This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Islamists real reason for conducting embassy attacks

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Guest


Guest
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/more-than-a-movie-experts-claim-real-reason-for-u-s-embassy-attacks-is-much-more-sinister/

...to make slandering Islam an international crime...


So where is the law that makes slandering all the other religions a crime?

Guest


Guest
Obama just got played by the Muslim Brotherhood-


The genesis of Tuesday’s bloody attacks

While the Middle East has been no stranger to turmoil, the years 2010 and 2011 marked a significant turning point in the region, as the U.S., led by President Obama under the guise of NATO, intervened in Libya’s budding civil war between civilian rebels and forces loyal to the late Moammar Gadhafi. Preventing the carnage from overspilling further, America’s role in helping to overthrow the despot who ruled Libya with an iron fist for over four decades turned out to be a thankless job.

On Tuesday, militants — some of whom were likely part of the very rebel-base the U.S. supported against Gadhafi — breached the American Consulate in Benghazi, slaughtering four Americans including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. But a similar situation brews in Egypt. As with Libya, the Obama administration wholeheartedly signed on to aiding the “middle class folks“ trying to catch a break in Tahrir Square as they waged an ”Arab Spring” to oust then-President Hosni Mubarak. Again, Obama stepped in, aiding the very rebels who reports now indicate are largely Muslim Brotherhood operatives and other militants hostile to the West and Israel.


How did the newly “free” Egyptian “middle class folk” thank the U.S. for its efforts? Seize the U.S. embassy in Cairo, lower the American flag that had been flying at half-mast in honor of 9/11, and replace it with a black Islamic flag declaring jihad that read: ”There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger.” The configuration of the letters formed an emblem often used by Islamic radicals. Meanwhile, protesters chanted, “we are all Osama.”

Guest


Guest
i guess if the tsa messing with our junk "fixes" foreign terrorists from blowing up planes... and warrentless wiretaps "fixes" terrorists planning... and domestic drones "fixes" something... and indefinite detentions "fixes" who knows what...and we all know gun control "fixes" crime... i guess "fixing" free speech is about par for the course.

OBAMA ‘08 LECTURES BUSH & WASHINGTON: ‘TOO LITTLE TIME READING THE INTELLIGENCE REPORTS & TOO MUCH TIME READING PUBLIC OPINION’

As a candidate for President in 2008, candidate Barack Obama harshly condemned politicians in Washington for being too concerned with politics and not concerned enough with intelligence. Obama chastised the Washington establishment in a highly touted speech on the Iraq war:

“…[T]here were too many politicians in Washington who spent too little time reading the intelligence reports, and too much time reading public opinion. The lesson of Iraq is that when we are making decisions about matters as grave as war, we need a policy rooted in reason and facts, not ideology and politics.”
–Senator Obama
Fayetteville, North Carolina
March 19th, 2008
However, the Government Accountability Institute recently examined President Obama’s schedule to see how often he attended his Presidential Daily Intelligence Briefing (PDBs). During his first two and a half years in office, Obama attended the briefing just 43.8 percent of the time. During 2011 and the first half of 2012 his attendance fell to just over 38 percent. And others have suggested in the week before the deadly embassy attacks Obama was absent from such meetings. By contrast, Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, almost never missed his daily intelligence meeting according to former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen.

To be fair, the White House claims the president reads his daily briefings everyday if he does not attend the meetings personally. But the irony remains that while candidate Obama campaigned on putting intelligence at the forefront of his administration, President Obama, even if he is reading, is not attending and engaging.

In the wake of current events and world affairs, any neglect of the intelligence community seems ill advised.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ironic-obama-in-2008-washington-spends-too-little-time-reading-the-intelligence-reports-too-much-time-reading-public-opinion/

Contributing factor? Obama out of touch? Or is it part of his overall plan? When the genie is out of the bottle you can't put him back in!

View user profile

There is no one in the world who did more to inflame anti-US sentiment in the Middle East than George W. Bush and his henchman, Dick Cheney. Nice try blaming Obama for your hero's "Christian" jihad.

View user profile
We lost four patriots. How did we lose them? Look at the prior year and you will get your answer. The ambassador was on the streets in the midst of a hot war working with the Libyan people. He did not stay on a boat. He did not look down from a plane. He did not hide in a compound with an army between him and the people of Libya.

When John McCain talked about the ambassador and his visits with the ambassador, you could see his pride......like a father for his son who just scored a touchdown in the championship game. A pride grounded in the courage of one brave man who believed what he was doing mattered. Did he take chances. Yes, he did take chances. Should higher ups have intervened and insisted that he not take risks......well probably in hindsight.

Is this Secretary of State Clinton's fault.....maybe. Is this President Obama's fault....maybe. However, when people want to spin this tragedy and point blame to gain political advantage it is a dangerous choice. The success of the Libyan mission was exactly the risks which were taken during the civil war. I think an intelligent conversation must begin once investigations are concluded as to who is going to draw the line on the risks which an ambassador will take, and should we be allowing those ambassadors to set security levels on their operations. My gut feeling is that we need to let these men continue to set their own security protocols, but there must be flexible oversight. There is a difference between reckless and caution, and until the investigation is concluded, it would be better to have some facts before the usual shoot and aim mentality of some.

View user profile

Guest


Guest
Floridatexan wrote:
There is no one in the world who did more to inflame anti-US sentiment in the Middle East than George W. Bush and his henchman, Dick Cheney. Nice try blaming Obama for your hero's "Christian" jihad.

Seems like on Obama's watch it turned into a Middle Eastern bonfire. That's on THE ONE, not Bush or Cheney.

Guest


Guest
2seaoat wrote:We lost four patriots. How did we lose them? Look at the prior year and you will get your answer. The ambassador was on the streets in the midst of a hot war working with the Libyan people. He did not stay on a boat. He did not look down from a plane. He did not hide in a compound with an army between him and the people of Libya.

When John McCain talked about the ambassador and his visits with the ambassador, you could see his pride......like a father for his son who just scored a touchdown in the championship game. A pride grounded in the courage of one brave man who believed what he was doing mattered. Did he take chances. Yes, he did take chances. Should higher ups have intervened and insisted that he not take risks......well probably in hindsight.

Is this Secretary of State Clinton's fault.....maybe. Is this President Obama's fault....maybe. However, when people want to spin this tragedy and point blame to gain political advantage it is a dangerous choice. The success of the Libyan mission was exactly the risks which were taken during the civil war. I think an intelligent conversation must begin once investigations are concluded as to who is going to draw the line on the risks which an ambassador will take, and should we be allowing those ambassadors to set security levels on their operations. My gut feeling is that we need to let these men continue to set their own security protocols, but there must be flexible oversight. There is a difference between reckless and caution, and until the investigation is concluded, it would be better to have some facts before the usual shoot and aim mentality of some.

....or if the current POTUS attends just 38% of his security and intel briefings.....to CAMPAIGN for another term?

Floridatexan wrote:
There is no one in the world who did more to inflame anti-US sentiment in the Middle East than George W. Bush and his henchman, Dick Cheney. Nice try blaming Obama for your hero's "Christian" jihad.

Yeah, it really looks that way. The world is at peace in the Muslim world.

Looks more like it is on fire.

Islamists real reason for conducting embassy attacks Protest-Map-1

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/09/map-muslim-protests-around-world/56865/

View user profile

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum