Read it and weep

Facts is facts, the Ft Hood attack was a man claiming a Jihad against America, the man with the explosives in his underwear did it to kill Americans in the NAME of a jihad, I won't even mention the hijackers of 9/11, Bin Ladin, et all. No, we train for the Christian Terrorists groups the same way, identify who they are and train what to do to stop them, what is the difference here? NOTHING! This will turn out to be a VERY BAD THING, in my opinion, a very bad thing.

Quote :

Obama administration pulls references to Islam from terror training materials, official says
Published: 12:33 AM 10/21/2011 | Updated: 4:56 PM 10/21/2011
By Kenneth Timmerman

Attorney General Eric Holder, left, accompanied by FBI Director Robert Mueller, speaks during a news conference at the Justice Department in Washington, Tuesday, Oct. 11, 2011. Holder announced that two individuals have been charged in New York for their alleged participation in a plot directed by elements of the Iranian government to murder the Saudi Ambassador to the United States with explosives while the ambassador was in the United States.

Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole confirmed on Wednesday that the Obama administration was pulling back all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities, in order to eliminate all references to Islam that some Muslim groups have claimed are offensive.

“I recently directed all components of the Department of Justice to re-evaluate their training efforts in a range of areas, from community outreach to national security,” Cole told a panel at the George Washington University law school.

The move comes after complaints from advocacy organizations including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and others identified as Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the 2004 Holy Land Foundation terror fundraising trial.

In a Wednesday Los Angeles Times op-ed, Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) president Salam al-Marayati threatened the FBI with a total cutoff of cooperation between American Muslims and law enforcement if the agency failed to revise its law enforcement training materials.

Maintaining the training materials in their current state “will undermine the relationship between law enforcement and the Muslim American community,” al-Marayati wrote.

Multiple online sources detail MPAC’s close alignment with CAIR.

In his op-ed, Al-Marayati demanded that the Justice Department and the FBI “issue a clear and unequivocal apology to the Muslim American community” and “establish a thorough and transparent vetting process in selecting its trainers and materials.”

Specifically, al-Marayati called for a new “interagency task force” to review the training materials — a task force including representatives of the Islamist organizations the FBI is tasked with monitoring.

Some believe the Obama administration’s Justice Department will go even further.

“The Attorney General has announced what sounds like reprogramming if they find people who have actually received training” that Islamist groups find objectionable, Center for Security Policy president Frank Gaffney told The Daily Caller. Gaffney is co-author of a report, published by the Center, titled “Sharia: The Threat to America.”
Ads by Google

Dwight C. Holton, the U.S. Attorney in Oregon said he had spoken with Holder directly about the issue of the terror training materials. Holton is the federal prosecutor who announced the arrest of so-called “Christmas tree bomber” Mohamed Osman Mohamud in 2010. That announcement made no mention of Mohamud’s Muslim faith.

“I want to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for,” Holton said Wednesday. “They will not be tolerated.”

Such training materials “pose a significant threat to national security, because they play into the false narrative propagated by terrorists that the United States is at war with Islam,” he added.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/21/obama-administration-pulls-references-to-islam-from-terror-training-materials-official-says/#ixzz1bXbC8JWG

Obama is the most terrorist killing President in our history.
He has mad terrorist killing skills. He's the Ninja President of terrorist killers.

Why would Obama kill his best buddies?

I will say this. I am not an Obama fan but he sure does have good aim when taking out terrorist.

Oh sure he does, while at the same time making room for more DANGEROUS ones to take over...and attack US!

Not to mention all the ones he's best friends with and gives positions in our government to, and money handouts.

Walterth3rd wrote:

Oh sure he does, while at the same time making room for more DANGEROUS ones to take over...and attack US!

I will say this Obama will use anyone he thinks that will get him political points. Look at Qaddafi. He was friends with him until he seen an opportunity in his death to help him out. Yes he might make room for more dangerous ones but he would turn on them if it brought him political points.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Walterth3rd wrote:

Oh sure he does, while at the same time making room for more DANGEROUS ones to take over...and attack US!

I will say this Obama will use anyone he thinks that will get him political points. Look at Qaddafi. He was friends with him until he seen an opportunity in his death to help him out. Yes he might make room for more dangerous ones but he would turn on them if it brought him political points.

Actually it was Bush who was best buddies with Qaddafi. Bush made a deal where Qaddafi would give up his non existant weapons of mass destruction and let Bushes oil buddies get the rights to drill for oil, and Qaddifi got to get around the embargo on him so he could make money to keep terrorizing.

So, to clarify. Bush makes deals with terrorists. Obama sees to it they get a bullet.

madskillz wrote:

So, to clarify. Bush makes deals with terrorists. Obama sees to it they get a bullet.

Yeah right. Obama is literally best friends with terrorists. Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Rashid Khalidi, Yasser Arafat (dead since '04), Jeremiah Wright, Raila Odinga, Hugo Chavez, etc.

madskillz wrote:

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Walterth3rd wrote:

Oh sure he does, while at the same time making room for more DANGEROUS ones to take over...and attack US!

I will say this Obama will use anyone he thinks that will get him political points. Look at Qaddafi. He was friends with him until he seen an opportunity in his death to help him out. Yes he might make room for more dangerous ones but he would turn on them if it brought him political points.

Actually it was Bush who was best buddies with Qaddafi. Bush made a deal where Qaddafi would give up his non existant weapons of mass destruction and let Bushes oil buddies get the rights to drill for oil, and Qaddifi got to get around the embargo on him so he could make money to keep terrorizing.

So, to clarify. Bush makes deals with terrorists. Obama sees to it they get a bullet.

Actually Bush treated Qaddafi like a criminal until Qaddafi got rid of his nuclear program and started to help give intelligence on terrorist. Now Bush was never best buddies with him however Qaddafi decided to join the rest of the world and not sponsor terrorism. Now we will agree Qaddafi was a bad guy even then. Even Bush knew this but Qaddafi had mellowed.

Now don't me wrong I am glad Qaddafi is gone but we could end up with something far worse then what Qaddafi ever was. Or we could end up with a stable government.

Quote :

Actually Bush treated Qaddafi like a criminal until Qaddafi got rid of his nuclear program and started to help give intelligence on terrorist. Now Bush was never best buddies with him however Qaddafi decided to join the rest of the world and not sponsor terrorism. Now we will agree Qaddafi was a bad guy even then. Even Bush knew this but Qaddafi had mellowed.

Now don't me wrong I am glad Qaddafi is gone but we could end up with something far worse then what Qaddafi ever was. Or we could end up with a stable government.

I have a more advanced nuclear program than Qaddafi had. And I don't have one.
Libya was hurting so much economically due to the boycott that Qaddafi desperately needed money to continue his dictatorship. In fact Qaddafi had gotten out of the terrorism business before the Bush deal. Making a devils bargain with Qaddafi, as Bush did, only helped him to remain in power. And was done not only to help oil companies but to provide political propaganda for Bush. It was the wrong thing to do and withouth the 'arab spring' would have kept Qaddafi in power.

As to the results of the democrat uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East there certainly is a lot of uncertainty. My opinion on this actually follows what the Bush administration claimed. Democracies are far less likely to wage agressive war or engage in terrorism than dictatorships.

As an American I support democracy here and abroad. I also agree with what Winston Churchill famously said about democratic government (though Churchill didn't actually believe it applied to British conquered colonies)

madskillz wrote:

Quote :

Actually Bush treated Qaddafi like a criminal until Qaddafi got rid of his nuclear program and started to help give intelligence on terrorist. Now Bush was never best buddies with him however Qaddafi decided to join the rest of the world and not sponsor terrorism. Now we will agree Qaddafi was a bad guy even then. Even Bush knew this but Qaddafi had mellowed.

Now don't me wrong I am glad Qaddafi is gone but we could end up with something far worse then what Qaddafi ever was. Or we could end up with a stable government.

I have a more advanced nuclear program than Qaddafi had. And I don't have one.
Libya was hurting so much economically due to the boycott that Qaddafi desperately needed money to continue his dictatorship. In fact Qaddafi had gotten out of the terrorism business before the Bush deal. Making a devils bargain with Qaddafi, as Bush did, only helped him to remain in power. And was done not only to help oil companies but to provide political propaganda for Bush. It was the wrong thing to do and withouth the 'arab spring' would have kept Qaddafi in power.

As to the results of the democrat uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East there certainly is a lot of uncertainty. My opinion on this actually follows what the Bush administration claimed. Democracies are far less likely to wage agressive war or engage in terrorism than dictatorships.

As an American I support democracy here and abroad. I also agree with what Winston Churchill famously said about democratic government (though Churchill didn't actually believe it applied to British conquered colonies)

Libya was not that bad off under Bush. Because other countries were doing business there. I was there during the line of death watching the missiles go over our ship or falling short. As far as the Arab Spring goes that did not go well for Egypt. You have the Muslim Brotherhood who already said they would go to war with Israel.

It is a fact that Qaddafi was seeking nuclear and WMDs. Not until we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan did he change his mind.


I will stand corrected. He had a WMD program. When he decided to abandoned that is when we started helping him.

Quote :

Contemplating the possibility of a renewal of his own program in line with his
repeatedly declared principle of “the right of any state to acquire a nuclear
program for civilian goals?” Or are these statements merely a tactic to persuade
the US to supply Libya with advanced weaponry and civilian nuclear
technology, as Libya claims to have been promised in return for agreeing to
abandon its WMD program?
Libya’s surprising decision to dismantle its WMD program, including the
nuclear component, was announced on December 19, 2003. It came on the eve
of the 15th anniversary of the explosion of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie,
Scotland, and four years after the suspension of crippling UN Security Council
sanctions on Tripoli, following the handing over of two Libyan intelligence
officials for trial before a special Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands. In
retrospect, the decision had considerable logic. Seven years of Libyan
diplomatic and economic isolation from the international community had taken
its toll on the country: growing socio-economic grievances, which generated
political resentment and resulted in the emergence of a dangerous radical
Islamic opposition, threatened the regime’s survival. Moreover, Qaddafi had
extracted whatever possible political gain from his unceasing religio-nationalist
confrontation with “evil Western imperialism”. Hence, the time was now ripe
for Tripoli’s engagement in a direct dialogue with Washington and London.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

madskillz wrote:

Quote :

Actually Bush treated Qaddafi like a criminal until Qaddafi got rid of his nuclear program and started to help give intelligence on terrorist. Now Bush was never best buddies with him however Qaddafi decided to join the rest of the world and not sponsor terrorism. Now we will agree Qaddafi was a bad guy even then. Even Bush knew this but Qaddafi had mellowed.

Now don't me wrong I am glad Qaddafi is gone but we could end up with something far worse then what Qaddafi ever was. Or we could end up with a stable government.

I have a more advanced nuclear program than Qaddafi had. And I don't have one.
Libya was hurting so much economically due to the boycott that Qaddafi desperately needed money to continue his dictatorship. In fact Qaddafi had gotten out of the terrorism business before the Bush deal. Making a devils bargain with Qaddafi, as Bush did, only helped him to remain in power. And was done not only to help oil companies but to provide political propaganda for Bush. It was the wrong thing to do and withouth the 'arab spring' would have kept Qaddafi in power.

As to the results of the democrat uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East there certainly is a lot of uncertainty. My opinion on this actually follows what the Bush administration claimed. Democracies are far less likely to wage agressive war or engage in terrorism than dictatorships.

As an American I support democracy here and abroad. I also agree with what Winston Churchill famously said about democratic government (though Churchill didn't actually believe it applied to British conquered colonies)

Libya was not that bad off under Bush. Because other countries were doing business there. I was there during the line of death watching the missiles go over our ship or falling short. As far as the Arab Spring goes that did not go well for Egypt. You have the Muslim Brotherhood who already said they would go to war with Israel.

It is a fact that Qaddafi was seeking nuclear and WMDs. Not until we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan did he change his mind.


I will stand corrected. He had a WMD program. When he decided to abandoned that is when we started helping him.

Quote :

Contemplating the possibility of a renewal of his own program in line with his
repeatedly declared principle of “the right of any state to acquire a nuclear
program for civilian goals?” Or are these statements merely a tactic to persuade
the US to supply Libya with advanced weaponry and civilian nuclear
technology, as Libya claims to have been promised in return for agreeing to
abandon its WMD program?
Libya’s surprising decision to dismantle its WMD program, including the
nuclear component, was announced on December 19, 2003. It came on the eve
of the 15th anniversary of the explosion of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie,
Scotland, and four years after the suspension of crippling UN Security Council
sanctions on Tripoli, following the handing over of two Libyan intelligence
officials for trial before a special Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands. In
retrospect, the decision had considerable logic. Seven years of Libyan
diplomatic and economic isolation from the international community had taken
its toll on the country: growing socio-economic grievances, which generated
political resentment and resulted in the emergence of a dangerous radical
Islamic opposition, threatened the regime’s survival. Moreover, Qaddafi had
extracted whatever possible political gain from his unceasing religio-nationalist
confrontation with “evil Western imperialism”. Hence, the time was now ripe
for Tripoli’s engagement in a direct dialogue with Washington and London.

Quotes without links?

Once again, by 2003 Libya had no nuclear program. Libya couldn't even keep its current oil wells working they were so lacking in technology.

As to Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, hopefully, doesn't even have a third of the population in support. While Egypt may decide to break relations with Israel once it has a new government, Egypt is in no position to attack Israel. It would need to spend a huge amount of money to even give Israel a tough time in a war. And it would be impossible for any Egyptian democratically elected government to spend that kind of money while people are starving.

Yes, short term, democratically elected governments are probably going to follow the wishes of their people and pursue policies less in accord with the policies followed by the dictators whom the US supported. However, the longer term prospects of eventual detente are what is to be hoped for. In fact, this could never come about under dictatorships because opposition groups find anti Israel policies as a great recruitment tool.

One of the policies followed under Mubarak at the urging of the US was to try and make as much progress on economic links so that it would not be in the best interests of Egypt to resume hostilities with Israel. While much less was actually done than was hoped for, there are still links in place. And therefore resuming a hostile stance towards Israel will cost the Egyptian people. The idea being any government that did this would not be able to do it for long, as they will have failed their people economically and be voted out of office.

madskillz wrote:

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

madskillz wrote:

Quote :

Actually Bush treated Qaddafi like a criminal until Qaddafi got rid of his nuclear program and started to help give intelligence on terrorist. Now Bush was never best buddies with him however Qaddafi decided to join the rest of the world and not sponsor terrorism. Now we will agree Qaddafi was a bad guy even then. Even Bush knew this but Qaddafi had mellowed.

Now don't me wrong I am glad Qaddafi is gone but we could end up with something far worse then what Qaddafi ever was. Or we could end up with a stable government.

I have a more advanced nuclear program than Qaddafi had. And I don't have one.
Libya was hurting so much economically due to the boycott that Qaddafi desperately needed money to continue his dictatorship. In fact Qaddafi had gotten out of the terrorism business before the Bush deal. Making a devils bargain with Qaddafi, as Bush did, only helped him to remain in power. And was done not only to help oil companies but to provide political propaganda for Bush. It was the wrong thing to do and withouth the 'arab spring' would have kept Qaddafi in power.

As to the results of the democrat uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East there certainly is a lot of uncertainty. My opinion on this actually follows what the Bush administration claimed. Democracies are far less likely to wage agressive war or engage in terrorism than dictatorships.

As an American I support democracy here and abroad. I also agree with what Winston Churchill famously said about democratic government (though Churchill didn't actually believe it applied to British conquered colonies)

Libya was not that bad off under Bush. Because other countries were doing business there. I was there during the line of death watching the missiles go over our ship or falling short. As far as the Arab Spring goes that did not go well for Egypt. You have the Muslim Brotherhood who already said they would go to war with Israel.

It is a fact that Qaddafi was seeking nuclear and WMDs. Not until we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan did he change his mind.


I will stand corrected. He had a WMD program. When he decided to abandoned that is when we started helping him.

Quote :

Contemplating the possibility of a renewal of his own program in line with his
repeatedly declared principle of “the right of any state to acquire a nuclear
program for civilian goals?” Or are these statements merely a tactic to persuade
the US to supply Libya with advanced weaponry and civilian nuclear
technology, as Libya claims to have been promised in return for agreeing to
abandon its WMD program?
Libya’s surprising decision to dismantle its WMD program, including the
nuclear component, was announced on December 19, 2003. It came on the eve
of the 15th anniversary of the explosion of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie,
Scotland, and four years after the suspension of crippling UN Security Council
sanctions on Tripoli, following the handing over of two Libyan intelligence
officials for trial before a special Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands. In
retrospect, the decision had considerable logic. Seven years of Libyan
diplomatic and economic isolation from the international community had taken
its toll on the country: growing socio-economic grievances, which generated
political resentment and resulted in the emergence of a dangerous radical
Islamic opposition, threatened the regime’s survival. Moreover, Qaddafi had
extracted whatever possible political gain from his unceasing religio-nationalist
confrontation with “evil Western imperialism”. Hence, the time was now ripe
for Tripoli’s engagement in a direct dialogue with Washington and London.

Quotes without links?

Once again, by 2003 Libya had no nuclear program. Libya couldn't even keep its current oil wells working they were so lacking in technology.

As to Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, hopefully, doesn't even have a third of the population in support. While Egypt may decide to break relations with Israel once it has a new government, Egypt is in no position to attack Israel. It would need to spend a huge amount of money to even give Israel a tough time in a war. And it would be impossible for any Egyptian democratically elected government to spend that kind of money while people are starving.

Yes, short term, democratically elected governments are probably going to follow the wishes of their people and pursue policies less in accord with the policies followed by the dictators whom the US supported. However, the longer term prospects of eventual detente are what is to be hoped for. In fact, this could never come about under dictatorships because opposition groups find anti Israel policies as a great recruitment tool.

One of the policies followed under Mubarak at the urging of the US was to try and make as much progress on economic links so that it would not be in the best interests of Egypt to resume hostilities with Israel. While much less was actually done than was hoped for, there are still links in place. And therefore resuming a hostile stance towards Israel will cost the Egyptian people. The idea being any government that did this would not be able to do it for long, as they will have failed their people economically and be voted out of office.

http://articles.cnn.com/2003-12-19/world/bush.libya_1_nuclear-weapons-moammar-gadhafi-senior-libyan-officials?_s=PM:WORLD