As ISIS drags Iraq and Syria deeper into the pit, Hillary Clinton is attempting to distance herself from the Obama policies that have strengthened ISIS. Her argument is that Obama didn’t do enough to help the larger ISIS umbrella known as the Muslim Brotherhood against Bashar al-Assad. Considering that Clinton’s closest adviser Huma Abedin is up to her neck in Muslim Brotherhood connections through her family, Hillary’s position makes a bit more sense despite her attempt to mask it.
She put it quite a bit differently in an interview with the Atlantic:
“The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad—there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle—the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled,” Clinton said.
You see, Hillary is attempting to rely on the ‘good cop / bad cop’ paradigm which says the Free Syrian Army (FSA) was comprised of the good Muslim rebels and that because Obama didn’t do enough to help them, ISIS took over. In reality, had Obama been successful in removing Assad, ISIS would be stronger than it is now, regardless of what the administration did for the FSA.
Apparently, according to Hillary’s logic, shipping weapons from Benghazi to Turkey and then on to Syria just wasn’t enough. Besides, Hillary was all for regime change in Libya. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that’s not gone well. There is not one piece of evidence to suggest that ousting Assad would have different results. In fact, the evidence is overwhelming that Syria would be deeper down the pit of hell without Assad in power.
Speaking of Libya, Hillary said this in June of 2011 while in Jamaica, talking about the decision to support the removal of Muammar Gadhafi:
“…whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi’s side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been created to support them? For the Obama Administration, the answer to that question is very easy.”
We were told that moderate rebels similar to the FSA was who the U.S. was helping in Libya and that it only had elements of terrorists in their ranks. Today, none of that matters because the terrorists are running Libya anyway. The same thing is happening in areas not controlled by Assad in Syria. The removal of Assad would only have expanded ISIS territory.
Such advocacy on the part of Hillary is indicative of a pro-Muslim Brotherhood (ISIS) position.
Hillary then said something in her interview that speaks directly to the influence of her close adviser Abedin and the latter’s role with the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA):
“One of the reasons why I worry about what’s happening in the Middle East right now is because of the breakout capacity of jihadist groups that can affect Europe, can affect the United States,” she said. “Jihadist groups are governing territory. They will never stay there, though. They are driven to expand. Their raison d’etre is to be against the West, against the Crusaders, against the fill-in-the-blank—and we all fit into one of these categories. How do we try to contain that? I’m thinking a lot about containment, deterrence, and defeat.”
If Hillary is to be taken at her word, it would mean that she’s falling for the same lie she’s attempting to perpetrate on the American people. The FSA is to ISIS what CAIR is to Hamas or what the IMMA is to the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East – two sides of the same coin.
IMMA was commissioned by the Saudi kingdom. The parents of Abedin were put in charge of it after it was founded by known terrorist financier Abdullah Omar Naseef. Abedin herself served as an editor for IMMA for years, leaving only when she became Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2009.
The stated goals of IMMA are to spread a peaceful brand of Islam throughout the world with interfaith dialogue and bridge building. In reality, as Shoebat.com has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, the goal of IMMA is to turn Muslim minority lands into Muslim majority lands. When Hillary says that jihadists in Syria “are driven to expand”, she is correct. However, what she is intentionally not saying is that stealth jihadists are driven to expand as well. That is precisely why IMMA was established.
Speaking of Saudi Arabia…
The lie put forth by Hillary that providing FSA more help would have prevented what’s going on in Syria, consider that as far back as 2012, the kingdom of Saudi Arabia was releasing hardened criminals from jails and into Syria, as Shoebat.com reported.
Translation of the above document:
The dignified Saud al-Thanian
Peace be with you and the mercy of Allah.
Regarding the transmission from the King’s Court (No. 112) 19/4/1433, which points to the inmates in the Kingdom’s prisons, who have been sentenced to death by the sword according to the Sharia. We ask that you communicate to these inmates that have been accused of multiple crimes, to include drug smuggling, rape, and murder (105 Yemeni, 21 Palestinian, 212 Saudi, 96 Sudanese, 204 Syrian, 82 Jordanian, 68 Somali, 32 Afghans, 194 Egyptian, 203 Pakistani, 23 Iraqi, and 44 Kuwaiti. It’s been agreed that they be released from Sharia-mandated death sentences. Each prisoner will receive a monthly stipend for their families and loved ones.
These freed prisoners will not be permitted to leave Saudi Arabia. In exchange, they will be rehabilitated and sent to be trained for jihad in Syria.
Please accept our greetings.
Abdul Allah bin Ali Al-Zahran
President of the Committee for the promotion of virtue and the prevention of vice (Saudi Arabia)
cc: General Intelligence
Muruna sanctions the killing of Muslims
We wrote extensively on the tactic of Muruna in The Case FOR Islamophobia that is practiced by stealth jihadists. It permits things that violate Islam if those things further the cause of Islam; it’s like taqiyya on steroids.
That includes Muslims killing Muslims if infidels are killed in the process or if the cause of Islam is otherwise served. Support for air strikes on ISIS by the likes of Hillary Clinton and Obama is a case in point. The longer ISIS becomes the face of Islam or is more closely connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, the more stealth jihadists risk exposure.
Less than two months ago, Obama continued pushing the notion that training ‘appropriately vetted’ Syrian opposition forces was a good idea; now he’s bombing them. One of the main reasons for this is that the savagery of ISIS is so gruesome that Muslims in the U.S. are experiencing difficulties and the genocide has become radioactive politically.
Consider chief Muruna purveyor Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who wrote:
…killing Muslims whom the unbelievers use as shields… leaving these unbelievers is a danger to the Muslims, so it is permissible to kill these unbelievers even if Muslim are killed with them in the process. – The Case FOR Islamophobia, p. 56
The case of former Dar al-Hijrah mosque chairman Bassam Estwani is quite instructive as well. Estwani is a man of significant influence who curried favor with the most powerful U.S. politicians, to include Bill and Hillary Clinton. Today, Estwani sits on the boards of at least two organizations who work tirelessly to support the Syrian opposition.
Estwani is also a student of al-Qaradawi:
The case of Huma Abedin provides another example that demonstrates how Muruna can work.
Under Muruna, it is permissible for a devout Muslim woman to marry a Jewish man if it served Islam’s purpose. In the case of Abedin, she is such a woman. Her mother is a leader of the Muslim Sisterhood. Yet, Huma married a Jewish man in Anthony Weiner, who was a U.S. Congressman at the time. Not only did such a marriage offer Abedin a built-in defense against accusations that she is a stealth jihadist but it granted her access to information available to a member of Congress.
As Shoebat.com has reported, Hillary actually presented evidence in her own book that even further makes the case that Abedin is a stealth jihadist who is practicing Muruna.
Can you think of a better reason to explain why Hillary is arguing that the reason the Muslim Brotherhood is winning in Syria is because it wasn’t given more assistance?