New Patch for U.S. Troops Fighting ISIS… Looks Like ISIS Logo -- Obama Approves
In order to be more ‘Muslim friendly’ Obama has changed the Army’s patches to resemble those of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Notice that none of these now Army Muslim Brotherhood look-a-like patches have an American flag on them? Also, you’ve never seen scimitars on Army patches until now. These patches are on those so called ‘non-fighting’ fighters in Iraq against ISIS.
That’s fitting in Barack Obama’s America, since he so indefatigably aided the Brotherhood when they took power in Egypt and continued to do so even after they were toppled, and since the Brotherhood is a chief competitor to the Islamic State in wanting to establish a caliphate of its own. It’s also a fitting symbol for an America that is ideologically fractured and confused in the face of a growing Islamic jihad threat, and no longer confident of its own heritage or principles.
But this patch has no resemblance to U.S. Army patches of the past, which featured the American eagle and other recognizably American imagery, not the two swords of the Muslim Brotherhood.
In case you’re not sure which is which, the Brotherhood symbol is on the left and the Army patch is on the right.
New Patch for U.S. Troops Fighting ISIS… Looks Like ISIS Logo
Believe it or not, American soldiers fighting against ISIS in Syria and Iraq will actually be wearing the emblem of ISIS – the infamous crossed-swords logo. Well, almost.
Controversy has stirred because many think the patch looks too much like our boys are fighting for the enemy… just another sign of confusion about the counterproductive Obama-led war against the notorious and shamefully exploitative jihadist army.
The Military Times noted that:
“A combat patch worn by U.S. soldiers who served in Iraq on the mission against Islamic State is drawing flak from service members and veterans who say the patch — with its palm wreath, stars and crossed scimitars — looks like something the enemy would wear.”
Site like JihadWatch are arguing that the:
“new U.S. Army patch for fight against the Islamic State closely resembles Muslim Brotherhood logo.”
While the Islamic State is using barbaric tactics to remake the Middle East closer to its own vision of a Caliphate, the United States and its allies also seek to remake the Middle East, and use thespecter of terrorism to aid in regime change in Syria and elsewhere.
The triangulation and cross-purposes are both confusing and aggravating to many Americans.
According to USA Today:
Soldiers in Iraq will soon have a new shoulder sleeve patch to signify their service in the fight against the Islamic State.
All told, there are about 3,335 troops in the region training Iraqi troops, providing security and conducing bombing missions on Islamic State targets in Iraq and neighboring Syria.
The Army’s patch features crossed scimitars, a palm wreath and stars. The scimitars, short swords with curved blades, are meant to symbolize the twin goals of the U.S.-led coalition: to defeat the Islamic State, also referred to as ISIL, and to restore stability in the region, according to Army documents.
Arguably the “twin goals” of Operation Inherent Resolve – better known as the fight against ISIS / ISIL – is fitting with the War on Terrorism in general which always, like a double sword, cut both ways. Symbolically, the double sword cuts both ways, and plays of opposite goals, and embraces conflict, which creates chaos, and begs for a savior and a solution.
But the U.S. has, in fact, created and breathed life into the TV villain known as ISIS. From. the. beginning.
The naked hypocrisy of the U.S. effort to fight ISIS is that the West has been building up and unleashing terrorism upon the Middle East region in order to facilitate chaos and regime change – and give the United States a pretext for stationing troops there, funding budget and spewing rhetoric across the media.
President Bashar al-Assad himself recently called out the United States and other Western allies for actually fostering terrorism – and providing arms, funding, training and soldiers for ISIS and other groups. Assad stated bluntly:
But as for Western cooperation with the al-Nusra Front, this is reality, because we know that Turkey supports al-Nusra and ISIS by providing them with arms, money and terrorist volunteers. And it is well-known that Turkey has close relations with the West. Erdogan and Davutoglu cannot make a single move without coordinating first with the United States and other Western countries.
Al-Nusra and ISIS operate with such a force in the region under Western cover, because Western states have always believed that terrorism is a card they can pull from their pocket and use from time to time. Now, they want to use al-Nusra just against ISIS, maybe because ISIS is out of control one way or another. But that doesn’t mean they want to eradicate ISIS. Had they wanted to do so, they would have been able to do that.
Meanwhile, Putin put in a “call” at the global poker table, vowing to take on ISIS and defend Assad with its own fighter jets, tanks and military equipment.
In a taunting and vexing spin on the United States’ own mission in the Middle East, Putin invited the West to join hands and eradicate ISIS once and for all, as SHTF recently reported.
Moscow, realizing that instead of undertaking an earnest effort to fight terror in Syria, the US had simply adopted a containment strategy for ISIS while holding the group up to the public as the boogeyman par excellence, publicly invited Washington to join Russia in a once-and-for-all push to wipe Islamic State from the face of the earth.
Of course The Kremlin knew the US wanted no such thing until Assad was gone, but by extending the invitation, Putin had literally called Washington’s bluff, forcing The White House to either admit that this isn’t about ISIS at all, or else join Russia in fighting them. The genius of that move is that if Washington does indeed coordinate its efforts to fight ISIS with Moscow, the US will be fighting to stabilize the very regime it sought to oust.
But Putin won’t be holding his breath. Neither should we.
Should we view the patch as a U.S. “resolve” to stop ISIS, or as part of the “inherent” contradiction that serves the larger purpose of terrorism and U.S. foreign policy at the expense of U.S. troops, U.S. taxpayer money and U.S. sovereignty?
And is WWIII near when the U.S. and Russia lock heads so pointedly as they are right now? And who is the real enemy?