The Australian government under Prime Minister Tony Abbott has legislated some protective measures related to the self-designated Islamic State (IS) to protect its citizens from returning jihadists. Instead of strongly denouncing IS as non-Islamic, the Australian National Imams Council (ANIC) declares, “These laws clearly target Muslims and they do so unjustly… The primary basis of these laws is a trumped up ‘threat’ from ‘radicalised’ Muslims returning from Iraq or Syria… We also reject government attempts to divide the Muslim community into ‘radicals’ and ‘moderates’ and to use the community for its agenda…”
Is there no distinction between ‘radicals’ and ‘moderates’ in the Ummah? There is scriptural precedent for Muslims to support jihad by means other than fighting. There are certainly many across the globe, including clerics, who promote it.
Since there are Muslims who want nothing to do with jihad, there should be those willing to continually condemn it in the strongest terms like Dr. Zuhdi Jasser.
Somehow, jihad is always portrayed as someone else's fault. In this case. Tony Abbott is to blame for the possibility that a radicalized Aussie will return from Syria/Iraq to threaten the homeland.
Obama can’t name the threat we face in this country. His DHS writes scenarios for confronting so-called “domestic right wing terrorists” and never mentions Islamic jihad. Sun Tzu would say that Obama doesn’t “know his enemy” and can therefore never defeat it.
Laws passed to protect countries from Islamic jihadists returning from the IS assault of course target Muslims. Who else has travels to enjoy the experience? No one who invokes the name of Buddha or Shiva or the Christian God is participating, except as victim.
To be recognized as legitimate, Muslims who disavow both active and passive violent jihad must continue to proclaim it vociferously.
“We never leave our people behind.” That is a thought people in the military and Foreign Service keep in mind as they face the rifles, RPGs, missiles, mortars, etc. fired at them by our enemies. “No matter what, They will always bring me home.” Even Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty, Christopher Stevens, and Sean Smith were evacuated by their fellow combatants from Benghazi even in the haste of an emergency where they were abandoned by the US government.
Barack Obama conveniently recalled “We never leave our people behind,” when he released five important Islamic jihadists in exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, held captive for five years by terrorists. Those five were of high value to Islamic terrorist groups. Many prisoners the US has released from detention have rejoined Islamic terrorist groups.
“We never leave our people behind.” That thought gave hope to the mother of Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi. He was imprisoned in Mexico after making a wrong turn on southern California roads with which he was not familiar. He had moved there for treatment for PTSD after tours of duty in Afghanistan. Three legally (in the US) owned guns in his truck led to his arrest by Mexican police even though he immediately revealed them.
Armed Mexican soldiers have inadvertently crossed into the US hundreds of times. They are questioned and released, because we know the border is not apparent in some places. All it takes is competent law enforcement and common sense.
Why hasn’t “We never leave our people behind” created as much fire in Obama’s belly for Tahmooressi as for Bergdahl? Does Obama have no clout with Mexico?
“We never leave our people behind” doesn’t seem to be as personal for Obama as it is for our military and intelligence personnel who won’t even leave behind our dead.
"The consequences of failure [in Iraq] are clear: Radical Islamic extremists
would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position
to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues
to fund their ambitions," predicted George W. Bush on 2007.
In his State of the Union Address in 2007, he said, "A contagion of violence
could spill out across the country. And, in time, the entire region could be
drawn into the conflict."
On another occasion that same year, he foresaw that "withdrawing before our
commanders tell us we are ready... would mean to surrendering the future of Iraq
to al Qaeda. It would mean that we'd be risking mass killings on a horrific
scale. It would mean we'd allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq
to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the
probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to
confront an enemy that is even more dangerous."
As for how risky that scenario might be, he recalled that "On September the
11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world
could bring to the streets of our own cities."
Candidate Mitt Romney worried that “You could see in the Shia south, the
Iranians reaching over and grabbing to take power. You could see in the Sunni
northwest, the Al-Qaeda folks taking power and leadership in that area... And
it’s even possible that you might think a regional conflict in the Middle East
It seems that experience in leadership and a global perspective can lead to a
clear choice of the best alternatives for presidential action. It appears that
community activism does not!