ISIS Will Eventually Self Destruct Because They Will Be Consumed By Their Hatred But They Must Be Assisted and Obama Will Not Be The One To Engage!

Today's most pressing decision!



White House Picture of Netanyahu

===







Disappointed idealism is the mantra worn by liberals. Apparently they consider this preferable to conservative logic. Why do arguably intelligent people continue embracing policies that have failed?  The only 'logical' explanation is that they are hidebound ideologues.  Obama epitomizes the essence of a progessive cheer leader. Facts mean nothing to him because he has proven he can lie his way out of everything. 
Meanwhile, Obama wants you to think as he does so you will not hold him accountable for what he is doing to America. (See 2 below.)===This from a disheartened relative:

[T]he Messenger of Allah (Mohammed) observed: Verily Islam started as something strange and it would again revert (to its old position) of being strange just as it started, and it would recede between the two mosques just as the serpent crawls back into its hole.” [Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0270.

The one thing going for the world is that eventually all evil entities succumb and since Arabs eventually wind up killing each other, because their hate knows no bounds, ISSIS will self destruct.  The problem is they need an assist and with the likes of Obama and other Western feckless leaders it will take longer than need be. (See 1 and  1a below.)

===

FYI. Obama is at the top of his game to degrade and destroy the America we the people built since the constitution was conceived and adopted.

D'Sousa movies  predicted all this. We  the people have failed to prevent it. All we have left is the ballot box which has been continually degraded
and usurped. The Trojan Horse is alive and kicking it has been six years

and counting. Where is Paul Revere? We the people have yet to look into the mirror to find the answer.

A-----

===

My friend, Jonathan Schantzer, lays out his case for what should bedone regarding the PLO. (See 3 below.)

===

Dick

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

1) ISLAM'S SELF-DESTRUCTIVE SEED

Author: Nonie Darwish

Within the DNA of Islam is a self-destructive element: a prophecy by Mohammed in which he said that Islam will eventually be rejected by the world and would return back to where it came from. Ask your local imam, and he’ll tell you: Mohammed doesn’t lie. Incredibly, Mohammed himself was not optimistic about his own message and the future of Islam and Muslims:

[T]he Messenger of Allah (Mohammed) observed: Verily Islam started as something strange and it would again revert (to its old position) of being strange just as it started, and it would recede between the two mosques just as the serpent crawls back into its hole.” [Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0270.]

In this hadith, Mohammed foretold that the end of Islam would be strange just like its beginning and that it would shrink back to the limited area where it came from – – between the two mosques of Mecca and Medina.
Could that prediction by Mohammed himself be a signal of the inevitable demise of Islam?
Mohammed’s predictions of Islam crawling back like a snake to where it came from were repeated extensively in several other hadiths:

“Belief returns and goes back to Medina like a snake.” (Sahih Bukhari, 3.30.100.) “Muslims will be the scum and the rubbish even though their numbers may increase; the enemy will not fear Muslims anymore. This will be because the Muslims will love the world and dislike death…” (Sunaan Abu Dawud, 37.4284.) “Muhammad’s contemporaries were the best Muslims; after three generations, the Muslims will be mainly treacherous and untrustworthy.” (Sahih Bukhari, 5.57.2, 3.) “There will be much killing during the last days of the Muslim.” (Sahih Bukhari, 9.88.183.)

“Verily, Belief returns and goes back to Medina as a snake returns and goes back to its hole (when in danger).” (Volume 3, Book 30, Number 100: Narrated Abu Huraira.) Mohammed also predicted a large movement of apostasy out of Islam:

“Muslims will diminish in number and they will go back to where they started [before Islam]” (Sunaan Abu Dawud, 2.19.3029.) “There will be no trace of Islam in some believers…” (Sahih Bukhari, 9.84.65.)

Could these believers, with no trace of Islam in them, be the reformers of Islam, like the well-intentioned Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, who are believing in an Islam that does not and never existed? Mohammed’s fears of large apostasy movements and envy of other religions continue:

There will appear in this nation….. a group of people so pious apparently that you will consider your prayers inferior to their prayers, but they will recite the Quran, the teachings of which will not go beyond their throats and will go out of their religion as an arrow darts through the game, whereupon the archer may look at his arrow, its Nasl at its Risaf and its Fuqa to see whether it is blood-stained or not (i.e. they will have not even a trace of Islam in them). [Volume 9, Book 84, Number 65:]

Since its inception, Islam has been at war with civilization. “Civilization” is considered a threat to Arabia’s identity and culture and with Islam it was the outside world that had to change and adapt to Arabia’s language, culture, religion.

Will jihadists, yearning for achieving their imaginary perfect caliphate, finally realize that such a utopia never existed and will never exist? Will they eventually grasp that their enemies are not the Mubaraks, Assads, Qaddafis, America, Israel, or past injustice, but in fact, their enemy is within, a terminal virus written in a 7th century incoherent political and legal system that still rules them today? Will Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia reject Sharia, and send it back to where it came from as their prophet predicted, to the two mosques in Mecca and Medina?

Will the world finally come to its senses, learn from the violent history of Islam, and reject it by declaring it the most evil totalitarian ideology created by man? Will the world learn that Islam is but a snake, a viper, behind the title of religion? Will the leaders of the free world find the courage to unite in a march to save the world and say loud and clear, “Islam go back to Mecca, like your prophet predicted”? And then will they declare, “There is no place for you in our part of the world, and the world we want our children to live in”?

What are Muslim leaders waiting for to declare the truth? Will they finally admit they cannot rule any longer under the barbarian laws of Sharia that are enshrined in all Islamic constitutions? Will we ever see the day when old great nations such as Egypt and Persia (Iran), who were conquered by Arabs and never saw their glory days again, stand side by side with Western nations to send Islam back to Mecca? Will the world finally unite against Islamic terror for the sake of our children and the millions of men and women who lost their lives to bring freedom to our world to end Islam’s desperate need for expansion?

Like a Ponzi scheme, Islam must expand to survive. In that sense, Islam works only when more and more people join its pyramid. As long as the supply of new Muslim believers can empower the pyramid and convince the other suckers, the naïve Muslim followers, that they are right, it can survive.

The Ponzi scheme is currently still effective as it expands in the West without restriction or conditions. This expansion has given Islam a one-sided golden opportunity to grow in Europe, America, and Australia. Tragically, and to its ultimate demise, the West has extended a life-line to a dying, evil ideology, one that has already predicted its own death. Now it will live a little longer, and because of that, it will continue to destroy others. When will the West respect Mohammed’s prophecy, and send Islam back down the snake hole, the one in Mecca?

1a)

AN 'ISIS RECRUITING NETWORK' HAS BEEN BROKEN UP IN CANADA

Author Elizabeth Richards

A 25-year-old Canadian is in custody. Federal authorities in Canada say they have crippled a Jihadist recruitment network following the arrest of a Canadian man they allege had ties to the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS).

Awso Peshdary allegedly helped people joined the terror group, which controls large swaths of territory in Iraq and Syria, according to Agence France-Presse. The 25-year-old is reportedly in custody in Ottawa.

“We were able to disrupt an organized network associated with [ISIS],” said James Malizia, an assistant commissioner with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. “This network was involved in recruiting individuals for terrorism purposes and in sending them into Syria and Iraq for the benefit of this terrorist group.”

Peshdary had been arrested during a previous investigation but was released due to lack of evidence, Authorities also issued international arrest warrants through Interpol for two Canadian suspects who are believed to have already fought for ISIS in the Middle East.

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

2)Islamic extremist terrorism: The scourge that Obama dare not name

There's nothing more childish than living in a fantasyland

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

There's a famous painting of a pipe, by Belgian artist Rene Magritte. Under the pipe it says in French, "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" — "This is not a pipe."

The average onlooker says, "of course that's a pipe!" But Magritte is challenging the viewer to acknowledge that, in fact, they are not looking at a pipe, but, more accurately, a painting of a pipe.

It's surrealism at its most annoying. Magritte was that know-it-all at the party who corrects your grammar during a fun game of beer pong: "It's with 'whom' am I playing next."

To the average person, it's pretty clear we're at war with Islamic extremists. Yet, to hear President Obama tell it, we are not technically at war, and even if we are, he wants you to believe religion has little to do with it.

He and his surrogates have repeatedly refused to say the words "Islamic extremism" or "radical Islam" when describing our enemies in groups like Al Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra, ISIS and Boko Haram, just to name a few.

His administration was caught flatfooted last week when White House spokesman Eric Schultz painfully strained to justify negotiating with Taliban, insisting it was not a terrorist group but "an armed insurgency."

Surreal indeed.

Whether linguistic subterfuge or merely semantic nitpicking, it's a curious use of caution from an administration that has repeatedly gotten out over its skis on issues of foreign policy.

The list is long: Al Qaeda's been decimated. ISIS is Al Qaeda's "jayvee" team. Yemen is a success. Benghazi was about a video.

Obama is constantly speaking in brash declaratives about terrorism, and is often subsequently proven wrong. But uttering the words "Islamic extremism" is too reckless?

Of course, we are (quite literally) at war by anyone's definition — training foreign soldiers, deploying our own, dropping bombs in Iraq and Syria. Our military is aiding the Nigerian government in rooting out Boko Haram. We've reportedly spent more than $1 billion in our campaign against ISIS alone. And from Yemen to the Maghreb, Syria to Iraq, Europe to Japan, the groups we're fighting all claim to motivated by an Islamist ideology.

Yet, in an interview this weekend with CNN's Fareed Zakaria, Obama was asked to explain why we are not, in fact, at war with Islamic extremism:

"I don't quibble with labels," he said. "I think we all recognize that this is a particular problem that has roots in Muslim communities. But I think we do ourselves a disservice in this fight if we are not taking into account the fact that the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject this ideology."

Point well taken. Most Muslims are not aligned with ISIS and Islamic extremism. That's why the distinction is right there in the name. We don't say we are at war with Islam, but radical Islam or Islamic extremism.

More importantly, though, if there are people who truly believe that ISIS and Al Qaeda represent actual Islam, well, it wouldn't be the first time a religion was misunderstood or maligned.

But the White House is not Islam's PR shop. It's up to moderate Muslims to denounce radical Islam. The job of the President is to clearly name our enemies, not play word tricks on the public.

Another mistake the administration makes in justifying its cuteness with the language of terror is in suggesting we'll give Islamic extremists too much credit, or "provide a victory to these terrorist networks by overinflating their importance," as he told Zakaria.

Of course, not calling ISIS "Islamic extremists" — even though "Islamic" is right there in their name — hasn't stopped their reign of terror. Back in 2012, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a similar argument when she opted not to put Boko Haram on a terror watch list. In the coming years, they managed to elevate their status all on their own, however.

I think there are probably a couple things driving Obama's word games. One, he likes giving Republicans something to fixate on. He (often correctly) thinks it makes him look like the grown up. And two, never forget that he is the anti-Bush. So where Bush's enemies were clear, his must be vague.

But there's nothing more childish than living in a fantasyland. As the Chinese proverb goes, "The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names."

Say what you will about Bush's policies, but his bombastic rhetoric drove Islamic extremists into caves. In the years since, they have emerged from the darkness and now operate right in plain sight from the Middle East to the Maghreb to Europe.

All this in spite of Obama's subtle nuances.

National security is no place for surrealist word games. President Obama should have the courage and clarity to call it like it is. Our allies and our servicemen and women fighting this non-religious non-war overseas deserve to know who the enemy is.

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

3)U.S. SHOULD TAKE STEPS TO WEAKEN PLO AND RETURN AS PEACE PROCESS ARBITER, FDD SCHOLAR TELLS CONGRESS

Schanzer says U.S. must deter Palestinians from seeking recognition at International Criminal Court

WASHINGTON - Jonathan Schanzer, vice president for research of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, told the House Foreign Affairs Committee Wednesday that the United States must take action to ensure that the Palestinian bid at the International Criminal Court fails. He called on Congress to take steps to weaken the Palestine Liberation Organization and Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas.

Schanzer told the Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee that Abbas’ goal with international recognition is to force Israelis to relinquish territory or give other concessions outside the scope of bilateral negotiations.

“The dangers of this campaign cannot be understated,” Schanzer said. “For one, these efforts are not likely to resolve the conflict peacefully. Rather, they will keep the embers of conflict glowing.”

He also said it is clear Abbas and his team no longer feel beholden to the United States, despite hundreds of millions of dollars provided each year in economic assistance.

“Threats to cut assistance to the Palestinian Authority have not had the desired impact in recent years,” he said. “Washington is dependent on the PA for continued security cooperation with Israel. Abbas knows this. This is why he feels comfortable testing the patience of legislators, and even the president.”

Schanzer called Abbas “a huge part of the problem” and said the United States should call for new elections, noting he is now in the tenth year of a five-year presidential term. “He has a strangehold on Palestinian politics,” he said.

Schanzer called on Congress to take steps to weaken the PLO because it still has terrorist groups under its umbrella, its leaders are unelected, its decision-making is opaque and its finances are obscured from the public eye.

“Its very existence enables a dysfunctional system,” he said. “At any given time, we don’t know whether it is the PLO, the Fatah faction, or the PA that is speaking in the Palestinians’ name. If the goal is to hold the Palestinian leadership responsible for its actions, it is time to empower the Palestinian government we seek to engage and to make the PLO obsolete.”

Schanzer made several other recommendations for action the United States could take, including:

• Returning to its role as arbiter of the peace process, which will empower it to call for a halt to all unilateral activity and guide the conflict toward a more constructive dynamic.
• Declassifying intelligence on Palestinian terrorism, illicit activity and human rights abuses, to send a message to Palestinian leaders that they are also susceptible to ICC prosecution.
• Establishing a U.S. lawfare office, which could help the United States battle lawfare, in defense of U.S. officials and allies.
• Leveraging “Article 98” agreements with foreign governments, which ensure U.S. citizens are not surrendered to the jurisdiction of the ICC, and entering into additional agreements with other foreign governments.

Schanzer is a former terrorism finance analyst at the U.S. Department of Treasury, where he played an integral role in the designation of numerous terrorist financiers. He is a former research fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and has studied Middle East history in four countries. He earned his Ph.D. from Kings College London and is the author of three books, including “State of Failure: Yasser Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas, and the Unmaking of the Palestinian State” and “Hamas vs. Fatah: The Struggle for Palestine.”

He has recently authored an article in Foreign Policy about escalating tensions between the Israelis and Palestinians in Jerusalem and co-authored a piece on CNN.com on Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. He regularly appears on CNN and Fox News.

The full text of the written testimony can be found here.

About the Foundation for Defense of Democracies:
The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) is a non-profit, non-partisan 501(c)3 policy institute focusing on foreign policy and national security. Founded in 2001, FDD combines policy research, democracy and counterterrorism education, strategic communications and investigative journalism in support of its mission to promote pluralism, defend democratic values and fight the ideologies that drive terrorism. Visit our website at www.defenddemocracy.org 

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