The Economist:
A FEW months ago Barack Obama declared that al-Qaeda was “on the path to defeat”. Its surviving members, he said, were more concerned for their own safety than with plotting attacks on the West. Terrorist attacks of the future, he claimed, would resemble those of the 1990s—local rather than transnational and focused on “soft targets”. His overall message was that it was time to start winding down George Bush’s war against global terrorism.
Mr Obama might argue that the assault on the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi by al-Qaeda’s Somali affiliate, the Shabab, was just the kind of thing he was talking about: lethal, shocking, but a long way from the United States. Yet the inconvenient truth is that, in the past 18 months, despite the relentless pummelling it has received and the defeats it has suffered, al-Qaeda and its jihadist allies have staged an extraordinary comeback. The terrorist network now holds sway over more territory and is recruiting more fighters than at any time in its 25-year history (see article). Mr Obama must reconsider.
It all looked different two years ago. Even before the killing of Osama bin Laden in 2011, al-Qaeda’s central leadership, holed up near the Afghan border in Pakistan’s North Waziristan, was on the ropes, hollowed out by drone attacks and able to communicate with the rest of the network only with difficulty and at great risk. Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), its most capable franchise as far as mounting attacks on the West is concerned, was being hit hard by drone strikes and harried by Yemeni troops. The Shabab was under similar pressure in Somalia, as Western-backed African Union forces chased them out of the main cities. Above all, the Arab spring had derailed al-Qaeda’s central claim that corrupt regimes supported by the West could be overthrown only through violence.
All those gains are now in question. The Shabab is recruiting more foreign fighters than ever (some of whom appear to have been involved in the attack on the Westgate). AQAP was responsible for the panic that led to the closure of 19 American embassies across the region and a global travel alert in early August. Meanwhile al-Qaeda’s core, anticipating the withdrawal of Western troops from Afghanistan after 2014, is already moving back into the country’s wild east.
How can this be? Obama said we won the war on terror. This must just be a small skirmish!
Somebody explain this final paragraph from the Economist:
My take?
al-Qaeda has a ”pernicious ideology?”
Pernicous means harmful but gradual and hidden or subtle.
al Qaeda has NEVER hidden their agenda or ideology.
They give speeches, send open letters, inspire from Mosques during Friday prayers.
They are not hiding their ideology under any figurative basket. (See Matthew 5:15 or Luke 11:33 or Mark 4:21)
As is stated, their ideology is constantly spread, ”through madrassas and mosques and jihadist websites and television channels.”
And add to that, ” Money still flows from rich Gulf Arabs, supposedly the West’s friends, to finance these activities…..” Nothing hidden, gradual or subtle about it. These beliefs are screamed from the Muslim equivalent of the pulpit, beaten into children at the Muslim equivalent of the school and pushed on all people from their own TVs.
Obama might be naive about Islam, or, as many believe, he might favor it.
But he has never fought for any Muslim country to tone down their revolutionary talk based on the koran.
Never.
So-called ”moderate Muslims” are simply those Muslims who cannot back up their beliefs from the words in the koran unless they quote abrogated verses.
Read more: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/its-all-smoke-and-whiskey/2013/sep/12/obama-sends-wrong-message-sending-guns-syria/#ixzz2gK9j4gpE
No, the Washinton Times is slightly wrong.
WE haven’t forgotten.
Obama doesn’t care.
This is what he wants to do.
As I have asked different times, are you finally figuring out who’s side obama is on?