John Kerry Lies, Claims No Muslim Country Supports Terrorism

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/260548/john-kerry-lies-claims-no-muslim-country-supports-daniel-greenfield

As usual, Kerry is just making things up.

February 6, 2016

John Kerry, the world's greatest diplomat and warrior since Baron Munchausen, insisted on discussing ISIS. Because its victims just haven't suffered enough without adding a speech by John Kerry to the mix.

Kerry claimed that, "Not a single country sponsors or endorses the kind of vicious and indiscriminate violence perpetrated by such groups as Daesh/ISIL in the Middle East, or al-Shabaab in East Africa, or Boko Haram in West Africa."

It's unclear why John Kerry chooses to distinguish ISIS or al-Shabaab from Al Qaeda or Hamas or any number of other Muslim terror groups that have obvious state sponsors. Muslim countries very blatantly do sponsor Islamic terrorism.

"And the reason is that opposition to international terrorists and repugnance at their actions has become a powerful unifying force," Kerry claims.

But this repugnance isn't widespread enough to stop Iran, Qatar and Turkey's blatant state sponsorship of terrorism.

ISIS can't have a state sponsor since it itself is a state. Al-Shabaab's state sponsor is Eritrea. It was hit with an arms embargo over it not that long ago. And weapons have been flowing from within the Somali government, such as it is, to Al-Shabaab.

So as usual, Kerry is just making things up.

"And that is as it should be, because these terrorists are so depraved they give new meaning to the word “evil.” Their crimes go way beyond theft and destruction. They are smuggling and extorters. They destroy ancient cultural treasures. They attack schools, and by the way, by attacking those ancient treasures, attack all of history and all of culture and all of our values. They butcher teachers. They kill people because of who they are, what they believe."

In short, they're Muslim terrorists. The Taliban did those same things and got Muslim state support. Even the Obama administration claimed that the Taliban were moderate and tried to make a deal with them.

So much for "evil".

Leaders of Daesh claim to be creating a pure Islamic state. But the reality is that their values are not Islamic, their state is a fiction, and they have nothing real to offer anyone except destruction and death and “live my way exactly as I tell you to.”

So they're liberals?

ISIS' values are based on the Koran and Islamic jurisprudence. For all his whining, Kerry has yet to show otherwise. Their state is as real as "Palestine" which Kerry views as a state. And is equally murderous. Also "destruction and death" is all that Palestine has to offer.
And Obama is a state sponsor of "Palestine".

"The 65-member U.S.-led global coalition to counter Daesh has only been in place for a year. People forget that. Fourteen months ago, it didn’t even exist."

Whose fault was that exactly? Maybe it was the guy claiming ISIS was a JV team?

"In Syria, we see a chance to increase pressure on Daesh from more than one direction, especially if Russia makes good on its commitment, repeated many times, to help."

We're doing so well... especially if the Russians were to come and help us. SmartPower(TM).

The President gets criticized because he didn’t drop a couple of bombs for 10 hours, but that wouldn’t have gotten rid of the chemical weapons. But because he was ready to do it and announced he was ready to do it, we were able to strike a deal with Russia and we got all of the declared chemical weapons out of Syria

Minus the chemical weapons that continue to be used...

" Everybody here knows that Boko Haram, al-Shabaab, al-Qaida, Daesh, have nothing to do legitimately with Islam. And so we need more than ever to come together in a struggle against this, and this is a critical time for UNESCO’s mission – a time to “build peace in the minds of men and women.”

So that's our plan.

1. Pretend Islamic terrorists fighting to impose Islamic law have nothing to do with Islam
2. Build mental peace
3. Islamic Caliphate in D.C. by 2050?