First off let me just explain that my computer is on the fritz, so postings will be few and far between, unfortunately. And yet there are so many things to write about. The continued chaos in Egypt as the Muslim Brotherhood ravages Christians, secularists, and anyone else who would prefer not to have Sharia Law forced upon them...increasing black on white violence here in America, which all seems to be part of the socialists' plan...and today the guilty verdict for former Major, currant POS Nidal Hassan. Or however you spell his name. Normally a stickler for accuracy in my postings, I won't even bother to find out how to spell his name because he doesn't deserve even the slightest considerations, frankly.
Yet all of these stories have a common thread: political correctness.
Here in America, violence within the Black Community is all but ignored. The P.C. Police make sure that anyone who dares bring it up are quickly labeled as racists. Mentioning that Islamic Extremists come from Islam gets you quickly poo-pood as a bigot. And anyone who pulls out the common sense view that Gun Free Zones only make life safer for criminals is silenced as someone who must hate children. Yes, in the P.C. World little makes sense and logic is quickly washed away. Yet our world is becoming more and more "P.C."
Which is why I wanted to rant about Major Muslim Filth Bucket a little. It was the Army's PC policies that allowed him to murder and maim real American heroes. It was political correctness that failed to recognize that this ugly pedophile worshipper may in fact be trying to follow in his idol's footsteps by killing innocent people with no provocation. It was political correctness that forbade further inquiry into this follower of Satan's minion while he scribbled "Allah be praised" on all of his official reports. It was political correctness that made part of Fort Hood into a Gun Free Zone which allowed this moon god worshiper to know his targets would be unarmed. It was political correctness that labeled his terrorist attack as "workplace violence" so he could keep getting paid but his victims couldn't. And it was political correctness that allowed this follower of cowardice to keep his beard against Army regulations during his trial so as to not upset his fake god. Somehow, the idiots who adhere to political correctness think that the other cowardly, dirty, stinking Arab a-holes that want to kill us will want to kill us if we upset them. Hey morons: THEY ALREADY WANT TO KILL US!!!
The Muslims who adhere to strict Muslim law and want it imposed on the entire world already hate you, me, and every other American, Jew, and anybody else not following their strict brand of Islam. They even kill other Muslims...so it's not like reason plays a big part in their psychosis. Yet the moronic P.C. Police live in a fantasy world where everyone can live hand in hand and sing kumbaya around one magic fire just as long as we say and do the exact right thing. Well, anyone with half a brain knows that is nothing but stupidity...so it's time to cut the stupidity out of our lives. Because if not, political correctness will kill us all.
As for Nidal Hessan...well he wants to die a martyr, so I say go and ahead and make his day. Only first, he should have his beard forcibly shaven with a rusty saw. And then, he should have his head removed with the same rusty saw. Make a video of it. Put it on the internet. If terrorists want to be made martyrs, we should make that happen...in the most degrading and painful way possible. Cover them in pig urine, chain them naked in the desert sun to let the animals eat them alive. If they wanna die, we should help. After all, why can't we play the same game the cowardly Muslims do? Oh right, because we're P.C.
Showing posts with label Islamic terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islamic terrorism. Show all posts
Friday, August 23, 2013
Saturday, June 1, 2013
Britain is No Longer Free
"The sun never sets on the British Empire."
At the height of it's power, that phrase was used to describe the greatness of Britain and the vastness of it's Empire. Today, we are witnessing the sunset of British sovereignty. After the vicious murder of the soldier in a suburb of London by Muslim attackers who promised to never stop killing Brits until they get rid of their government (presumably replacing it with Sharia Law), the response of the British government has been quick and telling.
Two things shape my opinion. One, the British Prime Minister made a statement telling soldiers not to wear their uniforms in public. Just take a minute to think about what that means. In that situation, any normal leader should say, "We condemn this attack, we will not stand for it, and we won't allow it. We promise to keep our people safe here in our own country."
But he didn't say that. Sure he condemned the attack and said they won't stand for it...but he completely left out the part about Britain protecting it's citizens in their streets. In fact, he said the opposite, just not in so many words. By telling soldiers to not wear their uniforms in public, he was basically telling all of Britain that their government was now unable or unwilling to protect them, and that they should take proactive approaches to not become victims; namely, hiding from the enemy.
The other thing that confirms my fears is the story of the Newport shopkeeper who displayed a shirt in his store with the words: "Obey our laws, respect our beliefs...or get out of our country." This man quickly received a visit from the police telling him to remove the shirt from his store or face arrest. Apparently someone told the police that the shirt offended them, and so they forced the man to remove it because it offended racial sensibilities. Which is something since it said absolutely nothing about race whatsoever. Think about it for a second.
"Obey our laws."
Well isn't that what people are supposed to do?
"Respect our beliefs."
Well that could be called tolerance. Don't we live in a tolerant world now? Yet someone was offended at those basic principles of society...and so the police got rid of them.
And those two stories tell you all you need to know about the state of Britain. The government has admitted that it won't or can't protect it's citizens on their very streets and that their laws and beliefs won't be protected either. For almost a thousand years England stood as a sovereign nation, and the British Empire was perhaps the greatest the world has ever seen. But the sun is setting on Britain. And it's being replaced by a crescent moon. In ten years, Britain will be a Muslim country; complete with Sharia Law, women not being allowed to go to school or even leave the house without a male escort, and 12 year olds being married off to 50 year old men who will treat them worse than any animal. Its feckless government and foolish leaders have all but assured it, and it's ignorant populace won't realize it until it's too late. Their liberal policies and political correctness have led to their demise, and it's only a matter of time before the name 'Britain' serves only as a warning to the rest of the Western World. A warning that we would be wise to heed.
At the height of it's power, that phrase was used to describe the greatness of Britain and the vastness of it's Empire. Today, we are witnessing the sunset of British sovereignty. After the vicious murder of the soldier in a suburb of London by Muslim attackers who promised to never stop killing Brits until they get rid of their government (presumably replacing it with Sharia Law), the response of the British government has been quick and telling.
Two things shape my opinion. One, the British Prime Minister made a statement telling soldiers not to wear their uniforms in public. Just take a minute to think about what that means. In that situation, any normal leader should say, "We condemn this attack, we will not stand for it, and we won't allow it. We promise to keep our people safe here in our own country."
But he didn't say that. Sure he condemned the attack and said they won't stand for it...but he completely left out the part about Britain protecting it's citizens in their streets. In fact, he said the opposite, just not in so many words. By telling soldiers to not wear their uniforms in public, he was basically telling all of Britain that their government was now unable or unwilling to protect them, and that they should take proactive approaches to not become victims; namely, hiding from the enemy.
The other thing that confirms my fears is the story of the Newport shopkeeper who displayed a shirt in his store with the words: "Obey our laws, respect our beliefs...or get out of our country." This man quickly received a visit from the police telling him to remove the shirt from his store or face arrest. Apparently someone told the police that the shirt offended them, and so they forced the man to remove it because it offended racial sensibilities. Which is something since it said absolutely nothing about race whatsoever. Think about it for a second.
"Obey our laws."
Well isn't that what people are supposed to do?
"Respect our beliefs."
Well that could be called tolerance. Don't we live in a tolerant world now? Yet someone was offended at those basic principles of society...and so the police got rid of them.
And those two stories tell you all you need to know about the state of Britain. The government has admitted that it won't or can't protect it's citizens on their very streets and that their laws and beliefs won't be protected either. For almost a thousand years England stood as a sovereign nation, and the British Empire was perhaps the greatest the world has ever seen. But the sun is setting on Britain. And it's being replaced by a crescent moon. In ten years, Britain will be a Muslim country; complete with Sharia Law, women not being allowed to go to school or even leave the house without a male escort, and 12 year olds being married off to 50 year old men who will treat them worse than any animal. Its feckless government and foolish leaders have all but assured it, and it's ignorant populace won't realize it until it's too late. Their liberal policies and political correctness have led to their demise, and it's only a matter of time before the name 'Britain' serves only as a warning to the rest of the Western World. A warning that we would be wise to heed.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Hillary Clinton skipping Benghazi hearings...again.
Boy, it's such a good thing there was a mass shooting on Friday, so that the media complex can have an excuse for completely ignoring this pile of horse manure spewing out of the Obama Administration. As I recall, Hillary couldn't make the first hearing either because she was at a wine tasting with friends in Australia.
Now this load of mularky (as Joe Biden would put it) is her excuse?? She fell down and hit her head so, sorry Congress, you can't get any answers about why American diplomats are dead. Hillary has taken all the responsibility, you remember, but she won't say what exactly she actually knows. Why should the peons that are the American populace need to be informed about anything their government does? It's become totally acceptable for our government to lie, hide, and obfuscate facts in order to do their work in the dark. We in America still hold the fallacy that our government is beholden to us...but our leaders are quickly making that notion a thing of the past. How long until they just start telling Congress "no, we won't answer you" instead of making up not-so-clever lies? It shouldn't be long at this rate. I mean, they are giving her a pass for a "concussion."
Now maybe most people don't know, but I've had at least one concussion when I was younger. It was just a mild one, but I wasn't in bed a week later ignoring the world. Heck, I've known guys who had serious concussions when I was in highschool and two days later, they were back in school, headache and all. Professional athletes PLAY with concussions (though I wouldn't recommend that). Yet Hillary is unable to sit in a comfy chair for two hours in order to answer some questions about the life and death of brave Americans because she has a headache!? Take some damn tylenol!
And she is going to be our next president!? Is Russia accepting American refugees? At least there they understand that their leaders are corrupt...plus they've already done the Socialism thing so you know they won't go back to the mess we are heading straight towards!
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Proposed Army manuel tells G.I.s not to insult Taliban, speak up for women
So the new proposed handbook for Americans serving in Afghanistan warns soldiers that a number of attacks on coalition forces were caused by "ignorance of, or lack of empathy for, Muslim and/or Afghan cultural norms" and in order to halt such attacks, the soldiers must be sure to not offend the "Muslim and/or Afghan" by avoiding some "taboo conversation topics." These topics include "making derogatory comments about the Taliban," "advocating women's rights," "any criticism of pedophilia," "directing any criticism toward Afghans," "mentioning homosexuality and homosexual conduct" or "anything related to Islam." So I guess the ham Christmas dinner is out?
This is absolutely insane. It's already a damn shame that thousands of soldiers have died for what will amount to not a damn thing when we pull out of Afghanistan allowing the Taliban to waltz back in and take over again like we we're never there, but now we are forcing the soldiers that are still there to be nice to the Taliban!?! Maybe 11 years is a long time for people's painfully short attention spans to remember, but the Taliban ARE THE BAD GUYS!!
The Taliban are the strict Muslim sect that restrict individual liberty. They're the ones who shot the 14 year old girl because she had the audacity to want an education. They're the ones who gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden, al quada, and other groups who plan and carry out plots to murder innocent people in order to spread fear. I know the word is hardly used anymore...but those are called terrorists. The Taliban are the group that women were protesting on the television show 7th Heaven a few years before 2001 because they are notorious violators of women's rights. (Yes, I watched 7th Heaven when I was a teenager. Jessica Biel was in it. 'Nuff said.) Because women have no rights to them; they're just property.
And now...now we are not only allowing them to abuse women, children, and anyone else they want to in the name of Sharia Law, but we're not even aloud to criticize them for it! You're telling me if a soldier sees a 12 year old girl being married off to a 40 year old, or being violently abused or even murdered because she didn't want to marry a 40 year old...that the soldier can't do or SAY a damn thing about it because it might offend a pedophile!?! Are. You. Serious!? What a bloody crock! Someone needs the smart smacked back into them!
So now I guess our soldiers are fighting in order to enslave people and not to free them anymore. So everyone has basic human liberties...except the Afghan people who only deserve to be enslaved by a deadly and repressive culture. Glad America has finally given up on that whole "liberty for all" thing. After all, 14 year old girls should only be used as sex slaves. To think they should even be allowed outside is so 20th century...
Of course this is only a proposed update at this point and General Allen disapproves, so if there is any sanity left in America this will all be thrown out and never spoken of again. I'm not making any bets on that. But on a positive note, the Obama Administration's decision to actively hire retards seems to be working just fine...because this proposition clearly could only have come from a retard.
Friday, December 7, 2012
As Egypt erupts in violence, where is Obama?
As protests in Egypt turn violent, Barack Obama is strangely silent. Last year when protesters called for an end to Mubarak's reign as Egypt's dictator-president, Obama proudly proclaimed that we (or he, as he liked to put it in the debates) stood with the protesters. He said that the people of Egypt need to be able to live freely in a democratic system, and so Mubarak needed to step down.
Well now, as Mubarak has been deposed, Mohamed Morsi has been democratically elected and promptly drafted a new constitution that basically declares himself unlimited power. In other words, he wants to be a dictator.
Now as the people in Egypt are, once again, protesting a dictator ruling over them with an iron fist, Obama has remained silent. No speeches about how the Egyptian people need to be able to live freely in a democratic system this time. Maybe he thinks he made a mess last time and doesn't want to repeat that mistake? Maybe he just thinks one kind of dictator is better than another kind? Who knows? But you'd think the President of the United States would have something to say about it. After all, we do give them over a billion dollars of aid a year.
And where is Hillary Clinton? She was just hanging out with Morsi in order to try and work out a Hamas/Israel cease fire...but now, she's nowhere to be found. She took such pleasure cackling about the death of Gaddafi, but as another man seeks to stamp on the neck of his people, she has suddenly grown mute. Guess that 2016 presidential run needs all of her attention. Apparently, people being murdered in Egypt by a would-be dictator that they helped get into power isn't important enough to distract Obama and Hillary from their vacation plans. Glad we (they) have such a good foreign policy and are helping spread democracy around the world.
Well now, as Mubarak has been deposed, Mohamed Morsi has been democratically elected and promptly drafted a new constitution that basically declares himself unlimited power. In other words, he wants to be a dictator.
Now as the people in Egypt are, once again, protesting a dictator ruling over them with an iron fist, Obama has remained silent. No speeches about how the Egyptian people need to be able to live freely in a democratic system this time. Maybe he thinks he made a mess last time and doesn't want to repeat that mistake? Maybe he just thinks one kind of dictator is better than another kind? Who knows? But you'd think the President of the United States would have something to say about it. After all, we do give them over a billion dollars of aid a year.
And where is Hillary Clinton? She was just hanging out with Morsi in order to try and work out a Hamas/Israel cease fire...but now, she's nowhere to be found. She took such pleasure cackling about the death of Gaddafi, but as another man seeks to stamp on the neck of his people, she has suddenly grown mute. Guess that 2016 presidential run needs all of her attention. Apparently, people being murdered in Egypt by a would-be dictator that they helped get into power isn't important enough to distract Obama and Hillary from their vacation plans. Glad we (they) have such a good foreign policy and are helping spread democracy around the world.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Terrorist Nadal Hassan's judge thrown off case
I saw this story a few days ago and have been stewing over it since then. I wasn't even sure I would write this because it fills me with too much anger to properly express with words.
First off, this Islamic terrorist (just because the White House doesn't call him that doesn't mean the rest of us with a brain won't) has YET to even be properly tried. I mean, his act of terrorism took place in 2009! That's three freakin' years! At this rate, we'll colonize Mars before this trial concludes.
And what is the big holdup? The terrorist's beard.
He's in the Army. The Army doesn't allow beards. He's not allowed to have a beard because he's in the Army.
It's a 2+2=4 thing...and yet, it's caused a delay that makes air travel look speedy by comparison.
He didn't have a problem shaving every day for his entire Army career, yet now he's thrown away his razor in order to be a good Muslim. So was he a bad Muslim for his entire life until now? Was murdering innocent people the event that made him into a good Muslim?
And now the judge who ordered him to shave or be shaved (rightfully so) has been thrown off the case, and the entire beard issue will be brought up again...whenever it is the Army appoints a new judge to the case. All the while our taxpayer dollars go to this farce. But I guess when a terrorist attack is labeled as "workplace violence" by our government leaders, it only makes sense to expect the whole thing to be a clown show.
Full story here.
But at least, as Craig Andresen points out at The National Patriot, the Army just confirmed that it is ok to display religious symbols on government property. Just in time to put up those Christmas displays!
First off, this Islamic terrorist (just because the White House doesn't call him that doesn't mean the rest of us with a brain won't) has YET to even be properly tried. I mean, his act of terrorism took place in 2009! That's three freakin' years! At this rate, we'll colonize Mars before this trial concludes.
And what is the big holdup? The terrorist's beard.
He's in the Army. The Army doesn't allow beards. He's not allowed to have a beard because he's in the Army.
It's a 2+2=4 thing...and yet, it's caused a delay that makes air travel look speedy by comparison.
He didn't have a problem shaving every day for his entire Army career, yet now he's thrown away his razor in order to be a good Muslim. So was he a bad Muslim for his entire life until now? Was murdering innocent people the event that made him into a good Muslim?
And now the judge who ordered him to shave or be shaved (rightfully so) has been thrown off the case, and the entire beard issue will be brought up again...whenever it is the Army appoints a new judge to the case. All the while our taxpayer dollars go to this farce. But I guess when a terrorist attack is labeled as "workplace violence" by our government leaders, it only makes sense to expect the whole thing to be a clown show.
Full story here.
But at least, as Craig Andresen points out at The National Patriot, the Army just confirmed that it is ok to display religious symbols on government property. Just in time to put up those Christmas displays!
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Islamophobia? Don't make me laugh!
Straight up stolen from Patriot's Corner.
Pat Condell puts Islamophobia in its place.
And what's up with adding the word "phobia" to everything nowadays? Phobia means fear. I'm not afraid of Islam, I just don't like it. Get it straight.
Pat Condell puts Islamophobia in its place.
And what's up with adding the word "phobia" to everything nowadays? Phobia means fear. I'm not afraid of Islam, I just don't like it. Get it straight.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Special Report on Benghazi/Attack Timeline
How is it that Fox News and CNN can get this information, but no one in Washington can!?!
I especially appreciate the attack timeline. Before this I heard nothing about the attack on the second location, in which the two ex-Navy Seals were killed by mortar fire. Why aren't we hearing these things from the Administration? Where is the leadership?
Monday, October 22, 2012
U.N. warns Americans not to vote for Romney
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights (what the hell!?) Ben Emmerson has warned Americans not to elect Mitt Romney. He said doing so would be a "democratic mandate for torture."
He was referring to Mitt Romney's refusal to rule out the use of waterboarding as an interrogation method for terrorists. The idiot also said:
"The re-introduction of torture under a Romney administration would significantly increase the threat levels to (Americans) at home and abroad. Such a policy, if adopted, would expose the American people to risks the Obama administration is not currently exposing them to."
Are. You. Serious!?! What a bloody moron! I'm tired of these idiots saying that if we do anything to upset the terrorists, that it will "increase" the threat levels. That somehow, as long as we don't upset the terrorists (not even Muslims in general...the terrorists!) that they will give up their Jihad and suddenly decide that Israel and America are A-Ok! That level of stupidity absolutely boggles my mind! How can anyone be so stupid!? ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS WANT EVERYONE TO BECOME MUSLIM OR DIE! THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND! THERE IS NO 'LIVE AND LET LIVE' WITH THESE PEOPLE!
Yet some morons want us to believe that they are only mad at us because we make them and as long as we don't do anything to upset them, the threat of Islamic Extremism will disappear off the face of the earth. It's lunacy. But what do you expect from this dude.
That's Ben Emmerson. I don't know about you, but I'm not taking advice from anyone wearing a powdered wig. And the U.N. is a joke. If they say to not vote for Romney, it's pretty much a sign that you should!
Oh, and btw, there's this:
"U.S. intelligence services were able to pinpoint Osama bin Laden’s location and carry out the successful mission to kill him in May 2011 based on information yielded during waterboarding of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and information from Al Qaeda operative Hassan Ghul, who was captured in Iraq in 2004."
So waterboarding works. Anything that gains information that can save lives is ok with me. Let the waterboarding commence. If Islamic extremists wanna act like animals, then they forfeit their human rights. Period.
Breitbart.com has the full story.
He was referring to Mitt Romney's refusal to rule out the use of waterboarding as an interrogation method for terrorists. The idiot also said:
"The re-introduction of torture under a Romney administration would significantly increase the threat levels to (Americans) at home and abroad. Such a policy, if adopted, would expose the American people to risks the Obama administration is not currently exposing them to."
Are. You. Serious!?! What a bloody moron! I'm tired of these idiots saying that if we do anything to upset the terrorists, that it will "increase" the threat levels. That somehow, as long as we don't upset the terrorists (not even Muslims in general...the terrorists!) that they will give up their Jihad and suddenly decide that Israel and America are A-Ok! That level of stupidity absolutely boggles my mind! How can anyone be so stupid!? ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS WANT EVERYONE TO BECOME MUSLIM OR DIE! THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND! THERE IS NO 'LIVE AND LET LIVE' WITH THESE PEOPLE!
Yet some morons want us to believe that they are only mad at us because we make them and as long as we don't do anything to upset them, the threat of Islamic Extremism will disappear off the face of the earth. It's lunacy. But what do you expect from this dude.
That's Ben Emmerson. I don't know about you, but I'm not taking advice from anyone wearing a powdered wig. And the U.N. is a joke. If they say to not vote for Romney, it's pretty much a sign that you should!
Oh, and btw, there's this:
"U.S. intelligence services were able to pinpoint Osama bin Laden’s location and carry out the successful mission to kill him in May 2011 based on information yielded during waterboarding of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and information from Al Qaeda operative Hassan Ghul, who was captured in Iraq in 2004."
So waterboarding works. Anything that gains information that can save lives is ok with me. Let the waterboarding commence. If Islamic extremists wanna act like animals, then they forfeit their human rights. Period.
Breitbart.com has the full story.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Did President Obama really say it was "an act of terror" on September 12th?
Last night's presidential debate had one very interesting moment that will surely be discussed a lot in the coming days. Once the terrorist attacks in Libya were brought up (which took far too long and lasted far too short for my liking) President Obama said something that made Mitt Romney do a double-take. He said that the day after the attack, while making a speech in the Rose Garden, that he called the attack "an act of terror." Mitt Romney seized on that and tried to get him to repeat it (which for some unknown reason he would not do) but it was moderator Candy Crowley who spoke up to say that those indeed were his words. (How she managed to get the transcript only a few seconds after he said it is unknown to me.) President Obama seized on the moment and asked Candy to repeat that, which she did...to applause from the pro-Obama portion of the crowd.
This has caused countless people to go back and re-read or re-watch the president's speech from that day. I'll include it here so everyone can watch it for themselves. While no one really remembers the president saying anything about the attack being terrorism, he does indeed say the words "acts of terror." It happens toward the end of his speech. After making some remarks about how September 11th was already a painful day, the president said this:
"As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.
No ACTS OF TERROR will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."
Now it is all but impossible to tell from the context of the speech whether the words "acts of terror" were meant about the Beghazi attack directly or whether they were simply meant as some generic message about any terrorist attacks. There will be arguments supporting both. And since there's no actual way of knowing, both arguments will be deemed as "correct."
(In a move of political genius, Obama may have used the term ambiguously on purpose, so that he could later choose to acknowledge it as one way or the other to fit whichever narrative he wanted. I wouldn't put it past him.)
However, whether President Obama meant it one way or the other or both doesn't really matter one bit at this point. The president can spin the story whichever way he wants to now. What he can't do is erase the past month.
He can't ignore that on September 13th...two days after the attack, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said this during a press briefing:
Q. "At Benghazi? What happened at Benghazi --"
MR. CARNEY: "We certainly don't know. We don't know otherwise. We have NO INFORMATION TO SUGGEST THAT IT WAS A PREPLANNED ATTACK. The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, IT IS NOT A REACTION TO THE 9/11 ANNIVERSARY THAT WE KNOW OF, or to U.S. policy."
A few questions later Mr. Carney reiterated this:
MR. CARNEY: "I think there has been news reports on this, Jake, even in the press, which some of it has been speculative. What I’m telling you is this is under investigation. The unrest around the region has been in response to this video. WE DO NOT, AT THIS MOMENT, HAVE INFORMATION TO SUGGEST OR TO TELL YOU THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT ANY OF THIS UNREST WAS PREPLANNED. "
Now while Mr. Carney insists that the event is still under investigation, he leaves no doubt that, as far as the White House is concerned (i.e. President Obama) on September the 13th...that TWO DAYS after the attack there was NO EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION to suggest the attack was pre-planned!
THIS IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO PRESIDENT OBAMA'S STATEMENT THAT HE UNDERSTOOD IT WAS AN ACT OF TERROR THE DAY BEFORE!
He also cannot ignore that 3 days later, on September 16th, FIVE days after the attack, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, went on all 5 of the Sunday morning talk shows where she basically repeated this line:
RICE: "Our current best assessment, BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE AT PRESENT, is that, in fact, what this began as, IT WAS A SPONTANEOUS — NOT A PREMEDITATED — RESPONSE to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.
We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to — or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in — in the wake of the revolution in Libya are — are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.
We’ll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but THAT'S THE BEST INFORMATION WE HAVE AT PRESENT."
While Susan Rice also insists that the event is still under investigation, she also makes it clear that the "best information they have at present" indicates that "IT WAS A SPONTANEOUS - NOT A PREMEDITATED - RESPONSE...IN REACTION TO THIS VERY OFFENSIVE VIDEO..."
THIS IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO PRESIDENT OBAMA'S STATEMENT THAT HE UNDERSTOOD IT WAS AN ACT OF TERROR 4 DAYS EARLIER!
He cannot ignore that 4 days after that, on September 20th, while being interviewed by Univision, PRESIDENT OBAMA HIMSELF said, when asked directly if it was a terrorist attack:
“Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”
5 days after that, while asked if it was a terrorist attack on The View, PRESIDENT OBAMA HIMSELF said:
“We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet so we are still gathering.”
And on that same day, during a speech to the United Nations, PRESIDENT OBAMA HIMSELF made NO mention of the words "terrorism," "terrorist act," or "act of terror." The closest he came to discussing the attack was this:
"That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.
I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with.
We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our Founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views, and practice their own faith, may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech – the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.
I know that not all countries in this body share this understanding of the protection of free speech. Yet in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: there is no speech that justifies mindless violence.
There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan."
President Obama does not directly say that the video was the cause of the attacks...but he also does NOT say they were an "act of terror" either. As a matter of fact, he makes it sound more like the attacks were caused by the video than not, as he goes on a diatribe about free speech and how it must be protected even though it may insult, and in how he declares that "no speech justifies mindless violence...no words excuse the killing of innocents.
ALL OF THESE RESPONSES SEEM TO DIRECTLY CONTRADICT THE STATEMENT THAT HE UNDERSTOOD IT WAS AN ACT OF TERROR ON SEPTEMBER 12TH!
The question that begged to be answered about all of this rhetoric was this: was the death of four Americans and the resulting campaign of misinformation caused by incompetence or was it deliberate deception?
Up until now, the president and his entire administration could play the game of ignorance. They could blame the falsely made statements on the "fog of war" as Hillary Clinton did. They could say that they made statements based on "incomplete information." They could say that the exact details were "unknown" and that the investigation was "ongoing." They could insist that all of the information given to them at that time pointed to an "unplanned" attack. They could get away with simply saying that they made those statements based on the information they had at that time and then the information changed.
But not anymore. Now that President Obama said last night that he called it an "act of terror" on the VERY NEXT DAY, thus implying that he understood it was a terrorist attack as early as September 12th...it takes incompetence right off the table. It takes confusion and "evolving information" right off the table. IF President Obama believed it was an "act of terror" on September the 12th...then WHY did White House Press Secretary Jay Carney say there was no information to support that!? WHY did Ambassador Rice say the same 5 days later!? If the president of the United States believed it was an "act of terror" the day after it happened, then WHY did it take OVER TWO WEEKS for the Administration to finally admit it!? IF the president believed it was an act of terror, then the story about there being NO information or evidence supporting a terrorist act as the cause and focusing all attention on the movie instead was NOT simply confusion due to the "fog of war." IF the president believed it was an act of terror, then removing all rhetoric about terrorism and placing the blame on a "spontaneous protest" was a downright lie! If the White House Press Secretary isn't speaking with and for President Obama, then there is incompetence on a massive level going on in that administration. And if he is...then WHY did he say something that the president himself didn't believe? WHY DID HE LIE? WHY DID THEY ALL LIE??
So which is it, Mr. President? Did you truly believe and understand it to be an act of terror on September 12th as you said last night? Because if so...you've got a lot of explaining to do on who made the decision to lie about it for two weeks, and why that decision was made. You've just painted yourself into a pretty sticky corner, and I'm not sure even you can get out of it.
It will be a very interesting next few days and weeks as the election approaches, and as President Obama tries to answer the questions he himself raised by stating that claim last night. It will be interesting to see if he sticks with it now or if he tries to change the story again. The questions remain either way...but I think he just made it a lot harder on himself. Yes, should be interesting indeed.
This has caused countless people to go back and re-read or re-watch the president's speech from that day. I'll include it here so everyone can watch it for themselves. While no one really remembers the president saying anything about the attack being terrorism, he does indeed say the words "acts of terror." It happens toward the end of his speech. After making some remarks about how September 11th was already a painful day, the president said this:
"As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.
No ACTS OF TERROR will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."
Now it is all but impossible to tell from the context of the speech whether the words "acts of terror" were meant about the Beghazi attack directly or whether they were simply meant as some generic message about any terrorist attacks. There will be arguments supporting both. And since there's no actual way of knowing, both arguments will be deemed as "correct."
(In a move of political genius, Obama may have used the term ambiguously on purpose, so that he could later choose to acknowledge it as one way or the other to fit whichever narrative he wanted. I wouldn't put it past him.)
However, whether President Obama meant it one way or the other or both doesn't really matter one bit at this point. The president can spin the story whichever way he wants to now. What he can't do is erase the past month.
He can't ignore that on September 13th...two days after the attack, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said this during a press briefing:
Q. "At Benghazi? What happened at Benghazi --"
MR. CARNEY: "We certainly don't know. We don't know otherwise. We have NO INFORMATION TO SUGGEST THAT IT WAS A PREPLANNED ATTACK. The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, IT IS NOT A REACTION TO THE 9/11 ANNIVERSARY THAT WE KNOW OF, or to U.S. policy."
A few questions later Mr. Carney reiterated this:
MR. CARNEY: "I think there has been news reports on this, Jake, even in the press, which some of it has been speculative. What I’m telling you is this is under investigation. The unrest around the region has been in response to this video. WE DO NOT, AT THIS MOMENT, HAVE INFORMATION TO SUGGEST OR TO TELL YOU THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT ANY OF THIS UNREST WAS PREPLANNED. "
Now while Mr. Carney insists that the event is still under investigation, he leaves no doubt that, as far as the White House is concerned (i.e. President Obama) on September the 13th...that TWO DAYS after the attack there was NO EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION to suggest the attack was pre-planned!
THIS IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO PRESIDENT OBAMA'S STATEMENT THAT HE UNDERSTOOD IT WAS AN ACT OF TERROR THE DAY BEFORE!
He also cannot ignore that 3 days later, on September 16th, FIVE days after the attack, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, went on all 5 of the Sunday morning talk shows where she basically repeated this line:
RICE: "Our current best assessment, BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE AT PRESENT, is that, in fact, what this began as, IT WAS A SPONTANEOUS — NOT A PREMEDITATED — RESPONSE to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.
We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to — or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in — in the wake of the revolution in Libya are — are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.
We’ll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but THAT'S THE BEST INFORMATION WE HAVE AT PRESENT."
While Susan Rice also insists that the event is still under investigation, she also makes it clear that the "best information they have at present" indicates that "IT WAS A SPONTANEOUS - NOT A PREMEDITATED - RESPONSE...IN REACTION TO THIS VERY OFFENSIVE VIDEO..."
THIS IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO PRESIDENT OBAMA'S STATEMENT THAT HE UNDERSTOOD IT WAS AN ACT OF TERROR 4 DAYS EARLIER!
He cannot ignore that 4 days after that, on September 20th, while being interviewed by Univision, PRESIDENT OBAMA HIMSELF said, when asked directly if it was a terrorist attack:
“Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”
5 days after that, while asked if it was a terrorist attack on The View, PRESIDENT OBAMA HIMSELF said:
“We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet so we are still gathering.”
And on that same day, during a speech to the United Nations, PRESIDENT OBAMA HIMSELF made NO mention of the words "terrorism," "terrorist act," or "act of terror." The closest he came to discussing the attack was this:
"That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.
I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with.
We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our Founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views, and practice their own faith, may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech – the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.
I know that not all countries in this body share this understanding of the protection of free speech. Yet in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: there is no speech that justifies mindless violence.
There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan."
President Obama does not directly say that the video was the cause of the attacks...but he also does NOT say they were an "act of terror" either. As a matter of fact, he makes it sound more like the attacks were caused by the video than not, as he goes on a diatribe about free speech and how it must be protected even though it may insult, and in how he declares that "no speech justifies mindless violence...no words excuse the killing of innocents.
ALL OF THESE RESPONSES SEEM TO DIRECTLY CONTRADICT THE STATEMENT THAT HE UNDERSTOOD IT WAS AN ACT OF TERROR ON SEPTEMBER 12TH!
The question that begged to be answered about all of this rhetoric was this: was the death of four Americans and the resulting campaign of misinformation caused by incompetence or was it deliberate deception?
Up until now, the president and his entire administration could play the game of ignorance. They could blame the falsely made statements on the "fog of war" as Hillary Clinton did. They could say that they made statements based on "incomplete information." They could say that the exact details were "unknown" and that the investigation was "ongoing." They could insist that all of the information given to them at that time pointed to an "unplanned" attack. They could get away with simply saying that they made those statements based on the information they had at that time and then the information changed.
But not anymore. Now that President Obama said last night that he called it an "act of terror" on the VERY NEXT DAY, thus implying that he understood it was a terrorist attack as early as September 12th...it takes incompetence right off the table. It takes confusion and "evolving information" right off the table. IF President Obama believed it was an "act of terror" on September the 12th...then WHY did White House Press Secretary Jay Carney say there was no information to support that!? WHY did Ambassador Rice say the same 5 days later!? If the president of the United States believed it was an "act of terror" the day after it happened, then WHY did it take OVER TWO WEEKS for the Administration to finally admit it!? IF the president believed it was an act of terror, then the story about there being NO information or evidence supporting a terrorist act as the cause and focusing all attention on the movie instead was NOT simply confusion due to the "fog of war." IF the president believed it was an act of terror, then removing all rhetoric about terrorism and placing the blame on a "spontaneous protest" was a downright lie! If the White House Press Secretary isn't speaking with and for President Obama, then there is incompetence on a massive level going on in that administration. And if he is...then WHY did he say something that the president himself didn't believe? WHY DID HE LIE? WHY DID THEY ALL LIE??
So which is it, Mr. President? Did you truly believe and understand it to be an act of terror on September 12th as you said last night? Because if so...you've got a lot of explaining to do on who made the decision to lie about it for two weeks, and why that decision was made. You've just painted yourself into a pretty sticky corner, and I'm not sure even you can get out of it.
It will be a very interesting next few days and weeks as the election approaches, and as President Obama tries to answer the questions he himself raised by stating that claim last night. It will be interesting to see if he sticks with it now or if he tries to change the story again. The questions remain either way...but I think he just made it a lot harder on himself. Yes, should be interesting indeed.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Hillary Clinton accepts responsibility in Libya attack
Hillary Clinton finally came out from the rock under which she's been hiding to accept "responsibility" for the terrorist attack that took the lives of four Americans in Libya over a month ago. During a trip to Peru, Clinton gave her first interview in over two weeks in which she claims that as Secretary of State, she is responsible for the over 60,000 Americans around the world and the "buck stops with her" concerning the Benghazi attack.
She also said that conflicting reports about the attack were to be blamed on the "fog of war." "Remember, this was an attack that went on for hours," Clinton said in an interview with Fox News during a trip to Peru. "There had to be a lot of sorting out. Everyone said, here's what we know, subject to change."
Her admission of responsibility seems to be an attempt to deflect blame from President Barack Obama at a time when many are wondering who is to blame and just who, exactly, is in charge of the Executive Branch of our government. During the Vice Presidential debate last week, Joe Biden said that neither him nor President Obama knew anything about security concerns at the Benghazi consulate. The narrative being spun in the Administration is that Barack Obama has no culpability in the attacks. Clearly there is an attempt to shield Barack Obama from any blame so close to the election. The only problem with that is that he IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! You can't get all the credit and take none of the blame...which is exactly what Barack Hussein Obama seems to want. It's absolutely preposterous that the president of the United States would not be kept in the loop about an attack that killed 4 Americans, including our own ambassador. Now it is being reported that intelligence officials suspected terrorism almost immediately, and if that is true (which it certainly seems like it would be), why would the president not be told about it?? How could it be possible that the man at the top of the food chain wouldn't be kept in the loop about a possible terrorist attack??? Even if the complete details were "foggy," the deaths of four Americans would seem to be serious enough to warrant more attention from the president. Although he did fly to Las Vegas for a fundraiser the day that it happened, so I guess he wasn't too interested.
Concerning security requests, it's absolutely believable that the president was not privy to those, and that DOES fall right into Secretary Clinton's lap. Concerning security she herself admits in the interview that, "We knew there were security breaches and problems throughout Libya. That's something that came about as the aftermath of the revolution to topple Qaddafi, with so many militias formed, so many weapons loose....It was taken into account by security professionals as they made their assessments."
Well their assessments were wrong. And people need to answer for it. There is more than enough blame to go around. It's impossible to believe that President Obama bears no responsibility for the way this incident was handled. I've said from the start that this is either a case of gross incompetence or flat out nefariousness. Either way, President Obama needs to answer for his actions...or lack thereof. He simply cannot be allowed to push this all off onto others and claim ignorance, because that points to incompetence and ineptitude. As president, he bears some responsibility for this mess...and he needs to be held accountable for it. And as for Hillary Clinton...well she needs to be fired or resign. You cannot simply apologize for this and have it be forgotten. If you're going to invite the full responsibility for this, then you need to accept the full depth of punishment as well. And the punishment for four dead Americans needs to be nothing short of someone's job. I don't expect it to be Obama's (but it SHOULD cost him his in November) but I do expect it to be Hillary's. It should be. And you can forget about her bid for president in 2016 now as well. People's lives were lost...and her political life should end because of it. Especially if she is going to accept blame in order to shield Obama.
Full story here.
She also said that conflicting reports about the attack were to be blamed on the "fog of war." "Remember, this was an attack that went on for hours," Clinton said in an interview with Fox News during a trip to Peru. "There had to be a lot of sorting out. Everyone said, here's what we know, subject to change."
Her admission of responsibility seems to be an attempt to deflect blame from President Barack Obama at a time when many are wondering who is to blame and just who, exactly, is in charge of the Executive Branch of our government. During the Vice Presidential debate last week, Joe Biden said that neither him nor President Obama knew anything about security concerns at the Benghazi consulate. The narrative being spun in the Administration is that Barack Obama has no culpability in the attacks. Clearly there is an attempt to shield Barack Obama from any blame so close to the election. The only problem with that is that he IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! You can't get all the credit and take none of the blame...which is exactly what Barack Hussein Obama seems to want. It's absolutely preposterous that the president of the United States would not be kept in the loop about an attack that killed 4 Americans, including our own ambassador. Now it is being reported that intelligence officials suspected terrorism almost immediately, and if that is true (which it certainly seems like it would be), why would the president not be told about it?? How could it be possible that the man at the top of the food chain wouldn't be kept in the loop about a possible terrorist attack??? Even if the complete details were "foggy," the deaths of four Americans would seem to be serious enough to warrant more attention from the president. Although he did fly to Las Vegas for a fundraiser the day that it happened, so I guess he wasn't too interested.
Concerning security requests, it's absolutely believable that the president was not privy to those, and that DOES fall right into Secretary Clinton's lap. Concerning security she herself admits in the interview that, "We knew there were security breaches and problems throughout Libya. That's something that came about as the aftermath of the revolution to topple Qaddafi, with so many militias formed, so many weapons loose....It was taken into account by security professionals as they made their assessments."
Well their assessments were wrong. And people need to answer for it. There is more than enough blame to go around. It's impossible to believe that President Obama bears no responsibility for the way this incident was handled. I've said from the start that this is either a case of gross incompetence or flat out nefariousness. Either way, President Obama needs to answer for his actions...or lack thereof. He simply cannot be allowed to push this all off onto others and claim ignorance, because that points to incompetence and ineptitude. As president, he bears some responsibility for this mess...and he needs to be held accountable for it. And as for Hillary Clinton...well she needs to be fired or resign. You cannot simply apologize for this and have it be forgotten. If you're going to invite the full responsibility for this, then you need to accept the full depth of punishment as well. And the punishment for four dead Americans needs to be nothing short of someone's job. I don't expect it to be Obama's (but it SHOULD cost him his in November) but I do expect it to be Hillary's. It should be. And you can forget about her bid for president in 2016 now as well. People's lives were lost...and her political life should end because of it. Especially if she is going to accept blame in order to shield Obama.
Full story here.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Al-quada is not just an organization, it's an idea
As the Obama Administration continues to tout the death of Osama bin Laden as their major foreign policy victory and a sign that the victory over al-quada is almost complete, terrorist attacks by Islamic extremists are on the rise throughout the world. Al-quada is seemingly growing, in both numbers and scope of attacks. The attacks in Libya, continued attacks in Afghanistan, Iraq, and today even in Yemen are telling a different story than what the president is saying on the campaign trail. As mentioned in the last post, it's one of the reasons why I believe the false story of the Libya attacks being a protest about an anti-Islam movie were spread by the Administration for so long. It just doesn't fit their narrative.
This post was originally intended to be apart of the last one, but the amount of attacks was too long to add to that one. The first attack I wanted to talk about is one that's been spread around for the last few days...the shooting of a 14 year old girl in Pakistan by Taliban forces. If you haven't heard, 14 year old Malala Yousufzai survived surgery to remove a bullet from her head and neck after Taliban fighters came onto her school bus and shot her (along with two other girls who just happened to be nearby; happily all survived). Why? Because she had dared to speak out against the Taliban's real war on women, forcing girls to stay out of school. Malala had dared to speak out in an effort to alert the world to the barbaric and insane treatment of women and girls by the Taliban who have taken control of certain parts of Pakistan. The Pakistani government has recently begun to fight back against such Taliban control for the first time in 11 years, since they've taken control of certain mountainous regions of Pakistan after they were pushed out of Afghanistan by U.S. forces. Pakistan has effectively allowed the Taliban to take and keep control of these regions, fearing to even send their army in because of the strong support by the tribes living in the area. Now that Pakistan has begun sending troops into these areas, the people who had been living under Taliban control are speaking out. Malala is one such person. She is opposed to the war on women enforced by the Taliban and other such Islamic extremists. She spoke out against it. She lobbied for girls to be allowed to go to school. And so she was marked as an infidel and shot by Taliban thugs. She was described as "too secular" and that if she survived this attack they will attack her again. This attack will hopefully wake Pakistan up to how dangerous the Taliban and such ilk are...although in a country where an official offered money for the death of a guy in America who made that anti-Islamic film that may be too much to hope for.
Full story on Malala's attack here.
The secularism of Islamic countries is in a battle with Islamic extremism. With many Arab countries becoming free from dictators, Islamic extremists are seizing the opportunity to push their own agendas and are using the opportunity to grow their numbers. Egypt has already been taken over by The Muslim Brotherhood, a known affiliate of hardline Islamofascists. Security forces in Libya have confirmed that al-quada is growing. The same is said in Iraq. Islamic extremists may not all go by the name al-quada, but they all work towards the same goal. By whatever name, Islamic terrorists are NOT dying off and going away. We were told for years that these groups do not work like other terrorist organizations: you can't cut the head off the snake and watch the group shrivel! Now, we're being told that because Osama bin Laden is dead that al-quada is almost dead and that the world is a safer place. We're being told that the Taliban are becoming more moderate. Malala Yousufzai would disagree.
Al-quada is not dead because al-quada is not just one organization...it is an idea carried by MANY organizations and people throughout the entire world! That Islam must become the worldwide religion, that sharia law must be instituted worldwide, and that all opposed to it must die. Like Malala. You can mince words and call it by different names...but you can't erase the facts that Islamic extremism is growing.
Just today in Yemen, a top security official was killed in an apparent assassination by al-quada. Qassem Aqlani, who worked at the U.S. embassy in Yemen, was killed in a drive by shooting incident that has become a trademark of al-quada in the recent months. (A friend of mine actually had a friend of his, who was working as a Christian missionary in Yemen, killed in the same way not too long ago.) Al-quada has been increasing in strength in Yemen and has begun such attacks in response to joint U.S./Yemen military action against them. So even modern Middle Eastern countries that we count as allies are seeing an increase in terrorist activity attributed to none other than al-quada.
Just a few days ago, the news came out that a man was crucified...that's right, CRUCIFIED...by al-quada in Yemen because he was labeled as a spy working with the United States. We rarely hear of these events. We are being led to believe that because bin Laden is dead that Islamic terrorism is following close behind. We're being led to believe that al-quada and other such groups are all but obliterated by a president running for re-election. His campaign of victory and security is nothing but a campaign of misinformation. And if we fall for it, our children will pay the price. Bin Laden may be dead and GM may be alive...but Islamic extremism/terrorism is very much alive and far more well than we are being led to believe.
Full story on security official's assassinationhere and crucifixion of alleged spyhere.
This post was originally intended to be apart of the last one, but the amount of attacks was too long to add to that one. The first attack I wanted to talk about is one that's been spread around for the last few days...the shooting of a 14 year old girl in Pakistan by Taliban forces. If you haven't heard, 14 year old Malala Yousufzai survived surgery to remove a bullet from her head and neck after Taliban fighters came onto her school bus and shot her (along with two other girls who just happened to be nearby; happily all survived). Why? Because she had dared to speak out against the Taliban's real war on women, forcing girls to stay out of school. Malala had dared to speak out in an effort to alert the world to the barbaric and insane treatment of women and girls by the Taliban who have taken control of certain parts of Pakistan. The Pakistani government has recently begun to fight back against such Taliban control for the first time in 11 years, since they've taken control of certain mountainous regions of Pakistan after they were pushed out of Afghanistan by U.S. forces. Pakistan has effectively allowed the Taliban to take and keep control of these regions, fearing to even send their army in because of the strong support by the tribes living in the area. Now that Pakistan has begun sending troops into these areas, the people who had been living under Taliban control are speaking out. Malala is one such person. She is opposed to the war on women enforced by the Taliban and other such Islamic extremists. She spoke out against it. She lobbied for girls to be allowed to go to school. And so she was marked as an infidel and shot by Taliban thugs. She was described as "too secular" and that if she survived this attack they will attack her again. This attack will hopefully wake Pakistan up to how dangerous the Taliban and such ilk are...although in a country where an official offered money for the death of a guy in America who made that anti-Islamic film that may be too much to hope for.
Full story on Malala's attack here.
The secularism of Islamic countries is in a battle with Islamic extremism. With many Arab countries becoming free from dictators, Islamic extremists are seizing the opportunity to push their own agendas and are using the opportunity to grow their numbers. Egypt has already been taken over by The Muslim Brotherhood, a known affiliate of hardline Islamofascists. Security forces in Libya have confirmed that al-quada is growing. The same is said in Iraq. Islamic extremists may not all go by the name al-quada, but they all work towards the same goal. By whatever name, Islamic terrorists are NOT dying off and going away. We were told for years that these groups do not work like other terrorist organizations: you can't cut the head off the snake and watch the group shrivel! Now, we're being told that because Osama bin Laden is dead that al-quada is almost dead and that the world is a safer place. We're being told that the Taliban are becoming more moderate. Malala Yousufzai would disagree.
Al-quada is not dead because al-quada is not just one organization...it is an idea carried by MANY organizations and people throughout the entire world! That Islam must become the worldwide religion, that sharia law must be instituted worldwide, and that all opposed to it must die. Like Malala. You can mince words and call it by different names...but you can't erase the facts that Islamic extremism is growing.
Just today in Yemen, a top security official was killed in an apparent assassination by al-quada. Qassem Aqlani, who worked at the U.S. embassy in Yemen, was killed in a drive by shooting incident that has become a trademark of al-quada in the recent months. (A friend of mine actually had a friend of his, who was working as a Christian missionary in Yemen, killed in the same way not too long ago.) Al-quada has been increasing in strength in Yemen and has begun such attacks in response to joint U.S./Yemen military action against them. So even modern Middle Eastern countries that we count as allies are seeing an increase in terrorist activity attributed to none other than al-quada.
Just a few days ago, the news came out that a man was crucified...that's right, CRUCIFIED...by al-quada in Yemen because he was labeled as a spy working with the United States. We rarely hear of these events. We are being led to believe that because bin Laden is dead that Islamic terrorism is following close behind. We're being led to believe that al-quada and other such groups are all but obliterated by a president running for re-election. His campaign of victory and security is nothing but a campaign of misinformation. And if we fall for it, our children will pay the price. Bin Laden may be dead and GM may be alive...but Islamic extremism/terrorism is very much alive and far more well than we are being led to believe.
Full story on security official's assassinationhere and crucifixion of alleged spyhere.
Al-Quada on it's heels? The facts would disagree.
My day yesterday was consumed with the Congressional Hearing about the Libya attacks. Hopefully the first of many such hearings because it really only raised more questions than answers. The representatives from the State Department stonewalled many of the questions under grounds that they either didn't have access to such information or that they weren't allowed to talk about things that are classified. A classified hearing is apparently in the works. From what I saw of the hearing, someone needs to be fired...maybe Hillary Clinton. And the big question remaining is who decided to publicize the idea that it was all about a protest gone wrong instead of a concerted terrorist attack, and why did they do that? That question is really the most important one and it needs answers. Until then, all we have is speculation.
One of those speculations is that the Obama Administration did not want to admit it was a terrorist attack because President Obama's main campaign push is that under his watch Osama bin Laden has been killed and terrorism has been all but destroyed. That's what he's touting as his number one foreign policy achievement...and the attack in Benghazi burst that bubble. Lara Logan's reporting has also destroyed that fantasy. Logan is a fantastic reporter working for CBS who has gone to dangerous places in an attempt to get the real stories. She was sexually assaulted and beaten by a crowd of angry Muslim men in Tahrir Square in Egypt while she was covering the so called "Arab Spring." Her courage and resolve goes beyond words. And Sunday, she put into words her account of al-quada, the Taliban, the war in Afghanistan, and Islamic terrorism in a report aired on 60 Minutes. She also spoke about her findings at a dinner the other day. She minced no words, she spoke honestly and clearly, she expressed dismay at the narrative being spun by the politicians in Washington, and she opened up a can of worms that people, up to and including President Obama, have been trying to keep a lid on. Basically, she said al-quada is not dead, the Taliban are not kinder, and Islamic extremists will not let us live in peace even if we choose to let them live in peace. She explained that we are in a war...and that war is not going to end anytime soon, despite what politicians say or what we decide to do about it. She explained that the attack on Libya is an example of the strength and resolve of Islamic terrorists and that ignoring it or painting it as anything other will not only embolden our enemies, it will cause more attacks, more deaths, and more danger not only to our brave men and women in the military but to every American citizen (and every Western civilization) around the world, including here in America. Bin Laden may be dead, but Islamic extremism is not, terrorism is not, and the war on terror is not. If we choose to ignore this or pretend it doesn't exist or believe the lies told to us by politicians seeking re-election....then we are only inviting death and destruction, not only overseas in foreign countries, but right here in the safety of our own homes in our own land and even to our very own way of life. We cannot choose to fight this war, it is upon us whether we want it or not. And unless we fight it with as much intelligence and resolve as our enemies, then we will lose our children's future of freedom and prosperity. We all need to heed Lara Logan's warning, because it's born out of nothing but the truth.
One of those speculations is that the Obama Administration did not want to admit it was a terrorist attack because President Obama's main campaign push is that under his watch Osama bin Laden has been killed and terrorism has been all but destroyed. That's what he's touting as his number one foreign policy achievement...and the attack in Benghazi burst that bubble. Lara Logan's reporting has also destroyed that fantasy. Logan is a fantastic reporter working for CBS who has gone to dangerous places in an attempt to get the real stories. She was sexually assaulted and beaten by a crowd of angry Muslim men in Tahrir Square in Egypt while she was covering the so called "Arab Spring." Her courage and resolve goes beyond words. And Sunday, she put into words her account of al-quada, the Taliban, the war in Afghanistan, and Islamic terrorism in a report aired on 60 Minutes. She also spoke about her findings at a dinner the other day. She minced no words, she spoke honestly and clearly, she expressed dismay at the narrative being spun by the politicians in Washington, and she opened up a can of worms that people, up to and including President Obama, have been trying to keep a lid on. Basically, she said al-quada is not dead, the Taliban are not kinder, and Islamic extremists will not let us live in peace even if we choose to let them live in peace. She explained that we are in a war...and that war is not going to end anytime soon, despite what politicians say or what we decide to do about it. She explained that the attack on Libya is an example of the strength and resolve of Islamic terrorists and that ignoring it or painting it as anything other will not only embolden our enemies, it will cause more attacks, more deaths, and more danger not only to our brave men and women in the military but to every American citizen (and every Western civilization) around the world, including here in America. Bin Laden may be dead, but Islamic extremism is not, terrorism is not, and the war on terror is not. If we choose to ignore this or pretend it doesn't exist or believe the lies told to us by politicians seeking re-election....then we are only inviting death and destruction, not only overseas in foreign countries, but right here in the safety of our own homes in our own land and even to our very own way of life. We cannot choose to fight this war, it is upon us whether we want it or not. And unless we fight it with as much intelligence and resolve as our enemies, then we will lose our children's future of freedom and prosperity. We all need to heed Lara Logan's warning, because it's born out of nothing but the truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)