Obama’s New Libya

Remember all the hoopla the Obama administration engaged in after helping Libya’s “freedom fighters” oust (and sodomize and murder) the nation’s former president, Muammar Gaddafi? Remember the rationale used by Obama to justify using the U.S. military to help Libya’s “opposition”?  In his March 28, 2011 speech, he spoke of “our responsibilities to our fellow human beings,” adding that not assisting them “would have been a betrayal of who we are.”

Although it was common knowledge that al-Qaeda and other fiercely anti-American forces were involved in the Libyan jihad, this did not shake Obama’s “responsibilities” to his “fellow human beings.” Predictably, the thanks the U.S. received was an al-Qaeda attack on the American consulate in Benghazi and the murders of four American officials, including Ambassador Chris Stevens (an attack the Obama administration tried to frame as a product of an amateur YouTube video that had “offended” Muslims).

Beyond the attack on Libya’s American embassy, there has been no end of examples of the true nature of the “New Libya” Obama helped create. On Sunday, December 30, an explosion rocked a Coptic Christian church near the western city of Misrata, where a group of U.S.-backed rebels hold a major checkpoint, killing two. Two months later, on February 28, another Coptic Christian church located in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked by armed Muslim militants, resulting in serious injuries for the priest and an assistant.

On February 10, four foreign Christians were arrested in Benghazi, including one with American citizenship, on the claim that they were “missionaries.”  Three days later, two more Christians from Egypt were arrested. Three days after that, a seventh Christian, also from Egypt, was arrested. Then, on February 27, Benghazi forces raided another Coptic church rounding up some 100 Coptic Christians, accusing them of being missionaries—simply because they were found in possession of Bibles and other Christian “paraphernalia.” Many of these Christians have been tortured, some with acid.

Indeed, it was just revealed that one of these Christians was literally tortured to death by the terrorists Obama helped empower.  A March 12 Coptic Solidarity press release has the details:

Coptic Solidarity condemns in the strongest terms the unlawful acts by the group Ansarul Sharia [“Supporters of Sharia”] in Libya to arrest, torture and detain dozens of Copts; and the detention by Libya’s Preventive Security department in Tripoli of the Coptic man Ezzat Hakim Atallah for ten days till he died on March 9 under torture, and the detention of his Coptic colleagues … and others who are still being subjected to torture inside the Preventive Security building.

And what has the response of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood-led government been to the murder of a fellow Egyptian citizen at the hands of Libyans?  The press release continues:

Coptic Solidarity condemns in the strongest terms the Egyptian authorities, especially the foreign minister, the ambassador in Libya and the Consul in Benghazi, for their failure to defend their fellow citizens. In contrast, the [Egyptian] presidency and the foreign ministry had enthusiastically rushed to defend a Muslim Brotherhood cell that was arrested in the United Arab Emirates on charges of threatening the country’s national security. The attitude of the Egyptian authorities in dealing with the Coptic citizens is shameful.

Once again the Muslim Brotherhood—whose former General Guide declared “the hell with Egypt”—show that their true loyalty is to Islam and fellow Muslims, even if foreign, and not to non-Muslims, even if fellow Egyptians.   Nor is this surprising, since Egypt, Libya, and any number of Arab nations continue edging towards the resurrection of a global Muslim caliphate.

And Obama’s only response has been to continue empowering jihadis—now in Syria, where the “opposition” he supports has, among other atrocities, been making the lives of the nation’s Christian minority a living hell.   Such are the policies of the man a majority of Americans voted for; a man who—in our postmodern world and in the words of the ancient prophet—apparently “calls evil good and good evil.”

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    Obama never had any intention of freeing Libyans. If this was the case, surely he would not have let loose Al Qaeda jihadists in their midst, the only thing which Qaddafi did right by keeping them at bay! In fact, this is precisely what he did in Egypt, as he dictated to Mubarak, GO NOW, yet guess who took over? The Muslim Brotherhood Mafia! Coinquidink? Hardly. http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/01/19/benghazigate-

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

    • EarlyBird

      Adina,

      You never seem to respond to anyone on this board, but let me ask you this:

      In the face of that massive popular uprising in Egypt, where Egyptians were demanding freedom, democracy, a non-corrupt government, a free economy, the right to vote and decide their own government, what should the United States of America done?

      Not a trick question.

      • Drakken

        Support and get behind Mubarak, it is a given that the MB would take over and now we have them as an enemy instead of an ally like Mubarak was.

        • EarlyBird

          At least you're honest: the response to masses of people wanting to live free, is to further crush them, since among them there are people we don't like.

          So much for liberty and all that.

          • Drakken

            The muslims will never live free period! They will live under a dictator who will keep the islamist in line, or under the islamist who will give them the dark ages sharia, your wishful blissful thinking and totally wrong conclusions, despite the evidence is mind bogling.

          • kasandra

            HOW CAN YOU THINK THAT ADHERENTS OF A RELIGION WHOSE NAME MEANS "submission" will, or even want,freedom?

          • EarlyBird

            For someone who purports to know what Islam is all about, you sure get the notion of "submission" wrong.

          • kasandra

            So, then, people who want to submit are likely to also want to be free to make their own decisions and way in the temporal world? No cognetive dissonance there.

      • defcon 4

        DrtyBrd,

        Do Morsi and the MB represent the "freedom, democracy" and "non-corrupt government" that Mubarak's regime didn't?

        Not a trick question.

        • EarlyBird

          The MB represents a popularly elected government. If they want them to run their own governemnt, that's their business.

          We don't have to like or support their government if we choose not to. We'll be sorting out over the next years if we should continue with the promises that came out of the Camp David Accords, i.e., the money we send them (and Israel).

          • Ghostwriter

            So,when they start raping little kids and the honor killings and all that stuff that YOU seem to want,EarlyBird,you'll just stand by and try to put your spin on it,even though Egypt is on it's way to becoming an Islamist cesspool.

  • Art K

    Another great piece by ray ibrahim . love the final quote from the bible. here's another quote – "woe to the nation that is ruled by a slave!"
    how true…

  • theleastthreat

    Wish to know what people were like 50,000 years ago? Visit Libya today.

  • PamM

    I'm sure the jihadist in chief in Washington must be very pleased with his handiwork. No doubt the obsequious dhimmis in London and Paris are also feeling suitably gratified for their somewhat less than honourable roles.

  • NCYZ

    Hi everyone, on the issue of the persecution of Christians, this Friday the ACLJ will be testifying before the House of Representatives on the case of Ps Saeed Abedini, the pastor jailed by the Jihadi mullahs for his Chrisitan faith, while the pro-jihadi Obama, as usual, refuses to do anything. The ACLJ needs your signatures on this petition to free Ps Saeed. The petition can be signed through this link http://savesaeed.org/reach3. Thank you.

    • kasandra

      What I love is that our president and his minions swore up and down that our objective in Libya was simply the protection of civilians and not regime change. And our sheeple bought it. And they bought the narrative that the murders in Benghazi were the result of an online video no one saw and re-elected this regime. And they can see before their eyes our regime giving money and weapons to Egypt while its persecuting its Christian citizens and supporting the oppression of Christians in its neighbors. Meanwhile, our citizens meekly accept all the lies and deceptions propagated by our regime (e.g., we don't have the money to deploy a carrier battle group to the Persian Gulf because of the sequester but we do have the money to deploy a Marine Amphibious Unit to the Eastern Med due to Obama's visit to Israel and to fund studies on why lesbians are overweight). It is truly amazing how this country has gone to hell. And just five years ago all we heard from the press is that the greatest sin a president could commit was "to lie to the American people." Now its all lies and more lies and all we get from the press (and the regime) is just "what difference does it make anyway?"

    • ross1948

      I've got your petition ready for posting on our conservative expat blog! Due at breakfast time tomorrow, 9 hours from now!

    • Drakken

      As great and good as your cause is, it will fall on deaf ears of the democrats who will march lock step with Comrade Obummer and his minions. Time to arm the christians of the middle east and help them defend themselves against these islamic savages.

      • NCYZ

        We must not stop hoping. But in the short term I hope that after the hearing, if Obama does nothing, the House starts taking drastic measures such as defunding the government, one department at a time, and if, God willing the Democrats get reduced to minority status in the Senate next year, have Obama impeached for doing nothing to save an American citizen from the mullahs. By the way there is some good news. One of the Congressmen chairing the hearing is Rep Frank Wolf of Virginia, who has been championing the cause of persecuted Christians.

        • defcon 4

          I think the entire federal government should be defunded — at least until all of them are investigated as to whether or not they're taking bribes from islamofascist NGO's…

  • EarlyBird

    These are the same disingenuous "arguments" the left makes when Republican presidents have to make the best out of bad choices.

    There was never an option to do nothing and let Gaddaffi keep a grip on his country, and out of the hands of Islamist militants. He was already losing his country; it was a question of time, and any Islamist elements were already nascent there.

    The only question was how many innocent people was Gaddaffi going to take down with him. Every day he was mowing down piles of civilians with tanks and by air in their homes.

    Given the proximity to So. Europe and the ability to destablize the region, and the tactical ability to actually achieve something with US airpower, the US decided – along with NATO – to defang Gadaffi's army.

    What resulted is what was going to result whether or not the US intervened. It was simply a matter of saving Lybian lives.

    • EarlyBird

      "What resulted is what was going to result whether or not the US intervened. It was simply a matter of saving Lybian lives."

      Actually I must correct myself on this point. We only knew that by doing nothing Gadaffi would fall, much later and at a much greater cost in Lybia lives, and that we'd be standing on sidelines hat in hand hoping that we would have some positive influence in the new Lybian government, if in fact one would even form. It could have just turned into another Syria.

      And this board would of course be complaining that Obama didn't do anything to influence outcomes in Lybia.

      • Mark

        Why was obama so ready to help the people of Libya so quickly and just sit back and watch Assad kill 70,000 of his own? What or who is he afraid of?

        • EarlyBird

          I can imagine a number of strategic and tactical reasons, and I'm sure there are many, many more:

          Lybia, unlike Syria, is a small, isolated country, with a long coast from which we could easily project airpower.

          Lybian refugees were flooding into Italy and other S. Europe allied nations, threatening to create world of trouble there.

          Gadaffi's army was small and easily taken down, where Syria's much larger and more robust.

          Lybia has a very solid oil industry, which can be used to quickly fix the Lybian economy. Syria does not.

          The West (NATO) actually had considerable contacts within Lybia with whom we could work during and after the military action, which we don't have in Syria.

          Perhaps most importantly, Iran's only real friend in its neighborhood is Syria. It's a very good thing if Iran's best friend – and by extension Hamas and Hezbollah – is weakened.

          What are your thoughts on why O is so reluctant to intervene in Syria, vs. Lybia?

          • kasandra

            Yeah, I think we all saw how much in control this new government is on 9/11/12. The only control they exerted is keeping a U.S. rescue force tied up at the airport for three or four hours. And Islamists did not have the same ability to wage mayhem across north Africa because Qadaffi was able to pretty much keep them under control. Now we and the Europeans destroyed that possibilty. Can you tell me for what? P.S. So Iran is Syria's only friend in the neighborhood. What about Hezbollah (which means, at this point) Lebanon. And the U.S. intervening because of an influx of refugees from Libya into Italy makes us much sense as Italy bombing Mexico because we have an influx of refugees from there. Let them take care of themselves. NATO was a defensive alliance binding its members to the common defense of any of its members in the case of an attack. Not an alliance obligating all of its members to intervene out of theatre in humanitarian endeavors.

          • EarlyBird

            Nobody said the new government or the US was in "control" of Lybia. We all agree there is much mayhem there, including Islamist infiltration.

            Nor was there ever a chance to "control" Lybia once it was in flames, or even thereafter. Our hope is to have significant influence there. Only Obama fanatics expected him to be the "Messiah," remember? Alas, even superpowers don't have super powers.

            Remember, the choices were A.) Watch Gaddaffi ultimately be taken out, but over a much longer, bloodier and chaotic process, after which Islamists would probably have an even greater role, ior B.) help the Lybians remove him as we did, and try to help them shore up US-friendly government which reduces Islamist influence to the greatest degree possible.

          • kasandra

            I would ask you, then, what was so crucial about overthrowing Qadaffi if we did not have a Plan A (i.e., what happens if we are successful)? You did not consider a third choice "C.) Leave Qaddafi in power." Seems to me this would overall have been the best option for all concerned except for al-Qaeda and its affiliates.

          • EarlyBird

            We did have a Plan A if we were successful: help them establish a decent government responsive to the will of the (non-Islamist) Libyan people, and to join the civilized world. We're doing that.

            Just because it hasn't turned into Connecticut overnight doesn't mean the mission has failed.

            There was no "C) Leave Qaddaffi in power." He was destined to be overthrown whatever we did or didn't do. But notice your use of the word "leave" him in power, as if we had "kept" him in power to begin with. We dont' have that level of control over an entire population thousands of miles from our shore. We can't even manage the post office at home.

          • kasandra

            It hasn't turned into Connecticut in centuries and it's not going to now and probably never will. I think Qadaffi was the least bad of all the realistic alternatives. And I don't think he was "destined to be overthrown whatever we did or didn't do." We crippled his military, his freedom of movement, etc. Without our involvement neither you nor I know what the outcome would have been. Look a Syria. Months and months ago the "common wisdom" was that Assad would be gone in a week. He's still there. While you're at it. how about you give me a list of the Middle Eastern countries other than Israel that have "a decent government responsive to the will of the …people."

          • EarlyBird

            "While you're at it. how about you give me a list of the Middle Eastern countries other than Israel that have "a decent government responsive to the will of the …people."

            None. And your point?

          • EarlyBird

            As for the embassy debacle, the mismangement of security there is a major blot on Obama's record, not to mention the disgraceful cover-up/stonewalling he did afterwards.

            He didn't want our embassy to "look" like a fortress, for the purposes of not wanting Lybians to feel like we had taken over their country. It was well intended PR, but we needed a fortress there and much greater security. He was dreadfully naive on this

          • kasandra

            First of all, we didn't have an embassy in Benghazi. Nor did we have a consulate. We had a facility two facilities – one the house where the Ambassador was taken and a CIA facility not too far away. You would do well to read "Benghazi". It's only 83 pages long and, while it has its faults, provides a lot of insight by former Special Forces operators on what was going on there. All of this "fortress" stuff is further obfuscation by the administration. Moreover, those on the scene with the best view of the situation repeatedly requested security be beefed up. I suspect that the administration didn't want to do it because it would call further attention to the operation going on there.

          • EarlyBird

            Whatever, that building where our ambassador was killed. No need to quibble.

          • defcon 4

            You never feel the need to quibble over your misrepresentation of facts.

          • EarlyBird

            Don't interrupt when the adults are talking.

          • EarlyBird

            Oh, Hezbollah is a subsidiary of Syria and Iran. When Syria implodes as a functioning government, it hurts Iran and Hezbollah (or as you put it, Lebanon). Hezbollah can't function without its two main sponsors.

          • Drakken

            Again you refuse to acknowledge hizbollahs grip in Lebanon, they won't go without a fight as well. They will without a doubt hit Israel once more.

          • EarlyBird

            No, I don't. Lebanon is entirely in the grip of Hezbollah. But Hezbollah is very dependent upon Syria, for arms, training, money, etc. A damaged Syria hurts Hezbollah too. That's a good thing.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            hezbullah is dependent on its sponsors for RESUPPLY.

            It already has lot of weapons, and according to some sources, Assads chemical weapons – who may have also gotten them from Saddams collapsing regime..

          • EarlyBird

            Okay, and?

          • kasandra

            My thoughs on why O is so reluctant to intervene in Syria vs. Libya – because 1) Syria has a sophisticated, integrated, air defense network; 2) Russia is a close ally of Syria whereas it wasn't a protector of Libya; and 3) he's been pursuing good relations with the mullahs in Iran at any cost for years the same as Ahab pursued the white whale and Iran supports Assad. Give me a few more minutes and I'll come up with some more reasons. These are the best I can come up with on short notice.

          • EarlyBird

            1 and 2 are spot-on. 3 is ridiculous.

            Obama immediately upon his 2008 inauguration did quiet, conservative, old-school diplomacy – not the stupid cowboy chest thumping type – and got enormous cooperation on sanctions which are brutalizing the Iranian economy. It has been described as one step up from a blockade of that economy by some experts.

            But at the same time he's not saber rattling, or threatening and giving the mullahs fuel for their PR campaign.

            As a result, the economy is in tatters and even the merchant middle class is now up in arms against the mullahs, and without saber rattling, the mullahs aren't able to rally the people around the flag.

            Obama is not brilliant or something new. His is the classic "speak softly and carry a big stick," serious, old-school, traditional diplomacy that goes all the way from Clinton back to Washington.

          • Drakken

            You completey underestimate the mullahs grasp on power in Iran, they won't go without a fight and it will come to that for they will reach too far and provoke us.

          • EarlyBird

            Nothing about your statement, however, factual, refutes mine. The sanctions are hurting Iran, period. And those sanctions, which require many different nations' cooperation, would not have come together with the radical, confrontational style so many on his board prefer.

          • Drakken

            The only thing the sanctions are hurting is the regular folks, it is not hurting the army or the mullahs in any way shape or form. Conflict is enevitable, your failure to see that is nothing more than wishful thinking.

          • EarlyBird

            It is specifically hurting the national economy, which directly affects the government. If you want to suggest that sanctions don't work, that's up to you.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            The ayatollahs care about their people as much as the Baby faced Kim of North Korea care about their people.

            The people will suffer any burden to advance the regimes nuclear programs.

          • kasandra

            No. The sanctions are hurting the Iranian people, not Iran which, in spite of the sanctions, is speeding up its nuclear program and involvement in Syria, South America, etc.

          • defcon 4

            So if Syria didn't have Russia as its protector, the zero would be setting up another more fundamentalist islamofascist "democracy" in the Mid-East.

    • kasandra

      If I recall, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs or some other high ranking flag or intelligence officer testified before Congress that there was no national security interest of the U.S. involved in Libya. And he was not mowing down piles of civilians in Libya any more than Germans were bayonetting Belgian babies in WWI. By the way, should we intervene in Syria where tens of thousands of real civilians (not rebels in civilian clothes fighting to overthrow the government as in Libya) have been killed? There were two choices in Libya – get involved or stay out. We got in and, as a consequence, have greatly enhanced the position of AQIM. Good going.

      • EarlyBird

        There are plenty of good reasons to not have gone into Libya. I was quite ambivalent, and share some of that ambivalence now.

        As for why we should not go into Syria, you answered your own question quite well above.

        If you're expressing a general allergy to interventionism, you're preaching to the choir.

        This is unfair: "We got in and, as a consequence, have greatly enhanced the position of AQIM."

        Gadaffi was going to fall whether or not we helped the people overthrow him. Islamists were already part of that fight, and outside ones were ready to jump into the vacuum of a Gaddfi-less government, whether or not we intervened. It was going to be chaotic and ripe for jihadists no matter what we did or didn't do.

        We actually have far more influence on the current government, and therefore a better ability to deal with those jihadists, because we got involved.

        • defcon 4

          When you say you were "quite ambivalent", do you mean in a sexual sense?

          • EarlyBird

            You looking for a date, freak?

    • Drakken

      Wrong again early, Quadafi and his army were very much in control of Libya, you seem to have a problem with islamist killing islamist and confuse the word innocent. Libya only fell after our idiots in office gave air support to the islamaniacs, and now we will have that problem to deal with, thanks to the leftist morons of Europe and Obozo.

      • EarlyBird

        No it wasn't, Drakken. Gadaffi's army was defecting in droves, and his air force pilots were also doing the same. His regime was falling apart. The only way to save it would be to have gone in and helped do his fighting for him – which surely you would have wanted.

        Further, a small fraction of the rebels were Islamists, and their numbers are still quite small.

        • Drakken

          It wasn't a small faction that were islamist,it was the major force behind it, again you have come to the wrong conclusions of evidence given,

          • EarlyBird

            Oh that's right, in your paranoid world, any Muslim is an Muslim extremist, not differentiation. Duh.

          • Drakken

            What your problem is, is that you think that there is a little democrat waiting to come out of his jihadist shell and democracy will bloom, laughably one of your more utterly wrong worldview misconceptions. That, and if we just leave the muslims alone, they will leave us alone wishful thinking isolationist nonsense.

          • EarlyBird

            I don't think the answer is waging global war against Islam, as you would prefer. I think there's a middle ground between hiding our heads in the sand, and attempting genocide.

          • defcon 4

            What's not "extreme" about islam again? Is it the rabid, dogmatic Jew hate? Or the ingrained hatred of the unbeliever? The trenchant misogyny?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Any Muslims with RPGs, IEDs, AK47s, Scuds, Kassams, issuing genocidal threats against Infidels and the wrong kind of Muslim are extremists.

    • imalert

      In my opinion the USA and UN should have kept out of it. The only problem in these arabic countries is islam. Get rid of that and the problem is gone.

    • defcon 4

      "Lybian lives" that don't include those not of the ummah eh Ahmed?

  • EarlyBird

    Further, it is totally disingenuous to characterize Lybia, as this article attempts, as being fully in the control of Islamists, or that some how Obama "lost Lybia." There is a pro-US government there that is pretty responsible and responsive to its people, and which rejects radical Islam. So do the vast majority of Lybians.

    And due to our actions there, we have a lot of influence with that new government. That's a pretty good deal.

    Just remember: Gadaffi's days were already numbered, any Islamists were already had the same ability to wage mayhem in that country, only we're in a better position with the Lybian government to fight them.

    • defcon 4

      So when your freedom loving islamofascists in Libya called Gadaffi Jewish, it was really a compliment?

    • kaz

      judging from your posts here alone, i would conclude you are woefully ignorant, and not ashamed to let everyone know. your posts in other sites, however, reveal that you are either a muslim, or a muslim panderer. i am not sure which is worse. both should be kicked out of free countries, and sent to live in some perfect islamic eden, like libya. or somolia.

      • EarlyBird

        What "other sites" do I post to, idiot?

        • defcon 4

          I'd guess Stormfront is one, but only because you can't stop writing about it.

  • ross1948

    In this context, we should not forget Obama's fawning over 'pluralist' Indonesia, the 'world's largest Muslim majority nation.'
    He is busily bullying Third World nations into his 'gay rights' obsession, yet won't lift a finger to help persecuted religious minorities, incuding Christians.
    His ambassador even scuttled out to Bekasi, West Java (where this week a pastor, threatened with murder by an islamist thug http://rossrightangle.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/we… has been charged with assault.) to chat with a fanatic mayor about 'tolerance.'http://rossrightangle.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/us-ambassador-meets-islamist-mayor-skips-intimidated-church/

  • Cathy

    Islam is divided into factions. Each faction fights among themselves in regards to the interpretation of the Koran … aspects of Sharia law . However … all faction have a meeting of the minds when it comes to driving every Jew into the sea and … hatred of Christians … hatred America. All factions have a meeting of the minds when it relates to a worldwide Islamic takeover agenda. Sending billion in aid to Islamic rebels is worst than flushing that aid down the toilet … it is furthering that agenda.

    • EarlyBird

      Wrong, Cathy.

      Those different factions, both religious and political, are all fighting for the direction of where their societies will go. It's a civil war within the religion.

      There are of course a small but virulent strain of radicals and terrorists. They must be destroyed. There is a large swath which is sympathetic to them. They need to be watched. But the large, large majority the world over wants a normal, healthy life.

      That means not living in Sharia terror state OR not living under the hegemony of the West. They don't want to be terrorized by their own religion or government, or spend endless centuries in constant violent conflict with outsiders, any more than you do.

      If we refuse to see the differences, and attempt to co-opt those decent Muslims where we can – we'll be in the very Clash of Civilizations that the terrorists want us to be in.

      • kasandra

        You obviously know very little about Islam. All factions of Islam divide the world into Dar al Harb (the abode of War) and Dar al Islam (the abode of Islam). All factions of Islam advocate jihad to bring all of Dar al Harb into Dar al Islam until the entire world is under Islam when all will be at peace. (Dar al Harb, by the way, includes all countries ruled by Moslems but which do not follow Shariya as well as all countries not ruled by Moslems.) Non-moslems under all factions of Islam must either convert, die, or pay the jizya tax to allow them to continue to live under Islam as second class citizens. Name me the faction of Islam that does not follow these precepts.

        • EarlyBird

          Oh please, stop with the standard "you don't know the 'real' Islam" crap. I've read so much of that "kill or be killed!" nonsense on this board. There is not an army of 1.5 billion unstoppable killer zombies infected with a virus that has drive them mad.

          First, check above and you'll see that I share with you the desire to destroy those actual Islamic terrorists.

          Secondly, look at the fact that the actual terrorists represent a tiny fraction of the world's Muslim population, who, though living a very, very different way of life than you or I want, are not hell bent on destroying infidels or exporting jihad. They want to be left alone.

          Why not let them, to the greatest degree possible, while not threatening our own security or way of life?

          • kasandra

            I said nothing about "kill or be killed." I do think, however, we should look reality square in the face and make our judgments and policies accordingly. As a result, I do not accept the fictionalized version of Islam that has been peddled to us since 2001. Instead I get my knowledge from Islamic sources and Western sources who know what they're talking about. And even ten percent of a billion people is still one heck of a lot of people.

          • EarlyBird

            Well, Islam is no more a "religion of peace," than Southern Baptists are about sex, drugs 'n' rock 'n' roll, I'll give you that. We agree it's a pretty miserable religion, even when practically moderately.

            Conversations on this board always lead me to ask the obvious: what should we be doing in the face of this global horde of jiahdists (besides crippling Iran's economy, continuing our underwriting of Israel's security, building the Iron Dome to protect Israel, killing AQ and Taliban in droves in the Hindu Kush, and Islamists Somalia, Yemen, and have very serious security apparatus in the US, etc.

            I've had people tell me on this board, seriously, that we need to "outlaw Islam" in the West, end all immigration of Muslims and throw out all Muslim immigrants; literally "nuke Mecca to send a message," bomb, invade, occupy and "Christianize" Iran, and generally wage unrestrained global war against ALL Muslims.

            That's what the hysteria on this board gets you.

          • kasandra

            I'll tell you what at least I think we should do and that is stop doing what we are doing now. I would brief the American people on the fundamental tenants of Islam and explain to them that, while not all who consider themselves adherents to Islam practice these, that many do and that is why we have to be vigilant. I would stop military aid to any country ruled by the Moslem Brotherhood or other Islamist party. I would limit immigration as I see no reason in allow into our country large numbers of people who, according to every poll I've ever seen, hate us and want to replace our system with sharia. I would stop the political correctness that is disarming us to the point of not even teaching FBI agents or our military the fundamental tenants of Islam. I would deport any foreign national imam that uses his mosque or other organization to preach jihad. I would not allow consideration of sharia in any court in the U.S. or allow the establishment of sharia courts except for purely internal Islamic matters. There's probably other things I could come up with but I do think we should protect ourselves from those who wish us will. That's what I'd do for starters anyway.

          • EarlyBird

            Very reasonable, Kasandra. I appreciate that.

          • defcon 4

            If most muslimes are "good" people and most muslimes reside in muslime states, then how do you explain the fact that all muslime states are run by, and for muslimes? How do you explain the SOP of muslime states in persecuting people of other faiths?

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Give 'm Dar al Nakba – in triplicate.

          How about everyone one of those jihadi pigs burn an American flag, we burn a Black jihadi flag?

      • Drakken

        The only one wrong here is you, it is obvious you know jack about islam and what is happening in the me and north Africa. There is no such thing as a virulent strain of islam you ignoramus, there is only islam period. There will never be a western style democray in any muslim nation, democracy is only a means to a islamic sharia run state, and it is happening before our very eyes, and you seem to think that we can make nice with these savages, you cannot be more dead wrong if you tried.

      • defcon 4

        When you say "wrong" I'm inclined to think Cathy's point are, in fact, correct. It's funny that supposedly "moderate" Indonesia and Turkey are, and weren't, really "moderate" at all. Sharia is "terror", at least for women and non-muslims.

    • imalert

      The sane world needs to wake up and see that islam is the problem. Eliminate it, problem gone.( I refuse to even give respect to the word islam by giving it a capital)

      • EarlyBird

        How do we go about eliminating Islam, pray tell?

        • defcon 4

          The same way islam is going about eliminating all other faiths from the confines of each and every one of your islamofascist pigsties Ahmed?

  • Cathy

    EarlyBird

    Where are the collective voices of "moderate" Muslims who allegedly do not call for Jews to be wiped off map … who allegedly do not call for the destruction of America … who allegedly do not advocate worldwide Islamic takeover …?

    The silence of the ellusive "moderate" muslims was deafening following 9/11 … deafening while citizens of Islamic regimes were dancing in the streets while handing out sweets.

    The silence of the elusive "moderate" muslims in regards to all Islamic terror incidences speaks volumns.

    Don't forget there is only one Koran and one Mohammad. Both speak very clearly to the the following Islam regard the issues encompassing the Jew and all who do not adhere.

    • kasandra

      While individual Moslems may accept all of the principles of Islam or not, what you say about Islamic doctrine is absolutely correct. Thus, while many individual Saudi's may come to the West and imbibe, even though alcohol is forbidden to Moslems, and some Moslems may have Jewish friends (which they are also not supposed to have) the precepts of all factions of Islam qua Islam are as I outlined above in response to Early Bird and those precepts, shall we say, do not include putting bumper stickers on their cars saying "C*O*E*X*I*S*T.

      • Drakken

        Well put Kassandra and Cathy.

    • EarlyBird

      There were some celebrations, especially among Palestinians, after 9/11. But there were far, far more outpourings of genuine human sympathy and shock among Muslims than not. Do you know that even Yasser Arafat, Ayatollah Khameni of Iran, and Assad of Syria condemned the attacks?

      It is the fundamentalist interpreters of Islam who are the enemy, not Islam. Like the Koran there are many blood curdling passages in the Bible. At times Christians acted on those things, but we've grown up as a religion, but there is a fight still between fundamentalist (radical) and moderate interpretions of the Scripture.

      If we base our ideas of whole societies on their religious texts, we're all up a creek.

      I don't for an instance deny that radical Islam is, however, on a bloody rampage throughout the world. That's different than considering all 1.5 billion Muslims our enemies or potential enemies.

      • Drakken

        Again your wrong! At least your consistant, Arafat and khomeini said one thing to the western press and then something else in complete contridiction to their own people.

        You give christian/jews moral equivilancy to islam when there is none, next time you see a christian or jew strap on a bomb and blow themselves up, let me know, and no christian or jew is following the bible to oppress and eliminate people like islam is either.

        Islam is our enemy and has been since mohamed crawled out of the desert and screwed his first 9 year old, and it will always be untill it is eliminated period. The koran, hadiths,siras are as they are written and not misinterpted as you say.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          I don't see Jews or Hindus or Buddhists hijacking planes and flying them into buildings.

          It is up to the majority of Good Muslims to eliminate the fascist Islamist elements in their societies. But as long as Islamic Republics like Iran continue to issue genocidal threats and LIE, that's called Taqiyya, that their nuclear programs, buried deep underground are not making nuclear bombs, the reputation and credibility of Islam is worthless.

          • EarlyBird

            So glad that you could at least acknowledge that there is such a thing as a "good Muslim." We are good or bad or otherwise based on our actions, primarily, not the religion we choose.

        • EarlyBird

          No moral equivalence at all. Judeo-Christian values are far superior to those of Islam. As for judging people, I judge actions, not the religion that someone was accidentally born into. I'll take a quiet, polite, conservative Muslim man as a neighbor any day over a drug addled, hard partying loud mouth who happens to consider himself a Christian.

          • defcon 4

            The move back to whatever jihadistan you crawled out of.

      • Ghostwriter

        Right,EarlyBird. We're just supposed to ignore our lying eyes because THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THE MUSLIM WORLD CELEBRATED THE MASS MURDER OF THREE THOUSAND INNOCENT AMERICANS FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN THAT THEY WERE AMERICANS!!!!!!!! And,that includes your beloved Palestinians who scream for American and Israeli blood every chance they get.

  • Aki

    The worst case of moving the goal posts and coat turning I have ever seen. Every, I do mean EVERY "conservative" forum was full of celebration and dance on the grave when Gaddafi was killed. Before that it was the leftists who opposed the Libya operation. They were obviously just wrong and doing it just out of spite and malice and hatred for freedom. And they were proved wrong… or were they?

    It was a good thing then. Now suddenly its bad and Obamas fault? Even as it was a French idea. Enthusiastically supported by the o so free and democratic GCC.

    Makes me wonder.

    *Just in case: Im a anti-muslim nationalist myself.*

    • EarlyBird

      Listen, on this foolish website, anything Obama does is bad, period.

  • Cathy

    Many in the free world do not get it. In-fighting among the differing factions of Islam regarding the doctrines of the Koran … aspects of Sharia law … is a given but … muslims are one … INCLUDING SMAIRA IBRAHIM … when it comes to the hatred of Israel, America and ALL non-muslims who refuse to appease.

    When billions of dollars in American aid is afforded to “Islamic rebels” who are protesting injustices by their leaders … the way is being paved for another faction of Islam that advocates wiping Israel and America off the face of the map.

    • Cathy

      SMAIRA IBRAHIM

      Bill O’Reilly: A very disturbing situation involving John Kerry and Michelle Obama
      Published March 07, 2013

      Now there’s no question Miss Ibrahim has shown bravery but she’s also shown something else. Anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism. At the attack in Bulgaria last summer that killed five Jews Miss Ibrahim tweeted “Today is a very sweet day with a lot of sweet news.” Last August she quoted Adolf Hitler. “No act contrary to morality, no crime against society, takes place except with the Jews having a hand in it.” And when a mob attacked the U.S. Embassy in Cairo last September 11th Miss Ibrahim tweeted “Today is the anniversary of 9/11, may every year come with America burning.”

      Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/2013/03/08/

  • Cathy

    SMAIRA IBRAHIM

    Samira Ibrahim acknowledges ‘anti-Zionist’ tweet
    March 8, 2013

    WASHINGTON (JTA) — After claiming her Twitter account was hacked, an Egyptian human rights activist appeared to acknowledge at least some of the anti-Jewish tweets that led the Obama administration to delay honoring her with an award. ….
    Ibrahim tweeted on Wednesday, the same day the Standard story appeared, that her Twitter account had been hacked multiple times and that any expressions of racism and hatred were not hers. SHE DID NOT EXPLAIN WHY SHE NEVER REMOVED THE INFLAMMATORY TWEETS.
    http://www.jta.org/news/article/2013/03/08/312152

  • Donald DaCosta

    While Obama's handling of the problems in the Middle East are confusing at best and reprehensible at worst, and I am no friend of sir Obama, the problems in this region have been festering for decades, some might even say centuries. Obama's election and re-election demonstrate the degree of ignorance by the majority of Americans, average citizens, journalists, politicians, academics, etc. who remain entrenched in or entranced by the totally false notion that Islam is a religion of peace. Non Muslims, the so called “unbelievers,” in the Middle East, suffer with it, know better and must be outraged, frustrated and dismayed that the West remains essentially silent. Israeli's are also keenly aware of the evil that lurks right on their borders though they are far more capable of defending themselves against the continuously inflicted violence despite the ensuing condemnation from their supposed allies including the U.S. The West remains blind and incapable of mounting an effective defense against an enemy it does not recognize or refuses to acknowledge as it struggles to domesticate a rattle snake. This situation will get worse until it becomes increasingly painful in the West's backyard: our backyard. The memory of the atrocity of 9/11 continues to grow increasingly irrelevant; more so on Obama's watch.

    • Drakken

      Imagine the surprised look in all of their faces as this blows up in our faces, make no mistake, there will be war and there will be blood.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Donald DaCosta AKBAR!

  • Cathy

    There are scriptures within the Koran that str open to interpretation among Muslims. There are statutes of Sharia law that are open to dispute among Muslims. These differences have resulted in the factions that exist among the followers of Islam.

    However … there are scriptures within the Koran that require no interpretation. These scriptures speak for themselves. The implication is that ALL factions of Islam are one in regards to these scriptures … scriptures that apply to Jews, Christians and non-believers.

    Qur’an 5:51—O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other.

    Qur’an 9:29—Fight those who believe not in Allah . . .

    Qur’an 9:73—O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them.

    • defcon 4

      The hadith are considerably worse in their prescribed treatment of Jews and kufrs.

    • defcon 4

      "Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world. And all of us against the infidel. — Leon Uris, "The Haj"

      • Cathy

        Thanks for the quote defcon. If it is alright with you I will claim it for future postings. It says it all. Why do the leaders of the appeasing PC free world get it?

        • defcon 4

          It's not my quote. It's by Leon Uris, famous US novelist (he wrote Exodus) and USMC combat veteran of WW2.

  • Cathy

    The FP article reveals the "New Libya" and the "New Egypt" which emerged with billions of aid from America … the "New Libya" and that "New Egypt" that persecutes Jews and Christian without condemnation from the Obama administration.

  • kasandra

    What Drakken said. Only about twelve percent of residents of the USSR were party members. What percent of Germans in 1939 were Nazi party members. That isn't the issue.

  • geneww1938

    Want to understand why Libya was attacked. "Search Libya Man Made River" which was to bring Africa's most pristine water from over 30 sources via 2000 miles of 40 foot diameter pipe to feed the Libyans and irrigate the Fertile Crescent to supply food to Europe and North Africa. Libya had no IMF debt, had a positive balance of trade and did not like the New World Order [via UN and World Bank ]. Result … pipeline was bombed and demolished beyond repair.
    You can not run the world when you have non-dependent leaders or Biblical Judeo-Christians. That is why so much genocide is ignored. Kill a follower of Satan, and every Mosque is rebelling.

    • defcon 4

      This is analogous to what the Gazan islamofascists did to the beautiful greenhouses Israelis had built (at great expense) and handed over to them. They destroyed them, utterly.

  • LindaRivera

    Libya’s Gaddafi was fighting AGAINST AL-QAEDA. US, France and NATO united with Al-Qaeda and other barbaric terrorists and waged war for many months to defeat Libya and Gaddafi and place excessively cruel Muslim terrorists into power.

    The US/NATO war enabled and empowered the ANTI-Gaddafi Muslims to perpetrate horrific atrocities and genocide of blacks in Libya. Blacks were safe under Gaddafi. Obama, Clinton and our supposedly civilized Western leaders were silent about the atrocities and genocide. SILENCE IS CONSENT. US/NATO created hell on earth in Libya.

    The West must stop empowering barbaric Muslims and stop supporting global jihad!
    The West must stop waging wars for totalitarian Islam!

    Our world and civilization is being destroyed by Western leaders!

    • defcon 4

      Let's not forget Gaddafi's Libya was complicit in the Lockerbie, Scotland airliner bombing that killed hundreds of people.

      • Cathy

        … and let's not forget the actions of appeasing Scotland. Compassionate grounds!! What a betrayal to 107 passengers who were victims of Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi!!

        Pan Am Flight 103

        In 2009, despite strenuous American opposition, the Scottish government ordered the release of the bombing planner, Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, on compassionate grounds and permitted him to return home after serving 8 years of his 27-year minimum sentence for murdering 270 people.
        http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopi

        • defcon 4

          It's too bad there aren't more women like you and Linda. Most of the women I meet are hollow headed lieberals.

  • Ghostwriter

    I have memories of Gaddafi and they're not fond ones. I tend to remember the bombing of a Berlin disco that he committed,that in return brought retaliation from the United States for that. I also remember that he blew Pan Am Flight 103 out of the sky. I even remember reading in a book somewhere where he sent agents to kill Libyans who refused to heed his command to return home. Many of them were in Europe but I did hear of the killing of a Libyan man in this country for a similar reason. Gaddafi was a terrorist and a monster. I'm glad he's gone. Sadly,the world couldn't find anyone better to run that country than the people who are now running that place.