The new leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (or as the Common Constitutionalist refers to him, "Bag Daddy"), has not yet given his support to Hamas, the group that has terrorist ties to the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Many are asking why he is not supporting Hamas' efforts to fight against Israel. According to an Islamic State spokesman, it's because they have their eyes on attacking America first.
After dominating the region of Mosul and the areas surrounding it, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria declared the area to be a caliphate (Islamic State). They then installed al-Baghdadi as their new leader.
The critics, who are in large measure Muslims (imagine that), are factions of Al-Qaeda, which ISIS broke away from in Syria and have now joined their like-minded Muslims in Iraq.
According to Israel National News:
In a statement a spokesperson for the group, Nidal Nuseiri reaffirmed that conquering "Bayt el-Maqdis" (Jerusalem) and destroying the State of Israel is central to the group's "jihad", or holy war.
However, he pointed out that ISIS has been taking a systematic approach in its campaign, and outlined six specific stages it said needed to be fulfilled before taking on Israel.
Some of those "stages" - building a firm base for an Islamic state in Iraq, and using it as a springboard to wage war in Syria and Lebanon - have already been achieved. But he said a number of other criteria still needed to be fulfilled before challenging Israel directly.
Among them, Nuseiri said that the US - seen as Israel's greatest ally - needed to be weakened politically and economically via attacks on the American mainland, as well as US interests in Muslim countries. Additionally, the existing "Islamic State" needed to expand its borders to cover all of "Greater Syria" (which would include Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and possibly Gaza); such a state, he said, would then be in a position for a direct confrontation with Israel.
So, we need to be weakened? Hasn't Nuseiri been paying attention to what Mullah Obama has been doing here in the US? Has he not been witness to the fact that Muslim Organizations are supporters of Obama?
Let's also recall that Barack Obama released al-Baghdadi in 2009 because he wasn't considered much of a threat.
According to Slate.com:
Baghdadi fought in some capacity with Sunni militant groups after the U.S. invasion of Iraq but was arrested in 2005 and interred by U.S. forces at Camp Bucca, the main U.S. detention facility after the closing of Abu Ghraib. He wasn't considered much of a threat and was released in 2009. The former commanding officer of Camp Bucca recently told the Daily Beast that when Baghdadi was released, he told his captors, "I'll see you guys in New York." (The guards at the prison were from a Long Island-based military police unit.) The commander, Col. Kenneth King, says Baghdadi "was a bad dude, but he wasn't the worst of the worst" and is surprised he rose to such prominence.
Slate is a liberal site, and yet, they are saying this. Yet, even more liberal Politifact played Obama's favorite card, the "blame Bush" card, writing that Judge Jeanine Pirro was lying about Obama's 2009 release of al-Baghdadi. They rated the story "false." I guess they have shown their true colors… again.
However, we shouldn't be surprised at Obama's release of Islamic militant jihadists. After all, he just released five top Taliban leaders, who are now freely walking around Qatar and threatening to fight the US again, for one American deserter.
It seems that al-Baghdadi has a similar mindset to his Muslim brothers in Syria, who are out for American blood.
It's past time to be providing foreign aid to Muslim countries and being involved in the Middle East. It's past time to be coddling Islam in America and it is past time for Americans to stop being afraid of Islam and stand up to it and kill the ideology dead… as dead as the false prophet that started the Islamic ideology.