Thursday, September 20, 2012

To celebrate the 11th Year Anniversary of the 9-11 attacks Islamists Rape and Murder US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens

True to form, Obama blames the USA for the attack saying that Muslims were provoked by a movie produced by Middle Eastern Christians that mocked the so-called “prophet” of Islam.

These attacks had nothing to do with the movie and everything to do with the anniversary of 9-11 and the weakness and appeasement coming from the Obama White House.

This is an ACT OF WAR.

Look at the half-naked body of our ambassador during the rape, murder, and desecration of his corpse!

This is the kind of vicious hatred and violence that Aramaic/Assyrian and Coptic Christians have to live with every day and have been subjected to for 1400 years-starting when Muslims invaded their lands. This is why Egypt is 10% Christian and Iraq less than 5%. Living under hated and violence for centuries has caused a decline.

The “Religion of Peace” in action again. Notice the cell phone in the mouth of the terrorist. They were talking photographs and video recording to put on terrorist web sites.

OBAMA blames America for this and will not take action to defend our nations honor. I have always known that if a Democrat was in office when 9-11 took place-they would have blamed America and apologized to the Muslims because we are not “sensitive” enough.

It is unpleasant BUT WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS. This is the result of Obama’s policy in action.

We were winning the War on Terror. I fought and served TWICE. And then Obama comes into office and squanders all of our successes and advances and brings about THIS. The whole time I was putting my life on the line for the service of my country fighting for freedom-the Democrats with their allies in the Media/Hollywood and with their Muslim radical friends were undermining the war effort. I resented it-I still resent it-and I predicted this would happen.

THIS IS DISGUSTING-and it is more disgusting that the president would take the side of these savages against the people of the United States.

In the Middle East, Obama's chickens are coming home to roost by Michael Goodwin

According to President Obama’s narrative, the murder of four Americans in Libya is a story of “senseless violence” provoked by an anti-Islam video. According to his Praetorian Guards in the media, the story is how Mitt Romney rudely criticized Obama’s foreign policy. Here’s the real story: The murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others is the most important terrorist attack on American civilians since 9/11. And it happened on the 11th anniversary of that day of infamy, on Obama’s watch. There were no Marines on guard, and there are reports that the Benghazi embassy had been warned of an Al Qaeda assault, yet there were no precautions. It is likely the organized attackers, some carrying rocket-propelled grenades, had inside information about a “safe house,” where they killed two of the Americans. Obama, after offering condolences and vowing to find those responsible, flew off to a campaign event in Vegas. If that were all, it would be reason enough to doubt his competency and character. But it’s not all. The crisis, including riots at our embassies in 20 countries, is the full flowering of a policy predicated on appeasement and apology. To borrow a phrase, the Obama chickens are coming home to roost. The essence of his doomed approach is revealed in Obama’s refusal to meet with the prime minister of Israel while finding time to meet with the Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt. The choice raises a fundamental question: Whose side are you on, Mr. President? To ask is to concede despair. Starting with his Cairo speech in 2009, Obama promised a “new beginning” in our relations with Muslims. Had the comment been a marketing tool for a new administration, it would have been understandable. But the speech was far from benign. It foretold the ruinous path he would follow. In Cairo, Obama insisted that, after 9/11, America “acted contrary to our ideals,” by using torture — a libel against his own country and the warriors who defend it. Under the Obama “ideals,” we follow a “kill or release” protocol, blasting terrorist leaders with drones while freeing all others without interrogation. So death is now more humane than waterboarding. He suggested in Cairo that Americans harbor bigotry against Muslims, saying, “We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretense of liberalism.” That, too, was a slander, and the policy corollary is that he says nothing about the slaughter of Christians in Arab lands. He misstated Mideast history to draw a moral equivalency between Israelis and Palestinians. His portrayal of a “humanitarian crisis” in Gaza was spun of whole cloth, as was his claim that Israeli settlement activity “violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace.” As a result, there have been no direct negotiations during his term. On Iran, he talked as if the mad mullahs and the US are equally responsible for the 30-year rupture, even though Iran was at that moment helping to kill our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said, “No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons,” a tip-off to his feckless policy. The central idea of that speech is that America and Israel are largely to blame for radical Islam. The same instinct drips from the statement issued by Obama’s Cairo representative last Tuesday. Utterly craven, the statement “condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions . . . we firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.” Deciphering the childish gibberish leads to the conclusion that free speech is OK only until Muslim feelings are hurt. Then we surrender our values to the mob.

In its cockeyed defense, the White House offered conflicting claims: one, that the statement came before the riots began; two, that we should, Obama said, “cut folks a little bit of slack” when they fear for their lives. Let’s see — there was no riot, but they feared for their lives? In fact, the embassy reaffirmed the apology twice while the riots raged. After the statement was online for nearly 10 hours, Mitt Romney called it disgraceful and the White House quickly disavowed it. Until then, the apology for free speech was the sole response from the White House to the day’s events. And why not? It is perfectly consistent with the last four years.


The conspiracy theory people say that W. Bush planted bombs in the World Trade Tower and that he was really behind the 9-11 attacks. (The planes were just for show.) What bothers me about this is that America-and the world is under a serious threat from Islam-but the Conspiracy people would rather blame America and Bush that a legitimate threat. So, I am sure they think that W. Bush actually made the inflammatory video and was behind the killing of the Ambassador too.

Obama says that there was a spontaneous demonstration-Libya says it was a pre-planned 9-11 anniversary attack

An intelligence source on the ground in Libya told Fox News that there was no demonstration outside the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi prior to last week's attack -- challenging the Obama administration's claims that the assault grew out of a "spontaneous" protest against an anti-Islam film. "There was no protest and the attacks were not spontaneous," the source said, adding the attack "was planned and had nothing to do with the movie."  The source said the assault came with no warning at about 9:35 p.m. local time, and included fire from more than two locations. The assault included RPG's and mortar fire, the source said, and consisted of two waves.  The account that the attack started suddenly backs up claims by a purported Libyan security guard who told McClatchy Newspapers late last week that the area was quiet before the attack. "There wasn't a single ant outside," the unnamed guard, who was being treated in a hospital, said in the interview. These details appear to conflict with accounts from the Obama administration that the attack spawned from an out-of-control protest. The Libyan president also said Sunday that the strike was planned in advance. U.S. officials, in response to the claim that there was no demonstration at the time of the attack, told Fox News there was a small protest earlier in the day -- but they did not dispute that there was no significant or sizeable demonstration at the time.

The president of Libya seems more concerned about the terrorist attack that Obama does.

OBAMA IS MORE CONCERNED ABOUT PROTECTING ISLAM THAT HE IS ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY-and he said as much during his infamous 2009 “Cairo Speech.”

McCain, Rogers: Obama’s policy of 'disengagement' led to attack on US posts

Capitol Hill Republican leaders said Sunday the Obama administration’s foreign policy of “disengagement” in the Middle East led to the attacks on U.S. posts in the region. Michigan Rep. Mike Rogers and Arizona Sen. John McCain, the ranking Republican on the Senate Committee on Armed Services, suggested President Obama pulling troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq, while offering less than total support for Israel’s effort to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, has left an exploitable void in the region. “The Middle East believes there is a disengagement policy with the U.S.,” Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said on “Fox News Sunday." He argued Obama has made no significant foreign policy speech since the one in Cairo, Egypt, in 2009 and acknowledged the region poses “difficult” problems -- including the absence of stabilized, democratic governments to replace the recently deposed dictatorships. “But you cannot solve (the problems) by stepping back,” Rogers said. “It has to be a combination of showing strength and showing up.”
Read more:

Bill O’Reilly: President Obama and the Muslim World (Part One and Part Two)

By Bill O'Reilly

As we told you last night Mr. Obama should change his approach when dealing with the Muslim world. It's obvious the soft power strategy is not working. Jihadists don't care what Mr. Obama says and any sign of sensitivity will be perceived as weakness. It's not to say we should antagonize Muslim governments but we certainly have to tell them they will be held accountable and then actually hold them accountable when Americans are harmed.
Read more:

Obama blames Middle Eastern Christians for the violence-but ignored warnings

Fox News has obtained a three-page intelligence report showing that two days before the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, a statement incited "sons of Egypt" to pressure America to release the so-called blind sheikh "even if it requires burning the embassy down with everyone in it." The web statement, apparently posted on Sept. 9, was in reference to the embassy in Egypt. It preceded a throng of demonstrators breaching the U.S. Embassy wall in Cairo, supposedly in protest over an anti-Islam film. Obama administration officials claim that attackers in Libya then took their cue from Cairo and seized the opportunity to attack the consulate in Benghazi. Though the administration's version of events is still evolving, the three-page Department of Homeland Security intelligence report further highlights potential threats that were being picked up before last week's attack. The DHS report, released on Sept. 11, said an "unidentified user" on an Arabic-language forum posted the statement "inciting Egyptians to target the U.S. Embassy, indicating the U.S. Embassy shouldn't remain in Egypt" until Omar Abdel-Rahman, also known as the blind sheikh, is released. Abdel-Rahman, who played a role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and other attacks, is serving a life sentence in U.S. prison. The DHS document described the source of the warning as "fairly reliable." The Sept. 9 statement said "the time has come for a strong movement from you, O sons of Egypt, to release the detained" sheikh. "Let your slogan be: No to the American Embassy in Egypt until our detained sheikh is released."  It continued: "Starting now, let the faithful among you form follow-up committees in charge of taking the necessary measures to force America to release the sheikh -- even if it requires burning the embassy down with everyone in it."  In addition to the threat over the sheikh, Reuters reported earlier this week that a U.S. cable on Sept. 10 warned the U.S. Embassy in Cairo of possible violence over the anti-Islam film.  Asked about that alleged warning, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney stressed Tuesday that everything is "under investigation in terms of what precipitated the attacks."  Meanwhile, lawmakers raised concern Wednesday that the Obama administration might actually be considering the sheikh's release. Several Republican chairmen of top House committees wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referencing a report claiming the State Department was "actively negotiating" with Egypt's president about transferring the blind sheikh to Egyptian custody. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland denied the report. "Let me say as clearly as I can there is no plan to release the blind sheikh, there is no plan. To my knowledge we have not been approached about it recently by any senior Egyptians," she said Wednesday. But House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King and others wrote to Holder and Clinton saying they were "concerned" about the reports. "If these reports are true, such considerations would be extremely disconcerting as release of this convicted terrorist should not happen for any reason," they wrote. "The blind sheikh inspired the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, ordered the 1997 massacre of Western tourists at Luxor, Egypt, and issued the Islamic religious ruling that Osama bin Laden relied upon to justify the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. ... "While considerations regarding the blind sheikh's release would be disturbing in any context, they are particularly alarming given recent events. The 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks was marked by the assassination of America's ambassador to Libya and an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Egypt. The violence in Egypt has been attributed, in part, to that government's demands for the blind sheikh's release. Succumbing to the demands of a country whose citizens threaten our embassy and the Americans serving in it would send a clear message that acts of violence will be responded to with appeasement rather than strength."  They urged the administration to keep Abdel-Rahman in the U.S., warning that releasing him would be seen as "a sign of weakness."

WHY DIDN’T THE EMBASSIES HAVE SECURITY?-especially when there were warnings.

Romney attacked by the White House and the Obama Re-election Campaign (AKA the liberal news media) for condemning Islamist violence

Mr. Romney had criticized the president late Tuesday, issuing a statement that called the Obama administration's early response "disgraceful" because the U.S. embassy in Egypt, before the protests had escalated, had condemned "efforts to offend believers of all religions." He was referring to part of the U.S. embassy statement that said the embassy "condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.'' Mr. Romney stood by his comments at a news conference Wednesday morning in Jacksonville, Fla. "It's a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values," he said, a reference to the right of free speech. "America will not tolerate attacks against our citizens and against our embassies. We'll defend, also, our constitutional rights of speech and assembly and religion,'' he said. "Apology for America's values is never the right course," Mr. Romney said Wednesday. (From the Wall Street Journal)

The news media went apoplexic over Romney’s comments. I am not a big fan of Romney-but I applaud him for making comments that defend evil and defend America’s honor.

The Muslim take: “YOU ALL have the right not to believe in Prophet Muhammad but you have NO RIGHT to INSULT HIM nor ANY MUSLIM so harassing the Muslim by insulting their religion it's not FREEDOM OF SPEECH it's only a selfish act of a selfish person and who loves only himself and not think about the consequences of things that do it and create problems, hatred and rancor among the people by insulting people because of their faith and religion, especially because he knows that in every religion there are also other people refunded cold stupid reaction who are just selfish like him and their actions have nothing to do with the religion such stupidity as that person selfish and to lie about his message, freedom of speech DOES NOT allow lying Especially when you know the there is more than 2 Million People INSPIRED by him and LOVE him so keep your comment for your self If you don't know how to Speak respectfully. He and Rushdie must be executed!”

So, that is what we are up against.


No comments: