Don’t let the recent bombing campaign against ISIS and other extremist groups in Syria and Iraq fool you, writes WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah.
Farah says in a column today that President Obama is really going after “Syria’s Hafez Assad” (Bashar Assad’s father who died in 2000) and “Obama is not really at war with ISIS.”
He explains that Obama is simultaneously allied with the Muslim Brotherhood and “doing the bidding of Saudi Arabia,” the Muslim Brotherhood’s arch-nemesis.
Recall, if you will, what Obama’s prime foreign policy objective was just over a year ago: He was determined to bomb the regime of Syria’s Hafez Assad. That, to Obama, was the most important and critical foreign policy objective. Many people, myself included, were astonished. Assad’s regime, while despicable in many ways, was hardly a threat to U.S. interests. In addition, the people Assad was battling in his own country were ruthless killers, thugs and terrorists. In fact, it was ISIS. Assad was also providing protection of Syrian Christians and other religious minorities – and still is.
Obama didn’t get his way. He couldn’t get Congress excited about his bombing idea – thank goodness.
He did, however, provide arms and munitions and your tax dollars to those rebels. Most or all of it wound up in the hands of ISIS. Thus, Obama, more than anyone else, actually fed and nursed and gave aid and comfort to ISIS. He incubated the monster it has become.
Now Obama is using the crisis he created to get what he wanted more than a year ago – another shot at undermining Assad’s government. He’s going back to the well with what he describes as a strategy to defeat ISIS by supporting Assad’s Sunni opposition.
Why?
I can only assume the reason is that Obama is not really at war with ISIS.
…
I know that’s a remarkable conclusion. It’s not one I state lightly. But Obama is doing the bidding of Saudi Arabia, as many of his predecessors did. And the bidding of Saudi Arabia is Sunni jihad. It’s what Obama confusingly labeled “the Arab spring.” It is about deposing authoritarian rulers who are not Sunni jihadists, who are not disciples of the Muslim Brotherhood and who often actually serve as a moderating and life-sustaining force in the volatile Middle East.
Obama has not chosen to fight against an outrageously evil and vicious terrorist army in Syria and Iraq. Instead, he is demonstrating once again that he has chosen sides in a religious war in the Middle East – and the side he has chosen is not the sunny side, but the Sunni side. He has chosen the Muslim Brotherhood over innocent non-Sunni victims caught in the crossfire of jihad. He has chosen the dark side, the aggressor side, the sectarian side.
No American in his or her right mind should get behind this war.
