Try to unpack some of these statements.
“We haven’t always gotten it right,” Vice President Joe Biden said Tuesday as he opened the summit. “But we have a lot of experience integrating communities into the American system, the American dream.”
“Groups like al-Qaida and ISIL exploit the anger that festers when people feel that injustice and corruption leave them with no chance of improving their lives,” Obama wrote in an op-ed article Wednesday in the Los Angeles Times. “The world has to offer today’s youth something better.”
To the State Department, Marie Harf talks about it as a social problem. Chris Matthews opens describing it as evil, and her answer is the social ills at the root of the problem. But she criticized other strategic thinkers as being too simplistic.
Harf “We’re killing a lot of them, and we’re going to keep killing more of them. … But we cannot win this war by killing them,” department spokeswoman Marie Harf said on MSNBC’s “Hardball.” “We need … to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it’s lack of opportunity for jobs, whether –”
Chris Matthews who pointed out; “There’s always going to be poor people. There’s always going to be poor Muslims.”
“If we can help countries work at the root causes of this — what makes these 17-year-old kids pick up an AK-47 instead of trying to start a business?”
While Harf wants to return to the social roots and mores, she has overlooked the social ill that is Islamic radicalism. They are returning to their roots of violent jihad that gave rise to Islam from the beginning. As soon as they had enough adherents to wage regional jihad war on others that is what they did. That is how it spread. So what ISIS is doing has historic precedent. This is their social program or paradigm.
If, as she says, we want to treat and deal with underline conditions and causes, how can you do that while evading the premises of faith on which it is built? Their central purpose and cause is Islam. Do people think a jobs program or youth after-school basketball is going to solve that? It seems ISIS recruits are taking a vow into communal poverty in joining, as a central tenant. Remember bin Laden’s gripe with Saudi Arabia and others that their material wealth outstripped, corrupted the tenants of Wahhabi Islam. So they aren’t interested in a better, more civilized society since barbarism is their social model — as long as their Islam is the central authority controlling it.
Right, lets address some of the social inadequacies. (all of which are centered on their Islamic faith) A faith that can create an edict to justify slaughter of anyone or marry children, or anything else they deem necessary for jihad. Those are the rules of the road. Including the use of Taqiyya toward the same ends. When these are their rules, it tells you what social deficiencies are really involved. Plus the fact that they certainly are not going to listen to an outsider telling them to reform or bringing them enlightenment.
Obama also said in his op-ed in the LA Times:
Governments that deny human rights play into the hands of extremists who claim that violence is the only way to achieve change. Efforts to counter violent extremism will only succeed if citizens can address legitimate grievances through the democratic process and express themselves through strong civil societies. Those efforts must be matched by economic, educational and entrepreneurial development so people have hope for a life of dignity.
Obama wants to apply the blanket of human rights to an ideology that doesn’t accept human rights. That’s probably why we have the millennium-old problem. Obama should consult his old buddy Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground — with their radicalism and militant violence — who have been absorbed into academic institutions. Similar to the way Obama’s gang have endorsed the Muslim Brotherhood. Creative radicalism? Look at their successes across Egypt and Libya. It goes full circle with Obama.
Lastly, their latest justifications for their social poverty-talk formula is saying Bush made similar comments. They would refuse Bush’s advice or doctrines anywhere else, but now channel Bush to support their case. Under Bush, we did not know how wide spread the problems were. Bush also proved to be naive with a tin ear on the subject too.
However, Obama, as a fellow radical himself (above), should have some understanding of basic tactical strategies involved. They aren’t too far removed from progressives’ rules for radicals. Some people wish we could win over radical hearts and minds of progressives too. That has proved futile.
So Obama decides to have an extremism summit. At the same time he is willing to make a deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions. But one thing they are not doing is connecting the dots of terrorism and ISIS with Iran, in general. They want to draw imaginary distinctions where none really exist, but yet they want to lump all terrorism under one “extremist” umbrella. Even if we had extremists under another banner committing terrorism, it would not be on the international scale as these caliphate-crazed Islamists. It would be an outlier. So they can shove their Timothy McVeigh comparisons.
Has anyone noticed the great jobs programs from all the aid to Palestinian areas? That’s a stunning example of where the money goes? It all depends on your definition of “jobs.”
But “all aboard the social-jobs train”. Wait, there’s another idea: how about training them to be social workers? Eureka, that’s it!
RightRing | Bullright