Pentagon Official: Hamas are the New Moderates

peace process

Every Islamic terrorist group is moderate because somewhere, somehow, there’s a worse bunch of monsters out there.

A top Pentagon intelligence official warned on Saturday that the destruction of Hamas would only lead to something more dangerous taking its place, as he offered a grim portrait of a period of enduring regional conflict.

The remarks by Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, the outgoing head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, came as Israeli ministers signaled that a comprehensive deal to end the 20-day-old conflict in the Gaza Strip appeared remote.

Flynn disparaged Hamas for exhausting finite resources and know-how to build tunnels that have helped them inflict record casualties on Israelis. Still, he suggested that destroying Hamas was not the answer.

“If Hamas were destroyed and gone, we would probably end up with something much worse. The region would end up with something much worse,” Flynn said at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado.

“A worse threat that would come into the sort of ecosystem there … something like ISIS,” he added, referring to the Islamic State, which last month declared an “Islamic caliphate” in territory it controls in Iraq and Syria.

ISIS is already there. Hamas praised the original head of Al Qaeda in Iraq. All it would take for Hamas to join ISIS is a pledge of allegiance.

This isn’t likely to happen because Hamas is part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s network. However Al Qaeda is run by Muslim Brotherhood members.

None of that makes much of a difference because they differ somewhat on tactics, not on goals. Both are working toward totalitarian Islamic theocracies. The Muslim Brotherhood is a arguably a more dangerous long term enemy because it’s subtler.

ISIS taking over Gaza might not be a bad thing, because Israel might finally have the authorization to clean house.

But at that point, we would suddenly discover that ISIS are moderates compared to a new Islamist terror group, at which point we would have to turn to ISIS as our new moderate alternative.

That’s what happens when you embrace the madness of moderate Islamic terrorists.

  • butpygmies

    Just words… The lunacy that the problem is “Al Qaeda” rather than the entire structure of islamic supremacist jihadist monsters/morons the world over is political cover for entrenched/re-elected Western politicians and stupid news readers with good hair. The world war started sometime around the 1973 war, or maybe Munich, or maybe even in 1979 in Iran, when the islamic world realized we 1. needed them more than they needed us (oil), and 2. we wouldn’t do a damn thing to them (except give them money) no matter the atrocity the committed, especially if said atrocity was inflicted on the canary-in-the-coal-mine Jewish state. Barack “The US will never be at war with Islam” Obama is just another in an endless stream of politicians who can’t face the reality of a war between the emasculated, over-sexed, stoned west and the passionate, hateful vicious 1/4 – 1/3 of the world’s people…i.e., the Muslem world. It costs too much money. Our men don’t want to fight. Our people still believe that the oceans are big enough to protect us, and that all people everywhere, deep in their hearts, want the same thing; i.e., our people are passive morons who like their comforts. Theirs are vicious morons who have no comforts. They can’t even talk to girls. Whatever Israel does in Gaza, it’s going to get worse here. Signed: Someone who has travelled in 12 Moslem Countires

    • Johnny Paleswine

      Excellent analysis. All true.
      I would only add that the West is drowning in trillions of unpayable debts that needs oil to keep the paper farce continuing. All our wealth is paper on paper while the East accumulates real wealth: gold and silver from the West.

      Our kids and grandkids will hate us for enslaving them to the Orient when chunks of Western cities become Muslim war zones while our politicians and gutless 10 star Lt. Commander Admiral Generals enjoy their fiat pensions. An Islamic Soylent Green/Bladerunner future awaits our children’s children if we do not begin to publically insult these clowns

  • Gee

    The Pentagon of today would advise not to remove the Nazis because something worse would take it’s place.

    There is nothing moderate or worse than Hamas or any other Islamic group including the PLO. They are all just as bad as each other and all must be killed to the very last terrorist

    • Johnny Paleswine

      This is one reason of several, why the USA ha not won a decisive victory against a serious adversary since 1945.

      ” We have to be prudent. Perhaps something worse will appear”.

      Obviously he is preparing himself for a career in politics in order to double dip his pension.

      I remember hearing the same arguments about removing Arafat.

      • Pete

        Who replaced Arafat’s Fatah faction in the Gaza strip? Hamas!

        It happened without Israel, the U.S. or anyone doing anything.
        Bad groups can replace other bad groups which were first on the scene whether or not we hurt the latter.

        Lieutenant General Michael T. Flynn’s problem is that he has been in D.C. too long.


        Fatah–Hamas conflict–Hamas_conflict

        “Hamas has murdered “dozens of Fatah members” in the Gaza Strip for merely violating the Hamas-imposed house arrest. According to the Palestinian daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida the atrocities, which also included shooting people in the legs, has created a backlash in the West Bank and caused “anger, which influenced the level of popular activities carried out in solidarity with the Gaza residents in the towns Ramallah and El-Bira.””,7340,L-3576665,00.html

  • Texas Patriot

    DG: But at that point, we would suddenly discover that ISIS are moderates compared to a new Islamist terror group, at which point we would have to turn to ISIS as our new moderate alternative.

    Daniel, I think you may be underestimating the philosophical zeal and commitment of the organization formerly known as ISIS. The truth of the matter is that Khalifa Ibrahim of the Islamic State is probably the most brilliant and committed Islamic scholar on earth. He knows the teachings and life example of Muhammad and his followers like the back of his hand, and he is determined that the Islamic State will represent the perfect embodiment and exemplar of traditional and conservative Islamic idealism. There is nothing “moderate” about his approach. He is an Islamic purest and a perfectionist in every way, and he has no intention of compromising with the modern world in even the slightest degree. Therefore it is unlikely that we will ever see a more pure or perfect Islamic political organization or entity than the one he is creating.

    • Anukem Jihadi

      So Muhammad’s example can’t be followed better than Khalifa Ibrahim is following it. Is that what you’re trying to say?

      • Texas Patriot

        I suppose there is always room for improvement. Khalifa Ibrahim himself suggested as much in his recent sermon in Mosul when he requested the Muslim faithful to follow him when he was right and correct him when he was wrong.

        • Ah’Nukem Jihadi

          Yes, it’s a tough act to follow isn’t it?
          Sounds like he’s off to a good start though.

          Don’t you think he risks laying himself open to criticisms of appealing to Western style democratic populism with these proclamations seeking guidance and instruction from the Umma?

          • Texas Patriot

            I didn’t get the impression that he is seeking advice and correction from non-Muslims.

          • Ah’Nukem Jihadi

            I’m referring to the Ummah Islamiyyah but still democratic forms are insidious aren’t they? Who knows where this will end?

          • Texas Patriot

            Seeking advice and correction from the Muslim faithful seems like a wise approach to me. Thomas à Kempis once said that “No man ruleth safely but he that is willingly ruled.”

          • Ah’Nukem Jihadi

            Wise with democratic tendencies. How nice.