Benghazi survivor fights radical Islam, counters Obama’s ‘lies’ on terrorist threat

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: neo96

I don't see the relevance. This discussion isn't about guns. This is about radical Islam.

Please, stay on topic.

Every thread is about guns with Neo unless it's about "rich people" and guns. Also, he's got a theory that every Amendment to the Constitution is about guns.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Blame Obama.

I am just along for the ride.

a reply to: neo96

Sure why not? There's definitely money and minor celebrity status to be had.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Thanks, I just swallowed my coppenhagen

a reply to: whyamIhere

I'm assuming that you are referring to our military.

I am struggling to see how bombing the heck out of yet another Moslem nation that was absolutely no threat to us is somehow equated to them "standing between us and death".

Especially when we know that it was yet another war for the banksters.

Seems to me that (especially) since 9/11, our military, and now NATO, are tax payer funded enforcers for the globalists.

Nothing to be proud of. Quite shameful actually.


a reply to: Granite

Based on the fact that the FBI had advanced knowledge yet did nothing and the police on the scene were told to stand down, I'd say that its possible that theres more to these domestic incidents as well.


a reply to: abe froman

I would agree that the attack had nothing to do with a video nor 9/11.

Nor did it have anything to do with "radical Islam".

We, along with NATO, just got done flying 30,000+ bombing missions on Libya.

For anyone who hasnt seen the before and after pics, the devastation is truly horrifying.

What exactly did we expect from a people whose nation we just destroyed for absolutely no good reason?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Well...this is interesting.

What the gentleman fails to realise, is that his own nation is responsible for the creation of terror networks of the scale and sort which are common place in today's world, and even supplies them arms, albeit by convoluted methods, specifically designed to provide plausible deniability to the CIA who are the origin of a great deal of material support these factions receive.

If this man is serious about ending terrorism, he should not be ignoring that fact, and should be looking to see those responsible for this treasonous outrage removed from office and tried in an open court, with full transparency.

The only way this stops is when the obviously hidden hand is placed under a microscope.

originally posted by: whyamIhere
Watch how fast people become fans of our Armed Services,

The moment somebody starts shooting at you.

Being "PC" doesn't mean a whole lot if you're dead.

Going to be a big one soon...

God Bless our brave men and women who stand between us and death.

ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

WELL PUT.

MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF GOOD HEART TOWARD HIM.

Be safe, Bro. Be safe.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
The problem?

Far to many people can't seem to tell the difference between "radical Islam" and Islam.

And sadly?

Those people don't care anyway.

can you explain how to tell the difference visually? Until they have an AK-47 and a bomb strapped to their chest, they kind of all look like peaceful Muslims.

originally posted by: BO XIAN

MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF GOOD HEART TOWARD HIM.

Which "god" are you referring exactly? How do you know it's a male?

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: MystikMushroom

They didn't use harsh words in Benghazi.

When a bunch of people that were out for a walk one night got upset over a video, and decided to murder,RAPE, and BURN a diplomat.

Not to mention picking up a few free weapons the CIA had stashed there.

a reply to: network dude

You don't tell the difference visually at all. That's the point.

If you give a damn about your liberty, or anyone else's, you take the rough with the smooth, and deal with both as you find them. Of course, that takes bottle to do, and not everyone has enough of that, apparently.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Not true. Are you going to claim there was never in the past Islamic extremism and only after the United States was born did Islamic extremism become a problem?

Do you know your history about the Barbary Wars and how they started? It also affected European ships bound to and from the United States.

...
In March 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). When they enquired "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

"It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once."
...

en.wikipedia.org...

Islamic extremism has existed for a very, very long time and it wasn't started because of the United States.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

And I will tell you that modern terrorism began, its first words, were spoken by the CIA, to Osama Bin Laden.

You can show me a document from an age where even the Dutch still had pirates roaming the seas and gutting enemies by the boatload, and I will merely show you the error of using such a ridiculous example. Everyone had dogs on the sea back then. It was a time of buccaneering, swashbuckling, and painful, drawn out deaths, and much plundering, by persons from most everywhere.

But Osama was a proxy of the intelligence services of the west, and those self same intelligence services are still doing what they did back then. Funnelling money and weapons into the region, knowing full well where those guns are going to end up, no matter whose name is on the manifest. It would be funny that people are so easily fooled, if it were not for the seriousness of the situation.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Except for the fact that Tripoli's envoy, ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman stated they were doing it because it was written in their Koran.

As for Osama Bin Laden, the United States "used him" and he used and attacked the United States. The United States didn't create Bin Laden.

...
Let’s speak of facts.

Sudan is not in the conventional Middle East, so let’s ignore the genocide there. Let’s ignore, also, the West Pakistani massacres in East Pakistan (Bangladesh) totaling 1.25 million in 1971. Or 200,000 deaths in Algeria in war between Islamists and the government in 1991-2006.

But a simple, strictly Middle East research will give you one million deaths in the all-Muslim Iran-Iraq war; 300,000 Muslim minorities killed by Saddam Hussein; 80,000 Iranians killed during the Islamic revolution; 25,000 deaths in 1970-71, the days of Black September, by the Jordanian government in its fight against the Palestinians; and 20,000 Islamists killed in 1982 by the elder al-Assad in Hama. The World Health Organization’s estimate of Osama bin Laden’s carnage in Iraq was already 150,000 a few years earlier.

In a 2007 research, Gunnar Heinsohn from the University of Bremen and Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, found out that some 11 million Muslims have been violently killed since 1948, of which 35,000, (0.3 percent) died during the six years of Arab war against Israel, or one out of every 315 fatalities. In contrast, over 90 percent who perished were killed by fellow Muslims.
...

www.answering-islam.org...

The above is just an example of murders/kills done by Muslims to other Muslims.

There are Muslims that decide no to follow the old ways, those are moderates. While others do follow the old ways and they are the Islamic extremists.

Muslim moderates have been murdered by Muslim extremists for not following to the letter the old ways.

The root of radical Islam is on whether that Muslim follows the old ways, or he/she doesn't.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Osama Bin Laden was not the first Muslim to kill a man for his God, you are right.

But he was the first modern terrorist, and by that I mean that he was the first person in long conveyor belt of CIA pawns, used against Russia, and then against the free world as bogeymen to secure the future and reach of the global intelligence network, the power of the Five Eyes intelligence organisations specifically, and justify encroaching into the lives of every day people in eventuality. This is exactly what has been the result in any case.

Furthermore, the trend has never stopped. One must assume that if Osama was a bad idea then continuing to fund and supply terrorist networks, must surely be a bad idea as well, given that it has NEVER worked out well in the end, any time it has been tried before. This simple fact, should mean that the process has ended by now, that the US does not send any arms, funds, or material aid to any forces not its own, marching under its flag and under its direct command.

Yet still, these guns go out, the money goes out, the material aid goes out, and is funnelled into the hands of those we are told the CIA does not like...in a pigs eye sir. If you will believe those guns go anywhere other than where they were meant to in the beginning, you will literally believe anything.

a reply to: TrueBrit

It is obvious that even other countries, including Europe, government agencies have used their own agencies to provoke a response from other groups. However, we are talking about what causes Islamic extremism, and it wasn't caused, or started by the United States. It has existed for a long time and it will continue to exist as long as groups of Muslims follow the old ways which included raiding, kidnapping, taking slaves/sex slaves, murdering etc.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Hmmm...

Afghanistan, pre soviet invasion was a very different place back in the day, than it is these days. Far from a crater strewn foreign policy failure, in the sixties it was like many other places, taking on the vibe of the time. The mini skirt was popular, and women went about with their hair not only on display, but down, and some wore a scarf. It's major towns and cities bustled, it had gorgeous ornamental gardens, verdant, well managed land, and it was modernising at a rate. There were ways to photograph it, which would result in a picture not unlike those taken in rural Spain. There was significant education amongst the people, there was real, tangible progress, of the sort which your prejudgements about the faith that held there, should have made impossible.

And then the soviets rocked up and beat the land to ruin, screwed the place over. Then America came along and said to a bunch of outlaw scumbags with an attitude problem "if you help us get these Russians out of your country, you get to do whatever you like with the place afterward." And so it was, largely speaking. But the money and the guns though...they came with a price, that being the rebirth of an outlawed institution in the land, which spread under the watch of those who had birthed it, actions taken for expidencies sake, which set the region back hundreds of years in terms of attitudes, progress toward educational goals, infrastructural completeness, and the like.

This foreign policy failure of a country is not the only example of a proxy war gone mental, but those who would rather tub thump about the evil Muslims, or the evil commie in Vietnam or the evil anyone from bloody anywhere than admit that proxy war kills progress faster than a bullet to the head, are unlikely to ever realise the full scale of the problems caused by their own nations, and their largely secret efforts to influence world affairs from a distance.

I spit on their every effort. The things they have justified using their pawns in the past, and currently, are utterly disgraceful, and rather than deal with these individuals, these interlopers, these treasonous dogs who offer succour to those considered enemies of their own nation, the western population prefer to suck up every sensational news item, because their outrage is an addiction at this point. It is a bloody lie that left to its own devices, uninterfered with, the Muslim nations could not find themselves a peace, and the evidence is that they were doing so just fine before east and west went to war using their people and lands as cannon fodder in a game of geopolitical chess.

Argue the toss all you like, but it IS still happening, and it WILL not end until western nations take a non interferance, no supply, no material aid policy regarding warring factions on the ground AND LEAVE EVERYTHING ALONE FOR A DECADE OR FIVE!

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: neo96

I don't see the relevance. This discussion isn't about guns. This is about radical Islam.

Please, stay on topic.

Considering the radical Islamists use guns in their terrorist actions, that means he is on topic. Much like discussing suicide bombing, etc.