Obama White House made “willful decision” to support Al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood in Syria

Former DIA director: Obama White House made “willful decision” to support Al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood in Syria.

Mehdi Hasan is a highly suspect analyst and Foreign Policy Journal appears to be a pro-jihad paleocon publication, and Al Jazeera is certainly a pro-jihad propaganda outlet. All that is noted, but if this transcript is accurate, former DIA director Michael Flynn is confirming that the Obama Administration knowingly decided to support al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, and directly enabled the rise of the Islamic State. And given the Obama Administration’s general stance toward the global jihad and Islamic supremacism, what would be unbelievable about that?

In a sane political atmosphere, this would be enough to bring down the Obama presidency. Instead, it will get little notice and no action whatsoever.

yours:

To: Enlightened1

EVERYTHING obama does either:
a) Weakens America/Americans
b) Distances America’s allies
c) Strengthens America’s enemies
d) Serves Islam
e) Harms Israel
Or some combination of the above.
There are NO counter examples.
I’ve also found this list as a VERY good tool for predicting what he will do next!

add...
f) attacks Christianity

and you have it nailed down cold!

Yes I'm this VILE!....John McCain

McCain in Syria with terrorists

MCCain in Egypt interfering with El SiSi to drive out Brotherhood

McCain in Libya...Bengazi

MCCain with ISIS

McCain With Neo-Nazi leader in Ukraine

Salafists do not get along with mainstream Sunnis. In fact they’ve fought wars against them.

Salafists consider other Sunnis [and Shiites and Sufis] to be insufficiently Muslim. But even among Salafists there are three main factions [and a lot of little splinter groups.].

The first faction does not believe in getting tangled up with politics or overthrowing insufficiently muslim rulers but focuses on spiritual affairs, worship and preaching. They generally leave well enough alone so long as they can do their thing. This faction is much diminished and overshadowed by the others, especially since the rise of pan-Arabism/anticolonialism in the Cold war.

The second faction is not so passive. They are activists/community organizers who believe in revolution against insufficiently muslim or nonmuslim rulers to reach their ultimate caliphate, but in a Gramsciian way- infiltration of institutions, litigation, political haggling, etc, rather than through overt violence. I say Gramsciian as in the Italian Gramsci who spoke of a long march through the institutions, like the communists masquerading as Democrats have done in the US- shedding outsider Communist Party identity to run as “progressive democrats,” working not to overthrow the constitution openly but to corrupt it and reinvent it, imposing socialism gradually. It’s the Salafist “third way” between quiet piety and jihad.

The final faction are the jihadists, who will use violence as necessary -and often even if not necessary- against nonmuslims and insufficiently muslim people, with the aim of a establishing an Islamic caliphate.

The latter two factions feed off of each other and complement one another.

Of course even that once passive first faction has spawned some groups that while not directly engaging in politics or violence themselves, are, in the process of converting people spiritually, creating a steady supply of like minded converts but also converts who eventually find the passive approach frustrating. These then look for something more interesting and are recruited by the activist faction of Salafis.... and if these are still too soft or too slow for an inspired and impatient convert’s tastes, then they join up with the jihadists.

Those who bring up the subject of socialism should realize that it is just as faction ridden as the various branches of Muslim. For example the Party for Socialism and Liberation broke away from the Workers’ World Party because they were not extreme enough, even though the WWP favored Russia marching into Hungary in the 1960s, the Chinese governments crackdown on the protesters in Tien an Men Square, and supports North Korea in general. Other Socialist groups in the US do not favor any of these things and resent the PSL attempts to highjack their events and political activities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Socialism_and_Liberation

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.