.
The Muslims are not happy....
They’re not happy in Gaza.
They’re not happy in Egypt.
They’re not happy in Libya.
They’re not happy in Morocco.
They’re not happy in Iran.
They’re not happy in Iraq.
They’re not happy in Yemen.
They’re not happy in Afghanistan.
They’re not happy in Pakistan.
They’re not happy in Syria.
They’re not happy in Lebanon.
So, where are they happy?
They’re happy in Australia.
They’re happy in Canada.
They’re happy in England.
They’re happy in France.
They’re happy in Italy.
They’re happy in Germany.
They’re happy in Sweden.
They’re happy in the USA.
They’re happy in Norway.
They’re happy in Holland.
They’re happy in Denmark.
Basically, they’re happy in every country that is not Muslim and unhappy in every country that is!
And who do they blame?
Not Islam.
Not their leadership.
Not themselves.
THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN!
AND THEN; They want to change those countries to be like....
THE COUNTRY THEY CAME FROM WHERE THEY WERE UNHAPPY!
Excuse me, but I can’t help wondering...
How damn dumb can you get?
7 posted on Friday, September 21, 2012 3:31:40 PM by Responsibility2nd
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2934561/posts?page=7#7
Over the past couple of weeks, most of the drive-by media's attention has been focused on events in Libya and the American responses to it.
For a quick recap --
Christopher Stevens, an American diplomat assigned to Libya, and some others in the consulate were violently attacked without warning and ended up dead...on 9/11.
Ignoring the significance of the date, the Obama administration acted curiously: denying any possible connection to terror, and stonewalling with a pre-programmed chorus of disgust over a low-budget film
[snip]
Over the past week or so, disturbing cracks began appearing in this story, such as the fact that one of those in the consulate was actually communicating with other people away from the scene when the attack began, and he said there was no riot; nothing, in fact, but the security guards taking pictures. (This made him alarmed enough that he wrote "if we are still alive tonight..." or similar).
If this were not enough, it came out that the facility was not guarded by US marines, but by local security: who were the ones casing the joint. And it came out that the policy of having no Marines, and having a "no loaded weapons" policy, came straight from the top, from Secretary of State Lady Macbeth.
Oh, and it also came out that the Libyan authorities had notified our government about the possibility of the place being attacked, several days before, only to be ignored. And there's that matter of Stevens having been brutalized and raped before being killed.
Oh, and it came out that one of the ringleaders of the attack was someone who had been imprisoned in Guantanamo -- I guess this puts paid to the idea (probably from some Ivy League educated homosexual from the State Department) that "treating the terrorists humanely would yield tremendous PR dividends for us.
(Come on, Democrats lie through their teeth all the time for petty advantage, or just to keep in practice -- such as Harry Reid (Cadaver-NV) lying about Mitt Romney's tax returns -- so why do Dems assume Third World terrorists wouldn't lie as well?
And yet the first reaction to the embassy attack from Lady Macbeth was one of naive surprise --"How could they *do* this to us? We *liberated* that town!" (So much for realpolitik.)
So the current thinking is that well, maybe the spin was designed to deflect attention from the abysmal failings of the Administration, in not guarding the facilities, not listening to warnings, and the like.
But there are a couple of other things.
First, notice that since the event, both the President and Secretary Lady Macbeth have gone onto massive apology tours:
not to the US public (you know, since it was our ambassador killed, the first one killed in 33 years), but to the Arab Street, including spending $70,000 for public service ads in Pakistan. And sending the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to lean on a Florida minister supportive of the films; and the midnight raid and "taking into custody" of the film-maker behind the clip. (What First Amendment?)
The response?
More riots, more violence, and stiffer demands for even more silencing of criticism of Islam: -- there is even talk that Obama will throw Christianity under the bus at an upcoming U.N. conference. ("For I will stand with the muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction" --Barack Obama) is chillingly misleading: nobody suspected he meant that the ugly winds would be a firestorm of hate directed at Christendom and the West by a nascent Caliphate. -- And this is only strengthened by the rumors that Obama is negotiating with Egypt to release the blind sheik who was behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombings, and also considering the release of 1/3 of the terrorists in Guantanamo...not to mention the recent abortive effort to remove Israel and God from the DNC Party Platform.)
More: