secretary of defense for international security policy during the Reagan administration.

[…/]

Much more at: WND

The problem from hell oozes on

Obama has a problem, one of many, but it’s a doozy. He believes terrorism, like any other problem, can be adjudicated as a sterile law enforcement issue through courts etc. No matter what the crime. Well, hello, these are not compatible with that system. Of course the howling will start about that any minute.

We hear their arguments all the time — yada, yada. I won’t even dignify them with repetition. Courts are no deterrent to it.The answers haven’t been written. It is evil the likes of which we haven’t seen so blatantly this century. Still they will make their justice speech about bringing them to justice. Thus its a police matter. But what is justice for a massive, ever-growing group, bent on human slaughter by the worst methods they can think of? Is a jury trial capable of arbitrating that? We are in a new era.

Now videos and pictures surface with terrorists’ children holding severed heads. When is enough? Oh, tell me this shall be a law enforcement action, handled by bringing said culprits to some justice. I only state that possibility, as stupid as it is, to demonstrate the mentality of their arguments. Those talking points are an insult. This is mass genocide against humanity in general. It deserves a response. People would be appalled seeing animals treated and displayed like this. Yet here is a group operating with the objective of subverting humanity out of the equation.

No, I’m not even waiting to hear about bringing them to justice for their “crimes”. Maybe that is one of the reasons why Obama is reluctant to face or respond to it. It just will not fit in that box of theirs. This is pure evil it its worst form. It is not something one can summarily dismiss as a law enforcement matter. It’s way beyond that, intentionally so. This is the antithesis to humanity. Clinton’s failure was treating terrorism, like the Cole, as a simple civil law-enforcement matter. Message delivered. The problem is it doesn’t fit.

We’ve talked about state-sponsored terrorism before. But this is the terrorist sponsored state, or the “terrorism state”. That’s what the caliphate is. There are no levers over it to which it responds. It exists as an evil fog spreading around the world. People that have seen and witnessed this type evil don’t categorize it so easily. People label things “crimes against humanity”, but this is anti-humanity on the scale we haven’t seen. And it is breeding and flourishing under whatever banner it uses, into its own self-declared state.

Couple it with a weak-kneed, lily-livered liberal, diplomatic-espousing Oval Office occupant. However, the reverse may be true. In fact, he may fit right into their agenda. That’s a hell of a cocktail. He has us in a real predicament. He is so locked into his ideology, which fits right into ISIL’s and Al Qaeda’s decapitating glove, that he plays right into their evil nature — intentionally or not.(you decide) Tell me I’m wrong.

Obama gave a speech once, borrowed from another, saying “words, just words?” Sadly, that is all this pretender has ever had in his arsenal. Walk softly and carry a big script. And it’s totally inadequate for what we humanity faces. To choose to allow this kind of evil exist in any form on the earth is courting evil. To address it with words is irrational. It has no logic to appeal to; it is only the base form of evil, in its distilled form. All other characterizations are totally inadequate.

The other part of the same problem is a more logical one. Simply that a human crisis of this proportion, while drawing sharp rebuke from everywhere, is still a tool in the hands of scheming elitists and global ghouls. How do we decipher that reality?

“The present window of opportunity, during which a peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long… We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis, and the nations will accept the New World Order.” — David Rockefeller., September 23, 1994, at the UN Ambassadors’ dinner

.

The problem is Islamic jihadists are now working on their own new word order — okay an old one — methodology that is precipitated by international crisis as well. That crisis is their own war on humanity. Politicians can worry about their so-called war on women, their pet issues, their re-elections, “never letting a crisis go to waste;” while this war rages on. If Rockefeller or his ilk think this humanitarian crisis can be transformatively used somehow, then they really have lost all senses. The only thing to be harvested from “using” this crisis in some way, for political purposes, is more evil. Are they up for that? Are we?

Part of the evil of this genocidal menace is it also has its own law to deal with everything else, including humanity, through inhumanity. If anyone was unaware of the nature of evil loose and manifested in the world, they should now be privy to it or they are beyond rehabilitation.

RightRing | Bullright

History, Hitler, Holocaust — denial, databases, and destruction

It Can Happen Here

Posted on Sun 06/30/2013 by papundits

By Alan Caruba ~

The gates of Auschwitz, one of the infamous Nazi concentration camps.

The gates of Auschwitz, one of the infamous Nazi concentration camps.

“How the Jews Defeated Hitler” is the title of a new book by Dr. Benjamin Ginsberg PhD, subtitled “Exploding the Myth of Jewish Passivity in the Face of Nazism.”  The title is counter-intuitive because, as is well known, the Nazis murdered six million Jews in Europe during the course of a deliberate genocide that has since become known as the Holocaust.

The author is a professor of political science and is chair of the Center for Advanced Governmental Studies at Johns Hopkins University and the book is more than just a history of that horrific period of history. It is not that long ago. I was a child at the time so, within the living memory of the survivors, their children and grandchildren, as well as others like myself around the world, it is living history.

The value of the book is the way it explains how many of the Jews of Europe, particularly those herded into ghettos, failed to grasp what was happening. “It was initially difficult for most Jews to believe that the Germans actually intended to kill them all.”

 

Another major factor was that the Nazis ensured that they were disarmed and unable to defend themselves, as were others who opposed the regime.

Where resistance fighters emerged, Ginsburg notes that “Germany relied, especially in Western Europe, on the help of local police forces to deal with partisans, and, especially in France and Holland, whose local police were quite helpful.” In occupied France, “The French police helpfully compiled a card index of all the Jews of Paris by name, street, occupation, and nationality.”

Therein lies the fears and concerns of Americans as they slowly come to realize that their government not only knows where they live, but a great deal of information about them courtesy of the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security, the National Security Agency, right on down to their local law enforcement authorities.

If or when Obamacare is fully implemented, anonymous bureaucrats will be able to “target” selected Americans who are seeking medical care for death simply by denying it. No need to set up concentration camps to kill them en mass. Just as the little girl who needed a lung transplant that was initially denied by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, individuals identified as “patriots” or other enemies of the state could simply be allowed to die.

So, yes, it can happen here
[/…]

Read more: http://papundits.wordpress.com/2013/06/30/it-can-happen-here/

 
Excellent article. Here in the US, they waged a campaign to marginalize any dissent or opposition to their schemes all along.