Jihadists, Hillary Clinton, & the Sorry State of World Affairs

in Other News by

Thousands of mourners paid their final respects recently at the memorial service of Father Jacques Hamel, a 85-year old priest who had been murdered by two jihadists just last week at the Rouen Cathedral in Northern France. While no links have been made between the motivations of the two young men and other jihadist organizations such as ISIS or Al-Qaeda, the latest series of attacks in France and the rest of the world have raised many tough questions on the security failures that in turn have produced a ‘foreign fighter movement’ that’s sweeping across the US and mainly EU countries.So, what’s being done about this growing threat? Recently, the Obama administration proclaimed a milestone in their efforts to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay after it had succeeded in reducing the total population to 100 inmates, and with 14 more detainees being freed, the total now stands at 93. While some may say this is good news, it is nothing to celebrate. First off, in reducing the number of dangerous inmates, the Obama Administration has actually freed dangerous terrorists despite intelligence and military assessments that have warned about the potential risks of carrying out such an action. This is in spite of the fact that according to a BBC investigation, more than 5,000 people lost their lives worldwide last November alone because of terrorist acts carried out by ISIS, Al-Qaeda and their various offshoots, who follow a similar ideology which is commonly referred to as “Jihadism”.

Recently, Julian Assange revealed to Democracy Now that the Wikileaks DNC emails contains some revealing insights on Hillary Clinton’s role in arming the Jihadists, and ISIS in Syria, and while it is not fair to blame Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the attack on Father Jacques Hamel, there is certainly a link between the leeway given in the Obama Administration’s policy on dealing with Islamic Terrorists, and the rise in Jihadists who operate in small groups or as lone wolves. The way the Obama Administration and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dealt with the situation in the past has certainly led to the problems governments are facing today with the spread of extremism, and those who are inspired by ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

According to Julian Assange, who has been a thorn in the side of all those who want to deny this fact, Hillary Clinton was aware of the fact that the US was sending arms to Syria via Libya way back in 2011, almost a year before the Benghazi consulate incident where dozens of people lost their lives. The cables that have been published on Hillary Clinton paints a rich picture of how the Sectary of State performed in office and on how the Department of State operates as a whole. According to Assange, there are more than 1,700 emails of Hillary Clinton’s which has been received so far which proves that the intervention in Libya was disastrous, which led to ISIS occupying large portions of the country, and that weapons were being flown to Jihadists in Syria which was being pushed by Hillary Clinton.  

Meanwhile, a section of pews was set aside for the residents of Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, the home town of the two Jihadists who murdered Father Jacques Hamel at the altar while he was celebrating mass. Muslim families continued to pour in to show their solidarity and to pay tribute to Father Hamel and denounce radical Islam.

So, what’s being done about this growing threat? One does not need a crystal ball to tell you that the somewhat lax attitude of the Obama Administration is posing a threat not only to the US, but also its interests and allies. And as long as this continues, the number of deaths caused by Jihadists are bound to rise. The fact of the matter is that Hillary Clinton didn’t just lie to the people of America, she lied to the UN, NATO and the rest of the world. So, at least we know why she wanted to destroy all those emails, which were the property of the US government. Amazingly, all those who feel that Donald Trump is unfit as a leader fail to understand that the other person in the running has shown the potential to be even worse.