Care2 will go offline for site maintenance July 31 at 9pm PST.
START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

The Guilty Men Behind the Arab Winter


World  (tags: 'CIVILLIBERTIES!', 'HUMANRIGHTS!', conflict, crime, death, ethics, government, HumanRights, humanrights, middle-east, society, terrorism, violence, world, Muslims, Islam, Egypt, Libya, The Yemen, murder, American ambassador, Stevens, rape, usa )

Ge
- 686 days ago - melaniephillips.com
So now we can see the terrible results of western liberal hubris, the so-called Arab Spring so credulously and stupidly brought into being by Barack Obama, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy. In Libya, the American ambassador and three colleagues have be



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

Beth S. (321)
Thursday September 13, 2012, 7:27 am
Thank you, Gillian! She said it so well!!!! I posted on my FB, too. They ought to be dropped out of a plane over any of those countries (okay with parachute), their ending will be the same.
 

. (7)
Thursday September 13, 2012, 7:30 am
The deadly fruits of Obama (Sarkozy and Cameron) are just beginning to ripen. Keep tuned for much, much more.
 

Rob and Jay B. (122)
Thursday September 13, 2012, 7:31 am
Yes, they are guilty, and a lot of others too, but we can at least see that Sarkozy and Cameron stopped supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, backed by the sinister enemies of all freedoms and rights, the Saudis, once they began to see what they had helped to bring about(tho they must have known as any half informed person knew) - the new conquest of Orthodox Islam over these countries.

But only Obama keeps cheering them on, as Morsi, his pal in Egypt, has arrested opposition journalists and closed papers, does nothing about the ethnic cleansing against Christians, Jews (what few have not fled already) & other non-Muslims, and allows Islamic religious police now to roam the streets forcing people to keep Sharia's primitive, barbaric bigoted laws. Obama is actually welcoming this Islamist bigot to the White House while snubbing Netanyahu of Israel, the tiny little David who is daily threatened by the Islamist Goliaths surrounding it. It's very clear whose side Obama is on, and they're the enemies of everything we hold dear in the West.

Obama is now looting the taxpayers' pockets to send millions to aid the al-qaeda, Saudi, Muslim Brotherhood backed 'rebels' in Syria who have already driven 90% of the Christians out of Homs. Under the Assads, who are members of a religious minority, all religious minorities have been treated quite well, but the Sunni rebels have made it clear they will cleanse Syria of all of them from what was once a Christian land before Islam's violent invasion and conquest (just like in all the rest what is now Arab/Muslim occupied countries from Morocco to Iraq). Obama is joyously helping them.

Obama ignores what the CIA must tell him to give support to his close friends the Muslim Brotherhood whose US front org, and fellow terror funders (convicted in US Courts), CAIR he has admitted to meeting with 'hundreds of times' in secret! What the hell is a US president doing meeting in secret 100s of times with a terror funding group that has in its manifesto 'to destroy western civilization' and force us all to live under oppressive Islamic law????????? They're enemies and subversives, but Obama can't do enough for them.

Thanks Gillian. You won't read the truth on the main Daily Causes here on Obama Central, and the Voice of Islam, Care2.
 

Lydia S. (71)
Thursday September 13, 2012, 12:57 pm
Great article on link below ... and for those unaware, the US embassy in Yemen was attacked today, as well. Oh what the enemy does, when it is emboldened by our "leadership" (apologies for my use of the term "leadership"; it is used very loosely here!)

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/316726/arab-harvest-editors

 

Stan B. (124)
Thursday September 13, 2012, 8:28 pm
Some of us forecast this was going to happen when the so called Arab Spring first started. The reason that Arab countries were ruled by tyrants like Mubarak, Gaddafi, Hussein, Assad etc is that only murderous despots like these can keep these maniacs in check. They are not familiar with concepts like democracy, free speech or gender equality and that's why we are seeing the current chaos which will only get worse.
 

Past Member (0)
Thursday September 13, 2012, 10:03 pm
This is who you support Rob/Jay?

"In January 2011, Phillips objected to the British government's educational curriculum because she believed it promoted "the gay agenda."[ Philips called it "an abuse of childhood", part of a "ruthless campaign by the gay rights lobby to destroy the very ­concept of normal sexual behaviour".
 

patrica and edw jones (190)
Thursday September 13, 2012, 11:30 pm
We are all being slowly sacrificed to Islam by our ineffectual Governments. The fact that Gaddafi and Mubarak were in thrall to the West served to maintain peace of sorts. Not so now they are gone. What will happen when al-Assad is finally overthrown? More of the same of course. The Muslim Brotherhood must be dancing in the streets - they are aware how easy it is to dupe us in the West.
7-is that your name? Melanie Phillips writes many enlightening, to the point articles. Some you may agree with and some you many not. No need to be so pithy at Rob and Jay.
 

Past Member (0)
Friday September 14, 2012, 4:18 am
"The extremist views and radical violence of groups like Al Qaeda create a mirror image here, in the form of paranoid Islamophobes, whose harsh rhetoric and support for endless war against the entire Muslim world in turn gives Islamic extremists potent arguments to use in their battle to win hearts and minds. Matt Duss has a great rundown on this whole problem here. My point is that if you want to make Islamic extremism stronger, you should write a check to your favorite Islamophobe." (Stephen Walt, "Lessons of Benghazi (and beyond)", Foreign Policy, 09-13-2012)
 

Carrie B. (305)
Saturday September 15, 2012, 1:13 am
""On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.

On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.

That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.

The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.

“The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya.

And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.

Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else.

That same day in Chechnya, according to intelligence I reviewed, Ibn Al-Khattab, an extremist who was known for his brutality and his links to Al Qaeda, told his followers that there would soon be very big news. Within 48 hours, an intelligence official told me, that information was conveyed to the White House, providing more data supporting the C.I.A.’s warnings. Still, the alarm bells didn’t sound.

On July 24, Mr. Bush was notified that the attack was still being readied, but that it had been postponed, perhaps by a few months. But the president did not feel the briefings on potential attacks were sufficient, one intelligence official told me, and instead asked for a broader analysis on Al Qaeda, its aspirations and its history. In response, the C.I.A. set to work on the Aug. 6 brief.

In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush officials attempted to deflect criticism that they had ignored C.I.A. warnings by saying they had not been told when and where the attack would occur. That is true, as far as it goes, but it misses the point. Throughout that summer, there were events that might have exposed the plans, had the government been on high alert. Indeed, even as the Aug. 6 brief was being prepared, Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi believed to have been assigned a role in the 9/11 attacks, was stopped at an airport in Orlando, Fla., by a suspicious customs agent and sent back overseas on Aug. 4. Two weeks later, another co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, was arrested on immigration charges in Minnesota after arousing suspicions at a flight school. But the dots were not connected, and Washington did not react.

Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted with urgency to the warnings contained in all of those daily briefs? We can’t ever know. And that may be the most agonizing reality of all."
 

Ge M. (216)
Wednesday September 19, 2012, 12:52 pm
dotty, you do not understand the concept of agreeing with a point of view of one person and not necessarily of another that they put forward?

Pathetic to attack Rob/Jay like that as a method of disagreement but it seems to be the only way you can think of to try to discredit an argument.
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 

 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.