By President Barack Obama’s refusal to put a finger on the Islamic underpinnings of the Paris jihadist attacks killing a total of 17, experts are rendering the Commander-in-Chief powerless to fight an enemy that he will not identify — exposing his weakness and fear of Islam sensed in both the Western and Muslim world.
As a result, experts are saying that the Obama administration has taken America out of the war Islam has waged to gain world dominance — much like anti-war movement in the United States before World War II that wanted to leave Nazi Germany alone, insisting that Hitler was not a direct enemy of America.
And ex-Central Intelligence Agency Analyst Clare Lopez says that the White House is sitting in a similar positon eight decades later by refusing to identify Islam as a threat to America’s existence as a nation and to the world’s freedom as we know it.
“The United States is essentially hors du combat (French for ‘out of the fight’) in the jihad wars — the wars to stay free of Shariah,” Lopez informed WND. “[Obama and his administration] have withdrawn U.S. military forces, withdrawn U.S. power and influence from critical regions, abandoned former allies — Gadhafi, Mubarak, Israel — in order to favor jihadists, whether al-Qaida or the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria.”
Lopez insists that because the Obama administration strictly adheres to messaging that does not depict Islamic jihadists as the terror threat, America is in danger.
“[The administration refuses to identify the enemy as] forces of Islamic jihad and Shariah — Muslim terrorism, Islamic jihad — some combination of these that demonstrates we know that authoritative, mainstream, orthodox Islamic doctrine drives and justifies what Islamic terrorists do.”
Currently serving with the Center for Security Policy as its vice president for research and analysis in Washington, D.C., Lopez argues that America cannot fight “what we will not name,” insisting that those under attack in the “Dar al-Harb” (Arabic for territory of war) are unwilling to admit openly that war is taking place. She also notes that it is inaccurate for Western nations to call Muslim terrorist attacks “radical” or “extreme” because jihad is not a diversion from the norm in the religion of Islam.
“But jihad is the norm in Islam,” Lopez stressed to WND. “History shows that it has been for over 1,300 years, and we must acknowledge and confront that if we wish to preserve Western civilization for our children and children’s children.”
Lopez then defined jihad as Muslims know it from Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveler in Arabic) found in the classic Manual of Sacred Islamic Law.
“Jihad resurgent — Islamic Jihad — by definition is ‘warfare against non-Muslims to spread Islam,’” Lopez stressed, noting that because the Cold War, colonialism and 20th-century wars are no longer in Muslims’ way, jihad is in “resurgence.”
She warns that because Western nations have bowed down to self-condemnation and rejected the very founding principles that have made them strong, they are headed on a one-way road to submission to Islam.
“The West appears to the enemy to have lost its appreciation for itself and its own principles and willingness to defend them,” Lopez observed. “We need to prove them wrong on this, as soon as possible.”
Joy Brighton, who penned Sharia-ism Is Here: The Battle to Control Women; and Everything Else last year, contends that Obama’s refusal to call the Paris terrorist attacks Islamic provides more proof that he has resigned himself to a “Shariah compliant” speech code.
“President Obama defends free speech vehemently, and the press lauds him for this; however, he refuses to use the words ‘Islam,’ ‘radical Islam,’ ‘Muslim,’ ‘jihad’ or ‘Shariah’ when condemning the Shariah-driven shootings in Paris,” Brighton informed WND, pointing out that Shariah is Islamic law — a strict code of morality by which all Muslims must submit concerning every facet of their lives (personal, economic, political, criminal).
Brighton also used a piece of Obama’s September 25, 2012 speech to the United Nations General Assembly to demonstrate that the President is well aligned with pro-Muslim messaging.
“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” Obama declared to the U.N. before remembering to save face by mentioning the religion upon which America was founded. “But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.”
Brighton argues that Obama’s Muslim-leaning policies and rhetoric impede his ability to champion free speech, which he claimed he stood for after the Charlie Hebdo massacre.
“Barack Obama is complying with Shariah law in suggesting that criticism of Islam could be a criminal hate-speech offense,” Brighton argues. “In his statement to the United Nations, Obama does not defend free speech, has given in to Shariah law, and doing so as president is unconstitutional, because with this statement Obama abandons the First Amendment and the defense of free speech.”
The author directs Americans to look at the totalitarian movements of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini and their suppression of free speech to see where Obama’s policies are leading.
“Communism succeeded by shutting down free speech criticism of communism the same as Nazism succeeded by shutting down free speech criticism of Nazism,” Brighton told WND. “Shariah-ism, what I call the global political movement of radical Islam, will also succeed by shutting down criticism and political debate.”
Brighton extrapolated further to illustrate the link between Shariah and totalitarianism and how they have fed into the current political movement sweeping through the U.N., Europe, the U.S. and the rest of the Western world.
“I don’t condemn Shariah law,” Brighton continued. “If you want to pray five times a day because it’s Shariah law, you are practicing your religion. If you want me to pray five times a day, you are not practicing your religion. You have crossed the line and now what you are doing is unconstitutional, because you’re trying to impose the totalitarian edicts of your political movement on me. ‘Shariah-ism’ uses Shariah law to justify the complete control of others.”
A key distinction was then made that many Americans and especially the Obama administration just don’t get or acknowledge.
“Islam is protected under the First Amendment definitions of free speech and free religion,” Brighton noted. “‘Shariah-ism’ is a totalitarian political movement that is not protected under the First Amendment.”
Refusing for a bruising?
Lopez points to the Fort Hood, Texas, massacre to demonstrate that “individual jihad” has already come to America. This is another jihadist attack the Obama administration denied and covered up, despite the fact that the Islamic Maj. Nidal Hasan yelled the name of Allah while spraying 13 U.S. military members with fatal shots. Obama called it “workplace violence.” Hasan was praised for his attack by al-Qaida leader Anwar al-Awlaki, of whom he claimed to be a follower.
The Boston Marathon was another Islamic cover-up by the Obama administration, as Lopez says that the living Tsarnaev brother (about to go to trial) — who was not fatally shot by police — is another example of fardayn, an Islamic doctrine that demands Muslims around the world to fight whenever other Muslims or Muslim lands are under attack by “infidels.”
She contends that if Muslims are not in the midst of jihad, they must travel to it or wage it at their present locale.
“Both Al-Qaida’s Inspire magazine and the Islamic State’s Dabiq (magazine) have been publishing these themes in recent issues,” Lopez reported. “The response both in terms of fighters from dozens of countries going to Iraq and Syria and in terms of those returning from those battlefields and those Muslims who maybe never went but are inspired by those calls to battle has been simply enormous.”
Lopez argues that even though the West cannot change the Islamic principles by which Muslims live, a comprehensive strategy must be implemented if the world does not want to submit to it one day.
“We must defeat it by using every means at our disposal — a whole of civilization response to a whole of Islamic civilization assault,” Lopez insists. “That means we engage with diplomatic measures, economic/financial responses, intelligence operations, legal means, military offensives, political tactics, in cyberspace and most importantly of all in the information battle space, because that is the primary arena of this fight and the one in which we are not even present at the moment.”
She declares that this new war needs to be fought tactically from a number of angles — led by leaders and militias who define and know the enemy and aren’t afraid to offend Islam and use all the innovative resources at their disposal.
“I think we need to begin fighting smart — not just kinetically and not just massively, but in a sophisticated way, that understands we are in a new era of asymmetric warfare that demands new strategy,” Lopez concludes.
—- Copyright OneNewsNow.com. Reprinted with permission.