Barack Obama Archives - Foreign policy

Trump: Obama was grossly incompetent

Published on May 18, 2020

Trump later thanked Obama and Biden on Twitter, where he wrote that their actions just helped his campaign.

Donald Trump, the President of the United States of America, stated that his predecessor Barack Obama was very incompetent. He said that as a response to Obama’s indirect criticism, that he does not know how to manage the country during a crisis.

On Saturday, Obama said that this pandemic, more than anything else, showed how many in public office don’t know what they are doing. And he added that some of them even don’t pretend to know.

After Obama’s speech, which Trump didn’t see, he only said that Obama was an incompetent president.

But Obama never directly mentioned Trump in his speech, but the current president is still trying to prove himself better than the previous president Obama.

Trump attacks Obama a lot, just like he attacked him and Joe Biden last week.

President Trump claimed that Obama and Biden knew that the FBI was investigating Michael Flynn, a former National Security Advisor. The latter later admitted in 2017 that he lied to the FBI about talks with the Russian ambassador to the United States.

Recently, the state’s attorney, William Barr, dismissed the case against Flynn, but the federal judge to whom the case was assigned could pronounce a verdict.

Trump accuses the previous administration of spying on Flynn, a member of his election committee, of compromising his campaign, which Trump called “Obamagate,” alluding to the Watergate affair, when the seat of the Democratic Party was eavesdropped on during the term of Republican President Richard Nixon.

He called the investigation against Flynn “the biggest political deception in history”, in an interview with Fox News.

“It’s all Obama to you. It’s all Biden. These people are corrupt. The whole thing is corrupt, and we caught them,” Trump said.

Trump later thanked Obama and Biden on Twitter and wrote that their actions were helping his campaign. He also said that they are the reason why he is in the White House.

Trump has also repeatedly pointed out that Obama is partly responsible for the crisis caused by the coronavirus, due to the inadequate response to the swine flu epidemic.

Obama Would Handle Coronavirus Pandemic Better Than Trump

Published on April 14, 2020April 13, 2020

Barack Obama/Coronavirus/Donald Trump/Politics

A new poll discovered that a majority of voters would prefer President Barack Obama to run the nation during the coronavirus pandemic than current President Trump. However, Americans remain deeply divided over their chosen leadership amidst the outbreak that has spread to more than 400,000 across the country.

According to Politico, 52% of Americans think that Obama would do a better job in the current crisis. Only 38% think that Trump would handle it better in a sample of 1,990 voters. When presented with a choice between Trump and Bide, 44% picked the current president, a sign that doesn’t bode well for the Democratic nominee.

Obama has largely left the public attention since he departed from the Whitehouse but has become more active on social media since the outbreak. He endorsed Senator Elisabeth Warren’s plan for fighting the pandemic and also criticized Trump’s approach, something he rarely does.

Trump has been the target of critics for his slow reaction to the outbreak, something he denies doing. He also had a phone conversation with Biden regarding the handling of the crisis. “I laid out what I thought he should be doing,” Biden commented on the call Tuesday on CNN. “I laid out four or five specific points that I thought were necessary. I indicated that it is about taking responsibility, and being the commander in chief, taking on the responsibility.”

Trump claimed that he had a “wonderful, warm conversation” with Biden.

“It was a very nice conversation,” he added. “He gave me his point of view and I fully understood that.”

Not everyone agrees that Trump is handling the outbreak correctly. The Washington Post recently published a scathing article on the White House’s reaction. “From the Oval Office to the CDC, political and institutional failures cascaded through the system and opportunities to mitigate the pandemic were lost,” the article states.

Strange Sleep Habits of 5 American Presidents

Published on May 30, 2019

Barack Obama/Donald Trump/George W. Bush/Politics/U.S.

Being the president of the United States is honorable as it is tasking. The word POTUS, (President of the United States), is no doubt one of the most respected names in the world.

Apart from being the most important and feared leader in the free world, the POTUS also happens to be human, not superhuman. To manage all the weight of the world, they require the recommended 7 – 8 hours of sleep to function normally, but this is not always the case.

From waking up earlier than sunrise to jumping from meetings around the world, it’s not a surprise that past and present American Presidents have had to manage peculiar sleeping habits. Here we look at the strange sleeping habits of five American Presidents.

Surviving On Little Sleep

To make sure that all the daily business is attended to promptly, American Presidents, like President Barack Obama, are known to have stayed up until the early hours of the morning. Of course, Obama was not the first POTUS to do this, but he had an interesting way of keeping up with this routine like clockwork. He never set the alarm while in the White House, thanks to the everyday wake-up call he received from the White House phone operator at 7am, after retiring around 1am.

Waking up earlier than the medically suggested 8 hours can take a toll on just about any person, let alone the POTUS with more responsibilities. No wonder many presidents finish their tenure in the office looking older than their peers.

Popping Sleeping Pills

Having a sleeping disorder and being the POTUS is rarely heard in the same sentence, but as shockingly as it may sound, past American Presidents have a history of popping sleeping pills to get a decent amount of sleep.

Img Source: articulatingideas.blogspot.com

William Taft, the 27th president of the US, had sleep apnea, which caused him to snore loudly and he was rumored to doze off during meetings. To keep this sleep disorder in check, he had to rely on sleeping pills.You can find out more about this sleep disorder, and safer treatment methods here.

When it comes to sleeping pills, President George W. Bush also used them to squeeze in hours of rest whenever he could, especially during flight time. He was reported to take naps while on Air Force One, but he may have had some help with sleeping pills. Of course, there is no way of telling if Bush was just sick of the torturous long-haul flights or he merely took advantage of the quietness of thousands of miles above sea level to catch up on his beauty rest.

Snoring Loudly

All Americans loved president Theodore Roosevelt for his policies and character; however, he will undoubtedly go down in history as a notorious snorer. There is no evidence proving that Roosevelt had sleep apnea or used pills to control his snoring. The job of POTUS is very stressful, and stress is a symptom of snoring. So, you can understand if President Roosevelt couldn’t help but let his symptoms show.

Once, he was transferred to a separate floor at the hospital because his loud snores were keeping every other patient awake.

Regular Napping

If there are any benefits linked to taking naps, then President Ronald Reagan benefited greatly. Napping is known to increase creativity, alertness, reduce stress, and several other advantages anyone would want to have. Ronald Reagan might have taken this practice a tad bit to the extreme; though, he was not the only president with a knack for regular naps.

President Calvin Coolidge was reported to get more than 11 hours of rest every day, way more than most adults manage to get – president or not! Even though Coolidge seemed to have enjoyed his time subconscious rather than awake, he also lost his 16-year-old son. There would be no telling if he slept so often due to depression.

While the lack of proper sleep can cause you to be in a depressive state, it is not the only factor to cause depression. Constant deprivation of sleep will accelerate your risk of getting depressed, causing a drop in your energy level. Depression causes hypersomnia (excessive sleepiness), which was common with President Coolidge.

Super Early Starts

If you ever wondered how President Donald Trump seems to have extra time on his hands replying to every Tweet directed at him, then you should also know that it may be thanks to Trump’s daily routine of getting out of bed very early. He is reported to manage only about 4 hours of sleep. No! President Trump does not rely on coffee or energy boosters to run the country, but he is always so full of energy and vigor.

Caffeine can boost your performance in several ways, but it can also destroy your internal body clock. So while you can depend on a cup of coffee to keep you away from sleeping, ensure that you don’t rely on it and the recommended amount of daily sleep.

4th Amendment Should Be Protected

Published on May 25, 2018May 25, 2018

Barack Obama/Donald Trump/News/U.S.

In one of their recent articles, NY Times tried to put a positive note on some pretty scandalous things.

But, even with their fancy words and writing it was hard to conceal the fact that during Donald Trump’s presidential run, FBI conducted a secret investigation on his campaign and its members in an attempt to extract information that could damage his chance for a term at the White House.

The situation can’t be more severe than that. Using counterintelligence powers of presidential administration to spy on your opponent and members of his staff who are members of the opposing party is grave as it can get. The same branch of operatives did the following during the Obama reign in the office:

* NSA was obtaining a private date of the US citizens.
* Press members were spied.
* Data of hundred individuals was presented to national security adviser and UN ambassador.
* Dossiers through which FISA warrants that were obtained were unreliable.

As all of the above wasn’t enough, FBI had a presidential candidate at the time, Donald Trump, under surveillance in action called “Crossfire Hurricane.” The irony in all of this is that Trump tweeted in 2017 that he’s under surveillance, but no one believed him. After the news broke out that this is indeed true, media tried to put the ball down. NY Times wrote that FBI was looking for Russian counterintelligence involved in Trump’s campaign, while Washington Post claimed that FBI was protecting Trump instead of monitoring him.

The former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, while guesting at CNN, tried to say that spying is a ‘good thing.’

With all of the fuss in this situation and high media involvement, many forgot about the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. If you are one of those that don’t remember what Fourth is, it says: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The Fourth Amendment stands there to protect the citizens from its government. It’s the right to the privacy of our persons, houses, papers, etc. The government is not allowed to interfere with any of this unless a judge issues a warrant. The judge will only issue a warrant if there is probable cause that the invasion of privacy or surveillance will prove criminal behavior.

The warrant that was issued for surveillance of Donald Trump is based on an unreliable dossier bought by Hilary Clinton campaign. Even the FBI failed to disclose the critical information on which it’s based. The NY Times claims that FBI “obtained phone records and other documents using national security letters — a secret type of subpoena . . . ” But, national newspapers shouldn’t be the one advocating a government institution.

Yes, some government agencies are allowed to use security letters but only in matters that are connected with national security investigations. But even in this type of situation, they do not have a permit to do this while breaking the Fourth Amendment in the process. Spying on a presidential candidate by a government agency without a court, probable cause or any judicial oversight whatsoever is not something that should be done.

Many times through history it was proven that it’s dangerous to give government agencies the ability to subvert the constitution. Even if national security is at risk, Fourth Amendment should, and needs to be altogether respected.

Source: www.newsmax.com

A Review of Obama’s Asia Pivot Strategy

Published on May 4, 2018

Barack Obama

First mentioned after Hilary Clinton’s article America’s Pacific Century, in Foreign Policy, Asia Pivot has quickly become a very popular buzzword among American politicians. It encompassed the new approach to the deployment of American diplomatic and military power, with East Asia and Pacific becoming a new focal point.

Mrs. Clinton, the newly appointed Secretary of State, correctly observed several keynotes on Pacific theater. More than half of the world’s population lived in the area, and some of the strongest economic powers are located there as well. She proposed that such an environment presents an excellent opportunity for American investments which could fuel the region’s economic welfare into the new century, and all that under American leadership of course.

She states that “open markets in Asia provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge technology. Our economic recovery at home will depend on exports and the ability of American firms to tap into the vast and growing consumer base of Asia. Strategically, maintaining peace and security across the Asia-Pacific is increasingly crucial to global progress, whether through defending freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, countering the nuclear proliferation efforts of North Korea, or ensuring transparency in the military activities of the region’s key players.”

She proposed to achieve this by following six courses of action: strengthening bilateral security alliances; deepening America’s relationships with rising powers, including China; engaging with regional multilateral institutions; expanding trade and investment; forging a broad-based military presence; and advancing democracy and human rights.

The elephant in the room was China. Many experts claimed that the Asia Pivot is in fact just a new name for China containment strategy, aimed at encroaching it and cutting it off from potential allies. Mrs. Clinton was first to deny this, claiming that confrontation is not the only option when dealing with China and that Washington and Beijing must find a way to cooperate for the benefit of not their own nations, but the entire globe.

Diplomatically speaking, America managed to create some new ties in the region, but its main allies Japan and South Korea refused to engage in deeper military obligation Washington proposed. On the other hand, Vietnam was elevated to the status of strategic partner, according to Mrs. Clinton, a move that caused some friction with Beijing. She also managed to draw junta in Myanmar into negotiations, which was universally hailed as a positive move. Relationship with another important America ally, the Philippines, took a nose dive with the election of President Rodrigo Duterte, who threaten to expel US forces from his country.

The most important part of Asia Pivot was military redeployment and strengthening of American military assets in the region. The naval presence was increased by one carrier, seven destroyers, ten littoral combat ships, and two submarines. Additionally, the region would gain priority in the procurement of the new fifth-generation fighters, for both allies and American forces. In total, some 60% of US Navy would be deployed in Pacific, a 10% increase from earlier.

Asia Pivot strategy received mixed comments. Some argued that it was a move long overdue, like Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister of Australia at the time. He said that “without such a move, there was a danger that China, with its hard-line, realist view of international relations, would conclude that an economically exhausted United States was losing its staying power in the Pacific.”

Others weren’t so positive towards Obama’s policy. Robert S. Ross, an Associate at the John King Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies at Harvard University, suggested that such policy only “unnecessarily compounds Beijing’s insecurities and will only feed China’s aggressiveness, undermine regional stability, and decrease the possibility of cooperation between Beijing and Washington.”

The Chinese were also less than thrilled with the whole concept. Former President Hu Jintao said: “[The United States has] strengthened its military deployments in the Asia-Pacific region, strengthened the US-Japan military alliance, strengthened strategic cooperation with India, improved relations with Vietnam, inveigled Pakistan, established a pro-American government in Afghanistan, increased arms sales to Taiwan, and so on. They have extended outposts and placed pressure points on us from the east, south, and west.”

While Mr. Trump’s policy on Asia is still largely unknown, the current steps indicate that confrontation with China remains his first option.

Here’s Why Asia Pivot Was Barack Obama’s Biggest Mistake

Published on April 11, 2018June 11, 2018

Barack Obama/News

During his tenure in the White House Barack Obama did many amazing things. The one that wasn’t all that great was the “pivot to Asia.” This move will most likely be remembered as his biggest mistake. At one moment during his reign, Obama called himself “the first Pacific president.” President Obama did so because he wanted to shift the foreign policy more in the direction of Asia (the economic center of the 21st century) away from the Middle East.

He felt that, after the disastrous Libyan revolution that ousted Gaddafi, the responsibility for keeping stability in the region should fall on the shoulders of America’s European allies. The Libyan campaign was mostly a product of French and British pressure, but neither of the two countries had sufficient resources to bring Gaddafi to heel and stop the civil war that tore the country apart. President Obama sensed that the American public was fed up with costly Middle Eastern adventures that drained blood and treasure and that other countries should step up to the plate.

This pivot turned out to be a complete failure. Not only for the U.S. foreign policy. It had an adverse effect on various parts of the world, mostly on Europe and the Middle East.

The reason that pivot failed was that it was based on wrong assumptions. Obama and his associates believed that U.S. foreign policy has been neglecting the Asia Pacific. This part of Asia had a substantial economic rise in recent years, and the president decided that he could assign more military resources to the region. Those same resources would be pulled from the Middle East and other areas. This caused the tension in Asia-Pacific while at the same time it brought chaos to the Middle East and The Old Continent.

So, what assumption was wrong? When Obama started his term in office, Asia-Pacific wasn’t neglected. The Bush politics in this part of the world was actually a success. It lowered the historically high tensions between China and Taiwan. The free-trade agreements were signed with Singapore, South Korea, and Australia. These agreements were the foundation of what’s today the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The deals with India regarding their nuclear arsenal were signed, parallel with negotiations with Pakistan and Afghanistan. Some of these deals were later changed as apart of Obama’s pivot.

Obama’s Asian pivot did initiate new diplomatic relations (Myanmar), but it shifted its direction regarding security and defense policy. Making Asia the center of its security strategy annoyed the Chinese government. To Beijing, this move seemed like the U.S. is trying to contain their military power. Because of this China became hostile and aggressive. Before 2008, the relations between two countries were normal.

The situation escalated when the Air-Sea Battle doctrine became official. This doctrine was an effort to prepare the U.S. for a possible confrontation with China. The Secretary of The Defense at the time, Robert Gates publicly confirmed this, and as you can expect, authorities in Beijing weren’t glad upon hearing this. The doctrine was seen as a plan to contain China militarily and economically and to narrow the circle around them.

The first significant issue is that primary part of the pivot was militaristic. The second one was that it even had a military element to it. The Asia pivot promised that the U.S. is focusing on that part of the world for economic reasons, but they first started to arm themselves. The primary focus on military shows a little about the economy which was promised.

The premise that Chinese expansion could be checked by the use of soft military power was flawed from the start and only encouraged Beijing to start flexing their military muscles in return, using the American actions as an excuse. Its navy began a series of excursions further away from China’s coast in an effort to assert its dominance in the South China Sea, making securing the infamous 9-dash line its priority. Any objection from American allies in the region was checked with the statement that Beijing is merely responding to Washington’s action.

When Obama declared in 2015 that “TPP allows America — and not countries like China — to write the rules of the road in the 21st century” the Chinese were assured that the primary goal of the pivot was to stop the rise of China. The United States officials publicly confirmed this. The situation was made worse by President Trumps refusal to sign TPP, thus further weakening America’s negotiating position in the region.

The matter didn’t have to go this way. Instead, America could join Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. They were even invited by China. Instead, they refused and also criticized the U.K. for joining. By steering up military tensions, the U.S. missed on many economic opportunities.

The third mistake was that while dealing with Asia, America completely neglected Europe and the Middle East. When they took their eyes away from Europe, Russia went on the field trip to Ukraine glancing at the Baltic states at the same time. This move unsettled Poland and Hungary. In the Middle East, Syrian Civil war exploded causing thousands of deaths and creating 11 million refugees. Islamic State moved to Iraq, while the former U.S. allies in the Gulf fell under Iranian influence.

The power vacuum left by the U.S. withdrawal and its focus shift has only served to encourage Russia and Iran to increase their efforts aimed at obtaining influence in the region. Again, same as with TPP, Trump’s intentions of completely abandoning America’s allies by pulling even the modest number of troops left in Syria will only serve to invite both Moscow and Tehran to step up their game and increase pressure on surrounding nations. Syrian regime in the meanwhile holds steady and is closer every day to regaining full control of the country, with massive Russian and Iranian help.

In the end, the pivot failed. It didn’t stop China from rising. They are more aggressive now and have set their eyes on the South China Sea and to the Senkakus. Militarily they have never been closer to the U.S., and the economy is still on the rise. The TPP is no more, while China is signing trade agreements with its neighbors. It was essential to focus foreign policy to Asia-Pacific but not at the expense of Europe and the Middle East. Now America is at a disadvantage on both fronts. And it’s all thanks to Asia pivot which was Barack Obama’s biggest mistake.

FPI Analysis: Bush, Obama, and Islam

Published on January 6, 2016May 22, 2018

Barack Obama/George W. Bush/News

The politics of two presidents – George W. Bush and Barack Obama differed greatly. However, after notorious Paris attacks, Obama pay respects to Bush and his decision not to declare war on Islam. Bush managed to differentiate Islam from terrorism although terrorism is connected to this religion often. At the press conference after the Paris attacks, Obama declared: “I had a lot of disagreements with George W. Bush on policy, but I was very proud after 9/11 when he was adamant and clear about the fact that this is not a war on Islam.”

Both of the presidents recognized that terrorism and Islam were not connected. However, both of them failed to explain to the Americans why a significant number of Muslims joined the Islamic State, which is predominantly made of people whose religion is Islam.

9/11 – Terrorism and Islam

To understand the relationship between Bush and Obama as well as their views of terrorism, we have to go back to the darkest hours of the American history – 9/11. The devastating attacks which happened on September 11, 2001, caused Bush to go to the Islamic Center of the capital city and call for tolerance. At the Islamic Center in Washington D.C. Bush said:

“These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith. And it’s important for my fellow Americans to understand that. The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.” He added that Muslims contributed greatly to the society and reminded the nation that they are “doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms, and dads.” He also said that “they need to be treated with respect. In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect.”

After the notorious event and his visit to the Islamic Center, Bush met with the Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri. Indonesia is the country with the largest number of Muslims in the world and Bush wanted to make sure his voice is heard. He told Megawati: “I’ve made it clear, Madam President, that the war against terrorism is not a war against Muslims, nor is it a war against Arabs. It’s a war against evil people who conduct crimes against innocent people.”

Although Bush kept trying to explain that terrorism and Islam are not connected whatsoever, he made a mistake by saying: “This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while.” The word “crusade” drew a lot of attention, and many people started believing that Bush intended to go on a war against Islam. That was the word he never used again in his speeches regarding the war against terror.

Did and how things changed under Barack Obama?

Obama’s campaign was highly successful, and his selection to the highest seat in the country was a historical event and a major step forward for African-Americans in the country. In his campaign, Obama addressed the war against terrorism and just like his predecessor, he tried to show the difference between terrorism and Islam. In his campaign, he said: “In the first hundred days of my administration, I will travel to a major Islamic forum and deliver an address to redefine our struggle. I will make clear that we are not at war with Islam.”

He had a vision similar to Bush’s, and in Cairo, after the Paris attacks he pointed out that the values of Islam are similar to the American values. He said: “Let there be no doubt. Islam is a part of America. Muslims have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights.” He added that America and Islam do not have to compete against each other and that they overlap. On several occasions, Obama spoke the same words as Bush, saying that “The United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam.”

Both Bush and Obama fought to distinguish Islam from terrorism. Take a look at these two situations and tell us what you think. When he was in Cairo, Obama said: “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. The United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab and to punish those who would deny it.” Let’s walk down the memory lane and recall the words said by Bush. He stated: “Women who cover their heads in this country must feel comfortable going outside their homes. Moms who wear cover must be not intimidated in America. That’s not the America I know. That’s not the America I value.”

As you can see, the two presidents have the same views. Nothing has changed in Obama’s administration in terms of Islam and terrorism. And while Bush fought the hopeless and costly war in Iraq, Obama did the same in the states of North Africa. They were trying to differentiate Islam and terrorism and yet they fought against Muslim countries continuously.

“Hijack” and “Pervert”

The two presidents tried to explain that the terrorists were using Islam as a justification. They both conveyed the same meaning, but they used the different terms. Bush preferred to say that the terrorist who committed crimes in the name of Islam used to “hijack Islam” while Obama favored the syntagm “perversion of Islam.”

On several occasions, Bush said: “[Terrorists are] traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself.” And one year later: “We respect the [Islamic] faith. We honor its traditions. Our enemy does not. Our enemy doesn’t follow the great traditions of Islam. They’ve hijacked a great religion.” While he was in Abu Dhabi, Bush warned: “Today your aspirations are threatened by violent extremists who murder the innocent in pursuit of power. These extremists have hijacked the noble religion of Islam, and seek to impose their totalitarian ideology on millions.”

On the other hand, Obama had the same answers. After winning the Nobel Prize and accepting it, he pointed out: “the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam.” A few years later he answered: “There is an element growing out of Muslim communities in certain parts of the world that have perverted the religion, have embraced a nihilistic, violent, almost medieval interpretation of Islam.”

However, there was a “significant difference between the two presidents. Obama never used terms such as “Islamic extremism” and “radical Islam” because he believed that terrorism and extremism would be connected to Islam. He avoided these terms, whereas Bush had no problems using them. On the other hand, he did state that such extremism should not be connected to Islam. At one point he acknowledged: “Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it’s called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam.”
Majority of Muslims are against this extremism, advocating peace. If this holy war is false indeed, why so many people join it? That was something neither Obama nor Bush could explain.

Is Islam the problem?

Bush and Obama tried so hard to distinguish such extremism from Islam as we have mentioned that several times in the article. However, this constant need to explain the phenomenon and separate the two terms had consequences. They kept refusing the fact that Islam and terrorism were connected and this has motivated a large part of the population in America to believe that the jihadists and extremists DO represent the religion. Several scholars, advisers, and congressmen said that ISIS and Islam are related and that this is the fact people need to accept. We just have to point out that this doesn’t mean that all of those who believe in Allah should be considered extremists, but we have to agree with the fact that Islamic State and Islam are connected to some degree.

General objectives that guide the activities and relationships of one state in its interactions with other states.