"No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders." — Samuel Adams.
Last year the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, told us the war on terror was over, or as she liked to call it our overseas contingency. About the same time she issued a controversial memo warning federal law enforcement agencies to focus on possible domestic terrorists such as fundamentalist Christian groups, pro-life groups, returning veterans and gun owners. According to Napolitano these were the real dangers to our national security.
Well I have some news for Ms. Napolitano. Yesterday on the eleventh anniversary the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon Radical Islamists conducted a coordinated, planned attack on our Embassy in Cairo and our consulate in Benghazi, Libya killing our ambassador along with three of his aides. Yes, Ms. Napolitano it was a planned attack and you did nothing about it.
The British had intelligence regarding these attacks and warned us several days prior to the attacks, buy you and your commander-in-chief passed the warning off as not credible and did not beef up the embassy security detail or change their rules of engagement.
The State Department attempted to link these attacks to an anti-Islamic video posted on YouTube, but that is far from the truth. Reports are beginning to surface the real motive behind the stacks was retaliation for the assassination of al-Qaida’s No. 2 leader, Saeed al-Shihri, in Yemen along with six others traveling with him in one car on Monday by a drone strike. The Washington Post carries an AP story stating:
“An airstrike killed al-Qaida’s No. 2 leader in Yemen along with six others traveling with him in one car on Monday, U.S. and Yemeni officials said, a major breakthrough for U.S.-backed efforts to cripple the group in the impoverished Arab nation.
Saeed al-Shihri, a Saudi national who fought in Afghanistan and spent six years in the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, was killed by a missile after leaving a house in the southern province of Hadramawt, according to Yemeni military officials. They said the missile was believed to have been fired by a U.S.-operated, unmanned drone aircraft.
Two senior U.S. officials confirmed al-Shihri’s death but could not confirm any U.S. involvement in the airstrike. The U.S. doesn’t usually comment on such attacks although it has used drones in the past to go after al-Qaida members in Yemen, which is considered a crucial battleground with the terror network.
Yemeni military officials said that a local forensics team had identified al-Shihri’s body with the help of U.S. forensics experts on the ground. The U.S. and Yemeni military officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to release the information to the media.
Late Monday, after speculation surfaced that the attack was carried by a U.S. drone, Yemen’s Defense Ministry issued a statement saying al-Shihri and six companions were killed during an operation by Yemeni armed forces in Wadi Hadramawt, but it did not elaborate on how they were killed.”
In a related story the Washington Post reported:
“U.S. officials and Middle East analysts said Wednesday that an attack that killed four Americans at a U.S. Consulate in eastern Libya may have been planned by extremists and inspired by al-Qaeda.
The U.S. Ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, and three other Americans were killed Tuesday in an assault on the consulate in the city of Benghazi. President Obama strongly condemned the attack and pledged to bring the perpetrators to justice, vowing that “justice will be done.”
The attack followed a violent protest at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo over a low-budget anti-Muslim film made in the United States, and it initially appeared that the assault on the Benghazi consulate was another spontaneous response. But senior U.S. officials and Middle East analysts raised questions Wednesday about the motivation for the Benghazi attack, noting that it involved the use of a rocket-propelled grenade and followed an al-Qaeda call to avenge the death of a senior Libyan member of the terrorist network.
Libyan officials and a witness said the attackers took advantage of a protest over the film to launch their assault.
Stevens, 52, and the others appear to have been killed inside the temporary consulate, possibly by a rocket-propelled grenade, according to officials briefed on the assault.
On Wednesday, administration officials described a fast-moving assault on the Benghazi compound, which quickly overwhelmed Libyan guards and U.S. security forces, and separated the Americans from the ambassador they were supposed to protect. U.S. personnel lost touch with Stevens just minutes into the attack, about 10:15 p.m. Benghazi time. They didn’t see him again until his body was returned to U.S. custody, sometime around dawn.
Mathieu Guidere, a professor of Islamic studies at the University of Toulouse in France and an expert on Islamist radicals, said information from militant Web sites suggested that Libyan extremists seized on the film to rally people around an attack on the consulate. He said the attack appeared to be motivated by a recent call by Ayman al-Zawahiri, the al-Qaeda leader, to avenge the killing of Hassan Mohammed Qaed, better known as Abu Yahya al-Libi, a Libyan-born cleric who was a key aide to Osama bin Laden.
Quillam, a respected British think-tank that monitors extremist groups, said its sources in Libya and elsewhere in the region described the attack as a well-planned assault that occurred in two waves and was organized by a group of about 20 militants. The first wave involved driving the Americans from the consulate, and the second was a coordinated attack using a rocket-propelled grenade after they were taken to another location.
“These are acts committed by uncontrollable jihadist groups,” said Noman Benotam, the president of Quillam.
Zawahiri, an Egyptian who took over as al-Qaeda leader after bin Laden was killed in a U.S. raid on his Pakistani hideout in May, issued a 42-minute video Monday acknowledging Libi’s death and calling on Muslims, particularly fellow Libyans, to seek vengeance for the killing.
“With the martyrdom of Sheikh Hassan Mohammed Qaed, may God have mercy on him, people will flock even more to his writings and his call, God willing,” Zawahiri said in the video. “His blood urges you and incites you to fight and kill the crusaders.”
[This is a long report and details the events and timeline of the attack]
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.
U.S. officials are increasingly suspicious that the murder Tuesday of the U.S. ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other American officials was not the result of a protest against an anti-Islam film, but instead was a coordinated terror strike timed for the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks reports Fox News:
“A senior administration official told Fox News they are exhaustively investigating every angle of the attack in Benghazi, and an earlier assault on the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, but there are early signs the Benghazi assault may have been planned. The official cautioned, though, that the administration has not jumped to any conclusions about what happened, saying it would be "premature" to do so.
But current and former U.S. lawmakers, and others, claimed Wednesday that the attack looked like a coordinated strike.
"Absolutely, I have no doubt about it. It was a coordinated, military-style, commando-type raid," House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers told Fox News. Based on his own briefings, Rogers said "military movements" were involved.
"This was a well- planned, well-targeted event. No doubt about it," Rogers said.
Pete Hoekstra, former chairman of the House intelligence committee, told FoxNews.com the attack appeared to have the markings of an Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda-affiliated strike.
"We've been talking for years about the desire of Al Qaeda, radical jihadists to celebrate the anniversary of 9/11," he said. "All my background, all of the conversations that I've had over the last 18 hours lead many people to believe that this was just more than a mere coincidence."
Hoekstra noted that the supposed protesters -- purportedly angry over a film that ridiculed Islam's Prophet Muhammad -- didn't attack in Tripoli. They attacked in Benghazi, "where it so happens our ambassador is." And they happened to be "fully armed and fully equipped," he said.
Hoekstra noted that Al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahri had recently released a video calling on militants to attack Americans in revenge for the killing of an operative in Pakistan. The message said his "blood is calling on you, inciting you to fight and kill the crusaders."
“Hoekstra said the film may have been just a cover to carry out such an attack.
Two intelligence officials also said the attack looked "coordinated."
London-based think tank Quilliam reached the same conclusion, saying the Benghazi strike appeared to be a "well-planned terrorist attack that would have occurred regardless of the demonstration (over the film)."
Also, the brother of Zawahri was nearby during the separate protest at the American Embassy in Cairo on Tuesday.”
[Fox News' Catherine Herridge, Ed Henry and Bret Baier and FoxNews.com's Judson Berger and The Associated Press contributed to this report.]
Ross Kaminsky hits the nail on the head in his post on American Spector:
“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?”
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?
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.”
Jeri Thompson writes in her article Not a Neighborly Day in the Brotherhood in American Spectator:
“The storming yesterday of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt should not come as a surprise to those who have been following the increasingly volatile situation in that country, and as the radical Islamic organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, takes great control there. The embassy violence also comes at an inconvenient time, as the U.S. relationship with Egypt was already being tested by its new president, Mohammed Morsi, who will visit the U.S. later this month.
For a number of reasons the Morsi visit is important. Even if one is hesitant to blame the Obama Administration for badly calibrating the U.S. response to last year's "Arab Spring" uprising and the revolution in Egypt, it appears that this newly elected president is ready to bring Egypt into a full embrace of radical Islam, with stronger ties to Iran, and, as the embassy-storming indicates, a very different relationship with America.
So who is Mohammed Morsi? He was an influential member of the Muslim Brotherhood, which spearheaded the people's revolution. Once elected to office earlier this year, Morsi resigned his membership, though he has placed Muslim Brothers in virtually every part of Egypt's government, has endorsed the inclusion of Sharia law in a rewritten Egyptian constitution, and seems content to let his friends pursue whatever extremist activities they feel necessary to bring their fellow citizens into line with the Brotherhood's radical agenda. Just last month, Middle Eastern media outlets reported:
“Protestors belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood crucified those opposing Egyptian President Muhammad Morsi naked on trees in front of the presidential palace while abusing others. Likewise, Muslim Brotherhood supporters locked the doors of the media production facilities of 6-October [a major media region in Cairo], where they proceeded to attack several popular journalists.”
As noted by Lawrence Haas in a recent column:
[Morsi] promised to push Washington to release the "Blind Shiekh," Omar Abdel-Rahman, who's serving time for the 1993 bombing of New York's World Trade Center. He also released jailed terrorists, including members of the dangerous Gama'a Islamiya and Islamic Jihad.
Morsi embraced the Holocaust-denying, Israel-threatening Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at an Islamic Summit in Saudi Arabia. Sent tanks into the Sinai and reportedly plans to send more along with rockets and helicopters, though the [1979 Egyptian-Israeli] treaty calls for a demilitarized peninsula to serve as a buffer between Egypt and Israel. The Muslim Brotherhood's media adviser recently called the treaty a "mark of shame" that brought "cancer, hepatitis, and kidney infections" to Egypt."
It should be noted that the U.S. for more than 30 years has provided more than $1 billion in aid annually to Egypt -- much of it in the form of "foreign military financing." But rather than visit the nation that has provided tens of billions of aid to his country and served as a strategic partner, Morsi chose to visit Iran and China first, thus removing any doubts as to whether Morsi was a politician capable of playing to his home base. The result: talks of bail out payments from China and oil-sale deals with Iran. Just this week it was announced that Egypt was open to purchasing Iranian oil that was sitting in an Egyptian port, or possibly serving as a middle man to sell the oil for Iran, a move that would undercut international sanctions.
Now we’ve seen the reaction from the Obama Administration on both, and frankly, it's appalling, particularly when Secretary of State Clinton chooses to not dwell on the Egyptian attacks (given the Morsi visit in ten days, are we surprised?).
And based on this report from Wired, the administration and its foreign policy team appear to be not only out of their depth, but clearly under the impression that the U.S. must do all it can to placate the radical Muslim community, whether for domestic consumption here in the U.S. to maintain good relations with the American-Muslim community in a political year, or overseas to maintain what the administration apparently believes are good relations with the Muslim communities overseas.
Based on what we’ve seen in the last 24 hours, not only is the Obama Administration out of touch with the realities of America’s standing among Islamic countries, its people are actually making the situation worse.”
So you see Ms. Napolitano it was a planned attack and your commander-in chief ignored the warnings. You were too busy worrying about pro-life Christians and returning veterans while your boss was too busy flying around the country giving campaign speeches rather than attend his daily briefings and listen to his intelligence experts. Or it because he just doesn’t give a damn because of his pro-Islamic agenda. No, the war on Islamic terror is not over and it will never be over — it has been going on for 800 years and the censorship of any film, book, or YouTube video will make one iota of difference. Get off your progressive butt and stop apologizing and start protecting our country. Radical Islam is here to stay and the only way to protect our nation and our citizens is through strength and resolve.