Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Obama proposes funding and training "moderate" Muslim jihadists to fight against "un-Islamic" Muslim jihadists

President Obama declared several Islamic-inspired lies and logic-defying actions this evening on nation wide tv.

First he declared that Muslim terror groups have nothing to do with freaking Islam.  He wants us to believe that groups that call themselves Islamic and kill in the name of their Islamic god, Allah, have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.  That is such a lie, but millions still inexplicably fall for that lie.

Then he says he will fund and train these "non-Islamic" Islamic terror groups to fight and be as well equipped as our own military.  He wants more of our young men to train these terrorists while these "friendly" Muslims are assured of committing their "un-Islamic" jihad against their "allies", US troops.  Expect more "work place violence" to come to a beloved US soldier near and dear to you.

Here is Pamela Geller giving more clarity to Obama's big lie about ISIS and Islam:

America tuned in to hear how Obama planned to defeat the Islamic army conquering whole swaths of the Middle East. Instead, Obama took to the prime time airwaves to proselytize for Islam. Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s […] 


And from Robert Spencer:
"Thirteen years after 9/11, there is one thing that virtually all our politicians, law enforcement officials, and mainstream media guardians of opinion know: that attack had nothing whatsoever to do with Islam, and neither does any other jihad terror attack, anywhere, no matter how often its perpetrators quote the Qur’an and invoke Muhammad. Islam, we’re told again and again, is a good, benign thing – indeed, a positive force for societies, and to be encouraged in the West. Jihad terror is an aberration, an outrage against the Religion of Peace’s peaceful teachings. These lessons from our betters are coming more and more often in light of the advent of the Islamic State."


And from Diana West:

"Acknowledge publicly that “moderates” in the Islamic world are as common and/or as reliable as unicorns, and “extremism” is the basis of Islam, and formulate new policy." 
More HERE 


Anonymous said...


Brzezinski's Interview with Le Nouvel Observateur
Le Nouvel Observateur:
Former CIA director Robert Gates states in his memoirs: The American secret services began six months before the Soviet intervention to support the Mujahideen [in Afghanistan]. At that time you were president Carters security advisor; thus you played a key role in this affair. Do you confirm this statement?

Zbigniew Brzezinski:
Yes. According to the official version, the CIA's support for the Mujahideen began in 1980, i.e. after the Soviet army's invasion of Afghanistan on 24 December 1979. But the reality, which was kept secret until today, is completely different: Actually it was on 3 July 1979 that president Carter signed the first directive for the secret support of the opposition against the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And on the same day I wrote a note, in which I explained to the president that this support would in my opinion lead to a military intervention by the Soviets.
Le Nouvel Observateur:
Despite this risk you were a supporter of this covert action? But perhaps you expected the Soviets to enter this war and tried to provoke it?

Zbigniew Brzezinski:
It's not exactly like that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene but we knowingly increased the probability that they would do it.

Le Nouvel Observateur:
When the Soviets justified their intervention with the statement that they were fighting against a secret US interference in Afghanistan, nobody believed them. Nevertheless there was a core of truth to this...Do you regret nothing today?

Zbigniew Brzezinski:
Regret what? This secret operation was an excellent idea. It lured the Russians into the Afghan trap, and you would like me to regret that? On the day when the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote president Carter, in essence: "We now have the opportunity to provide the USSR with their Viet Nam war." Indeed for ten years Moscow had to conduct a war that was intolerable for the regime, a conflict which involved the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet Empire.

Le Nouvel Observateur:
And also, don't you regret having helped future terrorists, having given them weapons and advice?

Zbigniew Brzezinski:
What is most important for world history? The Taliban or the fall of the Soviet Empire? Some Islamic hotheads or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Le Nouvel Observateur:
"Some hotheads?" But it has been said time and time again: today Islamic fundamentalism represents a world-wide threat...

Zbigniew Brzezinski:
Rubbish! It's said that the West has a global policy regarding Islam. That's hogwash: there is no global Islam. Let's look at Islam in a rational and not a demagogic or emotional way. It is the first world religion with 1.5 billion adherents. But what is there in common between fundamentalist Saudi Arabia, moderate Morocco, militaristic Pakistan, pro-Western Egypt and secularized Central Asia? Nothing more than that which connects the Christian countries...

Gerardo Moochie said...

An attempt is made by Brzezinski (and most policy makers leading us down the wrong path) to create an equivalence between Islam and Christianity. That is the problem mindset of our policy makers. There is little equivalence.

Here are the differences, and they are legion and significant:

1) Islam is much more than a "religion" - it is a culture, it is political, economic, legal,and military. It is a way of life. Christianity is 95% "theory" and "spiritual."

2) Adherents to Islam live it. Adherents to Christianity pray it and hope it.

3) Islam teaches supremacy, violence, terror, lying, and deceit. Christianity teaches the opposite.

4) Islam is in its ascendency. Christianity is in decline. The human energy is with Islam. Indifference remains with Christianity, and to a great extent also with Judaism.

5) Islam today is the greater threat. Brzezinski is wrong.

Anonymous said...

In Ritual Bathhouses of the Jewish Orthodoxy, Children Are Systematically Abused
By Christopher Ketcham Nov 12 2013
Rabbi Nuchem Rosenberg, the lone whistleblower among the Satmar, a powerful Hasidic sect, who recently was the victim of a bleach attack in Williamsburg, Brooklyn.
Rabbi Nuchem Rosenberg—who is 63 with a long, graying beard—recently sat down with me to explain what he described as a “child-rape assembly line” among sects of fundamentalist Jews. He cleared his throat. “I’m going to be graphic,” he said.
A member of Brooklyn’s Satmar Hasidim fundamentalist branch of Orthodox Judaism, Nuchem designs and repairs mikvahs in compliance with Torah Law. The mikvah is a ritual Jewish bathhouse used for purification. Devout Jews are required to cleanse themselves in the mikvah on a variety of occasions: Women must visit following menstruation, and men have to make an appearance before the High Holidays, such as Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. Many of the devout also purify themselves before and after the act of sex and before the Sabbath.
On a visit to Jerusalem in 2005, Rabbi Rosenberg entered into a mikvah in one of the holiest neighborhoods in the city, Mea She’arim. “I opened a door that entered into a schvitz,” he told me. “Vapors everywhere, I can barely see. My eyes adjust, and I see an old man, my age, long white beard, a holy-looking man, sitting in the vapors. On his lap, facing away from him, is a boy, maybe seven years old. And the old man is having anal sex with this boy.”
Rabbi Rosenberg paused, gathered himself, and went on: “This boy was speared on the man like an animal, like a pig, and the boy was saying nothing. But on his face—fear. The old man [looked at me] without any fear, as if this was common practice. He didn’t stop. I was so angry, I confronted him. He removed the boy from his penis, and I took the boy aside. I told this man, ‘It’s a sin before God, a mishkovzucher. What are you doing to this boy’s soul? You’re destroying this boy!’ He had a sponge on a stick to clean his back, and he hit me across the face with it. ‘How dare you interrupt me!’ he said. I had heard of these things for a long time, but now I had seen.”
The child sex abuse crisis in ultra-Orthodox Judaism, like that in the Catholic Church, has produced its share of shocking headlines in recent years. In New York, and in the prominent Orthodox communities of Israel and London, allegations of child molestation and rape have been rampant. The alleged abusers are schoolteachers, rabbis, fathers, uncles—figures of male authority. The victims, like those of Catholic priests, are mostly boys. Rabbi Rosenberg believes around half of young males in Brooklyn’s Hasidic community—the largest in the United States and one of the largest in the world—have been victims of sexual assault perpetrated by their elders. Ben Hirsch, director of Survivors for Justice, a Brooklyn organization that advocates for Orthodox sex abuse victims, thinks the real number is higher. “From anecdotal evidence, we’re looking at over 50 percent. It has almost become a rite of passage.”
Ultra-Orthodox Jews who speak out about these abuses are ruined and condemned to exile by their own community. Dr. Amy Neustein, a nonfundamentalist Orthodox Jewish sociologist and editor of Tempest in the Temple: Jewish Communities and Child Sex Scandals, told me the story of a series of Hasidic mothers in Brooklyn she got to know who complained that their children were being preyed on by their husbands.
In these cases, the accused men “very quickly and effectively engage the rabbis, the Orthodox politicians, and powerful Orthodox rabbis who donate handsomely to political clubs.” The goal, she told me, is “to excise the mother from the child’s life.” Rabbinical courts cast the mothers aside, and the effects are permanent. The mother is “amputated.” One woman befriended by Dr. Neustein, a music student at a college outside New York, lost contact with all six of her children, including an infant she was breastfeeding at the time of their separation.

Gerardo Moochie said...

The above comment represents another case of attempted moral equivalency between the pandemic evil of Islamic terror based on orthodox Islamic doctrine and the relatively rare aberrant behaviors of other groups.

This is the sort of misdirecting excuse Muslims typically proffer to deflect attention away from their own evil actions. Unless one had an Islamic agenda, it makes little sense to attempt to take attention away from a greater evil by mentioning other evils that pale in comparison - in this instance likely by a magnitude of 10,000 to 1. More crime occurs in Chicago in one night than among Orthodox Jews in a year. This is the same tactic Islamic apologists bring up when they say "what about the Christian Crusades" that occurred more than a thousand years ago after 400 years of slaughter and conquest by Muslims. If I didn't know better, I would guess that "Larry's" email was highjacked by a Muslim apologist and used to submit the above post. I cannot imagine a Jew in his right mind wanting to post something like this to deflect attention away from the evils of orthodox Islam.