Obama Quote: ‘We must educate our children to become like young Egyptian people’ (hey Mr President, screw you); Islamic Sticks and Stones!; Islam Earns Its Scorn; Shut Up or Die, the Muslim Protesters Explained; More on the Libya debaucle; Different Rules for Islam (no way, not on our watch!)

Posted on October 8, 2012

October  7, 2012

Obama Quote Displayed in Cairo Airport: ‘We must educate our children to  become like young Egyptian people.’

Andrew  Bostom  Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/obama_quote_displayed_in_cairo_airport_we_must_educate_our_children_to_become_like_young_egyptian_pe.html#ixzz28hmbGMT1

A  colleague sent me the image below from  Egypt’s Cairo Airport, which had been discussed in an e-mail posted September  22, 2012 at Godfather  Politics:

My  husband and I just came back from the Middle East. As we arrived in Cairo, going  down the mechanical stairs to go to the baggage claim area, there’s this big  poster which reads: “We must educate our children to become like young Egyptian  people.” President of the USA, Barack Obama

Notwithstanding  President Obama’s quoted  admonition (from 2011), a detailed 2004 study of  Egyptian children’s textbooks (“Jews, Christians, War and Peace in Egyptian  School Textbooks”), revealed their unabashed inculcation  of anti-infidel hatred.  For example, explicit sanctioning for  jihad-related beheadings is provided in a seemingly pedestrian  manner:

Studies in Theology: Tradition and Morals,  Grade 11, (2001) pp. 291-92 … This noble [Qur’anic] Surah [Surat  Muhammad]… deals with questions of which the most important are as follows:  ‘Encouraging the faithful to perform jihad in God’s cause, to behead the  infidels, take them prisoner, break their power, and make their souls humble –  all that in a style which contains the highest examples of urging to fight. You  see that in His words: ‘When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield strike  off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly.  Then grant them their freedom or take a ransom from them, until war shall lay  down its burdens.’

Commentary on the Surahs of Muhammad,  Al-Fath, Al-Hujurat and Qaf, Grade 11, (2002) p. 9 … When you meet them  in order to fight [them], do not be seized by compassion [towards them] but  strike the[ir] necks powerfully. … Striking the neck means fighting, because  killing a person is often done by striking off his head. Thus, it has become an  expression for killing even if the fighter strikes him elsewhere. This  expression contains a harshness and emphasis that are not found in the word  ‘kill,’ because it describes killing in the ugliest manner, i.e., cutting the  neck and making the organ – the head of the body – fly off [the  body].

Although  chilling to our modern sensibilities, particularly when being taught to  children, these are merely classical interpretations of the rules for jihad war,  based on over a millennium of Muslim theology and jurisprudence.  And the  context of these teachings is  unambiguous, as the translator makes  clear:

[The]  concept of jihad is interpreted in the Egyptian school curriculum almost  exclusively as a military endeavor … it is war against God’s enemies, i.e.,  the infidels … it is war against the homeland’s enemies and a means to  strengthening the Muslim states in the world. In both cases, jihad is  encouraged, and those who refrain from participating in it are  denounced.

Teaching  Egyptian schoolchildren anti-infidel jihad hatred is clearly a long, ongoing,  and ignoble tradition even within the modern era.  As the scholar E.W.  Lane reported after several years of residence in both Cairo and Luxor  (initially in 1825-1828, then in 1833-1835):

I  am credibly informed that children in Egypt are often taught at school, a  regular set of curses to denounce upon the persons and property of Christians,  Jews, and all other unbelievers in the religion of Mohammad.

Lane’s  nephew Edward Stanley Poole (who edited the 1860 re-issue of his uncle’s classic  work) was provided such a prayer, which he translated, below, from a  contemporary 19th-century Arabic text, containing a typical curse on  non-Muslims, recited  daily by Muslim schoolchildren:

I  seek refuge with God from Satan the accursed. In the name of God, the  Compassionate, the Merciful. O God, aid El-Islam, and exalt the word of truth,  and the faith, by the preservation of thy servant and the son of thy servant,  the Sultan of the two continents (Europe and Asia), and the Khakan (Emperor or  monarch) of the two seas [the Mediterranean and Black Seas], the Sultan, son of  the Sultan (Mahmood) Khan (the reigning Sultan when this prayer was composed). O  God, assist him, and assist his armies, and all the forces of the Muslims: O  Lord of the beings of the whole world. O God, destroy the infidels and  polytheists, thine enemies, the enemies of the religion. O God, make their  children orphans, and defile their abodes, and cause their feet to slip, and  give them and their families, and their households and their women and their  children and their relations by marriage and their brothers and their friends  and their possessions and their race and their wealth and their lands as booty to the Muslims: O Lord of  the beings of the whole world.

The  modern scholar of Islamic civilization, S.D. Goitein, warned more than a century  later, in  1949, speaking of the Arab world generally and in particular  Egypt:

Islamic  fanaticism … is now openly encouraged[.] … [W]riters whose altogether  Western style (was mentioned earlier) have been vying with each other for some  time in compiling books on the heroes and virtues of Islam[.] … What has now  become possible in educated circles may be gathered from the following quotation  from an issue of the New East, an Arab monthly periodical describing itself as  the “organ of the academic youth of the East”:

“Let us fight fanatically for our religion; let us  love a man-because he is a Moslem; let us honor a man- because he is a Moslem;  let us prefer him to anyone else-because he is a Moslem; and never let us make  friends with unbelievers, because they have nothing but evil for  us.”

And  a decade later, in 1958, Lebanese Law Professor Antoine Fattal, a noted scholar  of the legal condition of non-Muslims  living under the sharia, lamented:

No  social relationship, no fellowship is possible between Muslims and dhimmis[.]  …

Even  today, the study of the jihad is part of the curriculum of all the Islamic  institutes. In the universities of Al-Azhar, Najaf, and Zaitoune, students are  still taught that the holy war is a binding prescriptive decree, pronounced  against the Infidels, which will only be revoked with the end of the world[.]  … The (Muslim) Prophet did in fact say … and his words have not expired: “I  came with the sword[.] … Jihad is engaged now and to the day when the last  handful of men of my nation will be called to fight the ‘Antichrist!”   Islam will not emerge from this impasse until the day when its scholars take the  initiative to open wide the doors of ijtihad.

Sadly,  a half-century after Fattal  made his observations, the sacralized hatred inherent in jihad is still being  inculcated as part of the formal education of Muslim youth in Egypt, the most  populous Arab country, and throughout the Arab Muslim and larger non-Arab Muslim  world.

Mr.  Obama should have demanded that such bellicose, hate-mongering instructional  practices be abolished in Egypt (and throughout Islamdom) rather than perversely extolling such  indoctrination as an educational model for American youth.


October  7, 2012

Sticks and Stones!

By Frank  Ryan

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/sticks_and_stones.html#ixzz28hmFdQZp

Few  people would consider denigrating any religion or person  to be a reasonable, mature, and decent way to behave.

Yet  when riots and killings are allegedly sparked by “hate crimes,” the insanity of  the violent reaction is equally unpalatable to those in the civilized  world.

The  reactions to these riots by the Obama administration are equally  stupefying!  To even remotely condone riots and killings as a reasonable  reaction to verbal insults is inconceivable.  These despicable actions  should have been condemned.  Our nation appears weak when we react in any  other way.

There is an underlying philosophy used  by politicians to condone condemning only the one broadcasting the insult  while excusing those who overreact.  That philosophy states that if someone  perceives himself as a victim, it is acceptable to react in any way that he  wishes, civilized or not.  With such a principle of victimization, the  entire concept of vigilante justice takes on an entirely new  meaning.

Legislation  against hate crimes was designed to protect the victim, not justify violent reactions to the  crime.  For the president to placate an uncivilized action in the name of  securing tranquility is precisely the type of appeasement that propelled the  world into World War II.  The president does not understand the Middle East  at all and his response showed it.

Hate  crime laws in the United States are dealt with by the FBI.  The FBI’s own website on hate crimes states:

Crimes  of hatred and prejudice-from lynchings to cross burnings to vandalism of  synagogues-are a sad fact of American history, but the term “hate crime” did not  enter the nation’s vocabulary until the 1980s, when emerging hate groups like  the Skinheads launched a wave of bias-related crime. The FBI began investigating  what we now call hate crimes as far back as World War I, when the Ku Klux Klan  first attracted our attention. Today, we remain dedicated to working with state  and local partners to prevent these crimes and to bring to justice those who  commit them.

Recently, criminal elements attacked Buddhists in Bangladesh over a Facebook photo of a burnt Koran.  Homes  of innocent Buddhists were ransacked, looted, and then set ablaze.  The  person who tagged the photo is in protective custody.

But  no action has been taken against those who sparked the riots in response to the  photo.  The rioters’ actions have been characterized by many in the  administration as sad reactions to verbal attacks against Islam rather than  equally uncivilized conduct by rioters against the innocent in the Buddhist  village.

Just as in the case of the killing of our U.S.  ambassador in September 2012, the perception by many is that this administration  feels that the demonstrators were some how justified in their irresponsible and  illegal conduct.  It just was not their fault.  The rioters were  pathetic victims.

But  the crimes against these Muslim religious were verbal in nature and not  physical.  I understand that abuse and hatred can come from words and  pictures, as well as from a fist.  But when and where is the line drawn in  which those reacting to the verbal offenses are accountable for their  actions?  It makes no sense at all that any government would attempt to  justify the acts of these Muslim terrorists out of fear of what else they may  do.

In  an almost surreal move, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation made a plea to the United Nations asking for a ban on insulting the Prophet  Muhammed.  I understand completely that insulting another person’s faith is  unacceptable conduct.  But the plea by the Organization of Islamic  Cooperation would have been significantly more palatable if the organization had  decried the violent reaction of some of the members of their  faith.

My  faith, the Christian faith as a Catholic, was insulted by artwork funded by the United States government, by verbal  offenses when I visited Qatar with a Bible in my luggage as a United States  Marine colonel, and by the Conscience Clause violations contained in the Affordable Care Act.  But apparently  abusing Christians is acceptable to this administration.

In  the Jewish and Christian faiths. as well as in many others, we are taught by our  rabbis, priests, and ministers to pray for those who hate us.

The  world would have felt significantly more accommodating to the Islamic faith had  the Organization of Islamic Cooperation condemned the violence of their  followers as well as the irresponsible acts which allegedly triggered the  violence.

Violence in the name of religion is a crime!   Violence against religion is a crime as well.  Unfortunately, the U.S.  government considers hate crimes only when it placates a special interest group  of the government’s choosing.  That policy of appeasement is a recipe for  disaster.

Col. Frank Ryan, CPA, USMCR (ret.) served in Iraq and  briefly in Afghanistan.  He specializes in corporate restructuring and  lectures on ethics for the state CPA societies.  He has served on numerous  boards of publicly traded and non-profit organizations.  He can be reached  at FRYAN1951@aol.com and on Twitter  @fryan1951.


October  7, 2012

Islam Earns Its Scorn

By Trevor  Thomas

As  the renowned and pioneering historian Bernard Lewis noted over 20 years ago in The  Roots of Muslim Rage, “the classical Islamic view, to which many  Muslims are beginning to return, [is that] the world and all mankind are divided  into two: the House of Islam, where the Muslim  law and faith prevail, and the rest, known as the House of Unbelief or  the House of War, which it is the duty of Muslims ultimately to bring to  Islam.”

After  the events of 9/11, Professor Lewis, in The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy  Terror, also noted that much of the animosity directed toward the West,  particularly the United States, is due to old-fashioned envy — stemming from  Western progress and Islamic decline.  As one reviewer put it, the crux of  Lewis’s argument is that “the sources of rage among Muslims stem from the deep  frustration over the loss of a cultural primacy that was once theirs and has now  been lost to the forces of modernity, especially as represented by the United  States.”

As  Muslims rage against the U.S. abroad, it is rather telling to examine “the loss  of cultural primacy” within Islam, along with the overall effect Islam is having  on nations and individuals the world over.  Of the 57 members of the  Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), as rated by the Economists  Intelligence Unit’s Index of Democracy, none are full democracies, while 36  are authoritarian regimes (dictatorships).  Of the Index’s 10 most  authoritarian regimes, six of them are members of the OIC.

Muslims  are over 23 percent of the world population and produce barely eight percent of  global GDP.  The average GDP rank for the members of the OIC is 102 (out of  211 nations).  The total GDP of the 57-member OIC is approximately $4.9  trillion.  That is about one-third of the GDP of the U.S. alone ($14.4  trillion).

According  to the United  Nations’ 2009 Arab Human Development Report, “[f]or nearly two and half  decades after 1980, the [Arab] region witnessed hardly any economic growth.  World Bank data show that real GDP per capita in the Arab countries grew by a  mere 6.4 per cent over the entire 24 year period from 1980 to 2004 (i.e. by less  than 0.5 per cent annually).”  One in five Arabs lives on less than $2 per  day.

Illiteracy  plagues the Arab world.  About a third of those living in Arab  countries cannot read.  This includes about half of all women.  There  are fewer than 18 computers per 1,000  persons in the Arab world, compared to the global average of 78.3; and only 1.6  percent of Arabs use the internet.

In  the 57 nations in the OIC, there are a total of about 500 universities.   There are over 5,700 in the U.S.  In just over 100 years, the Muslim world  has produced nine Nobel laureates, while a mere 14 million Jews have produced  166.  There are about 400 scientists and engineers per 1 million people in research and development  in Arab countries, compared to about 4,000 per million people in North  America.

Particularly  disturbing, and most telling, as one examines Islam, is the role of women in  Islamic society.  Islamic law (sharia) prohibits women from looking men in  the eye, forbids them from wearing shoes that make noise, and forbids them from  becoming educated.  As Ergun and Emir Caner note in Unveiling  Islam, “women are considered possessions in any orthodox Islamic regime[.]  … The wife is considered the husband’s sex object.”  Also, one of the  most alarming admonitions in the Koran allows the husband to punish his wife  physically.

Of  the eight nations that the U.S. has placed on its State Sponsors of Terrorism  list, 6 of them are Islamic regimes.  Of the 16 nations the United  States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) has under its  Country of Particular Concern designation, 11 are Islamic regimes (all of the  others are differing authoritarian regimes, including North Korea, China, and  Vietnam).  Nice company, huh?

Religious  freedom in the most orthodox Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia is virtually  nonexistent.  Like in many other Muslim countries, Saudi law states that  Islamic apostasy — denying the faith or converting to another religion — is a  crime punishable by death.  In 2006, Afghan citizen Abdul Rahman was  arrested (after it was discovered that he possessed a Bible) and faced the death  penalty for converting to Christianity.  Intervention by Afghan president  Hamid Karzai resulted in the charges against Rahman being  dismissed.

Leading  Afghan clerics were highly critical of Karzai, noting that “[t]he Qur’an is very  clear and the words of our prophet are very clear. There can only be one  outcome: death.”  This attitude is very prevalent across the Arab world,  validating Professor Lewis’s notion that “many Muslims are beginning to return”  to the “classical [violent and repressive] Islamic view.”

In  Turkey in 2007, two Turkish converts to Christianity were killed in the Malatya  Bible Publishing Firm murders.  Also in 2007, Mohammed Hegazy became the  first Egyptian Muslim officially to seek to convert to Christianity.  An  Egyptian judge ruled that “[h]e can believe whatever he wants in his heart, but  on paper he can’t convert.”  Muslim  clerics issued fatwas calling for his death.  His wife’s family has sworn  to kill her because she married a non-Muslim.  They are both currently in  hiding.

All  of this pales in comparison to the slaughter in Sudan.  The Institute on  Religion and Democracy reports that “since 1983 Sudan has been devastated by a  jihad or holy war led by the militant National Islamic Front, the ruling regime  in Khartoum, against all in Southern Sudan and the Nuba Mountains who opposed  the imposition of Shariۥa, or Islamic law. The government-sponsored terror has  resulted in the deaths of at least two million moderate Muslims, animists, and  Christians.”

Of  course, as the Caners point out, “[a]ny major religion must first be seen  through the eyes of its founder…Muhammad commanded in the Qurۥan, ‘Fight and  slay the Pagans wherever you find them’ (surah 9:5) … in a world searching for  peace, following the life of this warrior brings about bloodshed.”  Moments  before Abu Mus’ad Al Zarqawi cut off the head of American Nicholas Berg, he said  these words in Arabic: “The Prophet, the master of the merciful has ordered to  cut off the heads of some of the prisoners of Badr in patience. He is our  example and a good role model.”

Zarqawi  knew that Muhammad had often used beheading as the means of executing his  enemies.  Thus, Zarqawi was unmistakably choosing to emulate his “good role  model” and spiritual leader.

Clearly,  by and large, Islam is an enforced religion with a violent founder, a violent  founding, and a very violent past and present.  Islam is generally  repressive to women and to those of other faiths.  Islam is typically  financially devastating and technologically backward.  Any politician —  Republican, Democrat, and the like — who attempts to paint Islam or Islamic  nations in a positive light is at the least not giving the whole picture, and is  at the worst a political coward.


October  5, 2012

Shut Up or Die, the Muslim Protesters Explained

By John  T. Bennett

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/shut_up_or_die_the_muslim_protesters_explained.html#ixzz28hnlm0Hh

Would  liberals support censorship in response to wife-beaters, skinheads,  abortion-clinic bombers, gay-bashers, or any other violent group?  Then why  do they support censorship in response to terrorists?

It  appears that some liberals want to offer Muslim extremists the benefit of  voluntary, self-imposed censorship.  Few violent groups in America — or on earth,  for that matter — get such tender treatment.  If the left responded to the  above-mentioned groups the same way they respond to terrorists, here’s how it  would sound:

● Victims of wife beaters — You can avoid abuse if  you just shut up.  Don’t incite your spouse or boyfriend.  Respect his  volatile emotions.

● Victims of violent skinheads — You shouldn’t have  gone outside; your presence incites those people.  Consider the skinhead’s  perspective, and respect his deeply held racial views.

● Victims of abortion-clinic bombers — You shouldn’t  be arguing for abortion so loudly.  Quiet down your pro-choice views to  avoid offending the sensitivities of abortion-clinic bombers.  Respect the  religious perspective of the clinic bomber.

● Victims of gay-bashing — You should have stayed in  the closet.  Consider the perspective of the gay-basher.

As  these examples show, it is a perversion of justice and morality to accommodate  violent groups.  Why, then, have some liberals decided to do exactly that  when the violent group comprises Muslims?  The short answer is that  multiculturalism is strongly influencing foreign policy.  Arthur  Schlesinger, Jr.’s “The  Disuniting of America“described the process that led us to where we are  today: any minority group that liberals label as “oppressed” will be treated  with deference, to the point where some among us would rather surrender their  freedom of expression than criticize an “oppressed” group.  This is what  happens in a society where toxic tolerance takes the place of values like free  speech, free expression, and the Enlightenment belief in open inquiry and  criticism.  A cult of national self-criticism has become so dogmatic that  we habitually equivocate instead of standing up for our own  interests.

Thanks  to multiculturalism, we can’t even stand up for ourselves in a simple standoff  between barbarism and free speech.  We’ve become so obsessed with being  unoffensive that we can’t bring ourselves to make the most basic criticisms of  group behavior, even when that behavior is violent.  This applies both at  home and abroad.  In the case of the Libya attack two weeks ago, the  resulting approach on the part of some liberals has been, in a word, cowardly.

As  awful as the consequences are, liberals are really just expressing their  priorities by advocating that we barter away rights in order to accommodate  hordes of violent bigots.  On one hand we have the right to speak and  offend; on the other, we have the sensibilities of barbaric fanatics.  So  liberals prioritize the latter, and in the process have found a herd of bigots  whom they’ll essentially take sides with.  Why did liberals choose this  particular bunch?  It could be that Muslim extremists are more culturally  vibrant than wife-beaters, violent skinheads, and all the rest.  The more  likely answer is that liberals are glad to accommodate extremists who are  non-white, or non-Christian, and it really helps if the extremists hate  Israel.

After  the pitiful showing put on by the Obama administration, the extremist smells  blood — if he is Muslim.  The extremist is convinced of the rightness of  his cause.  He has a religious fervor that many Westerners have rarely felt  and would keep to themselves if they did.  Westerners are indoctrinated to  respond with nihilistic sensitivity in the face of every political issue or  “oppressed” group under the sun.  Multiculturalism has made us cower in the  standoff between barbarism and free speech.  “But it’s so much more complex  than that,” insists the sophisticated liberal, and that’s why their foreign  policy is called “smart power.”

In  fact, liberals are so smart that they think condemning an amateur filmmaker will  placate people who butcher girls for going to school, throw acid in women’s faces  for being too Westernized, and cut  girls’ noses off  for running away from violent families.  It is virtuous to appear  broad-minded and adept at nonviolent conflict resolution, even when that  approach would embolden extremists and guarantee more  violence.

Of  course, liberals would never say that they want to appeal to acid-throwers —  just to moderates.  But moderates are not responsible for violence.   If you’re trying to reduce terrorism by limiting “offensive” speech, then by  definition you’re trying to appeal to the minds of the violent.  Violent  bigots are precisely the ones whom liberals intend to placate with their  fledgling campaign of speech restriction.  We don’t have to placate  moderates, because they aren’t busy killing people.  No moderate would  demand restrictions on free speech for the sake of his “feelings.”  No  moderate would expect that a sovereign nation can prevent its free citizens from  making movies, including movies that are “offensive to  Muslims.”

So  what happens when you cave to extremists in a misguided effort to reach out to  moderates?  That which gets rewarded gets repeated.  If we reward  extremism, we virtually guarantee more violence and greater demands, along with  less respect for the West and our culture.  There are Muslims in Canada who  want every woman’s face to  be covered  and Muslims in England who are offended by seeing-eye dogs.  Muslims in one Swedish city are offended by  the presence of Jews.  How is the multiculturalist going to avoid  those offences?

We’re  in a confrontation between the Enlightenment and barbarism, and the Obama  administration has been thrown back on its heels, as liberals in  the media and academy prepare to defer to the barbarians.  In fact,  our own State Department’s legal adviser wants the First Amendment to bend to foreign law, including hate speech codes — precisely the  mentality that will have a growing influence if we get more Obama court  appointees.  The liberal approach to free speech today has no basis in our  Enlightenment heritage, or in the First Amendment, and much less in the American  tradition of peace through strength.  Instead, liberals are responding to a  foreign policy crisis with multicultural orthodoxy.

Now,  esteemed figures are calling for free expression to be balanced with nebulous “responsibilities.” We must censor ourselves and others if someone might  irrationally act out after hearing something we say.  Such “responsible”  self-expression would have the same calming effect on the extremist as blood in water has on the shark.

First  Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh, in a fantastic piece of clear and sober reasoning, points out that the  Obama administration is about to teach a lesson to extremists: “[I]f you want to  shut up the blasphemers, just kill enough Americans in  response.”

The  immediate question is how far this administration will go to limit free  speech.  With the arrest last weekend of “Innocence of Muslims” filmmaker Nakoula Basseley  Nakoula, the government took a step toward official intimidation.  The  administration is unquestionably on record supporting officially endorsed (as opposed to officially  imposed) self-censorship: the highest levels of government are proclaiming, “The  United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious  beliefs of others,” as the secretary of state said, or that “the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of  others,” as the president did.

No  other group in American society benefits from the deference and kid-gloves  treatment that this administration is extending to Muslim extremists.  This  farcical, self-destructive “sensitivity” would be a lot funnier if the  consequences weren’t so terrible.  Some liberals, driven by  multiculturalism, are primed and ready to reward the worst forms of ignorance  and violence.  If you need any more incentive to register and vote, be  assured that a second Obama term will empower courts and bureaucrats to curb  free speech when favored victim groups feel insulted.  By making  concessions to extremists who will never be placated, we guarantee less freedom  and less safety, with nothing to show for what we’ve  surrendered.

John T. Bennett (MA, University of Chicago, Master of  Arts Program in the Social Sciences ’07; J.D., Emory University School of Law  ’11) was a teaching assistant for Emory University’s journalism program.   He is a former Army officer with tours of duty in Iraq, Afghanistan, and  Djibouti.

Free Speech, Muhammad’s Character — And Ours

by Andrew G. Bostom

Following violent Muslim reactions to the amateurish Innocence of Muslims video, international and domestic Islamic agendas are openly converging with vehement calls for universal application of Islamic blasphemy law…


October  7, 2012

Security team pulled out of Libya in August

Rick Moran

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/security_team_pulled_out_of_libya_in_august.html#ixzz28ho3Al7l

The  blundering boobs at the State Department recalled a 16-man security team in August just as the Libyan diplomats were  asking for more security, not less.


CBS  News has learned that congressional investigators have issued a  subpoena to a  former top security official at the US mission in Libya.  The official is Lt.  Col. Andy Wood, a Utah National Guard Army Green  Beret who headed up a Special  Forces “Site Security Team” in Libya.

The  subpoena compels Lt. Col. Wood to appear at a House Oversight  Committee hearing  next week that will examine security decisions leading  up to the Sept. 11  Muslim extremist terror assault on the U.S. compound  at Benghazi. U.S.  Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three of his  colleagues were killed in the  attack.

Lt.  Col. Wood has told CBS News and congressional investigators that his  16-member  team and a six-member State Department elite force called a  Mobile Security Deployment team left Libya in August, just  one month  before the Benghazi assault. Wood says that’s despite the fact that  US  officials in Libya wanted security increased, not  decreased.

Wood  says he met daily with Stevens and that security was a constant  challenge.  There were 13 threats or attacks on western diplomats and  officials in Libya in  the six months leading up to the September 11  attack.

A senior State Department official told CBS  News  that half of the 13 incidents before September 11 were fairly minor or   routine in nature, and that the Benghazi attack was so lethal and  overwhelming,  that a diplomatic post would not be able to repel it.

That  “senior State Department official” should be fired. Is he actually saying that  16 Green Berets would not have been able to fight off a few terrorists? Note  also, “minor or routine” incidents. So I guess its ok because 5 or 6 incidents  prior to 9/11 were routine and could be ignored? What about the other 5 or 6  that weren’t so routine? Why were those incidents not enough to sound the  alarm?

The  next debate will be on foreign policy. Watch as Obama fobs off questions about  the consulate attack and death of our ambassador by using the same line the  State Department is using; we don’t want to comment on an ongoing FBI  investigation.

Rep.  Issa’s committee won’t take that kind of nonsense.

Why Libya Is No Accident

by Armando De La Torre, Steve Hecht & David Landau

There is similar magical thinking by the Obama administration in Guatemala…

The Wreckage of Benghazi

by Claudia Rosett

Why did it take more than three weeks for U.S. investigators to reach the scene?…


October  7, 2012

Different Rules for Islam

By Andrew  E. Harrod

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/different_rules_for_islam.html#ixzz28hmusK00

Recent  statements by various politicians in Germany demonstrate once again the effects  of a “heckler’s  veto” exercised by various aggressive Muslims around the world.  In  particular, such aggression is creating legal and societal inequalities between  Islam and other faiths such as Christianity in democracies including the United  States.  Sadly, many leaders of the free world are willing to sacrifice  the freedom to discuss Islam in an ultimately vain effort to protect foreign and domestic interests against Muslim  assaults.

The  German minister of the interior, Hans-Peter Friedrich of Bavaria’s  conservative Christian Social Union (Christlich-Soziale  Union or CSU) party, indicated as much in a September 19, 2012, interview  with the public radio broadcaster Deutschlandfunk.  Commenting  upon the German debate over banning showings of the Innocence of  Muslims film, Friedrich said that in  this controversy the “question, what uproar will be caused in the country,  naturally plays a role.”  Friedrich additionally cited the question of  “which foreign policy interests are touched.”  Specifically, Germany would  “expend much money every day in order to present Germany positively in the  world,” only to have “this image of Germany suddenly destroyed by a few  rightwing radicals” who might play Innocence of  Muslims.

Yet  an open letter the next  day to Germany’s foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle of the Free  Democratic Party (Freie Demokratische  Partei or FDP), questioned the propriety of the deference shown by  leaders like Friedrich to Islam.  The letter’s author was Bernhard  Lorenz, the leader of the Wiesbaden city government representatives from the  Christian Democratic Union (Christlich-Demokratische Union or CDU, the  nationwide sister party of the CSU).  In Westerwelle’s various discussions  of Innocence of Muslims similar in tone to the comments of his cabinet  colleague Friedrich, Lorenz found missing the “important element” that “all  religions must be treated equally.”  In particular, Lorenz cited the play Über  das Konzept des Angesichts bei Gottes Sohn (Concerning the Concept  of the Image by God’s Son), the action of which included a Jesus figure  smeared with feces and spitting upon a cross.  Incensed protesters at one production had stormed the stage and  assaulted the audience with tear gas, stink bombs, and motor oil.  Yet no  proposal to ban the play was forthcoming, and German authorities gave police  protection to subsequent performances.

The  “signal effect” of Westerwelle’s position appeared to Lorenz  “devastating.”  “Whoever,” explained Lorenz, “exercises violence, takes the  life of innocent people, may hope for a quick reaction by the state in his  favor.  Whoever, in contrast, acts within the framework of the laws is  forced to make do with a reference to freedom of opinion.”  Lorenz’s  opposing position demanded a “binding agreement upon one position and no ‘case  by case observation.'”  Germany needed a “common code of behavior … valid  for all” and “may not allow any special treatments in case of  violence.”

Nor  did the German double-standards end with Lorenz’s letter.  The same day as  Friedrich’s Deutschlandfunk interview, the Berlin Cinema  for Peace, a foundation dedicated to screenings and discussions of films  involving global humanitarian issues, announced the  cancellation of an Innocence of Muslims showing.  Cinema for  Peace justified the cancelation because of the “controversial discussions and  emotions” surrounding Innocence of Muslims.  The foundation stated  that it “does not want to support any further reactions or a further circulation  of the film.”

Cinema  for Peace had intended to screen Innocence of Muslims during an October  1, 2012 event examining hostile cinematic treatments of religious groups.   The event would show as planned, however, the notorious 1940 anti-Semitic Nazi  propaganda film Jud  Süss and Kevin Smith’s 1999 film Dogma,  a satire of Catholicism.  Not being completely hypocritical with respect to  Islam, though, Cinema for Peace also planned to show the short 2004 Dutch film Submission  about the mistreatment of women in Islam.  This film had previously incited  the murder of its producer, Theo  van Gogh, on November 2, 2004, in Amsterdam by a Moroccan-Dutch  Muslim.

Such  bending of a free society’s standards and laws out of deference to possible  Muslim reactions is in itself troubling.  This obsequiousness, moreover,  will most likely fail to establish any long-term good relations with many Muslim  communities around the world.  In the years following the mother of all  terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, years that hardly exhibited any Islamic  peace, many Muslims have manifested a capacity to take perpetual offense.   Particularly conspicuous in this regard were the 2005  Danish Muhammad cartoons.  The creator of the notable caricature of  Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, Kurt Westergaard, once received an honor  from German chancellor Angela Merkel for his artistic  independence, yet these Danish caricatures now often face German  legal challenges concerning their use in political  demonstrations.

Following  the Danish Muhammad cartoons came more controversy in the form of Swedish  Muhammad cartoons by Lars Vilks, excised American South Park Muhammad cartoons, and French Charlie Hebdo Muhammad cartoons published in the middle of the Innocence of Muslims controversy.  Rumors of Korans  flushed down toilets along with Korans burnt both intentionally  and accidentally  aroused Muslim passions globally.  The same has been true of films like Submission, Fitna,  and Innocence of Muslims itself.  This list of items incurring the  wrath of various Muslims simply keeps getting longer, to say nothing of the  original cause célèbre of Islamic offense decades ago, Salman Rushdie’s  1988 novel The  Satanic Verses.

To  think that the world’s free societies can ever fully placate doctrinaire Islamic  sensibilities without the rankest submission is simply delusional.  The  appeasement of violence-prone Muslims shown by many politicians around the world  in the Innocence of Muslims affair merely demonstrates that such force  can achieve its goal of suppressing freedom.  The result is simply to  encourage a vicious cycle of more such violence in the  future.

Remaining  firm on the principle of protecting open debate and discussion, no matter how  contentious, would, in contrast, send a deterring signal against those Muslims  who seek to replace rules of order with the rules of the street and the  strong.  There simply is an irrepressible conflict between freedom around  the world and the centuries-old orthodox understanding of an Islamic faith  claiming a right to use force in the name of a prophet.  It is time to take  a stand.


Posted in: Uncategorized