Author Topic: Liberals= whimpering cowards in the face of Islam  (Read 5477 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Liberals= whimpering cowards in the face of Islam
« Reply #25 on: September 24, 2012, 01:23:20 PM »
what were Obama's lies?

wasn't it only a trailer to a movie that's got these muslim fundies burning down their own towns ?

The movie had NOTHING to do with anything. 

It was the anniversary of 9/11/2012 remember asshole?  Oh thats' right to the anti-american left 9/11 never happened. 

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Liberals= whimpering cowards in the face of Islam
« Reply #26 on: September 24, 2012, 01:34:33 PM »
The movie had NOTHING to do with anything. 

It was the anniversary of 9/11/2012 remember asshole?  Oh thats' right to the anti-american left 9/11 never happened. 

You're talking about Cairo and maybe Libya but there have been other protests and rioting in other countries too
There have also been allegations that protestors in Cairo were actually paid by the govt to show up

Definitely beyond idiotic to get so worked up over any perceived insult to ones religion

The fundie idiots who run Pakistan actually had a national holiday last friday so that their retarded citizens could burn down their own f'ng towns and kill their fellow citizens

 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/world/asia/protests-in-pakistan-over-anti-islam-film.html?_r=0   

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Liberals= whimpering cowards in the face of Islam
« Reply #27 on: September 24, 2012, 01:37:00 PM »
You're talking about Cairo and maybe Libya but there have been other protests and rioting in other countries too
There have also been allegations that protestors in Cairo were actually paid by the govt to show up

Definitely beyond idiotic to get so worked up over any perceived insult to ones religion

The fundie idiots who run Pakistan actually had a national holiday last friday so that their retarded citizens could burn down their own f'ng towns and kill their fellow citizens

 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/world/asia/protests-in-pakistan-over-anti-islam-film.html?_r=0   

STFU - even Obama admn admitted that it was an act of terrorism.

The movie ruse by obama was to deflect from his failed policies. 

Only a delusional partisan left wing c  unt rag like yourself believes obama on this.   Even many dems openly are saying obama lied. 

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Liberals= whimpering cowards in the face of Islam
« Reply #28 on: September 24, 2012, 01:57:14 PM »
STFU - even Obama admn admitted that it was an act of terrorism.

The movie ruse by obama was to deflect from his failed policies. 

Only a delusional partisan left wing c  unt rag like yourself believes obama on this.   Even many dems openly are saying obama lied. 


IT = murders of Chris Stevens and 3 other Americans ?

no shit

when did I say otherwise.



Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Liberals= whimpering cowards in the face of Islam
« Reply #29 on: September 24, 2012, 02:25:13 PM »
Obama’s Shaky Libya Narrative
by Eli Lake Sep 21, 2012 4:45 AM EDT





Sources say the attack on the Libyan ambassador was pre-meditated, with the possible collaboration of a Libyan politician. Eli Lake on the continuing collapse of the official U.S. line.


Ten days after the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the White House’s official story about the incident appears to be falling apart.
 
In this Sept. 14, 2012 file photo, President Barack Obama, accompanied by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, speaks during a Transfer of Remains Ceremony at Andrews Air Force Base, Md., marking the return to the United States of the remains of the four Americans killed this week in Benghazi, Libya. (Carolyn Kaster / AP Photo)
 

In the days following the killing of the U.S. ambassador and two ex-Navy SEALs, President Obama and top State Department officials portrayed the attack as a spontaneous reaction to an Internet video depicting the Muslim prophet Mohammad as a lascivious brute. The protests, White House spokesman Jay Carney said last week, were “in response to a video—a film—that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting.”
 
Now there is mounting evidence that the White House’s initial portrayal of the attacks as a mere outgrowth of protest was incorrect—or, at the very least, incomplete. The administration’s story itself has recently begun to shift, with Matthew Olsen, the director of the National Counter-Terrorism Center, telling Congress on Wednesday that the attackers may have had links to al Qaeda and Carney characterizing the incident as a “terrorist attack.” (Hillary Clinton announced on Thursday that she was putting together a panel to look into the incident.)
 

But other indications that the White House’s early narrative was faulty are also beginning to emerge. One current U.S. intelligence officer working on the investigation into the incident told The Daily Beast that the attackers had staked out and monitored the U.S. consulate in Benghazi before the attack, a move that suggests pre-planning.
 

What’s more, two U.S. intelligence officials told The Daily Beast that the intelligence community is currently analyzing an intercept between a Libyan politician whose sympathies are with al Qaeda and the Libyan militia known as the February 17 Brigade—which had been charged with providing local security to the consulate. In the intercept, the Libyan politician apparently asks an officer in the brigade to have his men stand down for a pending attack—another piece of evidence implying the violence was planned in advance. (Plenty of Libyans, of course, did try to protect the consulate. “Many of those Libyans died in the gunfight fighting off the attackers,” one of the officials said. “But there were some bad apples there as well.”)
 
President Obama addresses the attacks in Libya.
 
“I think this is a case of an administration saying what they wished to be true before waiting for all the facts to come in,” says one senior retired CIA official.
 

On the other hand, a U.S. intelligence official stressed that it was still early days for the investigation. “It is important to accept that with events like this it takes time to figure out what happened and determine which data points are relevant and accurate,” this intelligence official said. “That process is happening right now.” The National Security Council declined comment, and the State Department did not respond to requests for comment.
 

One other aspect of the administration’s story appears shaky as well. Speaking to ABC News on Sunday, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice responded to allegations that there wasn’t enough security at the embassy by saying, “Tragically, two of the four Americans who were killed were there providing security. That was their function. And indeed, there were many other colleagues who were doing the same with them.”
 

“I think this is a case of an administration saying what they wished to be true before waiting for all the facts to come in.”
 

Rice was referring to two ex-Navy SEALs, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, who died during the violence.


But two former special operators and a former intelligence officer, two of whom had worked with Doherty, told The Daily Beast that Doherty and Woods’s job was not to protect Ambassador Chris Stevens. That job falls to Regional Security Officers or RSOs. During the fighting, some RSOs who were supposed to protect the ambassador apparently became separated from him.
 



“Glen died for Tyrone and Tyrone died for Glen,” one of the former special operators told The Daily Beast. “They fought bravely, but they did not die protecting the ambassador.”
 



Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.


Eli Lake is the senior national-security correspondent for Newsweek and the Daily Beast. He previously covered national security and intelligence for the Washington Times. Lake has also been a contributing editor at The New Republic since 2008 and covered diplomacy, intelligence, and the military for the late New York Sun. He has lived in Cairo and traveled to war zones in Sudan, Iraq, and Gaza. He is one of the few journalists to report from all three members of President Bush’s axis of evil: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.
 


For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.


_________________



Yet team dildo still buys into the false obama bs on this. 


Typical of the leftist tampons. 

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Liberals= whimpering cowards in the face of Islam
« Reply #30 on: September 24, 2012, 04:02:23 PM »
Obama’s Shaky Libya Narrative
by Eli Lake Sep 21, 2012 4:45 AM EDT





Sources say the attack on the Libyan ambassador was pre-meditated, with the possible collaboration of a Libyan politician. Eli Lake on the continuing collapse of the official U.S. line.


Ten days after the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the White House’s official story about the incident appears to be falling apart.
 
In this Sept. 14, 2012 file photo, President Barack Obama, accompanied by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, speaks during a Transfer of Remains Ceremony at Andrews Air Force Base, Md., marking the return to the United States of the remains of the four Americans killed this week in Benghazi, Libya. (Carolyn Kaster / AP Photo)
 

In the days following the killing of the U.S. ambassador and two ex-Navy SEALs, President Obama and top State Department officials portrayed the attack as a spontaneous reaction to an Internet video depicting the Muslim prophet Mohammad as a lascivious brute. The protests, White House spokesman Jay Carney said last week, were “in response to a video—a film—that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting.”
 
Now there is mounting evidence that the White House’s initial portrayal of the attacks as a mere outgrowth of protest was incorrect—or, at the very least, incomplete. The administration’s story itself has recently begun to shift, with Matthew Olsen, the director of the National Counter-Terrorism Center, telling Congress on Wednesday that the attackers may have had links to al Qaeda and Carney characterizing the incident as a “terrorist attack.” (Hillary Clinton announced on Thursday that she was putting together a panel to look into the incident.)
 

But other indications that the White House’s early narrative was faulty are also beginning to emerge. One current U.S. intelligence officer working on the investigation into the incident told The Daily Beast that the attackers had staked out and monitored the U.S. consulate in Benghazi before the attack, a move that suggests pre-planning.
 

What’s more, two U.S. intelligence officials told The Daily Beast that the intelligence community is currently analyzing an intercept between a Libyan politician whose sympathies are with al Qaeda and the Libyan militia known as the February 17 Brigade—which had been charged with providing local security to the consulate. In the intercept, the Libyan politician apparently asks an officer in the brigade to have his men stand down for a pending attack—another piece of evidence implying the violence was planned in advance. (Plenty of Libyans, of course, did try to protect the consulate. “Many of those Libyans died in the gunfight fighting off the attackers,” one of the officials said. “But there were some bad apples there as well.”)
 
President Obama addresses the attacks in Libya.
 
“I think this is a case of an administration saying what they wished to be true before waiting for all the facts to come in,” says one senior retired CIA official.
 

On the other hand, a U.S. intelligence official stressed that it was still early days for the investigation. “It is important to accept that with events like this it takes time to figure out what happened and determine which data points are relevant and accurate,” this intelligence official said. “That process is happening right now.” The National Security Council declined comment, and the State Department did not respond to requests for comment.
 

One other aspect of the administration’s story appears shaky as well. Speaking to ABC News on Sunday, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice responded to allegations that there wasn’t enough security at the embassy by saying, “Tragically, two of the four Americans who were killed were there providing security. That was their function. And indeed, there were many other colleagues who were doing the same with them.”
 

“I think this is a case of an administration saying what they wished to be true before waiting for all the facts to come in.”
 

Rice was referring to two ex-Navy SEALs, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, who died during the violence.


But two former special operators and a former intelligence officer, two of whom had worked with Doherty, told The Daily Beast that Doherty and Woods’s job was not to protect Ambassador Chris Stevens. That job falls to Regional Security Officers or RSOs. During the fighting, some RSOs who were supposed to protect the ambassador apparently became separated from him.
 



“Glen died for Tyrone and Tyrone died for Glen,” one of the former special operators told The Daily Beast. “They fought bravely, but they did not die protecting the ambassador.”
 



Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.


Eli Lake is the senior national-security correspondent for Newsweek and the Daily Beast. He previously covered national security and intelligence for the Washington Times. Lake has also been a contributing editor at The New Republic since 2008 and covered diplomacy, intelligence, and the military for the late New York Sun. He has lived in Cairo and traveled to war zones in Sudan, Iraq, and Gaza. He is one of the few journalists to report from all three members of President Bush’s axis of evil: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.
 


For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.


_________________



Yet team dildo still buys into the false obama bs on this. 


Typical of the leftist tampons. 

why do you keep repeating stuff that no one ever said

the murder of Stevens was thought to be a terrorist attack from almost the very beginning

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Liberals= whimpering cowards in the face of Islam
« Reply #31 on: July 26, 2017, 04:26:22 AM »
Why the Left Protects Islam
Townhall.com ^ | July 2017 | Ben Shapiro
Posted on 7/26/2017, 7:10:58 AM by Kaslin



Richard Dawkins is no friend to conservatives. The atheist author has spent much of his life deriding Judaism and Christianity. He once stated, "An atheist is just somebody who feels about Yahweh the way any decent Christian feels about Thor or Baal or the golden calf." Dawkins says that even moderate religious people "make the world safe for extremists." He's far to the left on politics: He's pro-abortion rights, and a supporter of the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats in Britain.

But he's also smart enough to recognize that radical Islam is a greater threat to human life than Christianity or Judaism. He explains: "I have criticised the appalling misogyny and homophobia of Islam, I have criticised the murdering of apostates for no crime other than their disbelief. ... Muslims themselves are the prime victims of the oppressive cruelties of Islamism."

Such language makes him a pariah among leftists.

This week, Dawkins was scheduled to speak at an event with KPFA radio in Berkeley, California. All went swimmingly -- until leftists realized that Dawkins had said some untoward things about Islam. The station then canceled the event, citing his "abusive speech." It explained: "We had booked this event based entirely on his excellent new book on science, when we didn't know he had offended and hurt -- in his tweets and other comments on Islam, so many people. KPFA does not endorse hurtful speech."

This is no shock. The same left that barred Dawkins from his Berkeley event cheered this week while Palestinian Arabs rioted over metal detectors at the Temple Mount. Those leftists proclaim that the true obstacle to peace in the Middle East isn't Palestinian Arab violence -- it isn't Palestinians who stab Israeli Druz officers on the Temple Mount; or the Palestinians who invade homes and slaughter old men and women; or the Palestinians in government who cheer, honor and financially support such behavior. No, the problem is the Jews.

The same left that blames metal detectors for murderous assaults and Richard Dawkins for offending Islam makes excuses for radical Muslim and Women's March on Washington organizer Linda Sarsour, who has called for certain apostate Muslims to have their genitals removed, says that Zionists cannot be feminists and stands up for terrorists and terror supporters.

Why does the left seek to support radical Islam so ardently? Because the left believes that the quickest way to destroy Western civilization is no longer class warfare but multicultural warfare: Simply ally with groups that hate the prevailing system and work with them to take it down. Then, the left will build on the ashes of the old system. In this view, Dawkins is an opponent -- how can the left recruit Muslims to fight the system if Dawkins is busy alienating them? They support the Palestinian terror regime -- how can that colonialist outpost, Israel, be defeated without a little blood? They applaud Sarsour -- she's an ally, so she must be backed.

Alliance with nefarious forces calls your own morality into question. KPFA has a lot more to answer for than Dawkins. But the left will never have to answer such questions so long as it focuses in on its common enemy: a supposedly conservative establishment that must be fought with any tool at its disposal.

Purge_WTF

  • Guest
Re: Liberals= whimpering cowards in the face of Islam
« Reply #32 on: July 26, 2017, 06:53:20 AM »
 Again, Muslims are, by and large, non-White, so Lefties will always excuse them no matter what they say and do.