Jim Wagner
Refugees or invaders?
By Jim Wagner
Sometimes I'm slow to understand the motives behind our government's foreign policy. So perhaps someone can answer me this. Obama is now chastising those of us who do not wish to accept Syrian Islamic "refugees" into America on account of our concern that a significant number of them will prove to be ISIS terrorists engaging in stealth jihad. It could happen, you know! In Paris, for example. Notwithstanding Paris, Obama says we are not "living up to our values" if we don't take vast hordes of these emigres into our land.
But over the past two years, while ISIS was crucifying Christians and taking their wives and daughters as sex slaves, while Islamic State holy warriors were burning Copts alive in iron cages and slaughtering Yazidis on a desolate mountain outside Mosul, how many times did Obama call for the US to welcome here the victims of this persecution? In fact, during that entire time Obama was opaquely silent, because that was the time during which he was drawing down our forces in the face of what he called a "JV" enemy.
But now Obama has come out of his moral hibernation to chide us for being "afraid of widows and orphans." Is it not curious that, until Muslims started fleeing Syria and Iraq, our president seemed entirely indifferent to the plight of the mostly Christian widows and orphans suffering in those lands? Of course many of the orphans were not yet born when our commander in chief abandoned the Syrian people to their fate. And since that day a quarter million Syrians have died. Alright, maybe Obama really does care about widows and orphans. Perhaps that is why he has made so many of them.
But why does Obama keep emphasizing "widows and orphans" anyway, when the vast majority of these refujihadis are combat age males? Even now, scarcely two percent of the Syrians Obama has admitted are Christian. But a full ten percent of all Syrians are Christian, and Syrian Christians are suffering by far the greatest persecution. So what else are we to think, except that our president, in his zeal to admit "refugees," is deliberately rejecting the most persecuted refugees on the basis of their religion?
Ok, another question. What suddenly happened, only weeks ago, to cause millions of Muslims to begin immigrating into Europe as refugees? I mean, they are now flooding Europe in a surprise deluge disturbingly similar to the tsunami of Central American child immigrants that was so recently organized to penetrate our own border. Not all of them are coming from Syria, mind you, or for that matter from any region where warfare is currently taking place. Germany reports that 30% of those now arriving are using counterfeit Syrian passports. Eight allegedly Syrian men have been reported caught at the Texas border even as I type, and six turned up in Honduras the day before. Where did they get all the fake Syrian passports on such short notice? Is there a mail order house that stocks them? Please tell me! I may want to skedaddle to Siberia the way things are going. But seriously, are we supposed to believe that this sudden onslaught is not an organized migration?
The fighting in Syria, thanks to Obama and his ephemeral red line, has been going on for years. In fact, it was Obama himself who armed the anti-Assad faction that turned out to be mostly ISIS. And yet until just a few weeks ago there was no mass exodus of Muslims from the region. So why, all of the sudden, did hundreds of thousands of combat age Muslim males begin a hijra into Europe? Come to think of it, why did they not go to other Islamic lands where they would feel culturally and religiously more at home? By now the entire world knows how discontented the Muslims already in Europe have become. Do they have to burn another car to remind us? ISIS thinks it knows the answer to these questions. The leaders of ISIS openly boast of the vast numbers of terrorists they have shuttled into Europe amongst the "widows and orphans" over whom Obama so ostentatiously weeps.
Here is a hint, if you still need one, to help you understand what is going on here. Hijra is a time honored and official Islamic method for destroying the infidel. It is the means by which the Prophet Muhammad conquered Mecca, a city which, by the way, had naively welcomed him after his expulsion from Medina. "And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many locations and abundance," says the holy Qur'an. "And whoever leaves his home as an emigrant to Allah and His Messenger and then death overtakes him, his reward has already become incumbent upon Allah. And Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful." (Qur'an 4:100) The point of the hijra strategy is to peacefully infiltrate an infidel land and then, when the time is right, destroy it from within. Perhaps Obama, not being a Muslim as we are constantly reminded, is unaware of this strategy. Or perhaps none of these refugees have that strategy in mind. But are you willing to bet the future of your grandchildren on that?
Fearing that my choice of the word "invasion" might have been a bit strong, I consulted the Oxford Dictionary in order to clarify the term. Here it is: "An incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity." The activity in question here is called "jihad."
A few days ago while speaking in Turkey Obama condemned those of us who believe we should admit from Syria into our country, if anyone, only the Christian and Yazidi refugees. Does this gripe make any moral sense at all? Here is what we know. While an unknown number of the Muslim refugees will certainly be jihadists, we can be absolutely confident that none of the Christian or Yazidi refugees will be jihadists. And while all of the Christians and Yazidis are most certainly in danger of being killed or enslaved by ISIS if they remain in Syria, a very small portion of the Syrian Muslims face such a threat. Moreover, most of the surviving Christians and Yazidis are women and children.
Most of the Muslim refugees, by contrast, seem to be fighting age males. Finally, while there is no faction in Syria for which the surviving Christians or Yazidis could sensibly fight, it makes perfect sense for the Muslim Syrians, if they really innocent moderates as we are told, to remain and fight on the side of the anti-Assad forces not aligned with ISIS. Right now we have Americans putting their lives on the line in Syria to defend the Muslim population. Why in the world should we allow fighting age Muslim males to take refuge in our country while our own sons and daughters are risking death to defend them in theirs?
I had intended to finish with that last rather poignant observation. But then it occurred to me that some may have forgotten how we just spent $500 million to train Syrians to fight against ISIS. How many successful trainees so far? The Obama Administration tells us it has trained "five or six." Of course many other trainees had nearly completed their combat apprenticeship when they went over to the other side, taking millions of dollars-worth of our equipment with them. So the program has not been a complete failure. But again, the total number trained and willing to fight on our side against ISIS is, as of the last report, "five or six." Obama assures us he will thoroughly vet all the refugees he intends to import. I hope he does a better job of vetting refugees than he did of vetting the Syrian military recruits he has trained and armed to fight on behalf of ISIS.
Here is the bottom line. The Syrian Muslim males now taking refuge in Europe and the US are either engaging in hijra, a long term strategy of stealth warfare against the West, or else they are the sorriest and most uniformly craven mass of mongrels ever to set foot on this planet. Either way, are these the kind of men we want to determine the fate of our nation? More to the point, are these the kind of men you want breeding with your daughters? For that is what they will most certainly do, with or without your permission – or theirs. Remember, these men left their own women alone back in Syria to face the bloody Assad Regime and the lusting Caliphate of Al Baghdadi. In Germany they are now raping both women and children, even while they are still being held in camps. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3247831/Rape-child-abuse-rife-overcrowded-asylum-centres-huge-surge-migrants-pushes-Germany-s-services-breaking-point-claim-womens-rights-groups-politicians.html The Qur'an teaches many curious things, but celibacy is not one of them.
Finally, If Obama is truly so concerned about the human tragedy in Syria, why has he so stubbornly refused to use our military to prevent it? Ok, none of us wants to see American "boots on the ground." But Obama has flown fewer sorties over Syria during the years since the ISIS ascendancy than Bill Clinton flew over Milosevic in a single day. Ok, wait a minute! I get it! In Kosovo Clinton was bombing Christians in support of Muslims. So that makes perfect sense.
© Jim Wagner
November 24, 2015
Sometimes I'm slow to understand the motives behind our government's foreign policy. So perhaps someone can answer me this. Obama is now chastising those of us who do not wish to accept Syrian Islamic "refugees" into America on account of our concern that a significant number of them will prove to be ISIS terrorists engaging in stealth jihad. It could happen, you know! In Paris, for example. Notwithstanding Paris, Obama says we are not "living up to our values" if we don't take vast hordes of these emigres into our land.
But over the past two years, while ISIS was crucifying Christians and taking their wives and daughters as sex slaves, while Islamic State holy warriors were burning Copts alive in iron cages and slaughtering Yazidis on a desolate mountain outside Mosul, how many times did Obama call for the US to welcome here the victims of this persecution? In fact, during that entire time Obama was opaquely silent, because that was the time during which he was drawing down our forces in the face of what he called a "JV" enemy.
But now Obama has come out of his moral hibernation to chide us for being "afraid of widows and orphans." Is it not curious that, until Muslims started fleeing Syria and Iraq, our president seemed entirely indifferent to the plight of the mostly Christian widows and orphans suffering in those lands? Of course many of the orphans were not yet born when our commander in chief abandoned the Syrian people to their fate. And since that day a quarter million Syrians have died. Alright, maybe Obama really does care about widows and orphans. Perhaps that is why he has made so many of them.
But why does Obama keep emphasizing "widows and orphans" anyway, when the vast majority of these refujihadis are combat age males? Even now, scarcely two percent of the Syrians Obama has admitted are Christian. But a full ten percent of all Syrians are Christian, and Syrian Christians are suffering by far the greatest persecution. So what else are we to think, except that our president, in his zeal to admit "refugees," is deliberately rejecting the most persecuted refugees on the basis of their religion?
Ok, another question. What suddenly happened, only weeks ago, to cause millions of Muslims to begin immigrating into Europe as refugees? I mean, they are now flooding Europe in a surprise deluge disturbingly similar to the tsunami of Central American child immigrants that was so recently organized to penetrate our own border. Not all of them are coming from Syria, mind you, or for that matter from any region where warfare is currently taking place. Germany reports that 30% of those now arriving are using counterfeit Syrian passports. Eight allegedly Syrian men have been reported caught at the Texas border even as I type, and six turned up in Honduras the day before. Where did they get all the fake Syrian passports on such short notice? Is there a mail order house that stocks them? Please tell me! I may want to skedaddle to Siberia the way things are going. But seriously, are we supposed to believe that this sudden onslaught is not an organized migration?
The fighting in Syria, thanks to Obama and his ephemeral red line, has been going on for years. In fact, it was Obama himself who armed the anti-Assad faction that turned out to be mostly ISIS. And yet until just a few weeks ago there was no mass exodus of Muslims from the region. So why, all of the sudden, did hundreds of thousands of combat age Muslim males begin a hijra into Europe? Come to think of it, why did they not go to other Islamic lands where they would feel culturally and religiously more at home? By now the entire world knows how discontented the Muslims already in Europe have become. Do they have to burn another car to remind us? ISIS thinks it knows the answer to these questions. The leaders of ISIS openly boast of the vast numbers of terrorists they have shuttled into Europe amongst the "widows and orphans" over whom Obama so ostentatiously weeps.
Here is a hint, if you still need one, to help you understand what is going on here. Hijra is a time honored and official Islamic method for destroying the infidel. It is the means by which the Prophet Muhammad conquered Mecca, a city which, by the way, had naively welcomed him after his expulsion from Medina. "And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many locations and abundance," says the holy Qur'an. "And whoever leaves his home as an emigrant to Allah and His Messenger and then death overtakes him, his reward has already become incumbent upon Allah. And Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful." (Qur'an 4:100) The point of the hijra strategy is to peacefully infiltrate an infidel land and then, when the time is right, destroy it from within. Perhaps Obama, not being a Muslim as we are constantly reminded, is unaware of this strategy. Or perhaps none of these refugees have that strategy in mind. But are you willing to bet the future of your grandchildren on that?
Fearing that my choice of the word "invasion" might have been a bit strong, I consulted the Oxford Dictionary in order to clarify the term. Here it is: "An incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity." The activity in question here is called "jihad."
A few days ago while speaking in Turkey Obama condemned those of us who believe we should admit from Syria into our country, if anyone, only the Christian and Yazidi refugees. Does this gripe make any moral sense at all? Here is what we know. While an unknown number of the Muslim refugees will certainly be jihadists, we can be absolutely confident that none of the Christian or Yazidi refugees will be jihadists. And while all of the Christians and Yazidis are most certainly in danger of being killed or enslaved by ISIS if they remain in Syria, a very small portion of the Syrian Muslims face such a threat. Moreover, most of the surviving Christians and Yazidis are women and children.
Most of the Muslim refugees, by contrast, seem to be fighting age males. Finally, while there is no faction in Syria for which the surviving Christians or Yazidis could sensibly fight, it makes perfect sense for the Muslim Syrians, if they really innocent moderates as we are told, to remain and fight on the side of the anti-Assad forces not aligned with ISIS. Right now we have Americans putting their lives on the line in Syria to defend the Muslim population. Why in the world should we allow fighting age Muslim males to take refuge in our country while our own sons and daughters are risking death to defend them in theirs?
I had intended to finish with that last rather poignant observation. But then it occurred to me that some may have forgotten how we just spent $500 million to train Syrians to fight against ISIS. How many successful trainees so far? The Obama Administration tells us it has trained "five or six." Of course many other trainees had nearly completed their combat apprenticeship when they went over to the other side, taking millions of dollars-worth of our equipment with them. So the program has not been a complete failure. But again, the total number trained and willing to fight on our side against ISIS is, as of the last report, "five or six." Obama assures us he will thoroughly vet all the refugees he intends to import. I hope he does a better job of vetting refugees than he did of vetting the Syrian military recruits he has trained and armed to fight on behalf of ISIS.
Here is the bottom line. The Syrian Muslim males now taking refuge in Europe and the US are either engaging in hijra, a long term strategy of stealth warfare against the West, or else they are the sorriest and most uniformly craven mass of mongrels ever to set foot on this planet. Either way, are these the kind of men we want to determine the fate of our nation? More to the point, are these the kind of men you want breeding with your daughters? For that is what they will most certainly do, with or without your permission – or theirs. Remember, these men left their own women alone back in Syria to face the bloody Assad Regime and the lusting Caliphate of Al Baghdadi. In Germany they are now raping both women and children, even while they are still being held in camps. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3247831/Rape-child-abuse-rife-overcrowded-asylum-centres-huge-surge-migrants-pushes-Germany-s-services-breaking-point-claim-womens-rights-groups-politicians.html The Qur'an teaches many curious things, but celibacy is not one of them.
Finally, If Obama is truly so concerned about the human tragedy in Syria, why has he so stubbornly refused to use our military to prevent it? Ok, none of us wants to see American "boots on the ground." But Obama has flown fewer sorties over Syria during the years since the ISIS ascendancy than Bill Clinton flew over Milosevic in a single day. Ok, wait a minute! I get it! In Kosovo Clinton was bombing Christians in support of Muslims. So that makes perfect sense.
© Jim Wagner
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
