Benghazi shows why Obama’s foreign policy can never work

by 1389 on November 3, 2012

in 1389 (blog admin), 2012 US Elections, Barack Hussein Obama, Islamic terrorism, Libya, Shari'a

Nonie Darwish: The Benghazi Scandal

According to Sharia law, it is a capital crime for a Muslim to shoot another Muslim to protect a non-Muslim. To jihadists, Obama is just another disbeliever American President who should not be trusted. Not only did the Obama admin-istration never receive even a promise of peace from the Muslim world; the murder of Ambassador Stevens and the three other heroic Americans never even occasioned an apology from any Muslim leader or cleric.
[…]
From the Muslim world’s viewpoint, the Obama administration’s behavior makes perfect sense: The Muslim world is used to, and expects, victims of terror not to act. It is an unforgivable violation of Sharia law for non-Muslims to fight back against jihadi assaults. As Muslims interpret such passivity, those who want to appease the Muslim world and its Sharia law are expected to freeze when faced with Islamic terror — freezing is the only acceptable response.
[…]
The answer to all of the above is simple: Under Sharia law, non-Muslims as well as non-Muslim countries, must never dare to respond to jihad [war in the name of Islam] in kind — not even to terrorism. If they do — if even one Muslim is killed in the process — they become permanent enemies of the Islamic State, worthy of more and more slander, terror and jihad.
[…]
What seems not to have been taken into account in subcontracting security to local Libyans, Muslims, is that, according to Sharia law, it is a capital crime for a Muslim to shoot another Muslim to protect a non-Muslim. Anyone who did this would instantly be considered a violator of Sharia law, and an instant apostate marked for death. When the US State Department in Benghazi subcontracted consulate security to Libyan Muslims, there was of course precisely such a probability. The plan was therefore useless from the start: Muslim guards would be required to follow Sharia law to run away and leave the Americans to be killed rather than violate Sharia law and kill other Muslims to save these “unbelievers.”
[…]
Obama, since his inauguration, seems to have chosen to be this kind of a peacemaker and friend of Sharia, a trap that Muslims always count on: a fantasy that goes something like, I will make the Muslims love and accept me by respecting and accepting their Sharia law, because anything less might make me seem to them a hostile, anti-Islamic enemy, worthy of slander, attacks and more terror.
[…]
Obama was willing to pay a heavy price in the hope of receiving acceptance from Islamists who never have, and possibly never will, accord acceptance to any non-Muslim. The President may have thought that the best solution to win his upcoming election and appease a war-weary electorate was not to respond to Islamic terror, and cover up his failure to protect American lives by blaming his inaction as a justified response to a mob reaction to some video. Of course, such an evasion only invites an even larger attack later, which will cost even more in lives and treasure. The President may well have been hoping that at least this new assault would take place after he was safely re-elected.

Obama’s calculations were wrong. We do not yet know what the American electorate will do, but as for the Muslims whom he is desperately trying to appease, evidently it did not even occur to them to put their 9/11 jihad on hold until after 11/6. To jihadists, Obama, whether appeasing them or not, is just another American unbeliever president who should not be trusted. With the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Islamists and jihadists made it clear that they could not care less about Obama, his appeasement, his apology and even his apparent affection for Islam.
[…]
Read it all.

For reasons that Nonie Darwish outlines in her article, no Muslims can be relied upon to defend US interests against other Muslims. So when can we stop relying on foreign “security” to defend US citizens on US soil, which includes consulates, embassies, and other assets overseas? To defend US citizens on US soil is why we have a US military in the first place.

I have to ask why we even NEED embassies and consulates in Muslim countries. Muslim leaders have nothing to say to us – they just lie. We have nothing to say to them that requires verbal communication, other than that they must avoid interfering with us or face drastic consequences. Following that warning, we can let our weapons do the talking if need be.


{ 0 comments… add one now }

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: