Yesterday Steven Hayward at Power Line Blog posted the following picture. It illustrates why many of us choose to ignore the mainstream media.
Tag Archives: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi
More Absurdity From The Media
The Conservative Treehouse posted an article today about the way the media has reported the death of ISIS terrorist chief Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
Below is a screenshot of The Washington Post headline. I am told that the headline was later edited, but this is where they started:
The article at The Conservative Treehouse notes:
In an era where the ideology of U.S. media has become increasingly disconnected from the majority of Americans, it is becoming less surprising to see radical leftist positions in mainstream organizations. However, that said, for any U.S. media to position themselves as sympathetic to one of the most brutal terrorists in the last half-century, is a level of disconnect far beyond comprehension.
Unfortunately, this position by U.S. Media is not as shocking as it should be.
As a contextual reminder for the teachings of the “austere religious scholar” represented by al-Baghdadi, his ISIS terrorists: beheaded international journalists, buried journalists in the ground and ran them over with tanks, brutally raped captives, drowned and burned Syrian civilians in cages, burned a Jordanian pilot alive in a cage and murdered dozens of Coptic Christians on the beaches of Libya….
The article includes some pictures of what ISIS and other Islamic groups have done to Christians. There is no way this man deserves a sympathetic obituary.
The Glass Isn’t Even Half Full–It’s Broken
We all have that one friend that we care about but is just hard to be around. If someone handed them a handful of hundred dollar bills, they would complain that they weren’t new bills. If they won the lottery, they would complain about the taxes they would have to pay. You get the picture. This morning President Trump announced that ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi had been killed by American Special Forces soldiers. Unfortunately we have become so divided as a nation that the Democrats and their media allies could not share in rejoicing at the death of a very evil man.
Townhall posted an article today that illustrates that point.
Before President Donald Trump’s press conference on Sunday confirming the death of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, former National Intelligence Director James Clapper appeared on CNN’s “State of the Union” to discuss what he was hoping to hear the president say.
One of the biggest things Clapper was interested in was seeing “the contributions the intelligence community made” that led to al-Baghdadi’s death.
He admitted “taking down” al-Baghdadi has “huge symbolic meaning,” especially because he has been a target for quite some time.
But Clapper warned the move could “galvanize” the Islamic State.
“What is going to be interesting is to the extent to which this negatively affects ISIS or does it galvanize ISIS, the remnants of ISIS, which still survives as an ideology and has franchises in other places besides Syria,” he explained.
Good grief. There was a time when we assassinated the leaders of Al Qaeda as soon as they became leaders. After a while, no one wanted to lead the organization. We may have to do the same thing again, but in the meantime, a horrible man is no longer a threat to anyone. Thank God we were not this divided during World War II–we would all be speaking German now if we had been.
When The Press Interferes With National Security
Terrorism is a worldwide problem. As ISIS is being defeated in Iraq, its members go to other parts of the world to commit terrorist acts. Bringing down ISIS worldwide would be a major step in the direction of peace. However, not everyone is working toward that goal.
Yesterday the following video was posted on YouTube:
An article at The Conservative Treehouse that included the above video. In the video, General Tony Thomas explains how leaked intelligence foiled the capture of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
The article at The Conservative Treehouse quotes a Fox News story from July 21st:
“We have absolutely dismantled his network,” Gen. Tony Thomas, speaking of Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, said at the Aspen Security Forum. “I mean everyone who worked for him initially is dead or gone. Everybody who stepped to the plate the next time [is] dead or gone. Down through a network where we have killed, in a conservative estimate, 60,000 to 70,000 of his followers, his army.”
In a wide-ranging interview moderated by Fox News’ Catherine Herridge, Thomas, who leads the Special Operations Command, said his team was “particularly close” to Baghdadi after the 2015 raid that killed ISIS oil minister Abu Sayyaf. That raid also netted his wife, who provided a wealth of actionable information.
“That was a very good lead. Unfortunately, it was leaked in a prominent national newspaper about a week later and that lead went dead,” Thomas said. “The challenge we have [is] in terms of where and how our tactics and procedures are discussed openly. There’s a great need to inform the American public about what we’re up to. There’s also great need to recognize things that will absolutely undercut our ability to do our job.”
The article mentions that the comment about a national newspaper probably refers to a New York Times article that appeared in June 2015.
I wonder how the Department of Justice would have handled this sort of leak during World War II. There is no doubt that this leak cost lives–either in America or other places around the world. A major international terrorist was allowed to escape because a newspaper wanted a headline. I understand that a free press is necessary for a representative republic such as America, but what about a responsible press?
A Necessary Explanation
President Trump has referred to ISIS. President Obama referred to ISIL. What is the difference, and why should we care? Actually the difference is significant, and the change is an important step in the right direction.
On Wednesday the American Center for Law and Justice posted an article on their website explaining the difference between ISIS and ISIL.
This is the essence of that article:
The change of leadership in the White House just produced a striking change of terminology in the war against the Islamic State terrorist group. The name preferred by the Obama Administration, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, (or ISIL) goes away. In its place comes the name favored by President Donald Trump: The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS.
A February 13, 2017 memo from the Office of the Secretary of Defense James Mattis says the switch to “ISIS” makes the Pentagon “consistent with” Trump’s language in a January 28 directive in which he called for a new plan to defeat the extremist group. That plan, to utterly destroy the terrorist group in Iraq and Syria, is due on the President’s desk today, although we may not know the details of the Pentagon’s recommendations for some time.
ISIS traces its roots to al-Qaida in Iraq, which declared an Islamic State of Iraq in 2006. In 2013 the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, renamed it the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham.
Al-Sham is an Arabic word for a vaguely defined territory that includes what is now Syria, Lebanon, Israel, the Palestinian territories and Jordan, virtually all of the Middle East. It is often translated as the Levant, the closest English term for the territory it describes and the term preferred by the Obama Administration. Alarmingly, the concept of Levant lumps Israel in with all the countries bordering the eastern Mediterranean in a nameless and demeaning fashion, thus denying that the historic land of Israel even dates back to the time of Abraham as their ancestor.
Al-Baghdadi claimed that the territory under his control would be a Caliphate, or Islamic State. ISIS further believes, while it is not yet a political or geographical reality, that even now their self-proclaimed Caliphate is the moral and religious authority for this entire region, including the nation of Israel. Consistent with this viewpoint, violence is justified, even encouraged, against the Infidels living in these lands who do not recognize the “lawful” authority of the Islamic Caliphate.
Parenthetically, the opponents of ISIS in Iraq and other Arab countries call the Islamic State Daesh, an Arabic acronym corresponding to ISIS. The term is deliberately designed to mock and insult ISIS because it diminishes its territorial claims. It is also close to the word “dahesh” meaning “one who tramples,” an apt expression for the majority of the Muslim world who oppose the terrorist organization.
All of this makes the Obama Administration’s preference for the term “ISIL” all the more disturbing. In contrast with the Trump Administration’s decision to officially refer to ISIS, the Obama Administration’s official policy referred to the Islamic State as ISIL. Why?
The very term “ISIL,” with its intentional connection to the Levant as the land from which this murderous group would rule the Middle East, is aspirational. It reflects the ambitions of ISIS and its leader, al-Baghdadi. It elevates the group’s territorial conquests. This provokes two questions: (1) Why would then-President Obama, or anyone else for that matter, want to acknowledge the claims of a group of genocidal jihadists and use the name that this hateful group prefers? And 2) Why would anyone use a name that constitutes an encouragement for this bloody group which reifies their objective of conquering all of the Middle East, if not the world?
Provoked by such changes, since November 2015 the ACLJ has been critical of the terminology preferred by both the terror organization and President Obama. We have contended for almost two years that the name ISIL tacitly acknowledges the irrational claims of the terrorist group. To call them ISIL legitimizes this radical Islamic group, which commits genocide on Christians, Yazidis, and other religious minorities and murders all who stand in their way, including their fellow Muslims.
This is another example of the Trump Administration’s understanding the fact that Israel is our only true ally in the Middle East and that we need to support them in every way possible. Somehow the Obama Administration was not willing to do that.