What is the difference between an Obama Administration releasing frozen funds to Iran that allows it to expand its terror operations across the globe, to include support of Assad to gas women and children, and Kuwait, recently accused by the same Obama Administration, of funding extremist elements fighting against the savagery of the Assad regime?
Are the people of Kuwait the only funders of extremism and terror here? Under the Obama Administration, which calls real terror ?workplace violence?, the concept of terror has become a Chicagoan label of political convenience and expediency, which sets a very dangerous precedent because eventually these contradictions will turn the general public into unwilling skeptics when real terror is concerned. The US, to this day, still has to face 9/11 doubters whenever that horrific and real terror issue is raised.
With this latest US Treasury Department accusation, we must ask ourselves if Iran is behind pressuring our own President to point the fingers at Kuwait. If so, credit the Mullahs for snatching, free of charge, an inexperienced US President more willing to bed them than threaten them.
The more this US President takes sides against one terror group while permitting the other to roam scot free, the more funding will reach the extremists in Syria. Do you really think Kuwait, or any other Arab country, is going to stop funding anti-Iranian forces just because some official at the US Treasury made some public remarks? Why bother if you are not ready to bring down the gauntlet?
Why do the Mullahs get a free pass on terrorizing Syrians? Is it because Mr. Obama is still hoping his tenure can avoid a conflict with Iran at the expense of all else including US interests? Both Sunni and Shia extremists terrorize, so why were funds released to Iran to terrorize Syrians while Kuwait is hammered for funding the terror camp that terrorizes Assad, Iran, and Hezbollah? The fact AQ attacked the US on US soil is not a good enough answer, and here is why.
AQ began as a 7th century religious extremist ideology, which then morphed into a terror machine once its founders realized many Muslims, and the world in general, is unwilling to accept their contortionist religious ideas. AQ then attacked directly the US on 9/11.
Iran, on the other hand, began its terror campaigns by holding Americans hostages and killing thousands of US troops in Iraq. It continues to this day to kill Americans whenever the opportunity presents itself, and anyone who doubts this reality is a fool. I bet my burial toup?e there are plans already in place to hunt indirectly some Americans because the US State Department refused an entry Visa to the terrorist, turned UN Ambassador, Abu Talebi.
For all intended purposes, AQ is an amalgamation of stateless roving terror bandits known for attacking the US directly; Iran, on the other hand, is a sovereign state heralded at the UN, and a country that sponsors terror and attacks the US indirectly.
I beg for distinction here.
AQis an ape staring down and attacking America head-on; The Mullahs, on the other hand, are apes that stab America while it sleeps; no stares. Unfortunately, every US President, since the rise of the Mullahs, has accorded a stare followed by an overt attack to be far more lethal than the incessant and stare-less stabs under a moonless sky the Mullahs have become quite comfortable in executing at will. Should we not treat them both as equally dangerous, which means we hold Iran accountable the way we are holding AQ accountable? Go figure.
The Obama Administration is pressuring Arab countries behind the scenes to walk the Iran plank. For many, it is a waiting game until Obama leaves office. When the Gulf countries refuse to cooperate, as Kuwait seems to be doing, this US President then turns to the media to force compliance that ultimately serve his own personal interests. This is sure to backfire, especially when juxtaposed against Mr. Obama releasing funds to Iran it uses to kill women and children in Syria.
One such Arabic article in any Kuwaiti or Gulf newspaper detailing this juxtaposition and you will have anti-Obama revolts on your hand. In fact, it will not surprise me to see some Kuwaitis have their own Barack Obama street protests to challenge his senseless policies of supporting terrorist Iran while he clamps down on the AQ terror. I would imagine one sign would read ?Both or neither?. That would be a sight, would it not?
In a way, Mr. Obama has amended the pure notion of terror to become a question of morality. How dangerous is that?
Who is funding terror?