Obama to Arm and Aid Al Qaeda in Syria

“Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of”

 Daniel Greenfield//We have a new entry in the “Who’s going to support terrorists more” sweepstakes. After Putin decided to back Iran’s Shiite terrorists with air strikes, Obama has decided to back Sunni terrorists, many of them allied with Al Qaeda, with air strikes.

The Obama administration backed away Friday from a failed effort to stand up a rebel force in Syria, as the Pentagon announced plans to instead aid existing rebel units that officials believe have better odds of weakening the Islamic State…

The overhaul of U.S. strategy comes as the Obama administration scrambles to adjust to Moscow’s entry into the already crowded Syrian battle space. Russian planes and forces are now backing an offensive by troops loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad against opposition units, complicating the United States’ own air operations over Syria.

The Pentagon will now provide equipment and weapons to vetted Syrian units “so that over time they can make a concerted push into territory still controlled by ISIL,” Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook said. ISIL is another name for the Islamic State, which now controls a wide swath of Syria and Iraq.

The media is skipping over a lot of history here.

Obama only decided to train a vetted rebel force because even he realized that it was impossible to vet any of the “moderate Syrian opposition” that the Smart Power crowd wanted him to back. But I suspect the roots of the failure of the vetted army were aided by Muslim Brotherhood advocates and their sympathizers who want the US to back the Jihadists.

Even the New York Times already admitted that they’re all Jihadists.

Across Syria, rebel-held areas are dotted with Islamic courts staffed by lawyers and clerics, and by fighting brigades led by extremists. Even the Supreme Military Council, the umbrella rebel organization whose formation the West had hoped would sideline radical groups, is stocked with commanders who want to infuse Islamic law into a future Syrian government.

Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.

Nowhere. Any group we’re backing will be Jihadists fighting to impose Islamic law. Of course that also means the people they’re fighting are also Jihadists fighting to impose Islamic law.

The “equip” part of the program, which provided small arms, ammunition and vehicles, will be dramatically reduced to providing weapons to some 5,000 friendly moderate Syrian rebels to carry on the fight against both ISIS and presumably, the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

There are no moderate Syrian rebels. We’re arming Al Qaeda.

If you need a short guide to this rolling disaster. Obama got into this to back the Muslim Brotherhood’s takeover of Syria. But the Brotherhood is much better at talking than fighting. Salafists allied to Al Qaeda became the core opposition. These Jihadists are fighting it out with ISIS which wants them to swear allegiance. They’re also fighting Shiite terror groups organized and run by Iran.

The Russians are backing the Shiite terror groups. Turkey is backing ISIS to attack the Kurds. Obama is loosely backing the Sunni Islamist forces while trying to maintain a deal with Iran.

Not too late to bomb Iran..

 On September 11, 2015 – a fateful date for America – Congress failed to gather the 60 Senate votes required to pass a Resolution of Disapproval of the Iran nuclear deal, thus giving a green light to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) as agreed to in Vienna on July 14.

A few days later, U.S. congressman Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) informed Secretary of State John Kerry that “the copies provided to Congress of the JCPOA are not signed by the parties,” thus making the binding character of “an international agreement of this magnitude” questionable.

Actually, the absence of signatures in the JCPOA document is not as pivotal as it seems.  Article 18 of the JCPOA anticipates the passing of a U.N. Security Council resolution that should promptly “endorse” the full text of the JCPOA and, therefore, make it binding on all U.N. member-states.

True to form, UNSC Resolution 2231 was effectively passed unanimously on July 20 under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter.  Compared to other resolutions of the Security Council, Resolution 2231 is unusual in many respects:

– It was passed “under silence,” a rather coercive procedure where the raising of an objection might be regarded as obstructionist and could isolate the objecting state.  It should also be noted that Congress had no prior input whatsoever in the drafting of this resolution.

– It is exceedingly long (104 pages), as it includes virtually the full text of the JCPOA in Annex A and a special “Statement” in Annex B that outlines inter alia the time restrictions governing the acquisition by Iran of conventional weapons and ballistic missiles and makes these activities subject to prior approval by the Security Council on a case-by-case basis.

– It underscores its binding reach on “all States without exception” by referring specifically to Article 25 of the Charter and to Article 41 – no fewer than 10 times – which reflects the most drastic enforcement mechanism under Chapter VII of the Charter, short of military intervention.

So the document that no one has signed (the JCPOA) is now an act of international law binding on all the 193 U.N. member-states, including Iran.  UNSC Res. 2231 provided the JCPOA an armor-plated protection that no missile from Congress could penetrate, unless one could convincingly demonstrate that the U.S. administration acted ultra vires in bypassing Congress.

The JCPOA will be officially adopted before the end of October (“Adoption Day” is scheduled 90 days after the UNSC Resolution is passed).  “Implementation Day,” to occur upon the confirmation by the IAEA that Iran has complied with its nuclear-related measures, will trigger the lifting of most sanctions applied by the EU and the U.S. and of all those enacted under previous UNSC Resolutions between 2006 and 2010, through the adoption of a new Security Council resolution in due time.  But these U.N. sanctions could be reinstated, according to Articles 11-12 of UNSC Resolution 2231, if a JCPOA participant State (U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China, Germany, the EU, and Iran) raises an issue that “constitutes significant non-performance of commitments under the JCPOA.”

This is where it gets interesting.

On September 22, 2015, the respected MEMRI reported that “Iran openly declares that it intends to violate UNSC Resolution 2231 that endorses the JCPOA.”  Three top Iranian leaders – President Hassan Rouhani, Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, and Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi – stated that they will abide by the provisions of only the JCPOA and they will violate Resolution 2231.  Zarif and Araghchi see “no consequences” for violating Resolution 2231, in the same way as Iran “refrained from complying with UN Security Council resolutions … 10 years ago … and nothing happened.”

The reason for this Iranian gambit is obvious: they want to have a free hand on the acquisition of conventional weapons and the development of ballistic missiles.  Restrictions on these items were first suggested in the Lausanne Parameters of April 2, 2015.  They were later removed from the JCPOA and eventually reappeared in great detail in Annex B of Resolution 2231.  The Iranian position on this issue was reiterated on October 5 by Air Force Commander Ali Hajizadeh: “Iran will not slow down developing ballistic missiles and did not recognize the UN Security Council resolution [2231] that bans Iran from doing so.”

Iranian leaders brag about their willingness to violate the provisions of Resolution 2231, which is an act of international law, while they declare their compliance with the JCPOA.  Beyond the obvious arrogance of such declarations, the inconsistencies of the Iranian position should be stressed:

A footnote in the JCPOA – mentioned twice in the document and often invoked by Iranian leaders – states that “the provisions of this Resolution [2231] do not constitute provisions of the JCPOA.”  And yet the lifting of all U.N. sanctions, which is of paramount importance to the Iranians, is contingent upon Resolution 2231, as clearly indicated in Article 18 of the JCPOA.  Also, as stated above, Adoption Day is linked to Resolution 2231, and it makes the commitments in the JCPOA to come into effect.  Moreover, the Preamble of the JCPOA recalls that “The E3/EU+3 and Iran reaffirm their commitment to the purpose and principles of the United Nations as set out in the UN Charter,” thus implying an unwavering respect for binding Security Council resolutions.  The JCPOA and Resolution 2231 are so closely intertwined that it is inconceivable to abide by the former while resolutely intending to violate the latter.

This brings us back to Articles 11-12 of resolution 2231: if a JCPOA participant State raises an issue that “constitutes significant non-performance of commitments under the JCPOA,” the U.N. sanctions could be reinstated within 30 days.  What could be more significant of non-performance than Iran’s declared intent to violate a binding UNSC resolution that endorsed the JCPOA and is central to its official adoption?

The blatant Iranian disregard of the U.N. Charter should disqualify Iran from being a party to the international agreement that the JCPOA represents.  This is not the first Iranian violation of the principles of the U.N. Charter.  For the past 15 years, Iranian leaders have repeatedly called for the annihilation of Israel, in violation of Article 2[4] of the Charter.  This is the point that Israeli prime minister Netanyahu emphatically brought to light in his “deafening silence” speech at the U.N. General Assembly on October 1.  While Israel has been selectively targeted and shamelessly delegitimized by U.N. bodies for years, isn’t it time to point a finger to the glaring violations of Iran?

Finally, the interconnection between the JCPOA and the binding Resolution 2231 shows that the JCPOA is actually an international agreement akin to a treaty and not merely the kind of executive agreement that the Obama administration promoted, against the more sensible position of Congress.  Even though Congress was bypassed through the whole preparation of the JCPOA, perhaps it could take advantage of the latest Iranian maneuvers to invoke Article 11 of UNSC Resolution 2231.

Islamic State: If 10 Muslims Rape a non-Muslim Woman, She Becomes Muslim

Islam is a lot like an STD

Daniel Greenfield // Apparently Islam is a lot like an STD. Except it’s transmitted through rape and mass murder. At least that’s what the Islamic State says. And who can question the Caliph?

Noor (not her real name) was sold into slavery after ISIS overran her village in the Iraqi province of Sinjar. The 22-year-old says the militant who picked her out raped her — but not before trying to justify himself.

“He showed me a letter and said, ‘This shows any captured women will become Muslim if 10 ISIS fighters rape her.’ There was a flag of ISIS and a picture of Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi.”

After abusing her, he passed her on to 11 of his friends, who also raped her.

Islamic State Jihadists had previously described raping non-Muslim children as a form of worship of Allah.

In the moments before he raped the 12-year-old girl, the Islamic State fighter took the time to explain that what he was about to do was not a sin. Because the preteen girl practiced a religion other than Islam, the Quran not only gave him the right to rape her — it condoned and encouraged it, he insisted.

He bound her hands and gagged her. Then he knelt beside the bed and prostrated himself in prayer before getting on top of her.

When it was over, he knelt to pray again, bookending the rape with acts of religious devotion.

“I kept telling him it hurts — please stop,” said the girl, whose body is so small an adult could circle her waist with two hands.

“He told me that according to Islam he is allowed to rape an unbeliever. He said that by raping me, he is drawing closer to Allah,” she said in an interview alongside her family in a refugee camp here, to which she escaped after 11 months of captivity.

Every time that he came to rape me, he would pray,” said F, a 15-year-old girl who was captured on the shoulder of Mount Sinjar one year ago and was sold to an Iraqi fighter in his 20s. Like some others interviewed by The New York Times, she wanted to be identified only by her first initial because of the shame associated with rape.

“He kept telling me this is ibadah,” she said, using a term from Islamic scripture meaning worship.

“He said that raping me is his prayer to Allah. I said to him, ‘What you’re doing to me is wrong, and it will not bring you closer to Allah.’ And he said, ‘No, it’s allowed. It’s halal,’ ” said the teenager, who escaped in April with the help of smugglers after being enslaved for nearly nine months….

Of course CNN throws in the obligatory claim that enslaving and raping women is un-Islamic. But that would make Islam’s Prophet Mohammed… Un-Islamic.

“The people of ISIS don’t represent Islam at all. In fact, if anything, they are anti-Islam,” says London-based Imam Ajmal Masroor. “They have hijacked Islam. They have denigrated Islam. They have desecrated it.”

“In Islam taking anyone as captive, mistreating them using them as sex slaves, torturing them and killing them is totally prohibited.

Except that Mohammed had sex slaves and his men distributed captives. Is the Koran un-Islamic?

The ISIS pamphlet in support of sex slavery quotes the Koran.

“Question 4: Is it permissible to have intercourse with a female captive?

“It is permissible to have sexual intercourse with the female captive. Allah the almighty said: ‘[Successful are the believers] who guard their chastity, except from their wives or (the captives and slaves) that their right hands possess, for then they are free from blame [Koran 23:5-6]’…”

Mohammed enslaved and raped women. Did Mohammed hijack Islam?

The Supreme Council of Cyberspace


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 15,562 other followers

%d bloggers like this: