Egyptian protesters scale US Embassy wall in Cairo

[TacOfficer]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

Funny I thought the United States sent that message about 30 years ago when jimmy carter allowed the iranians to hold our embassy for 444 days.......... shite that was peaceful muslims also!

I wasn't a big fan of how Mr. Peanut handled that situation either.

I was going to suggest that these things happen when democrats are in office, but historically they happen no matter which party is in office and not only in countries whose allied status is euphemistically questionable but also our closest allies.

How we respond, is another matter altogether.

Attached link was enlightening: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...matic_missions

[echoes]

Originally Posted by afchic

Where you got that from Dozer's post is completely beyond me. When you have experience working in the geo-political arena maybe you can make such outlandish comments. Maybe with your vast experience you would like to tell us what you would have done, had you been Ambassador for a day yesterday.

As someone who has 4 very good friends working in that embassy right now, I am pretty happy that a firefight didn't break out.

It is called diplomacy for a reason. We may not always like the outcome,but I can pretty much guarantee the Ambassador decided that a pisssing match with these folks yesterday was not in the best interest of his staff tactically speaking and the US strategically speaking. Today is another day and given the past 24 hours events I am sure there are some pretty high level discussions within our government on what the next move it. Geo-political relationships are games of chess not waterballon fights.

Okay.

[echoes]

Originally Posted by tom kelly

The present U S Administration will DO NOTHING but offer lip service about the incidents in the Middle East. TK

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1875906.html

"Mitt Romney Criticizes Obama Administration Over Response To Libya, Egypt Attacks"

And let the games begin,...

Holly

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by afchic

Not going to happen. There are still too many sheepdogs roaming around

I like the way you think....but Mike Barnacle has already suggested the crucifixion of Rev. Terry Jones. While Barnacle is only one person, it only starts one person to start the fire and there are plenty of people out there willing to join the Barnacle chorus to crucify Rev. Jones in the name of appeasement.

And if they are allowed to accomplish that the radicals will have won.

What Mr. Barnacle fails to realize (or maybe he does) is that in prosecuting Rev. Jones, he (Barnacle) is endorsing limits on Free Speech and Political Descent. In time this mindset will come to bite proponents such as Mr. Barnacle in the ass....someone will come for him.

It reminds me of Niemöller's 'First they came'.

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/mike-bar...assadors-death

[The Reaper]

1. No large protests occur in Egypt without someone high in the food chain's permission, if not active guidance. In this case, I believe they were cleared by the elected Egyptian leadership via the Muslim Brotherhood. My personal belief is that they did it on 9/11 for a reason, using the movie as a cover for action, with the intent of extorting more protection, I mean, aid money. This is supposedly also a show of force between the MB and the Salafists. The MB leadership had to let it go, or risk appearing a toadie of the Americans. Interestingly, the easiest way to have handled this would have been to let the Army mow the protestors down, then blame the military leadership and sack them. Unfortunately, the MB had already replaced all of the leadership recently with their own boys.

2. "Protestors" with automatic weapons and RPGs attacking at night are not protestors, they are enemy combatants.

3. The murders of the Ambassador and three additional Embassy personnel in Libya appears to have been an inside job, perhaps an AQ team. One of the victims posted earlier in the day that they were being photographed and surveilled by their own Libyan security team, and allegedly, the security team pointed out to the assassins where the safe house was (and the Embassy personnel were hiding). Another 9/11 coincidence?

4. Any response that is not quick and powerful will invite more of these attacks in the very near future. We should be building our PTK list right now and going after the assassins and terrorists with all means at our disposal. Libyan airspace should be very crowded over the next few days. I am stunned that we appear to be willing to deny Constitutional rights of American citizens in order to placate foreigners who wish us harm, regardless of how much we try to make them love us. These are people we helped liberate their country. Better to be respected.

5. Host nations need to be told that we will hold their security forces and leadership responsible for any hostile acts against our diplomatic personnel in their country. We stayed at it till we got Saddam and Osama. They are not beyond our reach as well. Full application of diplomatic, informational, economic, and yes, military power should be considered and applied as necessary. For example, take half the remaining US aid off the table for every attack. No point in rewarding our enemies while we take on new debt. I think we explained this before to them properly, back in 1815 or so.

TR

[SF-TX]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

I am stunned that we appear to be willing to deny Constitutional rights of American citizens in order to placate foreigners who wish us harm, regardless of how much we try to make them love us.

I am also stunned and disgusted.

Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff calls Qur'an-burning pastor, asks him to practice Sharia-compliant self-censorship

It's come to this. Even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff thinks that it if Muslims respond to something with murderous violence, it is up to the non-Muslims to change the way they behave so as to accommodate them. And so eleven years after 9/11, terrorism well and truly won: now if any group wants anything, they know that all they have to do in order to get it is rampage and riot and kill.

Also, this film didn't "spark violent protests." The film has been on YouTube since 2011. Someone found the film and thought it would serve as a pretext for attacks on Americans on September 11.

And in response, General Dempsey calls those who are supposedly responsible for the film and asks them to submit voluntarily to Sharia restrictions on the freedom of speech regarding Islam.

Link

Pastor Terry Jones did not produce the film. Apparently, he was planning a showing of the film.

Jones said he received a 13-minute trailer of the movie, "Innocence of Muslims," via email two weeks ago and planned to show it on his website on Tuesday as part of a so-called International Judge Muhammad Day marking the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Link

[tonyz]

No, It’s Sharia and the Assault on U.S. Missions

By Andrew C. McCarthy
September 12, 2012 11:02 A.M.


I could not more vigorously disagree with my friend Daniel Pipes, who disappointingly lays fault for yesterday’s carnage at the feet of Reverend Terry Jones. In essence, Daniel — like much of the progressive, bipartisan U.S. ruling class — adopts the reasoning of Muslim Brotherhood jurist Yusuf Qaradawi, who admonishes that women who fail to conform to fundamentalist Islam’s restrictive sartorial standards have only themselves to blame when they get raped.

Let’s say Terry Jones was Imam Terry Jones. It is not hard to imagine because there goes by not a day when some Islamist leader of far more consequence than Jones matter-of-factly spouts hatred of America and the West that is more provocative, and more representative of his country or region, than anything that has ever passed Jones’s lips. Would it make you riot? Would it make you commit murder? Would it foment more than a yawn? And if it did stir so much as a suggestion that this typical Muslim leader should be silenced, the only public protests and pious government caterwauling would be directed at that suggestion, not at the anti-American incitements that prompted it.

The coordinated violence against American installations in the Middle East on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11 was caused by one thing: Islamic supremacism. Contrary to the knowing lies government officials and opinion elites have been feeding the American people for 20 years, Islamic supremacism is not the fringe ideology of the terrorists; it is the predominant Islam of the Middle East. By margins of upwards of 2 to 1, the United States and the West are despised in countries like Egypt and Libya. As I point out in my just-released book, Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy, when given the chance, Egyptians elected Islamic supremacists by a 4-to-1 margin. The only surprise in the voting was not the weakness of secular democrats — that they are a non-factor, even though American politicians continue to depict them as emblematic of the Muslim Middle East, was a given. The surprise was that the Muslim Brotherhood, which has reaffirmed its goal of a global caliphate ruled by sharia, is not quite devout enough for about a quarter of Egyptians, who voted for the even more extreme “Salafist” parties.

Under sharia, as construed by Islamic supremacists (i.e., at least two-thirds of Middle East Muslims), any negative criticism of Islam or its prophet, no matter how trifling, is deemed to be blasphemy and warrants violent reprisals — including death. These Muslims — hundreds of millions of them — consider this to be a divine ordinance and thus to be imposed on Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Understand that Islam, particularly as Islamic supremacists interpret it, is not merely a religion; it is a totalitarian ideology that has some spiritual principles, which make up a small subset of the belief system. Blasphemy is not applied only to the spiritual principles — say, to the oneness of Allah, and the like. The speech prohibition applies across the board to all Islamic doctrine. You’ve got a problem with a woman’s court testimony being worth only half of a man’s? Blasphemy! You’ve got a problem with needing four male witnesses to prove rape? Blasphemy! You’ve got a problem with the death penalty for homosexuals? With stoning for adulterers? With scourging for the consumption of alcohol? Blasphemy, blasphemy, blasphemy!

That’s what causes the rioting and murder. The “blasphemers” are only a pretext. What causes this is the indoctrination of Muslim populations in an evil ideology that justifies savagery over nonsense. That’s the proximate cause. If you want to look at a material cause beyond the proximate cause, the place to start would be American officials like the ones Daniel cites with seeming approval: David Petraeus, Robert Gates, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama — and I’d add Lindsey Graham to the list. They are the officials who condemned Terry Jones’s exercise of free speech — book burning — because, as Daniel gently puts it, they were “worried it would lead to Muslim violence against Americans.” That is shameful. What “leads to Muslim violence” is the toxic combination of Islamic teaching that violence is the appropriate response to even minor insults and the dhimmified superpower’s acquiescence in this barbarism.

At RadicalIslam.org, former CIA operations officer Clare Lopez has an excellent post this morning explaining the Obama administration’s complicity in the campaign by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to impose sharia blasphemy standards on the world. (I would point you to Clare’s essay even if she had not been good enough to mention something I’d written.) After laying out the Obama State Department’s disgraceful statement yesterday, from its Cairo embassy, condemning American free speech and ignoring Islamist aggression (“The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims,” and so on), Clare writes:

That statement came directly out of the talking points of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) on its Ten-Year Programme of Action and is intended by both the OIC and the U.S. Department of State to impose legal limits on Americans’ freedom of speech by criminalizing criticism of Islam. Recall that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hosted OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu in Washington, D.C. in mid-December 2011 to discuss implementation mechanisms for “Resolution 16/18,” a declaration adopted by the U.N. Human Rights Council in April 2011.

Resolution 16/18 calls on countries to combat “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization” based on religion without criminalizing free speech – except in cases of “incitement to imminent violence.” If now the measure of “incitement to imminent violence” is a “test of consequences” that imposes prior restraint on freedom of expression because of the unpredictability of volatile Muslim populaces easily roused to murderous fury, as in Benghazi and Cairo, then Islamic law on slander will have been enforced.

This is the real meaning of these attacks, which were purposefully calculated precisely to elicit the craven press release quoted above from the U.S. State Department. This is how dhimmitude is implemented. Islamic Jihad and Gama’a al-Islamiyya demands for the release of Omar Abdul Rahman (the “Blind Sheikh”), now serving a life sentence in U.S. federal prison for his involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, also have been issued, along with a threat to burn the U.S. Cairo Embassy to the ground if these demands are not met.

We are witnessing the stepped process of the Islamization of American domestic and foreign policy unfold before our eyes and in accordance with both Sayyed Qutb’s classic book “Milestones,” as well as a November 2011 fatwa from Yousef al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s senior jurist, in which he said, “Gradualism in applying the Sharia is a wise requirement to follow.”

Sheikh Qaradawi is no doubt a happy man today. The plan is working to a T.

[Sigaba]

MOO, the U.S.'s response to the two acts should forgo a discussion of its causes.

The message should be clear. Regardless of your nationality, your ethnicity, your religion, or your political beliefs, if you violate the sovereignty of the United States of America and you kill American citizens, then you place yourself and everyone you know in mortal peril.

IMO, given the history of the region, the responses should be delivered by a task force that includes the Preble, the Decatur, and the Bainbridge.

My $0.02.

[afchic]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

MOO, the U.S.'s response to the two acts should forgo a discussion of its causes.

The message should be clear. Regardless of your nationality, your ethnicity, your religion, or your political beliefs, if you violate the sovereignty of the United States of America and you kill American citizens, then you place yourself and everyone you know in mortal peril.

IMO, given the history of the region, the responses should be delivered by a task force that includes the Preble, the Decatur, and the Bainbridge.

My $0.02.

From our lips to God's ear.

[Pete]

Difference in response

Paradise: Faith

http://www.catholicleague.org/crucif...ion-film-wins/

The left produces another film trashing Christian values because it's "art" and has a message.

1. The west will not riot, burn and kill over it.

2. The left would never do that with Islam or the Koran.

Killing Gays in Iraq? Hey, you lefties, you're # 1 on the Islamist's hit list when they take over.

[MtnGoat]

Funny thing is no one knows who this film maker really is. So who is Sam Bacile? No film was shown in Hollywood as reported. Is there even a film, just a 13 minute trailer on Youtube..

[steel_eel]

Originally Posted by MtnGoat

Funny thing is no one knows who this film maker really is. So who is Sam Bacile? No film was shown in Hollywood as reported. Is there even a film, just a 13 minute trailer on Youtube..

He might be an Egyptian Coptic Christian with a criminal record in the US...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1879195.html

[Hand]

Originally Posted by steel_eel

He might be an Egyptian Coptic Christian with a criminal record in the US...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1879195.html

How are so many of the comments on that article relating to the role of the film and/or its producer? I find it disturbing to see remark after remark about holding the film maker responsible, yet so few (none) about holding the people who sodomized (allegedly) and then murdered a United States Ambassador responsible.

Where is their responsibility in their actions? Has our collective view of muslims truly relegated their role to poor, mindless followers of mohamed who know not what they do?

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Hand

I find it disturbing to see remark after remark about holding the film maker responsible[.]

How is your comment consistent with a post you made on 28 June 2012?

In that post, you agreed Robert Burke's argument that "they" were responsible for producing works of culture that contributed to the erosion of a certain way of life in America.

If it is all right to argue that works of mass popular culture are responsible for motivating one set of behaviors that you consider maladaptive, why is it not okay for others to use that same logic?

[Paslode]

These events Egypt and Libya are unfortunate, but considering that it would appear that after all the media lambasting and minimization the National Security Five's concerns may have been justified.

On a related note:

Kansas Congressman Kevin Yoder was on local radio this morning discussing his skinny dipping and more importantly the current 1 billion dollar aid package to Egypt and how some in Congress don't want to yank it.....or don't have time to deal with it because it is already written into a bill.