Obama The JV President Believes We Must Disarm The Police and Military In Order To Be Safe

Maybe, but he forgot to yell fore!
===
The White House is having trouble determining the threat level of ISIS.

Obama loves to shoot hoops but based on his assessment of terrorists I submit he is a JV President.

Obama is probably a bigger threat than ISIS so no wonder The White House is having a problem making a decision.

When it comes to terrorism of any kind,  Obama is so myopic, he probably needs to see the whites of their eyes before he can react.(See 1 below.)
===
More comments from a Muslim nutsy cleric. (See 2 below.)
===
A sound analysis of the war of attrition. (See 3 below.)

Dissatisfaction over cease fire.  (See 3a and 3b below.)
===

Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Report: White House Cannot Decide on ISIS Threat Level
By Drew MacKenzie

The Obama administration is undecided about the threat level to Americans by the extremist group Islamic State (ISIS) and how they should handle it, The Hill reported.

The White House believes there is a notable difference between the threat of a terrorist atrocity on American soil, which the administration feels is unlikely, and an attack on U.S. personnel in Iraq, which the administration says is a clear and present danger.

Officials have added to the confusion by giving different statements at different times on the level of danger from the terror organization, according to The Hill. 

President Barack Obama is mulling over authorizing airstrikes on the jihadists in eastern Syria, where they are based, as well as continuing attacks in northern Iraq. 

But airstrikes in Syria, which would mark a major escalation in U.S. military action in the region, would also aid the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad at the same time the United States would like to see him removed from power.

Last year, Obama received permission from Congress to bomb Assad's forces as they fought back against rebel fighters. But Obama faces obstacles getting congressional backing for airstrikes on the Sunni militants in Syria, The Hill said.

Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, who's close to Obama, issued a convoluted statement on Monday: "I do not believe that our expanded military operations against [ISIS] are covered under existing authorizations from Congress." 

But Kaine added that he was "encouraged by reports that indicate administration officials have signaled that seeking congressional authorization for U.S. military action against [ISIS] is being considered."

White House press secretary Josh Earnest added to the problem of declaring a threat level to the United States by saying that the president believes "military might is not the only tool in the tool box here."

Earnest was asked whether Obama agreed with Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel's statement last week that ISIS was "an imminent threat to every interest we have" and "beyond anything that we've seen."

Earnest responded, "What is true is that there is a serious threat that's posed by" ISIS.

And when he was pressed on whether there was "an imminent threat to America," he replied, "Well, it certainly is an imminent … [threat to] American interests."

Obama initially authorized airstrikes against Islamic State militants because of the danger to U.S. personnel in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil, as well as in Baghdad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Author:  Robert Spencer 
Source:  Jihad Watch.     

Pictured left:  Militia fighters in Aleppo Syria

Hussein bin Mahmoud invokes Qur’an 47:4: “When you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks…” It would be refreshing if Barack Obama or the Archbishop of Brisbane or one of the many other non-Muslim authorities who have insisted that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam would explain how he is misunderstanding that verse. But it is doubtful that they even know that such a verse exists in the Qur’an.

“Jihadi Cleric Justifies IS Beheadings: ‘Islam Is A Religion Of Beheading,’” MEMRI, August 26, 2014 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

In a recent article, jihadi cleric Hussein bin Mahmoud, a prominent writer on jihadi forums, expressed support for the beheading of American journalist James Foley by a member of the Islamic State (IS). Bin Mahmoud wrote that beheading was an effective way to terrorize the enemies of Islam, and stressed that, under Islamic law, Foley was a harbi, i.e. a non-Muslim whose life was not protected by an agreement of protection. He argued further that Islam allows and encourages such acts, since it is a religion of war and fighting.

The following are excerpts from the article, as posted August 21, 2014 on the Shumoukh Al-Islam forum.

“All Scholars… Agree On The Permissibility Of Killing A Harbi Infidel”

“I don’t know what to say. My mind is perplexed by words I have read and heard from people whom I do not know how to describe!! Millions of Muslims have been killed, tortured and driven from their homes; tens of thousands of Muslim women have had their honor violated and have been sexually abused by the Americans – yet people are weeping over a Christian American harbi infidel who entered the Islamic State, knowing full well what the Islamic State is, and without a pact [of protection]. Were the soldiers of the Islamic State supposed to pat this American harbi on the back and smile at him? All scholars, without exception, agree on the permissibility of killing a harbi infidel, and agree that his blood and property are fair game. Most of them [also] agree on the permissibility of killing him if he is taken prisoner. So where does this condemnation of the IS come from?… Let it be known to all people that when a harbi enters the land of Islam without a legal pact [of protection], his property, life and progeny are fair game.

“Many Muslims are influenced by the West’s false views and its repulsive ideas, which are exported to the Islamic nation in order to weaken it and change the perception of its youth so that [the youth] become cowardly and subdued and abandon the means of power and terror, and thus create a generation that does not know fighting or the cutting of necks. Recently we saw some who are considered scholars mixing things up and deceiving the nation, changing the concepts of Islamic law to fit the plans of the enemies. We don’t know if they did this out of ignorance about some of the tenets of Islamic law, or were [simply] lying…”

“Beheading A Harbi Infidel Is A Blessed Act For Which A Muslim Is Rewarded”

“Chopping off the heads of infidels is an act whose permissibility the [Muslim] ummah agrees on. Beheading a harbi infidel is a blessed act for which a Muslim is rewarded. The [only] matter scholars disagree about is the question of transferring the head from one place to another, traveling with it and carrying it around…”

Bin Mahmoud: Jews, Christians, Shi’ites And ‘Alawites Who Committed Crimes Against The Muslims Must Be Beheaded

After clarifying that he is opposed to killing Muslims, bin Mahmoud continues: “As for beheading infidel Jews, Christians and ‘Alawites, as well as apostate Shi’ites, who commit crimes against the Muslims, they must be terrorized, filled with fear and beheaded without any respect. Cutting off heads is part of the tradition of the [Prophet's] Companions. In the Koran Allah ordered to smite the infidels’ necks and encouraged the Muslims to do this. He said [in Koran 47:4], ‘When you meet those who disbelieve on the battlefield, smite at their necks until you have killed and wounded many of them…

“How many hadiths [relayed by] the Prophet’s Companions have we read in which they demanded that he strike the necks of certain men, and the Prophet did not condemn the striking of necks… Striking necks was a well-known matter that did not elicit any condemnation in the eras of the Prophet, the rightly-guided caliphs and their successors,  right until the time of the Christian occupation of the Muslims’ lands in the [20th] century. Those crusaders fought the Islamic legal concepts, distorted the religion, and convinced the Muslims that their religion is a religion of peace, doves, love and harmony, and that there is no blood in it, no killing and no fighting. The Muslims remained in this state until Allah revived the tradition of beheading by means of the mujahid and slaughterer Abu Mus’ab Al-Zarqawi, may Allah have mercy upon him and accept him as a martyr.”

“Islam Is A Religion Of Bloodshed”

Bin Mahmoud goes on to quote a long list of texts which, according to him, prove that Islam condones beheading as a means of terrorizing the enemy, and then emphasizes once more that Islam is not a peaceful religion, since its essence is jihad and martyrdom. He concludes that “Islam is a religion of beheading”:

“The truth is that what distorts the image of Islam is not the beheading and terrorizing of infidels, but rather those who want [Islam to follow the path of] Mandela or Ghandi, with no killing, fighting, brutality, bloodshed or the striking of heads or necks. That is not the religion of [the Prophet] Muhammad son of ‘Abdallah who was sent [to fight] with the sword [until]   Judgment Day. The only Koranic surah that is named after him, Surah Muhammad, is [also] called ‘The Surah of Fighting’…

“Islam is a religion of power, fighting, jihad, beheading and bloodshed, not a religion of turning the left cheek to whoever slapped you on the right cheek. On the contrary, it is a religion of breaking the hand that is stretched out to humiliate the Muslim. [Any Muslim] who fights for his property, blood or honor is a martyr.

“In Islam, tourism [means] jihad for the sake of Allah… There is no true life for its believers except through jihad, [and] the goal of its fighters is to die for the sake of their religion…”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3) Author:  Ron Ben-Yishai 

Source:  Ynet News.

On the 49th day of fighting in Protective Edge, we have found ourselves in the middle of a war of attrition in which both sides are pulverizing one other with antagonistic fire. That is, the fighting is being conducted remotely, with no contact between IDF soldiers and Hamas fighters.

It is important to understand this point, as it explains why a war of attrition is ultimately worse for Israel than for Hamas. Even though Hamas is drawing fire and suffering serious damage, at rates far, far higher than Israel.

Pictured left:  Devastation in Gaza
(Photo: AFP)

The reason for this absurd phenomenon is “absorption threshold” of Hamas, and the citizens of Gaza in particular, is far higher than what the citizens of Israel have to endure – at least this is how it is portrayed in the media. Hamas has to do almost nothing to prove to the Arab world and Palestinian street that it is holding on.

It is enough that Hamas keeps launching rockets and says it is winning to make the Arab world and Gazans believe that it has the upper hand. In Israel, on the other hand, we tell the truth and do not try to dress it up. Every Israeli citizen and world public opinion knows that residents of the South have left until the storm has passed, and that our media reflects the impatience and concern that the school year will not begin on time. Hamas takes advantage of this in the war for hearts and minds to prove that it is supposedly the victor.

This, by the way, is not a maneuver patented by Hamas. Hassan Nasrallah and his Hezbollah militant organization used the same method after the Second Lebanon War, even managing to win over the Arab world. The bluff was only exposed after eight years of Nasrallah and Hezbollah minding their manners on Israel's northern border.

Dispersing the fog

Given that this battle for hearts and minds is being waged alongside the physical war, it is very important to clarify a few issues. I did not have to think too much about this. It was enough to pick up on some of the most common questions asked by the Israeli public and answer them in order to almost completely disperse the fog of uncertainty that is typical of every war.

1. How long the fighting will last before we reach a stable ceasefire?

It is absolutely clear that all parties now want a ceasefire as soon as possible. The problem is that Hamas cannot agree to a ceasefire without any achievements to present to its people and to the citizens of Gaza – an achievement that would explain why it initiated this war in the first place. Similarly, the Israeli government cannot justify the fighting and casualties if it agrees to give Hamas this achievement and if it cannot prove that Hamas will be unable to rebuild after the fighting ends.

So far, the Egyptian mediators have been unable to bridge this gap. Even a Security Council resolution did not give Hamas what it wants. But it seems now that there will a different political solution: Egypt, it appears, is close to announce that it will open the Rafah border crossing for the entry and exit of people and goods from the Gaza Strip, a move that may provide to Hamas with the exit strategy and cause for a ceasefire that it was so looking desperately seeking. Things will become clear in the coming days and by the weekend we will probably know if we are looking at a stable ceasefire or wider war. Or maybe even a new ground incursion.

2. How, after its battering by the Air Force, can Hamas keep firing at the same rate and quantity?

Hamas has prepared very well, for at least five years, for the current conflict. He also initiated it. Accordingly, Hamas has armed itself with thousands of short-range rockets and mortars, as well as hundreds of medium-range rockets (160-70 km). This is why, after 49 days of fighting, it has no problem with supplies. If the organization is frugal with its attacks, it could keep firing for at least another month.

What is more important to know is that Hamas is prepared for a situation in which the organization has almost entirely fallen apart, but is still capable of firing. To manage this, it has produced thousands of buried launchers that are accessed underground. Each area and neighborhood in Gaza is under the control of a Hamas division, battalion or company. Each company and battalion army has what the IDF calls “launch activists” who have orders on when to fire and where, so you can cut off the head of the snake but the tail will keep moving – and in possession of rockets – until it is ordered to stop.

This, for example, is one of the reasons why every time there is a ceasefire, there is also some shooting after it comes into effect. These are not always rogue operatives launching rockets, but rather there is a broken connection, and they are simply following the directives they had previously been given.

3. Is it possible to defeat and destroy Hamas?

It is certainly possible, as we will see. But before asking how, one must decide whether it is necessary and if it will result in long-term quiet from the Gaza Strip. The answer is that it is certainly desirable and absolutely necessary to defeat Hamas, but it is doubtful whether it is desirable to topple it too.

The collapse of Hamas may well result in chaos in the Gaza Strip that would work to the future benefit of the Salafist and jihadist groups who are already in the area, namely in the Sinai. Those who think that Abbas can just take over the Gaza Strip in place of Hamas, is deluded – certainly in the short term. Thus, given the current situation, it is better for us to have a much-weakened Hamas, under strict oversight, than a replacement who would, from Israel's perspective, be far worse.

There are three ways to beat Hamas:

1. Disproportionate death and destruction that would force Hamas to stop fighting. Putin uses this pattern to subdue the Chechens and to compel the Chechen faction loyal to him. But to do so, he wrought complete physical destruction of the Chechen capital Grozny and the surrounding villages. I was there – and there is no stone left unturned. We cannot do that without the international community reacting furiously.

2. A relatively long war of attrition that would not result in disproportionate destruction but would cause certain processes developing in Gaza right now to ripen. Hamas would ultimately have to take notice of the feelings of the Gazans, but this may well take a long time. During that time Israel would suffer and on our side too there would be unexpected developments.

3. The full or partial reoccupation of the Gaza Strip in a broad and enduring ground operation that would force Hamas members to stop fighting and go into hiding. The problem is that such an action, even if conducted quickly and without too many casualties among the troops, would nonetheless require the army to leave a considerable force in the Strip, deploy the Shin Bet to the area and work slowly but surely to uproot Hamas from the ground up. This would take at least a year.

In addition, one must remember that Gaza City or even Khan Younis and Rafah are not refugee camps in the West Bank or even the old city of Nablus, they are massive urban sprawls and to seize control of them would take a long time and demand a high price in blood.

Hence, the defeat if not outright destruction of Hamas is possible, but under the current conditions, reaching a deal – and not destroying Hamas – is the preferred option. This is provided that the government then moves towards a diplomatic breakthrough that results in an interim settlement for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one which also includes reining in Hamas' military capabilities.

4. Do we need to keep providing Gaza with food, fuel and other goods during the fighting?

On the face of it, the fact that Israel has undertaken to prevent a humanitarian crisis in Gaza seems absurd. And it is absurd. But Israel it doing it in order to preserve the international legitimacy it enjoys for the air and sea blockade it has imposed on Gaza. Nonetheless, from the moment that Hamas initiated the current round of fighting and began firing daily at Israeli population centers, Israel's obligation to take care of the Gazans was over.

If the Egyptians are so concerned about their brothers in Gaza, they can open the Rafah crossing and allow unlimited assistance to pass through. We do not need to become slaves to Egyptian interests when we have a moral duty to use any leverage to end the fire from Gaza into Israel.

3a)

Photo by: GPO Opposition to cease-fire comes from across political spectrum By LAHAV HARKOV Eshkol chairman tells residents not to come home, because there is not a "real cease-fire;" half of the cabinet ministers, many in coalition opposed to cease-fire.

Murmurs of dissatisfaction rose from the political Left and Right Tuesday night, after Israel agreed to a cease-fire. Meanwhile, Eshkol Regional Council chairman Haim Yellin indicated that he does not trust the cease-fire will last, saying residents of his constituency who evacuated should not return to their homes. "It doesn't interest me what the government or Hamas say. I will only call on residents to return when I feel like there's a real cease-fire," Yellin told Channel 10 news. Yellin also called on cabinet ministers to stay in the Eshkol Regional Council and make their decisions from there, not Jerusalem. Just as half of the cabinet ministers were opposed to the cease-fire, many in the coalition expressed similar opinions. Housing and Construction Minister Uri Ariel said "any agreement that doesn't include eliminating the rocket threat on residents of Israel and demilitarizing the Gaza Strip is less than half of what is necessary. "In this reality, the defense establishment will have no choice but to prepare for the next round, which will be soon," Ariel added. According to MK Danny Danon (Likud), in the Middle East, restraint is seen as weakness. "Despite the heavy price Hamas paid, we did not defeat Hamas," he stated. "Fifty days of fighting, 64 soldiers killed, five civilians killed, 82,000 reservists called up and in the end we're back to the agreement from Operation Pillar of Defense." Danon said a defeat was necessary to broadcast to the whole Middle East, including Hezbollah, Islamic State and Iran, that "they should not mess with the People of Israel." "I am concerned we did not succeed enough. Now is the time for national introspection. The policy of restraint and hesitation hurt Israel's deterrence," he added. MK Eli Yishai (Shas) said that a ceasefire without Gaza being demilitarized means Israel may as well write the next round of fighting in its calendar. "This will be time for Hamas to resupply itself with weaponry to use against Israel," he said. "Not demilitarizing Gaza will bring Israel to another round of fighting that will be even worse." On the left, lawmakers called for the government to take initiative and launch diplomatic negotiations. Meretz leader Zehava Gal-On said "this ceasefire comes too late and its conditions prove, finally, that Operation Protective Edge is [Prime Minister Binyamin] Netanyahu's strategic failure, as he went to war without goals and finished in which he let Hamas gain on the backs of residents of the South." According to Gal-On, the same agreement could have been reached months ago with moderate factors in the Palestinian Authority, not under fire and without going to war. "In recent months, the prime minister made every diplomatic mistake possible, and he should pay the price and go home," she stated. Gal-On also posited that the suffering residents of the South underwent in recent weeks came without any long-term planning by an "irresponsible" government. "Netanyahu's resounding failure in understanding the severity of Gaza border town residents' situation is equal to his continuing failure in preventing rounds of violence in the Gaza Strip and this war in particular," she said. MK Shelly Yacimovich (Labor) said a ceasefire is a positive thing, but it must come with "active and courageous initiative toward a diplomatic agreement." "We lost our best sons in this war and we cannot accept bloody rounds [of fighting] as necessary," she stated. "A historic axis of moderates was created in the Middle East, with Arab powers that share interests with Israel, and we cannot miss this opportunity." Similar to Finance Minister Yair Lapid, Yacimovich called for an international summit to bring a peace treaty with the Palestinians. 3b) A Draw Can’t Be Called a Hamas Defeat Jonathan S. Tobin Viewed objectively, the celebratory gunfire and ritualistic declarations of victory emanating from Hamas today after it accepted a cease-fire with Israel are pure bunk. Hamas’s decision to launch a new round of fighting in Gaza turned out to be a disaster from a military perspective as well as from the point of view of the suffering Palestinians who paid the price for this folly in blood and destruction of their homes. But their boasts are not entirely foolish. Though Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu may have had little real choice but to go along with the formal end of hostilities, by emerging from 50 days of battle with its hold on Gaza intact, Hamas has ensured that its misrule over the strip and permanent block of any hopes of peace will continue. Netanyahu’s decision to accept the cease-fire will be bitterly debated in Israel, but even his angriest critics will have to admit that the concessions given Hamas are minimal. The terms, which allow a slight increase in humanitarian aid and material into Gaza and an expansion of the zone allowed Gaza fishermen from three to six miles are more or less a rehash of the 2012 agreement that ended a previous round of fighting. The blockade of Gaza has not been lifted. Nor has Israel promised to allow the Palestinians to build an airport or seaport. Those requests will be discussed in negotiations that are supposed to take place next month in Cairo and will be placed alongside the Israeli demand for the demilitarization of Gaza. That means neither side will get what it wants, making the war, for all of Israel’s military achievements and the catastrophic impact on Gaza’s population, largely a draw. That’s nothing for Hamas to brag about. It started the hostilities when its members kidnapped and murdered three Israeli teenagers and then fired over 4,000 missiles at Israel during the past 50 days with little to show for the expenditure of much of its carefully assembled arsenal. While much of Israel’s population had to spend much of the last few weeks scurrying back and forth to shelters, Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system effectively neutralized the rocket threat. Hamas also lost the complex network of tunnels along the border on which it had expended so much of the money that poured into the strip from foreign donors. Instead of being able to use the tunnels to pull off a mass atrocity inside Israel as they had hoped, they wound up being destroyed when Israeli forces invaded the strip. But any Israeli claims of victory are just as hollow as those of Hamas. Even a slight loosening of the blockade will inevitably mean that Hamas will be able to replenish some if not all of its supply of rockets and other armaments. Nor can anyone in the international community, let alone in Israel, have the slightest confidence that any safeguards put in place will prevent the construction materials that will be allowed into Gaza for rebuilding homes, schools, and other civilian structures won’t instead be used to restore Hamas’s military infrastructure, including command center bunkers, rocket storage facilities, and the infamous tunnels. All of which means that the next time Hamas decides that the time is right for more fighting, Israel will be right back where it was two months ago. Even if the Israel Defense Forces improves its ability to detect tunnels and Hamas doesn’t figure out a way to defeat the Iron Dome, that is hardly an encouraging prospect for an Israeli people drained from a summer of conflict. A draw isn’t a victory for either side, but any result that leaves Hamas standing and ready to start fighting again when it chooses can hardly be called a defeat for the terrorists.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------