By Ross Kaminsky on 9.12.12 @ 6:10AM
Guaranteed to be so by the official U.S. response. (UPDATED)
On a pretense of anger about an anti-Islamic film, "ultra-conservative" Muslim "protesters" attacked the U.S. embassies in Cairo, Egypt, and Benghazi, Libya, on Tuesday. (Short video of the Cairo mob here.)
In Egypt, some of the protesters scaled the embassy walls, went into a courtyard, and took down the American flag. They tried (and failed) to burn it, then tore it up, and then put up a black Islamic flag.
My immediate question is this: Why did the first terrorist to touch our flag not have his head blown off? Or perhaps: Why did the first terrorist to touch our flag not receive a "warning shot" to the arm or leg, and the second terrorist, who presumably was not impressed by the admonition, not then have his head blown off?
The AP reports that the attack in Libya was far worse:
In the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi, a large mob stormed the U.S. Consulate, with gunmen firing their weapons, said Wanis al-Sharef, an Interior Ministry official in Benghazi. A witness said attackers fired automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades at the consulate as they clashed with Libyans hired to guard the facility.
Outnumbered by the crowd, Libyan security forces did little to stop them, al-Sharef said.
The crowd overwhelmed the facility and set fire to it, burning most of it and looting the contents, witnesses said.
One American was shot to death and a second was wounded in the hand, al-Sharef said. He did not give further details, and there was no immediate U.S. confirmation of the death.
On Wednesday morning, we learned that the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and three other embassy staff members were killed in the attack. President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton offered statements of outrage and condolence, but some of the blame can be found when they look in the mirror.
Again, I ask, why are there not dozens of dead Libyan radicals lying on the American sovereign territory they were invading?
The offending film, of which you can see a 14-minute clip here, is a pathetic farcical joke of a film which comes across as more like Monty Python than a serious critique of Islam or anything else. Furthermore, it was posted to the web two months ago.
Much as radicals used the Koran burning incident to justify murder in Afghanistan early this year, there can be no doubt that Tuesday's protest used this ridiculous movie as a pretext to attack America on September 11.
The U.S. Embassy in Cairo offered an apology for the film that it claims was issued before the protest started. Color me skeptical on that aspect, but even so the statement was a pathetic embarrassment -- and perfect reflection of the thinking of the blame-America-first Obama administration:
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.
This is, not surprisingly, a remarkable misstatement of the First Amendment. Saying something offensive is not "abusing" free speech. And what about the Islamic world, or even much of Europe, makes them claim that the right of free speech is "universal"? Perhaps they meant in theory rather than in practice, in which case our Founders might agree, but what is the point of making a statement like that to people who will never believe it, and who will take such a statement as incitement to further violence simply because it proves that we have decided on a suicidal strategy of Islamic rope-a-dope… from which we will never suddenly hit back.
The White House said that it had not approved the embassy's statement prior to its release...but so what?
Even if you take the embassy's word that it put this note out before the protest started, it restated its support for the statement well into the night, well after the protest began, and presumably before it ended.
On the Cairo embassy's Twitter feed were posted the following "tweets" which appear to be in response to others (numbers are part of the tweets, not added by me):
1) Thank you for your thoughts and prayers.
2) Of course we condemn breaches of our compound, we're the ones actually living through this.
3) Sorry, but neither breaches of our compound or angry messages will dissuade us from defending freedom of speech AND criticizing bigotry.
And then they followed up with this gem:
This morning's condemnation (issued before protest began) still stands. As does our condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy.
As of Wednesday, the US Embassy in Cairo has deleted the last "tweet" quoted above as well as a prior tweet linking to their longer statement, yet again showing their muddle-headed thinking during these days where everyone knows that a tweet is forever.
Wow, the hateful, violent radicals must be shaking in terror at the fearsome response of the world's only superpower. An "unjustified breach"! Sounds like something that needs a little Preparation H.
But in fact, it needed a few U.S. Marines with HK416s and a set of rules of engagement designed to actually deter those who would do us harm. Fox News has reported that early reports of two US Marines being among the dead were incorrect.
These radicals are made that much braver by the obvious timidity and pro-Muslim bias of Barack Hussein Obama. Can you imagine what the Islamic world is thinking after we react to attacks on our embassies with soft words and apologies on the same day that it is reported that Barack Obama won't meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu because it's just too inconvenient for Obama's campaign schedule? (I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that Obama's campaign advisers, desperate to win Florida in November, find a way to make the meeting happen.)
None of this is an accident or coincidence. It is our enemies testing us and finding us weak. And it is the surest way to embolden Islamofascists to test us further with more aggressive and more deadly attacks on American interests in the Islamic world, not least because the local police and military forces were unwilling or unable (most likely the former) to defend our embassy. Indeed, a CBS News report on Wednesday details a Libyan government official as saying that Libyan security forces seem to have told the terrorists where to find the Ambassador after he and other embassy staff had moved to another building "deemed safer."
It is only the Obama administration that doesn't not realize that we are at war with "radical" Islam. Not only do the "protesters" know it, but the President of Egypt knows it; after all, he is just one of them in a more expensive suit.
Speaking of Islamic wolves in sheep's clothing: On Wednesday, the Afghani President Hamaid Karzai issued a statement denouncing the "inhuman and abusive act." But he was not talking about the killings in Libya. He was referencing the making of the anti-Islamic film. Karzai, whose rhetoric after the Koran burning incident in February probably led to some of the subsequent murder of Americans, added that "Such an obscene act of an extremist filmmaker should not be allowed to hurt the feelings of Islamic world." Apparently, if censorship isn't possible, the proper response to "hurt feelings" is murder; after all, what else does "should not be allowed" mean in a part of the world where the wrong haircut can earn you a severe beating?
The Obama team doesn't even recognize radical Islam. So here's an easy test that Hillary Clinton can order embassy staff to try: Say to someone that you are not sure that Mohammed is a prophet. If that someone responds by shooting you, you know he is a radical Islamist. But then, Hillary would say that the person shot deserved it for being so insensitive.
Tuesday's actions in Egypt and Libya were acts of war against the United States. By allowing the terrorist "protesters" to fly a black flag on our territory, the Muslim world and perhaps our allies elsewhere see us as waving the white flag of surrender. And who can blame them?
________________________________________
To read another article about the U.S. Embassy attacks, click here.
________________________________________
To read another article by Ross Kaminsky, click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment