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.

ISIS and CIA , Saudi Arabia’s Islamic State

Conventional wisdom, what is conventional in Iraq or Mid-East for that matter?

Suspicions Run Deep in Iraq That C.I.A. and the Islamic State Are United

SEPT. 20, 2014 | NYT

BAGHDAD — The United States has conducted an escalating campaign of deadly airstrikes against the extremists of the Islamic State for more than a month. But that appears to have done little to tamp down the conspiracy theories still circulating from the streets of Baghdad to the highest levels of Iraqi government that the C.I.A. is secretly behind the same extremists that it is now attacking.

“We know about who made Daesh,” said Bahaa al-Araji, a deputy prime minister, using an Arabic shorthand for the Islamic State on Saturday at a demonstration called by the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr to warn against the possible deployment of American ground troops. Mr. Sadr publicly blamed the C.I.A. for creating the Islamic State in a speech last week, and interviews suggested that most of the few thousand people at the demonstration, including dozens of members of Parliament, subscribed to the same theory. (Mr. Sadr is considered close to Iran, and the theory is popular there as well.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/world/middleeast/suspicions-run-deep-in-iraq-that-cia-and-the-islamic-state-are-united.html?_r=2

The Islamic State . . . of Saudi Arabia

Between beheadings, they’ll help train the “moderate” Syrian rebels.
By Andrew C. McCarthy | NRO
September 20, 2014

The beheadings over the last several weeks were intended to terrorize, to intimidate, to coerce obedience, and to enforce a construction of sharia law that, being scripturally rooted, is draconian and repressive.

And let’s not kid ourselves: We know there will be more beheadings in the coming weeks, and on into the future. Apostates from Islam, homosexuals, and perceived blasphemers will face brutal persecution and death. Women will be treated as chattel and face institutionalized abuse. Islamic-supremacist ideology, with its incitements to jihad and conquest, with its virulent hostility toward the West, will spew from the mosques onto the streets. We will continue to be confronted by a country-sized breeding ground for anti-American terrorists.
Advertisement

The Islamic State? Sorry, no. I was talking about . . . our “moderate Islamist” ally, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

But the confusion is understandable.

Islamic State terrorists have infamously decapitated three of their prisoners in recent weeks. That is five fewer than the Saudi government decapitated in August alone. Indeed, it is three fewer beheadings than were carried out in September by the Free Syrian Army — the “moderate Islamists” that congressional Republicans have now joined Obama Democrats in supporting with arms and training underwritten by American taxpayer dollars. […/]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/388460/islamic-state-saudi-arabia-andrew-c-mccarthy

Honey, I’m shrinking ISIL

Film at eleven

Obama wants to “shrink” ISIS into a “manageable problem.”

That’s the headline and I just can’t add anything to that. If the stupidity of that statement doesn’t speak for itself, I don’t know what does.

Whatever happened to Joe Biden’s “spine of steel”?
But Biden is going to follow that manageable problem “to the gates of hell”.

See what happens when you put radical narcissists in the White House?

Ref: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-strategy-isis-manageable/2014/09/03/id/592372/

RightRing | Bullright

Inevitable Caliphate

All these problems with Islamists and terrorism throughout the world, namely the Mid East, are bad enough but we also have Muslim Islamistist sympathizers in high places. And they appear to be having influence over everything we do. Take this revealing quote from Elibiary, top adviser in DHS.

From the Clarion Project

Homeland Security’s Mohammed Elibiary: Caliphate Inevitable

Elibiary inferred that he wants the U.S. to support a future caliphate, framing it as a Muslim version of the European Union.
By Ryan Mauro
Wed, June 25, 2014

On June 13, Elibiary tweeted that the creation of a caliphate is “inevitable,” and America’s choice is whether to support it or not. He inferred that he wants the U.S. to support a future caliphate, framing it as a Muslim version of the European Union. The tweet is below:

Online supporters of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), a terrorist group that fights to reestablish the caliphate with Baghdad as its capital, distributed and praised Elibiary’s tweet.

In a follow-up tweet, he claimed that both political parties are “heading in that direction” of supporting a modern caliphate. As evidence, he pointed to the Bush Administration’s appointment of an envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Obama Administration’s engagement of the Muslim Brotherhood.

In another tweet on June 21, Elibiary compared “drive by media slander of Islamism” to the segregation-era when African-Americans were treated as second-class citizens. In other words, the critics of the Islamist ideology are bigots. The tweet is below:

The governance of a potential caliphate would be based on sharia. Mosque and state would be combined. Elibiary is aware of this, but says the U.S. should not oppose sharia governance.

“We should remember that them [Islamists] ruling their countries with sharia law doesn’t mean them coming to our country and using our planes to destroy our buildings,” he told me in an extensive interview last year.

The reestablishment of the caliphate presents a direct threat to the West. A future caliph, or leader of a caliphate, would have widely recognized authority—or even an obligation—to declare and wage jihad.

More Clarion Project

Rhodes’ musical chairs on Iraq and ISIS

White House: Foley’s killing was ‘absolutely’ a terrorist attack. That from Ben Rhodes in his press briefing from Martha’s Vineyard with Obama on vacation.

White House: Foley’s killing was ‘absolutely’ a terrorist attack

By Justin Sink – 08/22/14 | The Hill

The killing of American journalist James Foley was “absolutely” a terrorist attack, the White House said Friday.

Deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes, briefing reporters from Martha’s Vineyard, said Foley’s beheading by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) — and the release of an online video showing the aftermath — was a direct assault on the United States.

“When you see somebody killed in such a horrific way, that represents a terrorist attack against our country and against an American citizen,” Rhodes said.

“Clearly, the brutal execution of Jim Foley represented an affront — an attack not just him, but he’s an American, and we see that as an attack on our country when one of our own is killed like that,” he added.

Rhodes addressed the media the day after Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey floated expanding the scope of military action against ISIS into Syria.

“This is an organization that has an apocalyptic end-of-days strategic vision that will eventually have to be defeated,” Dempsey said. “Can they be defeated without addressing that part of the organization that resides in Syria? The answer is no.”

Rhodes said President Obama would consider airstrikes against Islamist militants operating in Syria if it were necessary to help protect Americans.

“We’re actively considering what’s going to be necessary to deal with that threat, and we’re not going to be restricted by borders,” Rhodes told reporters Friday. “We’ve shown time and again that if there’s a counterterrorism threat, we’ll take direct action against that threat if necessary.”

The White House said that the president has not yet been presented with specific military options “outside of those that are carrying out the current missions in Iraq.”

“But we would certainly look at what is necessary in the long term to make sure we’re protecting Americans,” Rhodes said.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/215778-white-house-foleys-killing-was-absolutely-a-terrorist-attack

Ben Rhodes could not find those words “absolutely” a “terrorist attack” on the US. Rhodes, who was behind the memos and Susan Rice’s talking points on Beghazi, now declares an attack on one American is a legitimate terrorist attack. A terrorist group claimed credit for the Benghazi attack, yet he could not voice those words. Now he can clearly call it terrorism. Will the real Ben Rohodes stand up… or sit down and shut up.

In an email to Susan Rice in prep for her infamous news tour on Benghazi, Rhodes said: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”

It’s a shame old fiction writer Rhodes could not find the words “Terrorist Attack” on Benghazi, after slaughtering 3 Americans and a US ambassador the way they did. That’s checkmate, Rhodes! None of that “absolutely” shit about Benghazi, was there?

RightRing | Bullright

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

Obama’s blame charade bustin’ a move

Obama and the left inject the political narrative, i.e. Maliki and the change in PM leadership. ISIL is not a problem with politics. It’s evil in the purest form. So what has politics got to do with it? But they need to inject it to focus attention somewhere else. That is another level of evil, diversion from the reality and truth.

Sure there is something to PM Maliki’s performance problems. But that would be an issue with or without the ISIS problem. Even if there was another PM in there ISIS would still be a problem in Iraq.

It so happens though that Maliki has been ringing the fire alarms for months. So this is just a smokescreen to cover for Obama’s unwillingness and abject failure to face the threat that it is. Actually it was Obama’s failure to take any action that invited this ISIS calamity. Blame actually points to Obama, and he can’t have that. That is all he really cares about, not the facts or what’s happening. If so, he would have done something months ago. Instead, he was waiting for it to get as bad as it would get. And we sure are there.

But as usual, in his so-called deliberative debate formula over response, he never weighs the cost of his own inaction. That is never a factor to him. One can only assume Valerie Jarrett instructed him, “don’t let anyone talk you into taking action, it would be a huge mistake.” So he ran his mouth, and called them JV, but made a decision for inaction long ago, when the decision was critical.

It is important to look at the time line: he called them JV (read not ready for prime time terrorists), I wonder who briefed him on that? They were his words. Or he was just egging them on, which is possible. We can add that to the cynicism about Obama. It wouldn’t be the first time he has done that.(impeachment, sequester, “shut down”) In this case, evil is the object in play — like that needs to be encouraged.

Now he has gotten the situation, what does he do? He promises a delayed response, then ticks off a list of ‘will nots’. I wish this guy would get that right where it matters. The Constitution is a list of negative law, laying out limitations on the government. Yet he tries to refashion everything under positive law.(with an all powerful, evolving government) Then he sees an imperial executive in it that constantly hordes more power to itself.

June 13th, Obama spewed (Friday – 13th if you’re keeping track):

Yesterday I convened a meeting with my National Security Council to discuss the situation there, and this morning I received an update from my team. Over the last several days, we’ve seen significant gains made by ISIL, a terrorist organization that operates in both Iraq and in Syria. In the face of a terrorist offensive, Iraqi security forces have proven unable to defend a number of cities, which has allowed the terrorists to overrun a part of Iraq’s territory. And this poses a danger to Iraq and its people, and given the nature of these terrorists, it could pose a threat eventually to American interests as well.

Now, this threat is not brand-new. Over the last year, we’ve been steadily ramping up our security assistance to the Iraqi government with increased training, equipping and intelligence. Now Iraq needs additional support to break the momentum of extremist groups and bolster the capabilities of Iraqi security forces.

He went on to add this key caveat:

So any action that we make take to provide assistance to Iraqi security forces has to be joined by a serious and sincere effort by Iraq’s leaders to set aside sectarian differences, to promote stability and account for the legitimate interests of all of Iraq’s communities, and to continue to build the capacity of an effective security force. We can’t do it for them. And in the absence of this type of political effort, short-term military action — including any assistance we might provide — won’t succeed.

What was he trying to say? Well, in Obama lingo politics comes first. Aside from that, he suggested if anything goes wrong and there is any blame it is on them, first of all. Then he built in a loophole for his own failure to act and blame that on Iraq’s politics and leadership. Did he have the same prerequisites on Libya? Remember, that was going to be a big success from the beginning. Qaddafi then was the excuse to go in there. They were going to side with Mo-Bro’s and other Islam groups, and everyone would live happily ever after.

Here, in Iraq, all he does is repeat his mantra about not going in there practically under any scenario. If you were a terrorist looking to set up shop, where would you head? Right, I’d agree. But he made that statement in the beginning of June. Had that been the date of taking responsive action, he could have headed off much of the damage, saving some lives and Christian natives in the area. But no, it was a stall and actually a speech why he was reluctant to take any action, unless certain political criteria were met. Keep in mind too that Iraq is a country that has been under a dictatorship until about ten years ago.

So he made the standard why not speech, saying they were monitoring the situation.(from the back nine) He announced he was having his people prepare plans. Remember? Yea that was a pregnant order with postulating malice of forethought.

Note his top-heavy emphasis on politics in a humanitarian crisis. (sound familiar?-border crisis) In 2002, then the Illinois present-voting state senator, Obama, said on Iraq:

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

But that does not apply to his regime or terrorist threats, I assume. Now ten years later he delegates political hacks like Valerie Jarret, Susan Rice, Ben Roades, Denis McDonough, and Tom Donilon to run roughshod over foreign policy decisions and national security. It’s his M/O. Talk about armchair political agendas? They put our national security at risk. Not that national security is their objective. Talk about contaminating this situation with politics. (Hello, Libya) He even toted fiction writer Ben Rhodes along on vacation.

Now after almost two months of deliberation about it, he takes his limited action about which NY Times wrote “Obama Allows Limited Airstrikes on ISIS

So he made his pronouncement about allowing limited actions. I.e.: I really don’t want to do anything, and Valerie doesn’t want me to but I will allow just this much, that’s it. Then he closed saying:

And when many thousands of innocent civilians are faced with the danger of being wiped out, and we have the capacity to do something about it, we will take action. That is our responsibility as Americans. That’s a hallmark of American leadership. That’s who we are.

But that is not true, as it wasn’t true 2 months ago when it could have made a larger difference. And his JV statement in January was plain bullshit.

RightRing | Bullright