Posted on 01/04/2015 12:58:15 AM PST by BlueDragon
Masked gunmen in northern Libya have kidnapped 13 Coptic Christian workers from Egypt, just a week after seven others were abducted.
Eyewitnesses in the city of Sirte said suspected Islamist militants went to a residential compound late at night and asked to see identification papers.
Christians were then separated from the Muslims before reportedly being handcuffed and kidnapped.
It is the latest in a series of attacks on Egyptian Christians in Libya.
One witness said 15 masked gunmen went from room to room in the residential complex at about 02:30 local time (04:30 GMT) on Saturday morning.
"They had a list of full names of Christians in the building. While checking IDs, Muslims were left aside while Christians were grabbed," Hanna Aziz told the AP news agency.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.com ...
"Libya violence: Militants Muhamedan Terrorists kidnap Coptic Christians in Sirte" There, fixed it.
These are the monsters put into power by NATO, and Obama, with their evil campaign to destroy state authority in Libya.
“Dr. Morsi sent us.”
HF
Chalk this one up to another of the long list of the “accomplishments” of this administration.
Genocide.
And Obama is on record stating he sides with the Muslims.
I could not have said things better.
Obama and Hillary's "smart power" turned out to be the most naive & imbecilic posing and posturing this nation has ever suffered at highest levels, that I know of.
Could things have turned out better for Islamists if the Hildabeat and Obama (the lover of muezzin) had been actually trying?
Either they were trying, or they are that stupid.
A combination of Obama "trying", and having the excuse that the French made him do it (when speaking of U.S. air-raids against Gaddafi) was set up by Obama and Hillary both spouting off that the [former] Egyptian president Mubarak "must step aside".
U.S. says Libya has spoken, Gaddafi must leave now says Obama, and Hillary too...
Neither of those two have a diplomatic bone in their body. Not whenever they think they may have the upper-hand, for when that's the situation, all the careful consideration and 'nuance' goes right out the window. Which results in them being ongoing disaster, a continuing trainwreck. I can only hope that Hillary wrecks the Democrat Party when she runs for president? Not likely, for the DemoRats would be cheering her on, all the way, come what may (and don't dare look in the rear-view mirrors, or they'll sic the IRS on you!)
That could be a bit more forgivable if both their successes (what they do deliberately) and their failures (the "we told you so" inevitable repercussions, which they will allow NO ONE to warn them of -- EVER, it seems) did not always add up to being seriously problematic diminishment of the United States --- strategically, economically, and in international reputation.
Those two bozos (and the "left" in general) in their own overweening pride actually thought that they would be the ones to restore international respectability for the West in general -- that W. allegedly squandered?
This would all be a bad joke if the stakes were not so high.
How many Christians will die, in part for Obama and the Hildabeast having been among the enablers?
Why is no one asking why Obama and Clinton turned Libya into a violent failed state and breeding ground for terrorists?
Damn good question. I don’t know why - there is a sort of respectful silence, as if no one can speak about it.
No one says: Where is Libya now? Too embarassing.
Likewise, no pressure for full disclosure on Benghazi. They are hiding terrible things. The Republicans must take some blame for their passivity and silence.
"Hawks" you say, as in multiple, with it only fair to be mentioned that in the instance of the Nato intervention in Libya, this was complicated by British & Euro Nato partners jumping the gun, so to speak, for the French kicked off the air-support sot of thing...
Show me where multiple, so-called "hawks" (I assume those would be what the left call 'right wing') held up Nato intervention as direct model for Syria.
June 22, 2011 "http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/22/war.powers.libya/>
Washington (CNN -- Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, indicated Wednesday that the GOP-controlled House of Representatives will not back a resolution sponsored by Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, expressing congressional support for limited American involvement in the NATO-led military campaign in Libya."I don't think that's where the House is," Boehner told reporters on Capitol Hill. "The fact is the president has not made his case to the members of Congress. He has not made his case to the American people."
McCain's resolution, introduced Tuesday along with Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry, authorizes the commitment of U.S. forces for one year while stressing the lack of support for any use of American ground troops.
So you've got McCain. Big whoopidy deal.
The majority were dragging their feet, hardly holding Libya up as a model for how the U.S. should proceed in assisting the one "rebel group" in Syria (one out of out of three main groups fighting Assad) which were the so-called good guys.
All three of those groups expected U.S. air support. But that is ALL THE FAULT of the Executive branch -- Obama, Hillary, then Kerry.
They own THAT particular stinking pile.
Really noOB?
Who was in charge of the executive branch when the instances which I pointed towards occurred?
Here's a hint. It wasn't "W".
Got that? Yet Obama, and most all of "the "left" had blamed it all on George W. Bush.
Name a problem -- even one of your own personal problems -- blame it all on George Bush, was the order of the day.
When it comes their own turn, when they are in charge -- suddenly it's a "bi-partisan problem?"
Obama was successful in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory -- in Iraq. He owns that winding down of affairs, and much of the aftermath, since he did run for office of chief Executive -- TWICE.
As far as Syria and the Assad regime goes --- years ago Assad did next to nothing in slowing the flow of fighters and weaponry from and through his nation to Iraq -- to fight American soldiers there in Iraq. Yet that was not nearly as bad as what the Iranians did along the same lines.
Pay-back is a real bitch. When will that bitch howl in Iran I do wonder?
Syria has also long been used by the Iranians as a bridge to the Islamists which they supply with weaponry in Lebanon -- to be used against anyone who opposes Islamists in Lebanon, and eventually (when not sooner) be used to terrorize Israel with rocket attacks.
Still, despite all of this deadly Sunni/Shiite stuff, I think we missed a chance or two a couple of years ago now -- to agree with the Russians, at least in part, and not entertain talk of supporting anyone attempting to overthrow Assad, by force. Better a devil you know, then an assortment of devils who are even worse..?
Even Assad seemed to have been amenable to a proposition that would lead towards a slower re-mapping of power in Syria, including himself eventually stepping down. Or so he seemed to say...
But Obama and the Hildabeast screwed the pooch at every opportunity, reacting as they do to "news of the week" soundbite politics with yet more (shallowly considered) soundbite politics of their own
What is your DU screen name?
You keep getting things just a little mixed up.
You would prefer to have been helping the Soviets? Because those backwards savages you are talking about were fighting Soviets, which leaves it to be that regardless of how entirely lacking the follow-up was in the Clinton years, for ourselves to have been supporting those who were [allegedly] seeking to "turn Afghanistan into a functioning State" (ha! as if that could have ever happened without TOTAL WAR killing all dissenters!) then we would have had to have been assisting the Soviets in their own efforts in Afghanistan.
Things boiled over and boiled over again in Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out. The Clinton Admin ignored the developments there. They may have read about in the papers, but it was entirely off their policy radar (until near the end of Bill Clinton's second Admin term), according to "we are the President!" Hillary.
That is the naivety of the Democrats I was talking about.
Let me put it this way --- instead of getting yourself all wrapped in proving your own statements correct (they are in part, but not entirely) then you really do need to find things which you can agree with others on -- before then expanding upon the claims that it is all the same (as if both political Parties in the U.S. are all but entirely interchangeable).
In the early 80's when the "mujahadeen" was bleeding the Soviet Army --- my own father pointed out to me we should have been helping the Soviets get rid of the Islamists (my father was cleared-eyed, and years ahead of his time in understanding the underlying issues) but that would have raised a whole lot of unanswerable questions had we done so...and the Soviet empire may not have eventually fallen. I'm not sure we would want to go back to putting that flavor of communism back in business.
What were the Soviets really doing in Afghanistan, anyway? No one much trusted the Russians then --- for they had not exactly given the West much reason to trust them. The Cold War was still on, but beginning to wind down...and eventually the Soviet Union disintegrated, shrinking back towards their own older, more historic borders. Meanwhile, for decades prior to that --- wherever there was conflict, those whom the U.S. supported, if pressured with armed insurrection ---- who was supporting those insurrections but the Soviet Union?
Oil, oil, oil --- more for Europe, than the U.S., for Europe lacks the production capacity that the U.S. had, and has.
We would have/could have felt a big pinch, but not nearly so economically crippling as would have Europe. They are still in not the best of positions...and the Chinese are now improving their own -- whenever, however, and wherever they can.
Even prior to 9/11 Osama was well known as a black sheep, and was banned from Saudia Arabia. His own family publicly distanced themselves, stripping Osama of much which he had controlled previous (oil biz profits-wise) with most all the rest eventually wrested from him also.
A few of the guys who were in on the World Trade Center bombing of '93 found refuge not in Saudi Arabia, but in Iraq.
There are many things the Bush Admin can be criticized for in regards to Iraq, but the rise of ISIS is not exactly one of them, for the Obama Admin decisions and weakness in the face of Iranian influenced (Iraqi) politicians helped to insure that ultimately the U.S. would "lose the peace" with Iraq further disintegrating.
Those types of developments were foreseen by many here on this forum, and traced all along the way.
I'm not much of a fan of "W", and had even wrote him a letter after 911, and before U.S. Armed forces began overt operations in Afghanistan --- "please don't, it will not solve the problem". Some months after troops were already there, I got a reply on White House stationary explaining how 'ol Georgy-boy was going to keep us safe (more or less, though I doubt they used those exact words). I don't recall who signed it...though it seems like I remember it coming "from the office" of Presidency, and apparently signed by auto-pen, as if my note (only one printed page) was being replied to along with others which they had gotten which were similar enough they likely sent the same letter to who knows how many people.
But Bush DID allow, even pave the way for some moderately significant numbers of Christians to find refuge in the U.S. I've met some of them. Not all were Iraqi, and there were even more than a few Syrians.
When things got even hotter for Christians there, Obama basically slammed the door on Christians who were desperate to flee Iraq. Any Republican who raised the issue (the need for Iraqi Christians be allowed speeded-up, even emergency "immigration" to the U.S.) got shouted down by the DemoRat Party talking heads, both in office and in the newsrooms.
It was more wishful thinking than full-on "lie" for there were and are large numbers of muslims who would prefer to modernize, but you are generally preaching to the choir around here (though introducing some false notes of oversimplification which I'm getting tired of needing to unravel, to then either restate for better accuracy & completeness, or else simply show some detail or another which shows your own take on things -- to be just a bit too easy on the Democrats -- which raises my suspicions about yourself, like -- what are you, some kind of "operator"?)
Yet the "moderate" muslims are out-talked and out-gunned all too often by the ones who play hardball.
The Saudis have a wee bit of trouble on their own Southern border.
The Yeminis have worse trouble (but the same, just more of it -- the same jihadists).
The Jordanians have the most to lose, next, in regards to 'Islamic State in Iraq', though those persons are also potential enemies of Iran, also.
So what to do?
Figure out how we are going to eventually be able to send 40 full divisions to Iran, with 15-18 Divisions providing support for the supply lines we will need to run unimpeded across Saudi Arabia and Jordan, making a big Forward Operating Base out of large portions of Iraq.
How's that for a 20 year plan? Happy now? Blood up to the bridle bits, anyone..?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.