Boehner: Obama a citizen and handled Egypt correctly...3333 commits suicide!

[Soul Crusher]

Or, instead of condemnation, send Beyonce to shake her behind at a party for him and his son. Apparently, Gaddafi is too bootylicious for the President.

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.”

“The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”


________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ___


Option D, Benny, TA, Andre, Danny, Blacken, and many others clearly fit that description.     

[Option D]

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.”

“The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”


________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ___


Option D, Benny, TA, Andre, Danny, Blacken, and many others clearly fit that description.     

because i disagree with you.. can i call you a liar for some of the things you posted?

[Soul Crusher]

Yo can call me anything you want, still does not change the fact you and many others have not woken up to the reality of what is going on this country at the hands of an admn determined to collapse the nation.   

[andreisdaman]

Yo can call me anything you want, still does not change the fact you and many others have not woken up to the reality of what is going on this country at the hands of an admn determined to collapse the nation.   

I am so happy that Obama will be around for another 6 years to torture you, McWay and Berzerk...I am going to have so much fun mocking you guys!

[Soul Crusher]

Still waiting for you to refute fergusons' commentary point by point.

[Skip8282]

I am so happy that Obama will be around for another 6 years to torture you, McWay and Berzerk...I am going to have so much fun mocking you guys!

You clowns were talking that shit last election and got your asses handed to you.

[Fury]

I am so happy that Obama will be around for another 6 years to torture you, McWay and Berzerk...I am going to have so much fun mocking you guys!

To be honest, if the Repubs get control of the senate in 2012 and maintain control of the house then I couldn't give a fuck who is President as I think it's best when neither side has control.

If things continue like they are right now then I don't think we'll have to worry about Obama staying President.  

You clowns were talking that shit last election and got your asses handed to you.

Hahahahaha. I remember Pelosi guaranteeing that the Dems would maintain control of the House. That worked out well! 

[Soul Crusher]

What are we going on two weeks now asking for a point by point refutation of ferguson? 

[Fury]

What are we going on two weeks now asking for a point by point refutation of ferguson? 

Something like that. It's hilarious that he and kcballer just keep on posting, in the same threads nonetheless. Talk about a self-owning.

It's clear that they can't refute him.

[MCWAY]

I am so happy that Obama will be around for another 6 years to torture you, McWay and Berzerk...I am going to have so much fun mocking you guys!

Don't bet your house on it. The Dems are still fresh off the receiving end of the worst political woodshed whipping in 70 years.

[Soul Crusher]

If as stays at $5 and UE is still hoverig around 9 - 10%, he is gone.   

[Soul Crusher]

Forbes: Get ready for Carter 2.0 on energy and the Mideast
Hot Air ^ | March 02, 2011 | ED MORRISSEY




Tensions spiking in the Middle East. The price of oil going through the roof. An American administration refusing to open American resources for energy. Does this sound familiar? It does if you lived through the late 1970s, and Steve Forbes reminds us that the results were not pretty for the American economy. In fact, Forbes writes today at Politico that Barack Obama has yet another similarity to Jimmy Carter:

You need to watch only a few minutes of cable news analysis to realize just how ludicrous our national energy policies have become. As escalating tensions and chaos unfold in Egypt, Libya and other Middle Eastern nations, one energy analyst suggested that if Libyan oil supplies were to fail, the United States would rely on Saudi Arabia for its oil needs. If that statement alone doesn’t put U.S. leaders on red alert, the looming national energy crisis may soon become reality.

The Obama administration is repeating the mistakes of President Jimmy Carter’s failed energy policies, which marred his term and stigmatized the 1970s. They are leading us straight into another national energy disaster. …


(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...

[Soul Crusher]

Obama Admin. Refuses to Call Attack in Germany an Act of Terrorism, Compares It to Giffords Shooting
Nation.Foxnews ^ | Mar 3, 2011



U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley on whether the murder of two U.S. airmen was a terrorist attack:

"Was the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords a terrorist attack? I mean, you have to look at the evidence and look at the motivation and then you make a judgment," Crowley told the Press.

The suspect in the murder of two U.S. airmen at the Frankfurt airport confessed that he specifically wanted to kill Americans as revenge for the Afghan war, a German investigator said Friday.

Prosecutor Rainer Griesbaum told reporters that 21-year-old Arid Uka from Kosovo said he went to the airport with the intent to shoot “as revenge for the American mission in Afghanistan.”

Griesbaum also said that Uka’s pistol malfunctioned during the attack, preventing further loss of life. After shooting and injuring two more.


(Excerpt) Read more at nation.foxnews.com ...

[Option D]

you are a trip. you see how fox news is pure shit and then you say "um er...i dont follow fox news.. only WSJ...etc..".. and then you quote Foxnews


hmm epic inconsistancy

[Soul Crusher]

you are a trip. you see how fox news is pure shit and then you say "um er...i dont follow fox news.. only WSJ...etc..".. and then you quote Foxnews


hmm epic inconsistancy

They have a website Option FAIL.   And who cares who reports Crowleys' WTF statements?   No one is denying he said them, heis on tape.   

[Soul Crusher]

Led by a Follower: The Danger of a Weak President
Pajamas Media ^ | March 4, 2011 | Chris Salcedo





Obama defers to the tyrants and the UN, and the world is more dangerous because of it.

 Remember when U.S. presidents were regarded as the “leader of the free world”? They earned that moniker. FDR spoke of a day of infamy and rallied our nation to fight the Nazi threat to global freedom. JFK stood strong in the face of the Cuban Missile Crisis. And Ronald Reagan recognized the strength of America and stood up to one of the most deadly totalitarian regimes in human history.

Now we have President Obama.

He’s the one — we were told — who would restore our credibility in capitals around the globe. He was to reassert our moral authority: the nation that stands for basic human rights and the dignity of the individual. We were told that his intellect alone could bring tyrants to heel — Obama infamously expressed a desire to meet with dictators, never minding that such meetings would elevate despotic regimes by offering the prestige of the American presidency.

As has come to pass: emboldened by a weak or non-existent foreign policy, buoyed by the confidence that Obama’s White House is unwilling to act, and inspired by strongmen that openly defy the president’s wishes, thugs of all shapes, sizes, and degrees of brutality are challenging the United States.

Those challenges are met with silence, when condemnation is required. They are greeted with ambivalence, when the world cries for decisiveness. The world begs the U.S. to lead, and the “leader of the free world” is content to go with the flow.

Vice President Joe Biden said Obama would be tested, and he has been tested several times over. Each instance seemed a surprise, a distraction to the president. He appeared bothered that each crisis took him away from his stated goal of remaking America. Unfortunately, the rogue elements of the world were not inclined to give the president time to learn on the job. They, unlike Mr. Obama’s devout followers, were not fainting in the aisles after his inauguration. In fact, the despots felt just the opposite: they were reinvigorated. They smelled blood in the water.

In May of 2009, the dictator of North Korea tested a nuclear weapon that was rumored to have been as powerful as the device used over Hiroshima. The nuclear test was a clear violation of multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions and international agreements. President Obama’s response was less than inspirational: he declared that North Korea’s actions were “directly and recklessly challenging the international community,” and that “such provocations will only serve to deepen North Korea’s isolation.” Susan Rice, Mr. Obama’s ambassador to the U.N., reinforced the president’s stance, saying Pyongyang will “pay a price for the path that they’re on if they don’t reverse.” To date, nothing of substance has been done, and this lack of American leadership may have emboldened the communist nation. North Korea has since attacked and sunk a South Korean ship, killing 34 people, and the North launched a deadly shelling on South Korea in November 2010. Obama’s White House called for an end to the North’s “belligerent action.”

The weakness projected by President Obama on North Korea is bad enough. But the president’s timidity elsewhere on the world stage has led to far greater consequences and loss of life.

In the summer of 2009, Iranian citizens took to the streets of Tehran to protest “questionable” election results. The bloodshed that followed was horrific. The Iranian theocracy clamped down on freedom seekers with iron-fisted ruthlessness. The Telegraph, hardly conservative, summed up the White House response as “cowardly, lily-livered and wrong.” That was one of the more flattering accounts of the president’s policy toward Iran, or lack thereof.

It’s not like we weren’t warned of Mr. Obama’s predilections towards appeasement. All of his opponents in the 2008 election cycle, including his current secretary of state, warned that Mr. Obama’s desire to “sit down” with Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions would lead to disaster. It was Mr. Obama’s naive notion of talking with such a morally bankrupt regime that, many speculated, led to days of terror for the Iranian people with no opposition from the so-called “leader of the free world.”

In the beginning days of the protest, the administration — through VP Biden and Secretary Clinton — conveyed President Obama’s position: “We’re going to withhold comment…. I mean we’re just waiting to see,” Biden said. Clinton declared in a statement: “The United States has refrained from commenting on the election in Iran.”

Is that leadership?

Only after nearly two weeks of criticism from the international community and conservatives at home did President Obama abandon his “engagement” policy with the thugs in Iran and strongly condemn the regime’s actions. Again, Mr. Obama had to be led before standing for American ideals. Yet a few months later Obama made his first speech before the UN General Assembly, where he called for a “new era of engagement with the world” – he was still leaving the door open to rogue regimes.

Obama’s lack of leadership in standing up to tyranny again evidenced itself a little over a year later.

The Middle East has exploded in protests. Countries that have been ruled by strongmen for decades are seeing a popular uprising of epic proportions. And once again the American administration was caught unaware. Once again the Obama administration was caught flat-footed, as Egyptians took to the streets to overthrow dictator and U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak. Egypt, being a U.S. ally, must have enabled the Obama administration to come out early and call for Mubarak to step down.

It’s well-documented how this administration treats traditional U.S. allies: the return of the bust of Winston Churchill and the gift of Obama speeches on an iPod for the queen, his treatment of Israel, his lackluster support for South Korea, his policy toward trade with democratic Colombia. All the while, Obama treats tyrants and dictators, self-declared enemies of the U.S., with kid gloves.

What else explains the timidity shown in the face of Libyan uprisings, and murders in the streets? When Obama finally got around to commenting on the hundreds of Libyan citizens dead, he couldn’t even bring himself to mention dictator Muammar Gaddafi by name or call for him to step down. He eventually got around to it after a fresh round of shame from his political opposition. As the situation worsened, nations from around the world evacuated their citizens from Libya. Did President Obama send one of our carrier groups to evacuate and guard our citizens? No, he … charted a ferry. We wouldn’t want to project American power and stability in the region, would we? A move like that might have sent an unmistakable message to Gaddafi and other tyrants in the Middle East that the mass murder of their citizens would not be tolerated by the United States. It might have made other despots think twice before ordering their air forces to fire on protesters if they knew American air power was minutes away. I’m sure the calculus was made in the White House: a carrier group would have negated all the good will America has enjoyed since Mr. Obama’s American apology tour early in his presidency. There has been no show of strength or stability in the Middle East. Instead, Mr. Obama has turned once again to the UN to tame Libya’s mad-dog dictator.

Mr. Obama is a weak president. This isn’t my calculation. It’s the consensus of every thug and dictator around the world. Has there been any evidence to the contrary? The world’s despots seem reasonably assured that the most negative consequence for their mayhem is a severe tongue-lashing. And the world is now a much more dangerous place because of Mr. Obama’s lack of experience, his lack of an American-centered resolve, and his pattern of embracing America’s enemies and alienating our friends.

Instead of leading the world as the head of the nation that stands for freedom and liberty, Mr. Obama abdicates that responsibility to the United Nations. We no longer have the “leader of the free world” in the White House. We have “the follower of the oppressed world.” And as long as he occupies that office, America stands to lose its influence around the globe. It’s an influence that, before Obama, made America a beacon of light for human freedom and dignity. That light is growing ever dimmer, allowing the world’s anti-American tyrants to thrive, and leaving our friends and those yearning to breathe free with no guide out of the increasing darkness.

[Soul Crusher]

March 04, 2011
The Muslim Brotherhood is officially A-OK for the Obama Administration
Richard Baehr


Professor Barry Rubin argues in his latest article that the Administration's approach to the new Middle East is becoming clearer, and that it represents the worst single strategic blunder in American foreign policy in the Middle East in decades. In essence, the Obama team has decided that it can live with and work with  Islamist regimes  in the Middle East, so long as Al Qaeda is not the group in power.


In other words the Muslim Brotherhood is just fine, if it succeeds in taking power in Egypt and other Arab countries currently in turmoil. Rubin quotes  the new policy as described in a Washington Post article and then offers his reaction:


"The administration is already taking steps to distinguish between various movements in the region that promote Islamic law in government. An internal assessment, ordered by the White House last month, identified large ideological differences between such movements as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and al-Qaeda that will guide the U.S. approach to the region."

Get it? Al-Qaeda is bad because it wants to attack U.S. embassies, the World Trade Center, and the Pentagon.

BUT the Muslim Brotherhood is good! Because it merely wants to seize state power, transform Egypt into an Islamist state, rule 90 million people, back Hamas in trying to destroy Israel, overthrow the Palestinian Authority, help Jordan's Muslim Brotherhood overthrow the monarchy, and sponsor terrorism against Americans in the Middle East.

I'm sure you can see the difference. This is the nonsense that the administration has been working toward for two years. It is the doctrine pushed by the president's advisor on terrorism, elements in the CIA, and White House ideologues. The State and Defense departments are probably horrified.

Here's the next paragraph:

"`We shouldn't be afraid of Islam in the politics of these countries,'" said a senior administration official....`It's the behavior of political parties and governments that we will judge them on, not their relationship with Islam.'"

That first phrase is correct. We shouldn't be afraid of Islam in the politics of these countries. Islam has always been present in Egypt and Jordan, Saudi Arabia or post-Saddam Iraq, and even Iran before its revolution and Afghanistan not under the Taliban. But we should be very afraid of Islamism in the politics of these countries. "


     .    .    .   .


For weeks, the Administrations' favorite newspaper, the New York Times has been paving  the way for the new policy with a series of opinion pieces and news stories on the new "moderate" face of the Muslim Brotherhood,  their commitment to non-violence, their discipline and social service role. 


The new policy is in some ways consistent with the docile American attitude towards Iran- where engagement was tried and failed, weak sanctions were applied with enough loopholes to make them like swiss cheese slices, the anti-regime demonstrations were ignored and garnered no support, and military action was never contemplated.  The result- the Administration is now preparing for a nuclear Iran , and all that is left is finding a way to contain Iran's aggressive posture once it becomes a nuclear power.



Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/the_muslim_brotherhood_is_offi.html at March 04, 2011 - 05:30:26 PM CST

[andreisdaman]

If these countries want Islamic law, there is nothing we can do about it....yes we could use our military but what would it accomplish....we would have to murder islamic politicians and stuff like that....

[Soul Crusher]

While the White House slept: Once again, our government was caught off guard by the Middle East
By John Bolton

Sunday, March 6th 2011, 4:00 AM
 
Obama administration has seemingly been caught off guard by the recent occurances in the Middle East. Related NewsKrauthammer: Arab world has Bush to thankWhite House blindsided McChrystal interview: insidersAnalysis: Israeli raid is new roadblock in already shaky drive toward reconciliationWhite House: We don't agree with Schumer's comments on Obama's stand against IsraelKirchick: Both sides should politicize national securityDeadly assaults lead to squabbles on Afghan policy

As Libya's bloody conflict rages on, important lessons for U.S. foreign policy are emerging from the past month's Middle East turmoil. Starting with Tunisia, the Obama administration has seemed repeatedly surprised by anti-regime demonstrations, unsure of the stakes for America and its allies and unprepared conceptually and operationally to deal with the consequences.

In Egypt, there was contradictory, unhelpful White House rhetoric when silence would have been prudent - and in Libya, silence when strong American words (and actions) were amply warranted.

But even presidential rhetoric is only rhetoric. The real test is whether our government is prepared for uncertainty, and how its policies are implemented under stress.

Here, the Obama administration has looked shaky at best. Consider the following questions we should now be asking about recent events in order to increase our readiness before the unknown overwhelms us yet again.

1. Did we have adequate intelligence of what was about to happen? The obvious answer is "no," across the board. The ensuing debate about why we were caught so flatfooted will undoubtedly reverberate over the next several months. We are not looking for predictions, but for more information for policy makers and less reliance on foreign intelligence services. Our dearth of human sources in the Middle East has been a problem for decades during many administrations. And what we need now are more resources and operations, not fewer.

2. Were we prepared to protect American citizens, in country or through evacuation if necessary? This is our government's first responsibility. As Libya descended into chaos, our government was plainly unprepared; hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Americans were at risk in the conflict's perilous early hours. Our readiness must be vastly improved. Yet even now, we have precious few military assets in the Mediterranean, and we have escaped a 1979 Iran hostage-style crisis only through good fortune. We cannot risk a repetition.

3. Do we fully understand our interests, and the pluses and minuses of precipitous regime change? This is the grand strategy question, one too complex to be answered in a few words. But I am not reassured by Obama's reactive handling of the crisis.

The truth is, while regional turmoil ignited nearly simultaneously in several countries, the causes of the uprisings require intelligent analysis of what's going on in each nation, not trying to cram it artificially into a preconceived narrative.

We haven't seen this emerge. In Egypt, Obama had at least four different official positions before Hosni Mubarak finally fell. His wavering damaged American credibility throughout the region, particularly with other governments that considered themselves friendly to the United States.

In Libya, one likely scenario is that the country descends into continuing civil war, with no clear winner or loser for some time. Just as Al Qaeda or other terrorists have established operating bases in failed states like Somalia, we risk a similar environment now on what was once called the Barbary Coast, literally on "the shores of Tripoli" of the Marines' Hymn.

Rather than standing by and allowing chaos to mature, we should be taking active steps, such as recognizing an alternative Libyan government, or even securing Tripoli's port and airport, to prevent it.

4. Are we ready for the next contingency, the one around the corner? Further eruptions are possible: Where are they likely to be? The monarchies of the Arabian Peninsula are understandably concerned about the regional turmoil, but they are even more concerned about Iran's malign presence just across the gulf. They see Tehran's influence at work in the intense Shi'ite opposition to Bahrain's Sunni monarchy, and they fear fickle America abandoning them as we have just, in their view, cast aside our long-time ally Mubarak.

One enormous difference here, of course, is the critical role the petroleum production of the gulf countries plays in the world economy, ours in particular, as well as the very different nature of the monarchies' relationship to their citizens, financially and otherwise.

Whether those factors will ultimately ensure stability and security throughout the region is as yet unknowable, but one thing is for certain: We need to be prepared for the trouble to spread, and to defend our critical economic interests. These are not abstract questions of foreign policy, but matters that touch directly on the daily lives of every American. We forget that lesson only at our inordinate peril.

Bolton is former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

[Fury]

I'm hoping Bolton at least ends up as VP on a ticket. The guy knows his stuff.

[Soul Crusher]

I'm hoping Bolton at least ends up as VP on a ticket. The guy knows his stuff.

I like Bolton too.  Bush had to appointment him via recess appointment because the radical freakshow on the left threatened filabuster.

[Soul Crusher]

http://af.reuters.com/article/egyptNews/idAFLDE72509F20110306?sp=true


UPDATE 2-Knives, petrol bombs return to Cairo streets
Sun Mar 6, 2011 9:15pm GMT 
Print | Single Page[-] Text

• * Activists face attacks for first time in weeks in Cairo

* Protesters seeking end to state security apparatus

* Ministers of interior, foreign affairs and justice named


(Edits)

By Tom Perry and Marwa Awad

CAIRO, March 6 (Reuters) - Men in plain clothes armed with swords and petrol bombs attacked protesters in Cairo on Sunday night during a demonstration demanding reform of security services with a reputation for brutality, witnesses said.

Dozens of men wielding knives and machetes and hurling bricks and petrol bombs confronted protesters at the headquarters of Egypt's state security, a force whose abuses fuelled an uprising that toppled Hosni Mubarak, they said.

It appeared to be the first time armed men in plain clothes had deployed in force against reform activists in central Cairo since Mubarak was forced to step down and hand power to the military, which has charted a course to democratic elections. The scenes evoked attacks on protesters in Tahrir Square by men claiming loyalty to Mubarak during the 18-day uprising that led to his downfall. Since then, activists have pressed demands for deeper reform, including a major shake-up of the police.

Egyptian soldiers, on the streets since the start of the uprising, fired into the air for several minutes to disperse the protesters. As they ran, the protesters were confronted by men they described as thugs.
The state news agency said the demonstrators were trying to break into the building.

A branch of the Interior Ministry, critics of the state security apparatus say it functions as a domestic spy agency.

Its networks penetrated deep into society, monitoring citizens and tapping phone lines. Emergency laws give its officers wide powers to act against government opponents.

In the last two days, protesters have broken into 11 offices belonging to the state security apparatus across the country, seizing documents which they feared would be destroyed by officers to cover up abuses perpetrated by the force.

"The army started firing in the air to disperse us," said Mohammed Fahmy. "We tried to run away but we were met by 200 thugs in plain clothes carrying sharp weapons on the other side," he said, putting the number of protesters at 2,000.

Fahmy said there were 15 injuries, none of them serious.

The military council which has ruled Egypt since Mubarak stepped down warned against publication of documents taken from state security offices and urged their return.


NEW GOVERNMENT
Redeploying the police force, which largely disintegrated in the early days of the uprising, and building public confidence in the internal security forces is one of the main challenges confronting a new government unveiled on Sunday. New ministers of the interior, foreign affairs and justice were announced in a reshuffle that met some of the demands of reformists in a purge of officials chosen by Mubarak.

Nabil Elaraby, a former International Court of Justice judge, was named minister of foreign affairs, replacing Ahmed Aboul Gheit, the face of Mubarak's foreign policy since 2004 and the most prominent minister to hang on this long.

The reshuffle marks the latest reforms enacted by the ruling military council, which has appeared ever more responsive to the demands of groups that rose up against Mubarak.

The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces last week appointed a prime minister with the backing of youth protest groups to replace Ahmed Shafiq, whom Mubarak appointed to the post in his last weeks in power. The new cabinet will require the approval of the council headed by Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi.

The council has charted a course towards parliamentary and presidential elections within six months so it can hand power back to a civilian, elected government.

Essam Sharaf, the new premier, met new ministers on Sunday. "This goes a long way in satisfying the demands of the revolutionary groups," Mustapha Kamal al-Sayyid, a political scientist told Reuters, talking about the reshuffle.

Elaraby was Egypt's former permanent representative at the United Nations. He is remembered for expressing reservations about the Camp David peace treaty with Israel which he helped to negotiate, Sayyid said.

He was also a member of the independent council of "Wise Men" which formed after the eruption of the uprising against Mubarak to urge his administration to make reforms.

The military council hopes the new government will find acceptance among Egyptians and restore confidence that will allow the economy to start moving again.
Mansour el-Essawy, the new interior minister, vowed to work to improve the image of the police force.

"I have spoken of the need to shrink the role of the state security apparatus, so that it is only focused on fighting terrorism," the state news agency quoted him as saying.

Essawy had not been associated with State Security in his former role as a senior Interior Ministry official, Sayyid said.

Neither was he seen as part of the inner circle of Habib al-Adli, who held the post for 13 years until Mubarak removed him from his job at the start of the protests against his rule. Adli is on trial, charged with money laundering.

"Essawy is known for fighting corruption," Sayyid said. (Additional reporting by Dina Zayed and Amr Abdullah; writing by Tom Perry; editing by Andrew Roche)

[Soul Crusher]

Kill All The Christians, Local Imam Tells Villagers
Voice of the Copts ^ | 3/8/11



http://voiceofthecopts.org/en/news/kill_all_the_christians_local_imam_tells_villagers.html


Islamic Mob Burns Down Church in Egypt

A Muslim mob in a village south of Cairo last weekend attacked a church building and burned it down, almost killing the parish priest after an imam issued a call to "Kill all the Christians," according to local sources.

The attack started on Friday evening (March 4) in the village of Sool, located in the city of Helwan 35 kilometers (22 miles) from Cairo, and lasted through most of Saturday. A local imam, Sheik Ahmed Abu Al-Dahab, issued the call during Friday afternoon prayers, telling area Muslims to kill the Christians because they had "no right" to live in the village. The attack started several hours later.

The Rev. Hoshea Abd Al-Missieh, a parish priest who narrowly escaped death in the fire, said the clamor of the church being torn apart sounded like "hatred."

"I was in the attack, but I can’t describe it," he said. "The sound of the church being destroyed that I heard – I can’t describe it, how horrible it was."

According to villagers, the mob broke into the Church of the Two Martyrs St. George and St. Mina, and as they chanted "Allahu Akbar [God is greater]," looted it, demolished the walls with sledgehammers and set a fire that burned itself out the next morning. Looters removed anything valuable, including several containers holding the remains of venerated Copts – most of whom were killed in other waves of persecution – then stomped and kicked the containers like soccer balls, witnesses said.

After the fire went out, the mob tore down what little remained of the church structure. The group of Muslims then held prayers at the site and began collecting money to build a mosque where the church building once stood, said the assistant bishop of Giza the Rev. Balamoun Youaqeem.

"They destroyed the church completely," he said. "All that was left is a few columns and things like that. As a building, it’s all gone."

During the fire, Al-Missieh was trapped in a house near the church building that was filling up with smoke. He faced a difficult dilemma – choke or burn to death in the house, or face an angry mob of thousands screaming for blood.

"When the smoke was too much, I told myself, ‘I am dying anyway,’ so I decided I would go out and whatever happened, happened," Al-Missieh said.

When he went outside, a man with a rifle told the priest to follow him. At first Al-Missieh was reluctant, he said, but the man fired off two rounds from the rifle and told the crowd to step away.

"No one will touch this man, he is with me," the priest remembered the man yelling at the mob. Al-Missieh was taken to a house where he met three other workers who were at the church when it was attacked. The men all relayed stories similar to the priest’s.

Friday’s attack was another in a long list of disproportionate responses in Egypt to a rumor of an affair between a Muslim and a Copt. Earlier this month, Sool villagers accused a Muslim woman in her 30s and a Coptic man in his 40s, both of them married, of being involved with each other. On Wednesday (March 2) a village council of Coptic and Muslim leaders convened and agreed that the man should leave the village in order to avoid sectarian violence.

The next day, the woman’s cousin killed the woman’s father in a fight about the honor of the family. The same day, the cousin died of wounds he sustained in the fight. By Friday, Al-Dahab, the local imam, had blamed the entire incident on Christians in the village and called on all Muslims in Sool to kill them.

Because of the attack, Copts in Sool fled to adjacent villages. The women who remained in the village are now being sexually assaulted, according to Youaqeem, who added that he is receiving phone calls from women in the village begging for help. Those reports have not yet been independently confirmed.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Kazan]

I am so happy that Obama will be around for another 6 years to torture you, McWay and Berzerk...I am going to have so much fun mocking you guys!

So for simplicity sake you don't give a shit about the damage being done to the country as long as you can mock a few people? Glad we have real Americans like you around

[Soul Crusher]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12707276?print=true
US & Canada
 

In association with

HomeUS & CanadaLatin AmericaUKAfricaAsia-PacEuropeMid-EastSouth AsiaBusinessHealthSci/EnvironmentTechEntertainmentVideo
March 2011 Last updated at 15:10 ET


James Clapper says Libya's Muammar Gaddafi will prevail


 Libyan rebels battled Col Gaddafi's forces in the port town of Ras Lanuf on Wednesday

Continue reading the main story Libya RevoltLibya revolt Live [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698] BBC team's ordeal [/news/world-africa-12695134] Global diplomacy [/news/business-12699831] Options for intervention [/news/world-africa-12691814

 
The US national intelligence director has predicted embattled Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi will defeat the rebels challenging his grip on power.

James Clapper told the US Senate that Col Gaddafi's superior military force would prevail over the long term.

And Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the US would not act in Libya without international authorisation.

Meanwhile, Libyan rebels are fleeing the port of Ras Lanuf after sustained attacks by Col Gaddafi's forces.

In Washington, Mr Clapper, who is the top intelligence adviser to US President Barack Obama, told the Senate he saw no evidence Col Gaddafi would step down from power.

'Hunkering down'

He warned Col Gaddafi's military was stronger than had previously been described.

Continue reading the main story AnalysisMark Mardell BBC North America editor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US President Barack Obama wants the US to have a new relationship with the world, and this is a critical test of his approach.
To some, his reluctance to order military action looks like hesitation and weakness. It always has and always will irritate those who want an unapologetically aggressive America storming ahead, out front, leading those who have the guts to follow.
That is not Mr Obama's way. In part, he was elected in reaction to the Iraq war and he's very serious about acting in concert with the international community. His style is very deliberative, very rigorous, rather academic.
In the White House there's a curious mixture of an emotional attachment to the cause of democracy-loving rebels and a hard headed pragmatism: Libya is not seen as a vital national interest, in the way that Egypt Bahrain and Yemen are, and they don't want to get tied down in one country when more important challenges may be around the next corner.
Read Mark's thoughts in full

In response to calls from some senior US Senate figures to establish a no-fly zone, Mr Clapper said Col Gaddafi's air defences were "quite substantial".

"Gaddafi is in this for the long haul," Mr Clapper said.

"I don't think he has any intention, despite some of the press speculation to the contrary, of leaving. From all evidence that we have... he appears to be hunkering down for the duration."

Mr Clapper said one possible outcome could be the splitting of Libya into three autonomous states.

Also on Thursday, the US revoked the diplomatic status of the Libyan envoys remaining in the embassy in Washington and suspended the embassy's operations.

Mrs Clinton said the US would meet representatives of the Libyan opposition, but emphasised the US would not undertake military action unilaterally.

"We're looking to see whether there is any willingness in the international community to provide any authorisation for further steps," she told a panel of the US House of Representatives.

"Absent international authorisation, the US acting alone would be stepping into a situation whose consequences are unforeseeable."