By Jim Yardley / August 11, 2014 / American Thinker
ISIS, ISIL, the Islamic State, or whatever it’s called today is a group of homicidal thugs, drunk on their own sense of power and bolstered by their military successes in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq.
Thousands have been murdered – and not just by a bullet to the head, but decapitated while they are alive. Thousands of women and children have been slaughtered.
For those who think that the only “war on women” is perpetrated by Republicans who think that if women want abortifacients, they should pay for such drugs themselves, let me repeat that. Thousands of women and children have been slaughtered in the same way cattle, pigs, and chickens are slaughtered.
A quick, humane execution? Hardly. Decapitation is not painless. It is not humane. These are the acts of immoral psychotics who actually enjoy their abuse of a position of power.
And yet we should consider just who is responsible for the carnage. Yes, the primitive tribal mentality and a religious bias are factors, but one must asked, “Who was it that freed these animals to act so savagely against innocents?”
And if that is not horrific enough, Yazidi women are being sold into sexual slavery. Again, how does that compare with the so-called “war on women” being decried daily by the über-feminists of the left? How does it compare with “unwanted sexual advances” on college campuses all over the Western world?
This is not to say that women raised and living in a Western, Judeo-Christian based society don’t have any problems, but when compared to what Yazidi and other Kurdish and non-conforming Sunni and Shia women face, isn’t that like comparing a hangnail to a heart-attack?
Who let these animals loose? The primary culprit might be viewed as our very own president. Barack Obama wanted to show how much smarter he was than George Bush. He was going to get us out of Iraq, and end “Bush’s War.” And so he did. He even went so far as to fail to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement with the Malaki government of Iraq that would have allowed a relatively small force to remain. Had our “smartest guy in the room” been only half as smart as he thought he was, if he had a secretary of state who was more interested in doing her job than in planning to run for president herself, he might have realized that there is more to the leadership required of the president than playing golf or jetting off to fundraisers.
How admirable. How praiseworthy. Just declare that the war is over, and come home. Last month I wrote a piece calling out the idiocy of our government, assuming that they could change only one variable in a situation and that everything else would remain constant.
Well this situation is identical in the type of assumptions bureaucratic morons usually make. The assumption being that the removal of American forces from Iraq would have absolutely no impact, since no one else would ever change their behavior.
So the bulk of Iraq is lost, and the golfer-in-chief apparently thinks that he can have a couple of F-18s drop a few bombs – apparently at random since there is no obvious strategic benefit – and voilà: his job (and his responsibility for the humanitarian disaster he allowed to occur) is done. Time to go on vacation with Michelle and his girls.
Not all fathers are going to get to go on vacation with their wives and daughters, Mr. President. A lot of fathers are going to collapse tonight, knowing that their wives are being subjugated by deviants from the Islamic State (or Caliphate or whatever these animals call themselves) and are being treated as slaves. Sexual slaves. Their wives, the mothers of their daughters, are being treated as nothing more than commodities. And that, Sandra Fluke, is what a real war on women looks like.
As for dads being able to at least hold their daughters and protect them from these pigs of the ISIS variety, well, that might be a problem. You see, Mr. President, not all these courageous, virile, and masculine ISIS animals confine their efforts to those who are nearly equal in strength and bravery. Fighting other real men might put them in some peril themselves, and they wouldn’t want that to happen, now would they?
One father in particular will no longer be able to protect his daughter the way you think that you are protecting Sasha and Malia. Of course, he doesn’t have a small army of bodyguards, nor a rather large army of real soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines to protect his little girl. He has to do it singlehandedly, and as these photos show, he has failed.
I don’t know the name of this poor man who has lost his wife and daughter. But I have seen pictures that first made my physically ill, and then made me wish I had my own personal B-52. Yes, Mr. President, this is the work of those you keep saying follow a religion of peace. This is the result of you preferring to get additional fundraising done rather than do the responsible thing and protect those from whom our government had taken all the police and military protections that we Americans take completely for granted. A cheery “Well, we’re finished here, so you’re all on your own now. Good luck!” is hardly what a responsible leader would say, yet that was effectively what you did.
A website called Catholic.org was brought to my attention by someone I correspond with in South Africa. It has two photos of the gentleman I’ve described, and of his daughter. Take a good look at him, Mr. President. Take a good look at his daughter, and imagine that it could have been Sasha or Malia. Then, Mr. President, look in the mirror and try to tell yourself that it’s not your fault for opening the cage that might have controlled these animals.