Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stood up to the enemy in Iraq, where he made an enviable combat record. But at the Pentagon, he appears to have fallen, not on his sword, but on a paperclip, attached to a point of religious doctrine.
When, 18 months ago, apologists for Islamic radicals complained that an instructor at the National Defense University, the military war college, was guilty of the sin of showing insufficient deference to radical Islam, the general first humiliated him, then cashiered him, to appease Muslim critics, some of them radical and no friends of the United States. Now the instructor has been rejected for battalion command and his promising Army career is effectively over.
Army Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley (a good Irish Catholic name), decorated for valor in Iraq, was an instruction leader at the Joint Forces Staff College in Washington, lecturing on the dangers of radical Islam, when he invited an authority on Islamic extremists to talk to his students about how the extremists operate. You might think that “knowing the enemy” is a good thing in senior Army officers. One passage in the materials used by a guest lecturer, former FBI agent John Guandolo, particularly enraged the critics:
“If Islam is so violent, why are there so many peaceful Muslims? This is similar to asking why there are so many Christians who are arrogant, angry and vindictive, if Christian doctrine requires humility, tolerance and forgiveness.” There were no protests from Christians, or Christian organizations. But one participant in the course complained to the Pentagon, and the witch hunt, led by the thoroughly frightened Gen. Dempsey, began.
Paperclip generals, more politician than warrior, naturally take their cues from the White House, and it’s reasonable to assume that the pressure from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue was the prevailing pressure, intense and effective. President Obama bows low in the presence of Muslims, as we all know, and ordered effective cleansing of all references to Islamic terrorists. John Brennan, the hero of Benghazi and the new director of the CIA, insists there is no such thing as an “Islamic extremist.” The al Qaeda terrorists who blew up the World Trade Center had nothing to do with Islam, they were just terrorists trying to make a dishonest living. The Muslim major who shouted the Islamic battle cry, “Allahu Akbar” (“God is great!”) as he killed 13 and wounded 30 at Fort Hood, Texas, was guilty only of “workplace violence,” not “terrorism.” If he’s convicted of murder by court martial, he can apply for workmen’s compensation (and call John Brennan and Gen. Dempsey as supporting witnesses). Paperclip generals have sharp antennae and know who punches their tickets.
They know how to cover the part of their anatomy that most needs covering, too. Gen. Dempsey landed hard on Col. Dooley at a press conference, speaking as an academic and maybe even a theologian: “It’s totally objectionable,” he said of the colonel’s course work. “It was just totally objectionable, against our values, and it wasn’t academically sound. This wasn’t about, we’re pushing back on liberal thought. This was just objectionable, academically irresponsible.”
Such an emotional response was not quite what’s expected of a four-star general. A week later another general, only a two-star, was dispatched to blame the colonel for “institutional failure.” Gen. Dempsey’s spokesman, a Marine colonel, insisted his boss’ public denunciation of the “individual” had not poisoned the investigation. “[Col.] Dooley’s name is never even mentioned,” he told The Washington Times.
We can’t expect paperclip generals to show the fighting spirit of Stonewall Jackson or U.S. Grant, Blackjack Pershing or George S. Patton. They were men of their times and we’re stuck with our own times, and the men who populate the times. But the craven deference to the Islamic lobby, which often makes no distinctions between the millions of good Muslims and the bad Muslims, is a recipe for catastrophe.
The West in general and America in particular has shown remarkable patience and forbearance to the Muslims in our midst, according them, as we should, respect and a welcome into what we once called “the melting pot.” But somebody ought to instruct the paperclip generals that there’s an enemy out there in the dark, and it’s important to know who he is.
Now that the Boston bombers turned out not to be white, Tea Party or militia nuts, the news media twits are trying themselves in knots trying to be reasonable.
Powerline has a great post on the subject. Here’s a taste:
This piece in The Atlantic is a good exemplar of the mushy liberal commentary that has proliferated in recent days. Authored by one Megan Garber, it is titled: “The Boston Bombers Were Muslim: So?” Before taking a close look at Ms. Garber’s article, let’s advise The Atlantic not to put away that headline. It could come in handy so often. “The Cole Bombers Were Muslim: So?” “The Embassy Bombers Were Muslim: So?” “The First World Trade Center Bombers Were Muslim: So?” “The September 11 Bombers Were Muslim: So?” “The Madrid Bombers Were Muslim: So?” “The London Bombers Were Muslim: So?” “The Shoebomber Was Muslim: So?” The Underwear Bomber Was Muslim: So?” “The Fort Hood Shooter Was Muslim: So?” “The Beslan Child-Murderers Were Muslim: So?” “The Times Square Bomber Was Muslim: So?”
Rule #1: If, say, a cell of some ideologically motivated, foreign-trained jihadists launch a deadly attack and kill some innocent kids as part of a long-running global conspiracy, the best response is for us to simply go about our business as if nothing happened — if we change our laws or way of life, they win! The less we know about these terrorists, the better. Above all, we MUST NOT PROFILE over what must surely be just a few bad apples.
Rule #2: If, say, a lone, insane, suicidal nutcase shoots up a school, breaking dozens of existing laws in the process, the best response is to call for sweeping national cultural changes, dig deeply to discover the root causes for the acts of a madman, and above all, scapegoat millions of law-abiding gun-owners through punitive new regulations with no other purpose than to simply PUNISH them for their COLLECTIVE GUILT.
Yesterday, someone on the radio said he hoped there would be no repeat of the rash of anti-Muslim hate crimes after 9/11.
Was there such a rash or is it just an urban myth?
Looking at the FBI stats for hate crimes in 2002, a year I chose because 2001 was three-quarters over when the Twin Towers were destroyed.
- A review of the 7,459 single-bias hate crime incidents showed that 48.8 percent were racially motivated, 19.1 percent were based on a bias against a religious group, 16.7 percent were motivated by a bias against a sexual orientation, 14.8 percent resulted from an ethnicity/national origin bias, and 0.6 percent were based on a disability bias.
- Eleven of the hate crime victims in 2002 were murdered. Four of these murders were associated with a racial bias, four with a sexual-orientation bias, two with an ethnicity/national origin bias, and one with a religious bias.
- A breakdown of the data regarding victims in single-bias incidents [I guess that means only one bias, which would exclude beatings of black gay men, for example] revealed that 49.7 percent were victims of racial bias, 18.0 percent were victims of religious bias, 16.4 percent were victims of sexual-orientation bias, 15.3 percent were victims of ethnicity/national origin bias, and less than 1 percent were victims of disability bias.
Let’s jump ahead to 2011 stats: of the 1,480 victims of an anti-religious hate crime:
- 63.2 percent were victims of an offender’s anti-Jewish bias.
- 12.5 percent were victims of an anti-Islamic bias.
- 5.7 percent were victims of an anti-Catholic bias.
- 4.4 percent were victims of a bias against groups of individuals of varying religions (anti-multiple religions, group).
- 3.4 percent were victims of an anti-Protestant bias.
- 0.3 percent were victims of an anti-Atheist/Agnostic bias.
- 10.5 percent were victims of a bias against other religions (anti-other religion).
Do you remember how George W. Bush had soiled our national reputation. Why Frenchmen on the street had bad things to say about America. Imagine that.
But Obama was going to restore the world’s love for us, starting with Muslims. He took that showy trip to Egypt to prove how much the new boss was different from the old boss.
After four years of Barack Obama’s diplomatic ‘leadership’ and billions of dollars in attempted friendship aid, a new public opinion poll reveals that 92% of Pakistanis now disapprove of the United States.
The results could have been worse. Not much. But a little. Fully four Pakistanis out of 100 do approve of the United States, President Obama and his policies. They, however, seem to keep kind of quiet about their views in that rowdy land. That’s the lowest favorable rating Pakistan’s citizens have ever given their ostensible North American ally.
Whatever happened to ignorance of the law is no excuse? Whatever happened to England?
A Muslim who raped a 13-year-old girl he groomed on Facebook has been spared a prison sentence after a judge heard he went to an Islamic faith school where he was taught that women are worthless.
Adil Rashid, 18, claimed he was not aware that it was illegal for him to have sex with the girl because his education left him ignorant of British law.
Yesterday Judge Michael Stokes handed Rashid a suspended sentence, saying: ‘Although chronologically 18, it is quite clear from the reports that you are very naive and immature when it comes to sexual matters.’
Earlier Nottingham Crown Court heard that such crimes usually result in a four to seven-year prison sentence.
But the judge said that because Rashid was ‘passive’ and ‘lacking assertiveness’, sending him to jail might cause him ‘more damage than good’.
…The U.S. Army is soon to issue a handbook instructing soldiers to copy Mr. Obama’s example of when and how to defer to an alien ideology that stands against everything Americans are taught, whether by faith, ethics, morals or another code of good conduct.
The new manual, which runs to 75 pages, orders American military personnel to refrain from saying anything to offend the Taliban in Afghanistan, to be careful not to criticize the practice of sexual relations with children, the abuse of women, beheadings, massacres of girls and the killing of “unbelievers” and Muslims who Taliban enforcers regard as insufficiently devout in the faith. Holding to what they have been taught, whether at Sunday school or a mother’s knee, is presumably OK for American soldiers, at least for now. But they must keep such ideas to themselves.
The manual, issued in the name of the U.S. Government, obviously at the command of the commander in chief, suggests that Western ignorance and arrogance and not the Taliban are responsible for the surge in deadly attacks by Afghan soldiers against the soldiers of the allied coalition.
U.S. troops should prepare for “psychologically challenging conditions” in Afghanistan, and be prepared for “stressors” that some American soldiers have remarked from previous deployments, such as finding Afghan security forces “profoundly dishonest and [having] no personal integrity,” and “gutless in combat,” and “ignorant and basically stupid.”
The manual’s bottom line, as first reported by the Wall Street Journal, is that “troops may experience social-cultural shock and/or discomfort when interacting with [the Afghans]. Better situational awareness/understanding of Afghan culture will help better prepare [coalition] forces to effectively partner and to avoid cultural conflict that can lead towards . . . violence.”
The Army, citing “etiquette,” specifically orders soldiers to avoid “conversation topics” such as “anything related to Islam, mention of (more…)
When President Obama, in his dronefest at the UN the other week, said that the future, on the one hand, will belong to those who empower women, but, on the other, must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam, he failed to foresee any potential contradictions between these goals. We Canadians are naturally miles ahead of you guys in this respect, so, in a current if near parodic Ontario “Human Rights” Commission case, a lesbian is suing a Muslim barber for refusing her custom.
A year or two back, I was proud to play a small role in clobbering Canada’s “human rights” racket, giving them the worst press in their history, and eventually getting a disgusting law repealed. But, as the great George Jonas writes in an excellent column, the bloodsucking vampires are once again stirring in their coffins. The current rationale is that, in a multicultural society, you need an all-powerful state to mediate the interests of competing identity groups. Get lost, creeps. There’s a word for that kind of state, and it’s nothing to do with human rights.
…Morsi’s decree exempting all his decisions from legal challenge until a new parliament was elected caused fury amongst his opponents on Friday who accused him of being the new Hosni Mubarak and hijacking the revolution.
Morsi’s aides said the decree was to speed up a protracted transition that has been hindered by legal obstacles but Morsi’s rivals were quick to condemn him as a new autocratic pharaoh who wanted to impose his Islamist vision on Egypt.
“Morsi a ‘temporary’ dictator,” was the headline in the independent daily Al-Masry Al-Youm and hundreds of protesters in Tahrir Square, the heart of the 2011 anti-Mubarak uprising, demanded Morsi quit, accusing him of launching a “coup”.
Buoyed by accolades from around the world for mediating a truce between Hamas and Israel, Morsi on Thursday ordered that an Islamist-dominated assembly writing the new constitution could not be dissolved by legal challenges.
Gawd, accolades for that? Just wait…
Hundreds of angry Muslims in southeast Bangladesh torched at least 10 Buddhist temples and dozens of homes Sunday after alleging that a Buddhist man insulted Islam on his Facebook page, authorities said.
The protest gained momentum late Saturday in the area of Cox’s Bazar about 200 miles from the capital of Dhaka when Muslims, claiming that a Facebook page showed a burned copy of the Koran, headed to several Buddhist villages in the area.
Although there have been periodic clashes between the majority Muslim population and Hindus, tension is relatively rare with Buddhists, who make up less than 1% of Bangladesh’s 150 million people.
Lesson for appeasers of Islamic radicals: nothing will make them happy, and any trifle can boil their blood and incite them to violence.
Someone needs to invent “de-sensitivity” training.
And it may be the provocation came from a sect of Islam:
Rohingya Muslims from Burma have been blamed for a wave of religious violence that swept through Bangladesh’s Cox’s Bazar over the weekend.
More than a dozen Buddhist temples and 45 houses were set ablaze after hundreds of Muslim protesters ran riot in country’s southeast on Saturday night in apparent retaliation for a picture of a burned Quran holy text that appeared on the Facebook social networking website.
The protests originated in Ramu, also called Panowa, where rioters burned nine temples, with the violence later spreading to Cekmet, Okkyia, Ukkyia and Pottyia where another five temples and more than 40 houses were destroyed, according to local sources.
Local people, politicians and law enforcement officers have blamed Rohingya agitators from over the border with Burma for the violence, according to a report in The Daily Star. Ramu Upazila Chairman Sohel Sarwar told the Dhaka-based newspaper that Muslim insurgents from Burma may have instigated the violence.
A pagoda over 250 years old was burned down in Panowa while six temples in Okkyia and one in Pottiya were also torched.
Let’s not forget what the Taliban did in Bamiyan.
Muslim Leaders to Obama: No, We Still Refuse to Accept Freedom of Expression, Blasphemy
This isn’t surprising, just worth keeping an eye on:
Insults to the Islamic prophet Muhammad are part of an organized assault on Muslim religious and cultural values and cannot be brushed aside, Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi said Wednesday, rejecting the case for free speech made by President Obama just a day earlier.
“The obscenities that I have referred to that were recently released as part of an organized campaign against Islamic sanctities are unacceptable,” Morsi said, referring to a crude Internet video that mocks Islam called “Innocence of Muslims.”
“We reject this. We cannot accept it,” Morsi said, his voice thin with anger. “We will not allow anyone to do this by word or deed.”
In an address before the U.N. General Assembly that marked his debut as an international statesman, Egypt’s first democratically elected president presented an unapologetically Islamic view of world events and Egypt’s role in them. He said outrage over insults to Islam does not justify violence but said nothing directly about the attack two weeks ago on the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.
Four years ago, Obama came into the Oval Office convinced that a respectful tone and an outstretched hand, coupled with his unique experience of living as a child in a Muslim country and past personal and familial connections to the Muslim world, would generate breakthroughs in the U.S. relationship with the Muslim world.
Obviously, those breakthroughs haven’t happened and from the continuous violence targeted at our diplomatic staff, it’s easy to conclude things are worse. Obama seems to think that if we just do “X,” it will lower the temperature in the pervasive anti-American rage in the region. But the issue is never “X”; the goalposts always move. Osama bin Laden first complained about the insult of U.S. troops on Saudi soil; those troops left, and OBL didn’t change his tune one bit. Then we were told that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a provocation. Those troops left, and the Islamists are still raging. Now we’re told it’s some YouTube video. It’s always going to be something — some cartoon, some rumor of a burned Koran, some U.S. presence somewhere that offends and enrages them.
The fact that Obama was wrong then is bad enough; the fact that he’s still trying the same approach, four years later, suggests desperation, lack of inspiration, or denial. Then again, with Obama, “there is no Plan B” is a phrase we hear again and again.
As if by divine intervention, the revoltingly sacrilegious “Piss Christ” portrait will be going on display this Thursday at a ritzy Manhattan gallery right around the corner from the annual gathering of the United Nations General Assembly. For those who don’t know, this particular instance of free speech consists of a photograph taken of a crucifix floating in the artist’s urine. It caused a stir in the late 1980s and 1990s because the artist (Andres Serrano) had been subsidized by NEA and other public grants. Of course, Democrats staunchly defended both the work and the funding, and Serrano is a star among Manhattan’s elite liberal socialites.
Coming so soon on the heels of Obama’s condemnations of the Mohammed spoof trailer, Representative Michael Grimm (R., N.Y.) is calling on President Obama to condemn the Piss Christ exhibit.
That’s wrong. First of all, the president shouldn’t be condemning any work of art. But if you really want him to condemn the Piss Christ, this is what you have to do: Find an enterprising young artist willing to create a “Piss Mohammed” version of Serrano’s work, and ask the museum to hang it right next to the Piss Christ. It could be part of a “Piss Religion” exhibit. If the gallery declines (as it surely would), then perhaps one could gather together a small group of Manhattan atheists to march “piss portraits” of Mohammed and his fellow deities / prophets right up 1st Avenue past the United Nations, in homage to the First Amendment.
Every last person who complains will have to explain why they said nothing during the 20-plus years that the revolting Piss Christ has been touring art galleries around the world. They will be forced either to treat Islam and Christianity the same (i.e., stop trashing the latter) or finally admit the cowardly truth, which is that their degree of respect for any given religion is proportional to its proponents’s propensity for violence.
Comically bad. Worse than Plan 9 from Outer Space, which was made prior to digital technology.
Here’s a frame grab:
As you can see, the “actors” were shot against a green screen and composited over a shot of the desert. No effort was made to blend them into the scene — they appear to be floating above the sand. It’s even worse in motion, as the sand doesn’t move. And the light doesn’t match.
8 protesters dead, 2 police dead, 30 injured, 6 cinemas torched, 2 banks set alight, 1 KFC in flames, 5 police vehicles burned
That’s the rundown from the Al Jazeera blog about the riots/demonstrations in Pakistan.
Somehow the KFC mention made me chuckle.
No doubt, the prophet is proud of what’s being done in his name.
Several Muslim parties and a Christian group held rallies on Sunday to protest against a movie released in America.
Lahore, Pakistan: Around 10,000 people participated in the main rally organised on The Mall by the Tehreek Hurmat-i-Rasool (THR). The participants marched from Nila Gumbad to Masjid-i-Shuhada on The Mall. Despite a ban on rallies on The Mall, the road remained blocked for vehicular traffic from noon to 6pm.
The rally was addressed by Jamatud Dawa chief Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, THR head Ameer Hamza, JD leader Hafiz Abdul Rehman Makki, Pakistan Muslim League (Zia) head Ijazul Haq, Jamaat Ulema Islam-Sami (JUI-S) leader Asim Makhdoom and Jamaat Ahle Hadith ameer Hafiz Abdul Ghaffar Ropari.
One of the participants of the rally, Abdullah Ismail, passed away after he was taken to Mayo Hospital. Witnesses said he had complained of feeling unwell from the smoke from US flags burnt at the rally.
Hafiz Saeed alleged that the film, Innocence of Muslims, had been produced with the backing of US establishment. He said the director, the producer and all those involved in the production and release of the movie must be hanged publicly. “The US must make a law against blasphemy – or we will not let the US consulates in Pakistan function,” he said…
And whose loss would that be?
In 2005 a massive earthquake ravaged Pakistan. The USA stepped up with oodles of aid. Condi Rice paid a visit to Islamabad:
“The devastation is quite extraordinary,” Rice said, adding that the initial $50 million in U.S. aid will be followed by more assistance in the coming months. “The international community will have to be mobilized to help with ongoing rescue efforts, as well as the long-term recovery and reconstruction.”
The model for using a humanitarian disaster to leverage public opinion is the Indian Ocean tsunami relief effort earlier this year. Though the administration was criticized for an initially slow response to that disaster — which killed more than 200,000 people — the U.S. government has now committed nearly $1 billion, with private donations topping that.
Polling has indicated that the U.S. tsunami effort — which included sending a fleet of ships and providing round-the-clock helicopter rescues — has paid dividends to the United States’ image in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim country.
A survey of 1,200 Indonesians one month after the tsunami, sponsored by Terror Free Tomorrow and conducted by a leading Indonesian pollster, found that, for the first time, more Indonesians (40 percent) supported the U.S. terrorism fight than opposed it (36 percent). Sixty-five percent of those surveyed had a more favorable impression of the United States, with support strongest among those younger than 30, while support for Osama bin Laden dropped from 58 percent before the tsunami to 23 percent. Terror Free Tomorrow is a nonpartisan group that studies popular support for global terrorism.
Husain Haqqani, director of the Center for International Relations at Boston University and an adviser to Terror Free Tomorrow, said the experience in Indonesia could easily be replicated in Pakistan. Haqqani, a former adviser to several Pakistani political leaders, said that anti-American Islamic groups have begun to realize this and have opposed the U.S. aid because “this may take the wind out of their sails.”
Short memories prevail.
From the website of the Muslim Brotherhood. The FJP is their political party.
The Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) expresses strong condemnation of the film produced and promoted by US Coptic Christian individuals, which deals serious insults to the Prophet Mohammed.
The party considers the film a racist crime and a failed attempt to provoke sectarian strife between the two elements of the nation: Muslims and Christians.
The LA Times writes about Zakaria Botros Henein, whose ideas are expressed in the anti-Islamic movie:
…For decades, the priest has been among the most galvanizing and high-profile figures in the Muslim world. Jailed several times in his native Egypt for trying to convert Muslims to Christianity, he was exiled by Hosni Mubarak’s government in the early 1990s in exchange for an early release.
Jailing people for religious expression is a sure way to “provoke sectarian strife.”
This from the Muslim Brotherhood website in Cairo, dated September 13, 2012 AD:
One and a half billion Muslims are subjected to humiliation and abuse in the person of their leader, Mohammed, the Messenger of God, the Prophet of Islam, of mercy and good tidings for the whole world.
With the message of God, Islam, Prophet Mohammed pulled peoples out of the abyss of backwardness and barbarism to the heights of sophistication and honorable humanity.
The ready blood-letting practiced by some Muslims makes one wonder how far from the abyss of backwardness they’ve been pulled.
He lit the pathways of progress and human thought for all mankind, with pure faith in the one God, belief in all Messengers without distinction or discrimination, full respect and reverence for all Prophets.
The Messenger of God gave the world Islam, which guarantees all people freedoms of belief and worship as well as respect and protection for places of worship, freedom of opinion and expression, human equality and public justice, dignity and solidarity and cooperation among all human beings.
He gave us Islam, which recognized human rights even before anyone in the whole world knew what human rights were. Islam even recognized the sanctity of a human’s blood, honor and money, which must not be violated.
The right to be stoned to death for being accused of adultery?
The repeated abuse of the Messenger of God indicate the presence of hatred and bigotry in those who stand behind it, with ignorance, connivance and indulgence in those who permit such persistent abuse.Thus hurting the feelings of one and a half billion Muslims cannot be tolerated, and the people’s anger and fury for their Faith is invariably predictable, often unstoppable.
Words can sting, but they never maim or kill.
We denounce abuse of all Messengers of God, Prophets and Apostles, and condemn this heinous crime. We further call for criminalization of assaults on the sanctities of all heavenly religions.
Otherwise, such acts will continue to cause devout Muslims across the world to suspect and even loathe the West, especially the USA, for allowing their citizens to violate the sanctity of what they hold dear and holy. Hence, we demand that all those involved in such crimes be urgently brought to trial.Certainly, such attacks against sanctities do not fall under the freedom of opinion or thought. They are crimes and assaults against Muslim sanctities, and must not be tolerated by the countries where they are produced or launched, since they are also detrimental to the interests of those countries in dealings with the peoples of the Muslim world.The West has passed and imposed laws that punish those who deny or express dissident views on the Holocaust or question the number of Jews killed by Hitler, a topic which is purely historical, not a sacred doctrine.
The peoples and governments of the Muslim world have every right to condemn, with all peaceful and legal means, this new violation and heinous attack, and to take appropriate action to deter repeats of such acts of barbaric aggression.
While we reject and condemn the bloodshed and violent response to that abuse and the incredible tolerance certain countries show towards it, we cannot ignore the fact that these countries never made a move regarding the abuse until after the strong reaction seen across the Muslim world.We believe those countries should take appropriate actions and lay out clear and proper procedures to deal with such crimes, especially since preparations for this abuse took place plainly, right under the noses of authorities in those countries – over several months. Prevention is always better than cure.
Finally, we call upon all Muslims to uphold and apply Quranic principles and emulate the Messenger of Allah. That is the most effective way to honor him – by setting a good example, particularly because this abuse comes at a time when peoples are trying to communicate with mutual respect.Those who insult the sanctities wish to poison budding relations between the peoples, to disrupt the efforts to build bridges between civilizations, and to sow discord between the peoples.The Muslim BrotherhoodCairo – September 12, 2012
…if we blame the movie for the burning of our foreign outposts and the brutal murders of four Americans (including our Libyan ambassador who was reportedly raped), we won’t blame the burners and the looters and the murderers and the rapists.
You see, if we blame the movie for the Middle East burning, we won’t blames the Islamists who are doing the burning and looting and raping and murdering.
Which means we won’t further connect the dots and blame Obama’s failed Middle East policy; the Obama Doctrine of backing away from the region and allowing events to unfold as America stands idly by — as the Islamists in the Muslim Brotherhood grab hold of power in Egypt, a country that was once our largest and closest ally.
Blame the filmmaker.
And all at the direction of a president of the United States who has sworn to uphold the Constitution, you know, the same Constitution that treasures the right of free expression and speech above all else.
But no one asks … What about Bill Maher?
Bill Maher made a comedy/documentary called “Religulous” that’s most famous for mercilessly mocking Christianity. But what people forget is that the last twenty-minutes or so of the film make a damning case against Islam.
Bill Maher made a film that mocked Islam.
Oh, yes, he did.
Bill Maher also contributed $1 million to a pro-Obama super PAC.
And I’m sure that upon being reminded of this, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will tremble with self-righteous indignation and demand Maher take his money back.
After all, if movies create the terrorists who in turn create the terrorism, what about Bill Maher?
And what if the terrorists learn that the president of the United States is benefitting from a million dollar contribution given by a filmmaker who mocked Islam? How will Hillary Clinton claim with any credibility that the United States government has no connection to this outrage? How will White House spokesman Jay Carney say this with any credibility:
“The reason why there is unrest is because of the film,” he said at one point. “This is in response to the film.” At another moment, he said, “The cause of the unrest was a video.” At yet another, “These protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region.”
And the lapdog media just can’t stop humping a leg of lies.
It’s weird, though, isn’t it?
I mean, how Hollywood has been silent in its defense of the filmmaker Obama is currently scapegoating (and in some cases, Hollywood is grabbing a torch), even as they embrace Bill Maher.
Well, I guess some anti-Islamic filmmakers are more equal than others.
And thank heavens, we have Barack Obama to tell us who the more equal ones are.
Hey, jihadis: check this out!
Send these clowns to reeducation camp, aka civics class.
An incendiary video about the prophet Mohammad, Innocence of Muslims, was blamed for the mob attacks on our embassies in Libya and Egypt (and, later, Yemen). In Libya, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were murdered. The video stirred some passion here in America as well.
Over at MSNBC, a riot of consensus broke out when contributors Mike Barnicle and Donny Deutsch as well as University of Pennsylvania professor Anthea Butler all agreed that the people behind the video should be indicted as accessories to murder. “Good morning,” declared Butler, “How soon is Sam Bacile [the alleged creator of the film] going to be in jail folks? I need him to go now.”
Barnicle set his sights on Terry Jones, the pastor who wanted to burn the Koran a while back and who was allegedly involved in the video as well. “Given this supposed minister’s role in last year’s riots in Afghanistan, where people died, and given his apparent or his alleged role in this film, where . . . at least one American, perhaps the American ambassador, is dead, it might be time for the Department of Justice to start viewing his role as an accessory before or after the fact.”
Deutsch helpfully added: “I was thinking the same thing, yeah.”
It’s interesting to see such committed liberals in lockstep agreement with the Islamist government in Egypt, which implored the U.S. government to take legal action against the filmmakers. Interestingly, not even the Muslim Brotherhood–controlled Egyptian government demanded these men be tried for murder.
Now, I have next to no sympathy for the makers of this film, who clearly hoped to start trouble, violent or otherwise. But where does this logic end? One of the things we’ve learned all too well is that the “Muslim street” — and often Muslim elites — have a near-limitless capacity to take offense at slights to their religion, honor, history, or feelings.
Does Barnicle want Salman Rushdie, the author of The Satanic Verses, charged with being an accessory to murder, too? That book (more…)
And neither can Big Baloney. First, Sarah Palin
Murdered Ambassador Christopher Stevens, whose corpse was dragged through the streets of Benghazi.
Apparently President Obama can’t see Egypt and Libya from his house. On the anniversary of the worst terrorist attacks ever perpetrated on America, our embassy in Cairo and our consulate in Benghazi were attacked by violent Islamic mobs. In Cairo, they scaled the walls of our embassy, destroyed our flag, and replaced it with a black Islamic banner. In Benghazi, the armed gunmen set fire to our consulate and killed an American staff member. The Islamic radicals claim that these attacks are in protest to some film criticizing Islam. In response to this, the U.S. embassy in Cairo issued a statement that was so outrageous many of us thought it must be a satire. The embassy actually apologized to the violent mob attacking us, and it even went so far as to chastise those who use free speech to “hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.” (Funny, the current administration has no problem hurting the “religious feelings” of Catholics.)
But where is the president’s statement about this? These countries represent his much touted “Arab Spring.” How’s that Arab Spring working out for us now? Have we received an apology yet from our “friends” in the Muslim Brotherhood for the assault on our embassy?
…our nation’s security should be of utmost importance to our Commander-in-chief. America can’t afford any more “leading from behind” in such a dangerous world. We already know that President Obama likes to “speak softly” to our enemies. If he doesn’t have a “big stick” to carry, maybe it’s time for him to grow one.
You’d think Obama would get right on this, if only for political cover.
The Obama administration is engulfed in a full-blown foreign policy crisis just two months before the presidential election with the two campaigns trading angry accusations over events in Libya, Egypt and Israel.
Footage of the body of Christopher Stevens, United States ambassador to Libya, slung over the back of a protester, was reminiscent of the 1993 ‘Black Hawk Down’ incident in Somalia in 1993 when militia fighters lynched American aircrew in the streets of Mogadishu.
President Barack Obama’s staff will also be mindful that a shadow was cast over Jimmy Carter’s presidency by the Iranian hostage crisis after the US embassy in Tehran was stormed by Islamist extremists following the Iranian revolution.
Tony, it’s only crisis if Big Baloney says it is. The so-called paper of record, the New York Times, had the story on page 4.
Today’s LA Times had the story on page 3. The headline: “American Diplomat Killed in Libya” Diplomat??!!
They murdered our ambassador!
Cairo (CNN) –
Angry protesters climbed the walls of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo on Tuesday and tore down the American flag, apparently in protest of a film thought to insult the Prophet Mohammed.
A volley of warning shots were fired as a large crowd gathered around the compound, said CNN producer Mohammed Fahmy, who was on the scene, though it is not clear who fired the shots.
Egyptian police and army personnel have since formed defensive lines around the facility in an effort to prevent the demonstrators from advancing farther, but not before the protesters affixed their standard atop the embassy.
The black flag, which hangs atop a ladder inside the compound, is adorned with white characters that read, “There is no God but Allah and Mohammad is his messenger,” an emblem often used in al Qaeda propaganda.
“We were surprised to see the big numbers show up including the soccer Ultra fans,” he said. “I just want to say, how would the Americans feel if films insulting leading Christian figures like the pope or historical figures like Abraham Lincoln were produced?”
He added that “the film portrays the prophet in a very ugly manner, eluding to topics like sex, which is not acceptable.”
Well, American Christians survived the provocative “artwork” Piss Christ without throwing a fit or burning flags — and the artist was paid with taxpayer money. Some other clown made a Madonna out of turds and called it art. Christianity survived.
The satirical “Book of Mormon” won numerous Tony awards and is a huge box office hit. The Godfather III was a libelous insult to the Catholic church. No one came uncorked.
And how did we respond to the Muslim primitives who attacked our embassy? With this:
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.
How about rejecting the actions of those who behave like animals when their feelings are hurt?
Why not explain that “sticks and stones…” isn’t a rallying cry to stone people?
That was in Fort Hood, where an Islamist Army major went on a rampage. Does anyone else wonder why it’s taking so long to try this creep?
After a more-than-two-year review, a report released last week accuses the FBI of having dropped the ball when it investigated the Fort Hood jihadist before the 2009 massacre.
So — how many people will be fired?
Exactly . . . none.
That’s right: The agency might have been able to prevent the killing of 13 people by a home-grown Islamic fundamentalist, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan — but failed to do so.
And yet, not a single FBI official will lose his or her job.
“We do not find, and do not believe, that anyone is solely responsible for mistakes in handling the information,” concluded former FBI Director William Webster, who conducted the probe.
“We do not believe it would be fair to hold these dedicated personnel . . . responsible for the tragedy that occurred months later at Fort Hood.”
How convenient for the agency and its staff.
And what a blow to the victims’ families — and the rest of America.
Webster’s report determined that the agency’s probe of Hasan in the run-up to his shooting spree was “belated, incomplete and rushed” — and influenced by an unhealthy dose of political correctness.
Indeed, the FBI had caught on to the fact that Hasan was in regular e-mail contact with (the now happily deceased) radical Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki nearly a year before the mass shooting.
That included messages in which Hasan expressed support for suicide bombers — and one in which he said: “I would assume that [a] suicide bomber whose aim is to kill enemy soldiers or their helpers, but also kills innocents in the process is acceptable.”
Yet the FBI — like the Army — concluded that Hasan had contacted the cleric merely “to research Islam.”
Agents in Washington, alerted to the e-mails by the FBI’s San Diego office, expressed fears that questioning Hasan might jeopardize his military career.
And one in San Diego said he was told the matter was “politically sensitive” and that the FBI’s Washington office “doesn’t go out and interview every Muslim guy who visits extremist Web sites.”
Yet Americans are supposed to accept that nothing in all this FBI bungling rises to a level that (more…)
…of what? Science? Technology? Good governance?
Mark Steyn at The Corner:
Egyptian husbands will soon be legally allowed to have sex with their dead wives – for up to six hours after their death.
The controversial new law is part of a raft of measures being introduced by the Islamist-dominated parliament.
It will also see the minimum age of marriage lowered to 14 and the ridding of women’s rights of getting education and employment.
Gotta hand it to the Muslim Brotherhood. Hard to come up with a more apt image of the Arab Spring than an aroused Islamist rogering a corpse.
Apparently the imam who ruled on this matter says that wives have the same right.
I guess rigor mortis is good for something.
Which brings to mind an email recently received.
The Muslims are not happy!
They’re not happy in Gaza.
They’re not happy in Egypt.
They’re not happy in Libya.
They’re not happy in Morocco.
They’re not happy in Iran.
They’re not happy in Iraq.
They’re not happy in Yemen.
They’re not happy in Afghanistan.
They’re not happy in Pakistan.
They’re not happy in Syria.
They’re not happy in Lebanon.
So, where are they happy?
They’re happy in England.
They’re happy in France.
They’re happy in Italy.
They’re happy in Germany.
They’re happy in Sweden.
They’re happy in the USA.
They’re happy in Norway.
They’re happy in every country that is not run by Muslims.
And who do they blame?
Not their leadership.
THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN!
A 16-year-old Moroccan girl has committed suicide after a judge ordered her to marry her rapist, according to Moroccan media reports.
Last year Amina’s parents filed charges against their daughter’s rapist, a man 10 years older than her but it was only recently that a judge in the northern city of Tangier decided that instead of punishing him, the two must be married.
The court’s decision to forcibly marry Amina to her rapist was supposed to “resolve” the damage of sexual violation against her, but it led to more suffering in the unwelcoming home of her rapist/husband’s family.
Traumatized by the painful experience of rape, Amina decided to end her life by consuming rat poison in the house of her husband’s family, according to the Moroccan daily al-Massae.
According to the newspaper, this type of forced marriage is rooted in local rural traditions to safeguard the honor of girls who are raped.
For a culture that seems to admire extreme punishments, why not let the female victim publicly slice off the rapist’s, uh, weapon and toss it to the dogs?
They need a 2nd Amendment for water pistols. WSJ
Authorities in authoritarian Iran have determined the latest threat to the Islamic Republic: squirt guns.
Agents of the regime fanned out across Tehran late last month to question toy store owners about whether the fake guns had been imported from America. Nope: made right in Iran or imported from China.
Why all this fuss? A water fight among playful youth at a water park.
After heeding a call on Facebook, a group of nearly 800 young men and women were among those who showed up at the park. They were surprised to find others there eager to drench anyone in sight.
They chased strangers around a giant water fountain, screaming and laughing as they splashed each other with water from toy guns, bottles and plastic bags.
“We had a blast. It was a rare chance for boys and girls to hang out in a public place and have fun,” said Shaghayegh, a participant who did not want her last name to be used.
Among Iranian authorities, the fun and games triggered a different reaction. Police raided the park, engaging in a four-hour cat-and-mouse game with the youth, who turned their squirt guns on the cops and threw plastic bags full of water on the policemen’s heads, according to participants and media reports.
While flash mobs have become a serious concern elsewhere—including London’s recent riots—such organized fun, in most parts of the world, would be regarded as yet another youthful rite of passage.
But that doesn’t apply in Iran, where a seemingly innocent gathering, especially one that involves men and women interacting, can be cast as a decadent rebellion against the government.
“These events are a disgrace to our revolution. Our security forces and judiciary must stop the spreading of these morally corrupt actions,” said conservative lawmaker Hossein Ibrahimi, according to official media.
Although the water wars and the government response have a comically absurd quality, the recent tension shows how fearful the regime is of its young.
Andrew McCarthy, who prosecuted the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center and presumably knows something about radical Islam, slams Gov. Chris Christie:
This “sharia-law business is crap . . . and I’m tired of dealing with the crazies!” So blustered Chris Christie. Bluster is the New Jersey governor’s default mode. It has certainly served him well. When directed at surly advocates of New Jersey’s teachers’ unions — who, after all, deserve it — bluster can apparently make a conservative heartthrob out of a pol whose bite is bipartisan moderate, however titillating his bark may be.
The style is so effective that Christie seems to be trying it out on everyone. A few weeks back, a local reporter had the audacity to ask His Honor whether he believes in creationism or evolution — a question that seemed more pertinent than impertinent in light of the controversy over whether the former ought to be taught in the schools that the governor’s 9 million constituents subsidize to the tune of $11 billion annually. Yet his answer was to growl, “That’s none of your business.”
“None of your business,” has moved to the front of the Christie repertoire. So discovered a citizen who recently had the temerity to ask her governor why he does not send his children to the public schools whose bloated budgets he is trying to pare. It was a pretty tame question, one customarily asked of politicians who crow about the alleged greatness of our public-education system while opting out of it when it comes to their own kids.
As it happened, the governor had a compelling, three-part answer: Like other New Jersey homeowners, he pays the exorbitant property taxes that subsidize the state’s public-employee pensions . . . er, I mean, public schools. Second, the Christies, like many parents, choose parochial schools so their kids get religious instruction. Third, Christie’s fiduciary obligation as governor requires his best judgment about what’s right for the state and its schools, regardless of what private choices he makes for his own family. Perfect. Except Christie couldn’t help being Christie: Even as he made it his business to share these convincing views, the state’s top public servant couldn’t resist telling his public, “It’s none of your business. I don’t ask you where you send your kids to school, don’t bother me about where I send mine.” Probably best not to ask him about charm school.
Former Bush speechwriter Pete Wehner, whose monitory posts at Commentary’s “Contentions” blog frequently stress the need for civility in public discourse, evidently missed these and other Christie gems. But Pete certainly caught this week’s diatribe against the “sharia crazies,” and it’s got him just as goose-bumpy as the Washington Post’s left-wing blogger Greg Sargent.
According to Pete, “unfair animus toward Muslim Americans” is among the “troubling tendencies” in today’s conservatism, particularly among the tea-party types who are the bête noir of establishment GOP commissars of compassion. That’s why Pete is “grateful,” he continued, that Christie “spoke out in defense of his appointment of Sohail Mohammed to a state bench.”
Media questions about the Mohammed appointment were the provocation for Christie’s outburst. “Ignorance is behind the criticism of Sohail Mohammed,” the governor thundered. He complained that disquiet over the appointment owed solely to a toxic combination of irrational bias (because Mohammed is a Muslim) and ignorance (because the fact that a lawyer defended people detained in the 9/11 investigation, as Mohammed did, does not mean the lawyer sympathizes with the terrorists).
As far as they go, both these assertions are true. But, as we’ll see, they don’t come close to telling the whole story. There are Muslims in the United States who despise the West, and there are patriotic American Muslims who embrace the West, some of whom serve honorably in our military, are key assets to our intelligence community, and have enabled us to infiltrate terror networks, thwart plots, and save lives. The question is how to figure out which is which.