Category: terrorists

The Neocons in the Trump Administration are steering America into another war

This also includes the Saudi Government as well. I say this, because of this piece of news here, via YNetNews.com:

A state-aligned Saudi newspaper is calling for “surgical” U.S. strikes in retaliation against alleged threats from Iran.

The Arab News published an editorial in English on Thursday, arguing that after incidents this week against Saudi energy targets, the next logical step “should be surgical strikes.”

The editorial says U.S. airstrikes in Syria, when the government there was suspected of using chemical weapons against civilians, “set a precedent.”

It added that it’s “clear that (U.S.) sanctions are not sending the right message” and that “they must be hit hard,” in reference to Iran, without elaborating on what specific targets should be struck.

The newspaper’s publisher is the Saudi Research and Marketing Group, a company that had long been chaired by various sons of King Salman until 2014 and is regarded as reflecting official position.

It seems that John Bolton is behind much of this:

Donald Trump’s national security adviser John Bolton wants the United States to go to war with Iran.

We know this because he has been saying it for nearlytwodecades.

And everything that the Trump administration has done over its Iran policy, particularly since Bolton became Trump’s top foreign policy adviser in April of 2018, must be viewed through this lens, including the alarming US military posturing in the Middle East of the past two weeks.

Just after one month on the job, Bolton gave Trump the final push he needed to withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement, which at the time was (and still is, for now) successfully boxing in Iran’s nuclear program and blocking all pathways for Iran to build a bomb. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – as the Iran deal is formally known – was the biggest obstacle to Bolton’s drive for a regime change war, because it eliminated a helpful pretext that served so useful to sell the war in Iraq 17 years ago.

Since walking away from the deal, the Trump administration has claimed that with a “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran, it can achieve a “better deal” that magically turns Iran into a Jeffersonian democracy bowing to every and any American wish. But this has always been a fantastically bad-faith argument meant to obscure the actual goal (regime change) and provide cover for the incremental steps – the crushing sanctions, bellicose rhetoric, and antagonizing military maneuvers – that have now put the United States closer to war with Iran than it has been since at least the latter half of the Bush administration, or perhaps ever.

And Bolton has no qualms about manipulating or outright ignoring intelligence to advance his agenda, which is exactly what’s happening right now.

In his White House statement 10 days ago announcing (an already pre-planned) carrier and bomber deployment to the Middle East, Bolton cited “a number of troubling and escalatory indications and warnings” from Iran to justify the bolstered US military presence. But multiple sources who have seen the same intelligence have since said that Bolton and the Trump administration blew it “out of proportion, characterizing the threat as more significant than it actually was”. Even a British general operating in the region pushed back this week, saying he has seen no evidence of an increased Iranian threat.

Pat Buchanan observes:

After Venezuela’s army decided not to rise up and overthrow Nicholas Maduro, by Sunday night, it was Iran that was in our gun sights.

Bolton ordered the USS Abraham Lincoln, its carrier battle group and a bomber force to the Mideast “to send a clear and unmistakable message to the Iranian regime that any attack on United States interests or those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force.”

What “attack” was Bolton talking about?

According to Axios, Israel had alerted Bolton that an Iranian strike on U.S. interests in Iraq was imminent.

Flying to Finland, Pompeo echoed Bolton’s warning:

“We’ve seen escalatory actions from the Iranians, and … we will hold the Iranians accountable for attacks on American interests. … (If) these actions take place, if they do by some third-party proxy, whether that’s a Shia militia group or the Houthis or Hezbollah, we will hold the … Iranian leadership directly accountable for that.”

Taken together, the Bolton-Pompeo threats add up to an ultimatum that any attack by Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, or Iran-backed militias — on Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE or U.S. forces in Iraq, Syria or the Gulf states — will bring a U.S. retaliatory response on Iran itself.

Did President Donald Trump approve of this? For he appears to be going along. He has pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal and re-imposed sanctions. Last week, he canceled waivers he had given eight nations to let them continue buying Iranian oil.

Purpose: Reduce Iran’s oil exports, 40% of GDP, to zero, to deepen an economic crisis that is already expected to cut Iran’s GDP this year by 6%.

Trump has also designated Iran a terrorist state and the Republican Guard a terrorist organization, the first time we have done that with the armed forces of a foreign nation. We don’t even do that with North Korea.

Iran responded last Tuesday by naming the U.S. a state sponsor of terror and designating U.S. forces in the Middle East as terrorists.

[…]

Today, Trump’s approval rating in the Gallup Poll has reached an all-time high, 46%, a level surely related to the astonishing performance of the U.S. economy following Trump’s tax cuts and sweeping deregulation.

While a Gulf war with Iran might be popular at the outset, what would it do for the U.S. economy or our ability to exit the forever war of the Middle East, as Trump has pledged to do?

In late April, in an interview with Fox News, Iran’s foreign minister identified those he believes truly want a U.S.-Iranian war.

Asked if Trump was seeking the confrontation and the “regime change” that Bolton championed before becoming his national security adviser, Mohammad Javad Zarif said no. “I do not believe President Trump wants to do that. I believe President Trump ran on a campaign promise of not bringing the United States into another war.

“President Trump himself has said that the U.S. spent $7 trillion in our region … and the only outcome of that was that we have more terror, we have more insecurity, and we have more instability.

“People in our region are making the determination that the presence of the United States is inherently destabilizing. I think President Trump agrees with that.”

But if it is not Trump pushing for confrontation and war with Iran, who is?

Said Zarif, “I believe ‘the B-team’ wants to actually push the United States, lure President Trump, into a confrontation that he doesn’t want.”

And who makes up “the B-team”?

Zarif identifies them: Bolton, Benjamin Netanyahu, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed.

Should the B-team succeed in its ambitions — it will be Trump’s war, and Trump’s presidency will pay the price.

Buchanan also writes:

After an exhausting two weeks, one is tempted to ask: How many quarrels, clashes and conflicts can even a superpower manage at one time? And is it not time for the United States, preoccupied with so many crises, to begin asking, “Why is this our problem?”

Perhaps the most serious issue is North Korea’s quest for nuclear-armed missiles that can reach the United States. But the reason Kim is developing missiles that can strike Seattle or LA is that 28,000 U.S. troops are in South Korea, committed to attack the North should war break out. That treaty commitment dates to a Korean War that ended in an armed truce 66 years ago.

If we cannot persuade Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons in return for a lifting of sanctions, perhaps we should pull U.S. forces off the peninsula and let China deal with the possible acquisition of their own nuclear weapons by Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.

Iran has no nukes or ICBMs. It wants no war with us. It does not threaten us. Why is Iran then our problem to solve rather than a problem for Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and the Sunni Arabs?

Nor does Russia’s annexation of Crimea threaten us. When Ronald Reagan strolled through Red Square with Mikhail Gorbachev in 1988, all of Ukraine was ruled by Moscow.

The Venezuelan regime of Nicolas Maduro was established decades ago by his mentor, Hugo Chavez. When did that regime become so grave a threat that the U.S. should consider an invasion to remove it?

During the uprising in Caracas, Bolton cited the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. But according to President James Monroe, and Mike Pompeo’s predecessor John Quincy Adams, who wrote the message to Congress, under the Doctrine, while European powers were to keep their hands off our hemisphere — we would reciprocate and stay out of Europe’s quarrels and wars.

Wise folks, those Founding Fathers.

Bolton must go, if Trump wants to remain President. because those who elected him, who do not subscribe to the neocon foreign policy doctrine, will vote for someone else or not at all.

 

Two Serviceman killed in Afghanistan

Sad News:

Army Spc. Joseph Collette.
Sgt. 1st Class Will Lindsay, 33, of Cortez, Colorado

KABUL, Afghanistan — The Department of Defense on Saturday identified the two soldiers who died Friday in Kunduz Province, Afghanistan, as a result of wounds sustained while engaged in combat operations.The deceased Spc. Joseph P. Collette, 29, of Lancaster, Ohio, was assigned to the 242nd Ordnance Battalion, 71st Explosive Ordnance Disposal Group, out of Fort Carson, Colorado. Sgt. 1st Class Will D. Lindsay, 33, of Cortez, Colorado, was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne), Fort Carson, Colorado. Source: Defense Department identifies two soldiers killed in Afghanistan – U.S. – Stripes

With the defeat Al-Qaeda and ISIS, isn’t it about time that we pulled out of that region? I mean, Osama is dead, most of ISIS is gone and Al-Qaeda is all but dead. Let’s end this thing and be done with it.

Others: Townhall and Task & Purpose

God Bless Shepard Smith at Fox News Channel

For this gem of a smack down of Donald Trump: (H/T to Mediaite)

https://youtu.be/weHjxfa4bvA

Shepard Smith is correct, we need NATO, no matter what people like Pat Buchanan might say.

OSU Attacker inspired by ISIS

I didn’t write about it, because I really sorta knew what the narrative was going to pan as being and as I suspected, another ISIS terrorist act. You see, progressives; this is what Donald Trump was referring to, when he said that we needed to have a reset on who we actually let into this Country. Because of things like this here.

Head on over and check out: Ohio State University attacker was inspired by ISIS « Hot Air

Terrorist Attack Brussels Airport in Belgium

Update: I made a video on this subject, please go check it out!

This is what happens, when you do not take Terrorism and Immigration; and the connection between the two, seriously.

Via the Daily Mail:

Cowering under desks and running for their lives, this is the terrifying moment passengers were caught up in a suicide bomb attack at Brussels Airport today in a series of blasts that have killed at least 34 people and injured 170 across the city.

Witnesses described apocalyptic scenes with blood and ‘dismembered bodies everywhere’ after two blasts rocked the terminal at around 8am (7am GMT), killing at least 14 people and injuring dozens of others.

Then 79 minutes later at 9.19am, at least 20 people were killed and scores injured, some critically, when a blast hit a Metro station just 400 metres from the EU headquarters in the city centre.

There were also reports the Tihange nuclear power plant, around 90km from the capital, is being evacuated of all non-essential staff as Belgium raised security to its maximum level.

At the airport, there were reports of a firefight between police and the attackers who shouted in Arabic moments before detonating their bombs. 

An unexploded suicide vest was later found in the rubble and a Kalashnikov rifle beside the body of a dead terrorist. 

This afternoon, Russian media claimed Muslim convert brothers Ivan and Alexey Dovbashi from Belarus and compatriot Marat Yunusov may have been behind the attacks. The trio are said to have fought for ISIS in Syria. 

The blasts, which detonated near a Starbucks and several check-in desks, sent shockwaves through the terminal building, shattering windows and knocking roof tiles off the ceiling as terrified passengers ran for their lives.

The explosions, coming just four months after the Paris attacks, have left countries around the world reeling, with security services placed on high alert, flights cancelled, Eurostar services suspended and France’s border with Belgium shut down.

Two suspects were arrested a mile from the Maelbeek metro station at around 11am as hundreds of troops and police flooded the streets of Brussels in the hunt for members of the terror cell.

Soldiers have been also been deployed at the airport and other key locations across the capital.

The bombings come just a day after the Belgium Interior Minister warned of possible revenge attacks after the arrest of Paris massacre suspect Salah Abdeslam in the city on Friday.  

Videos and images:

Where it happened:

Images:

Maybe now Europe will take terrorism seriously. Donald Trump had better start boning up on this; because he will be asked about it. As much as I disagree with her, on many, many issues; namely who she is supporting for President —- Michelle Malkin did have a point in this book here:

It is time that the United States got real about these people. It is time that we clamped down on Immigration; legal or otherwise, and start tracking who comes here and where they come from and if they come from areas prone to terrorism, they should be tracked, and their every last move should be documented. Because terrorism is not a political pawn for the Republicans; just ask those killed in San Bernardino, California.

I hear alot of this, “Sending Prayers” to address this situation. The thought is nice and all; but we need more than just prayers — we need action, Military action. We need Military action, with a plan to win the fight and get in there, kill these people and get out. This is not a Neoconservative position. This is a position of someone who wants to see our Republic defended and protected. I dare say that anyone, and I mean anyone; left, right, or whatever politically — that says that we ought to just stand aside and do nothing — they are the ones who are anti-American and pro-terrorism. There is a fine line between Wilsonian Military occupation and defending the Republic from terrorist attacks. I know the difference.

This whole idea of blaming America for terrorism is idiotic at best. America has made mistakes; that is true; Iraq is proof of that. But, does that justify this sort of terrorism? No, it does not. This is why I disagree with the Paleoconservatives on this issue. Because they want to blame America for terrorism! If they are not doing that; they are spouting moronic conspiracy theories on just about everything. Terrorism is not a illusion; it is real and it will be coming here, if that United States does not get a clue about Islam, and start making plans on how to thwart those who are radicalized, before more people are killed here.

Again, this isn’t about neoconservative Wilsonian foreign policy; this is about protecting the Republic. Because terrorism is no joke and if the right; all of it’s various factions, does not get a clue about this — things are going to get worse, much worse.

A brutal take down of the so-called “Conservative Movement”

This is rough, tough, and brutal. I am in agreement with Vox Day on this one, he calls it “Devastating. Absolutely devastating” and he is very much correct. Yes, I know, I have had disagreements with Vox Day in the past. But, on this, he is spot on. (I cannot seem to locate the posts, I may have pulled them.)

This article by a John Kludge over at ricochet basically sums up my feelings as well:

Let me say up front that I am a life-long Republican and conservative. I have never voted for a Democrat in my life and have voted in every presidential and midterm election since 1988. I have never in my life considered myself anything but a conservative. I am pained to admit that the conservative media and many conservatives’ reaction to Donald Trump has caused me to no longer consider myself part of the movement. I would suggest to you that if you have lost people like me, and I am not alone, you might want to reconsider your reaction to Donald Trump. Let me explain why.

First, I spent the last 20 years watching the conservative media in Washington endorse and urge me to vote for one candidate after another who made a mockery of conservative principles and values. Everyone talks about how thankful we are for the Citizens’ United decision but seems to have forgotten how we were urged to vote for the coauthor of the law that the decision overturned. In 2012, we were told to vote for Mitt Romney, a Massachusetts liberal who proudly signed an individual insurance mandate into law and refused to repudiate the decision. Before that, there was George W. Bush, the man who decided it was America’s duty to bring democracy to the Middle East (more about him later). And before that, there was Bob Dole, the man who gave us the Americans with Disabilities Act. I, of course, voted for those candidates and do not regret doing so. I, however, am self-aware enough to realize I voted for them because I will vote for virtually anyone to keep the Left out of power and not because I thought them to be the best or even really a conservative choice. Given this history, the conservative media’s claims that the Republican party must reject Donald Trump because he is not a “conservative” are pathetic and ridiculous to those of us who are old enough to remember the last 25 years.

It is this part here that really sticks out:

Third, there is the issue of the war on Islamic extremism. Let me say upfront that, as a veteran of two foreign deployments in this war, I speak with some moral authority on it. So please do not lecture me on the need to sacrifice for one’s country or the nature of the threat that we face. I have gotten on that plane twice and have the medals and t-shirt to prove it. And, as a member of the one percent who have actually put my life on the line in these wars movement conservatives consider so vital, my question for you and every other conservatives is just when the hell did being conservative mean thinking the US has some kind of a duty to save foreign nations from themselves or bring our form of democratic republicanism to them by force? I fully understand the sad necessity to fight wars and I do not believe in “blow back” or any of the other nonsense that says the world will leave us alone if only we will do that same. At the same time, I cannot for the life of me understand how conservatives of all people convinced themselves that the solution to the 9-11 attacks was to forcibly create democracy in the Islamic world. I have even less explanations for how — 15 years and 10,000 plus lives later — conservatives refuse to examine their actions and expect the country to send more of its young to bleed and die over there to save the Iraqis who are clearly too slovenly and corrupt to save themselves.

The lowest moment of the election was when Trump said what everyone in the country knows: that invading Iraq was a mistake. Rather than engaging the question with honest self-reflection, all of the so called “conservatives” responded with the usual “How dare he?” Worse, they let Jeb Bush claim that Bush “kept us safe.” I can assure you that President Bush didn’t keep me safe. Do I and the other people in the military not count? Sure, we signed up to give our lives for our country and I will never regret doing so. But doesn’t our commitment require a corresponding responsibility on the part of the president to only expect us to do so when it is both necessary and in the national interest?

And since when is bringing democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan so much in the national interest that it is worth killing or maiming 50,000 Americans to try and achieve? I don’t see that, but I am not a Wilsonian and used to, at least, be a conservative. I have these strange ideas that my government ought to act in America’s interests instead of the rest of the world’s interests. I wish conservatives could understand how galling it was to have a fat, rich, career politician who has never once risked his life for this country lecture those of us who have about how George Bush kept us safe.

Donald Trump is the only Republican candidate who seems to have any inclination to act strictly in America’s interest. More importantly, he is the only Republican candidate who is willing to even address the problem. Trump was right to say that we need to stop letting more Muslims into the country or, at least, examine the issue. And like when he said the obvious about Iraq, the first people to condemn him and deny the obvious were conservatives. Somehow, being conservative now means denying the obvious and saying idiotic fantasies like “Islam is the religion of peace,” or “Our war is not with Islam.” Uh, sorry but no it is not, and yes it is. And if getting a president who at least understands that means voting for Trump, then I guess I am not a conservative.

This is what you would call a political smack down and it is about time someone said it. This here too, is something that I high agree with:

Lost in all of this is the older strain of conservatism. The one I grew up with and thought was reflective of the movement. This strain of conservatism believed in the free market and capitalism but did not fetishize them the way so many libertarians do. This strain understood that a situation where every country in the world but the US acts in its own interests on matters of international trade and engages in all kinds of skulduggery in support of their interests is not free trade by any rational definition. This strain understood that a government’s first loyalty was to its citizens and the national interest. And also understood that the preservation of our culture and our civil institutions was a necessity.

I put in bold, underlined and turned that quote red to make a point. This above is what happened to the Conservative movement. It started after Ronald Reagan left office and got really crazy after the election and ultimate defeat of George H.W. Bush. After that, Conservationism went straight loony after that. Conservatives have no one to blame, but themselves. They put in a President, who went soft on taxes, and whom proceeded to usher in the “new world order.” and the Reaganites; which consisted of Fundamentalist Christians, like myself — went running for the hills. They knew then, that they had been duped.

Now, this many years later; along comes Trump and he dares to challenge those in the ivory towers that have created what we have now —- and the vultures are out for blood. They know that the current existing state of affairs in Washington D.C. is being threatened and they are doing everything they can to stop Donald Trump.

The question is, can Donald Trump fight them effectively enough to win the nomination?

Best thing I’ve seen at HotAir.com in a long while

Go Read: Oh no… we wouldn’t want to engender any hate or vitriol toward Muslims, would we? (a rant) 

Best part:

Perhaps all of the liberals heading for their fainting couches over the idea that we need to be finding the terrorists who are now proven to be on our own shores can, just this once, get a grip and decide which side of this war they are on. And if not, they should get out of the way, STFD and STFU. We have work to do and some of it’s not going to be pretty. But if we’re not willing to do it then I don’t want to hear any more crying from them about lives lost or gun laws or discrimination when the next group of ISIS “inspired” animals pops up here at home and wipes out another group of people at a Christmas party.

Amen and Amen. We have to protect this Republic and that’s the biggest thing. We can disagree on Wilsonian foreign, when it comes to Nation building and so forth. But, this is an attack on the Republic. We need to quit pussy footing around and get to work to destroy these people, once and for all.

BREAKING TERRORISM NEWS: Paris hit by major terrorist attack, 158 Dead

At what point do we consider Islam a threat to the security of the world?

The story:

France has declared a national state of emergency and has closed its borders after scores of people were killed in multiple gun and bomb attacks in Paris.At least 100 people are reported to have died at the Bataclan concert hall in central Paris.Gunmen took many hostages there before being overpowered when police stormed the building.Others died in a reported suicide blast near the Stade de France and gun attacks on city centre restaurants.Paris residents have been asked to stay indoors and about 1,500 military personnel are being deployed across the city. Via: Paris attacks: More than 100 killed at Bataclan and restaurants – BBC News

I just do not know what else to say.

Update: I’ve had some time to think about this a bit more and there’s a few things that I would like to say. This attack of course, was a horrible tragedy and I hope like heck that France does avenge the attacks upon their country.

What I do not hope is this, that the United States of America gets involved with this fight. Sure we’ve got Isis here and they’ve hit targets here in America and they also hit targets where we have interests. But I think the worst thing that could happen is we get involved in a protracted war with Isis in Syria.

If anything, we should support France and let them bomb the crap out of that country, not the United States.

Also too, I really think that the United States of America and the European nations and France and the rest of the allied nations, really need to take a hard look at Islam. The problem is in Islam’s doctrines jihad is considered to be a struggle against evil.

The problem is it’s hard to figure out which Muslims believe that jihad entails violence towards that are that are non-Muslim and which ones do not.

My contention is this here, is the freedom of speech and freedom religion being extended to Muslims, worth seeing people getting killed like this?

I believe the smart answer is No. I believe the United States of America and the European nations under the United Nations and the rest of allies of the United States need to take a hard look at their freedom of religion and determine that Islam is not just a religion. But that it is a political philosophy as well and that is a danger to the security of every free human being around the world and its practices ought to be outlawed.

I know that sounds harsh and flies in the face of the Constitution. But America is a much different place than it was when the Constitution was drafted and many things have changed and Islam is not what it was back when the Constitution was being drafted in the America.

So, I believe our political leaders need to get together and think about this. Do we really want to risk continued risk having Americans blown up because some Muslim decides that he is going to be a fundamentalist Muslim or are we going to be smart and say this cannot stand?

If you are going to practice your religion like this you can’t live here in America. This is what needs to be told to the Muslim community. Unfortunately, we have people in government in positions of political power who are abject cowards and will not stand up to these people at all.

This, my friends is a true American tragedy.

Related:

CNN: Paris shootings: 18 reported killed

Telegraph: Paris shooting: Several killed and injured after ‘Kalashnikov and grenade attacks’ across French capital

New York Times: Multiple Attacks Hit Paris Area in Night of Deadly Terror

Kevin Rawlinson / Guardian: Paris: shootings and explosions at restaurant, concert hall and Stade de France – live

Fox News: At least 35 reported dead, 100 hostages taken in Paris attacks

Jordan Fabian / The Hill: Obama: Paris massacre ‘an attack on all of humanity’

myfox8.com: 40 confirmed dead in Paris attacks, police end concert hall siege

Associated Press: Police: At least 26 dead in Paris, hostage-taking in theater

Derek Wallbank / Bloomberg.com news: Obama Says Paris Attacks Target All of Humanity

Andrea Cavallier / New York’s PIX11: ‘An attack on all humanity:’ At least 60 reported dead in Paris, dozens held hostage in attacks that shock world

Others: Hot Air, The Atlantic, Liberaland, New York Times, New York Daily News,Associated Press, France 24, CANNONFIRE, Taylor Marsh, Friendly Atheist, Balloon Juice,The Moderate Voice, The Daily Caller, Outside the Beltway, Eater, Washington Times, 89.3 KPCC, The PJ Tatler, CBS Sacramento, CityLab and addictinginfo.org,  RedState, Associated Press, ITV, MichelleMalkin.com, PBS NewsHour,John Hawkins’ Right Wing News, PoliticusUSA, Independent Journal, Hit & Run,Creeping Sharia, CBS DC, Allen B. West, USA Today, KFOR-TV, TheJournal.ie and Truth Revolt, The Daily Beast, JustOneMinute, The Daily Signal, The Gateway Pundit, American Power, Right, Hollywood Life, The Daily Caller and Pamela Geller, DCist, Gothamist, Jihad Watch, Associated Press and American Power,  Spectator, National Review, The Week and Common Dreams, USA Today, adelaidenow.com.au, The Daily Caller, ITV, fox13now.com,Vlad Tepes, Patterico’s Pontifications and WGN-TV, Wall Street Journal, Politico and Hot Air,  CNBC, Mother Jones, National Review, Walid Shoebat, TheJournal.ie,WTVR-TV, Associated Press, Independent Journal, USA Today, abc7chicago.com,The Daily Caller, Clutch Magazine, The Gateway Pundit, Business Insider, CBS Detroit, RT, Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion and The Week, CBS News, ThinkProgress, Refinery29 and The Week, ABC News, Politico and Yahoo Politics, Jihad Watch, The Jawa Report, The Local, Pamela Geller and WTVR-TV

Dueling Terrorists?

This is very interesting…

Via CNN:

(CNN)In a blistering new message, the leader of al Qaeda denounces the leader of ISIS as the illegitimate leader of a phony caliphate.

Exposing a glaring hostility between the two jihadi groups, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leader of al Qaeda, openly attacks ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi for usurping the jihadi movement.

“We do not acknowledge this Caliphate,” he says, according to a translation from SITE Intelligence posted Wednesday. “We do not see Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as one worthy of the Caliphate.”

He dismisses al-Baghdadi as a pretender who declared himself caliph with the support of only “a few unknown people,” and established ISIS, which calls itself the Islamic State, “by force and with explosions and car bombs,” instead of by “the choice of the people” through “approval and consultation.”

He also faults al-Baghdadi for failing to support Muslims who are not in the Islamic State’s territory.

“When Gaza was burning beneath Israeli bombs, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi did not support it with one word, but his main concern was that all the mujahideen pledge allegiance to him, after he assigned himself to be the Caliph without consulting them.”

At first blush this would be comical. However, if they start trying to outdo each other; it could be deadly for the United States. However, don’t expect any sort of action from this lame duck President.