Opuscula Obama won't say "Muslim terrorists"

Wonder why?

 

WITH FRANCE STILL BURYING its dead after the second Muslim terrorist attack (the first coming in January 2015 when Muslim terrorists attacked the Charlie Hebdo satire magazine and a kosher market, killing 17 and wounding 22), the president of the United States denounced the shooting and bombing assaults in Paris on Friday that killed 129 people and a double suicide bombing in Ankara on October 10 that claimed 102 lives

The president noted that “The killing of innocent people based on a twisted ideology is an attack not just on France, not just on Turkey but it is an attack on the civilized world,” according to a Times of Israel wrap up of several wire reports.

But the president, with a fundamental Muslim grounding as a child, cannot bring himself to call the attackers what they are: Muslim terrorists.

The U.S. president also cannot bring himself to admit that the daily acts of terror on Israeli citizens of all ages also is perpetrated by Muslim terrorists.

But given his upbringing, it is not surprising that the continuing murder of a few Jews fails to generate any condemnation of the Muslim terrorists.

I will be the first to admit that not all Muslims are terrorists and while the media rarely notes when a "moderate Muslim is embarrassed by the acts of Muslim terrorists, it seems most Muslims either are ambivalent or silently support their murdering fellow Muslims.

Now the U.S. president is proposing to import refugees from Syria for humanitarian reasons.

Surely no one can fault him for that.

The problem is: Who can vet each immigrant during a mass immigration?

Will the refugees be delayed entry visas into the U.S. as are Israeli citizens? Will they be allowed free run of the country as the thousands of illegal aliens - sorry, undocumented immigrants enjoy? The U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can't keep track of the intruders - invaders - we have now; how does the president expect ICE to monitor hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Syrians, some of whom will be Muslim terrorists, entering the country in the guise of refugees? Or did he even consider this?

Let the predominately Muslim countries absorb the refugees. According to Wikipedia, there are 43 countries with Muslim populations of 75% or greater, with another eight (8) with Muslim populations of 50% or greater. (Only Vatican City has 0% Muslim population.) The U.S. has approximately 2.6 million Muslims making up more than 0.8% of the population.

As an aside, when Jews were trying to escape certain death in Europe, the United States refused entry to hundreds, sending them to their deaths at the hands of the Germans and their allies.

Even discussing Daesh, a/k/a ISIL/ISIS, the president cannot call a terrorist a terrorist if the terrorist is a Muslim.

We will redouble our efforts working with other members of the coalition to bring about a peaceful transition in Syria and to eliminate Daesh as a force that can create so much pain and suffering for people in Paris and Ankara and other parts of the globe,” Obama said.

If Daesh is not a Muslim terrorist organization then neither are Hezbollah, Hamas, Boko Haram, or any of the other 50-plus organizations - primarily Muslim - on the U.S. State Department's Foreign Terrorist Organizations list.

But the president can't bring himself to say the words: Muslim terrorists.

 

Any reasonable person would read the two headlines above and say This can't be for real.

The president of the U.S. wants to reward a government (Iran) that calls for "the death of America." Never mind that Iran also wants the destruction of the "Little Satan" (Israel) - under the current administration Israel is of no value and, worse, is a thorn in the president's political hide.

You can read the articles by clicking on the links below.

Obama Says US Will Consider Immediate Lifting of Iran Sanctions

and

Obama Says US Will Consider Immediate Lifting of Iran Sanctions

Caveat United With Israel, which published the two articles - and more - is an Israeli-based operation with strong pro-Israel prejudices.

Caveat not withstanding, any half-way intelligent reader would be given pause by the proximity of the headlines and the content of the articles beneath them (or in the this case, linked from them).

Here is a "leader" who, with his State Department - notoriously pro-Arab and anti-Jewish … not just anti-Israel but anti-Jewish, there was no Israel when Jews were slaughtered by nazis and Muslims between 1930 and 1946 - kowtows to the Chaplinesque petty tyrants of Iran ^{See note at bottom.}

Shades of Neville Chamberlain and his "peace in our time" promise to the English after he gave away part of Czechoslovakia - without bothering to check with the Czechs. The surrender only whetted the nazi madman's appetite for more land - as Poland soon discovered.

The Appeaser In Charge apparently thinks that lifting sanctions on Iran and allowing - encouraging - Iran to develop nuclear weapons will cause the ayatollahs to reconsider their animosity - hatred - for the U.S.

The ayatollahs' mentality is different from the normative Euro-American mentality where a man's word is honored. There obviously are exceptions to that mentality as the chief nazi proved.

Given Iran's past post-saber rattling actions - the Iran-Iraq war, the attack on the USS Cole, and support of multiple terrorist organizations - a reasonable person must conclude that the ayatollahs mean what they say; they will sacrifice as many Iranians as needed to eliminate the Great Satan and the Little Satan from the face of the earth as they strive to restore Muslim hegemony around the globe.

A correspondent challenged that "What have the sanctions accomplished? Look at Cuba."

Good question.

The sanctions admittedly don't hurt either the ayatollahs or the Castros; they, unfortunately, cause the average person at least inconvenience. That over time can have one of two results: either the average citizen will see his government as the source of the country's woes or the citizen will ignore his own leadership's folly and blame whomever the leadership blames.

Are there alternatives to sanctions?

Certainly. But are they good alternatives?

The U.S. could, and Israel threatens, to bomb Iran back to the 5th Century; to level Iranian cities as the U.S. did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There is hesitation to do this because

  * Unlike Japan, the U.S. is not engaged in a global war with Iran (primarily because Iran uses proxies to attack U.S. interests)

  * The feeling is that most of Iran's people are tools of the ayatollahs and not anti-anyone.

On the other had, the liberal world frowns upon selective assassinations, preferring - apparently - to allow a few men, women, and children to be murdered by the people who would be targeted for an early and "permanent" retirement.

All of the above applies also to North Korea.

Since taking office, the incumbent at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has destroyed all respect other nations and peoples once had for the United States.

His arrogance and abuse of executive power has made him a laughing stock to all but the most liberal loyalist, and his actions are bringing the nation closer to yet another war, one that may well result in nuclear attacks on U.S. soil and certainly on the soil of America's ONLY dependable ally in the Middle east.

The president has proven, again and again, that America's best interests are NOT the same as his personal interests.

Note: Chaplin was neither the only, or first, film maker to parody the nazi. Before Chaplin's film, the Three Stooges took a swipe at the fuhrer and and even German Fritz Lang pilloried the nazi psychopath prior to Chaplin's The Great Dictator.