Obama: Meeting with our enemies and appeasing muslims

Again...this is a typical of muslim apologists. They are so happy to find a terrorist there and a terrorist here and then they say, "See, see...not all terrorists are muslims!" Just ignore that 99% of all terrorism conducted in the world today over the last generation all have islam at its core. Try to prove me otherwise.

Again, you can't draw a moral equilvalency of a handful of non-muslim terrorist attacks compared with a worldwide RELGIOUS MOVEMENT!

But since you bring it up, I am going to have to discredit your IRA example.

The IRA was removed from the U.S. State Department's official list of terrorist organizations in 2000.

Opps...I guess you forgot to mention that.

The IRA no longer describes itself as an armed force and officially ended its armed campaign to reunify Ireland in July 2005. The IRA has also decommissioned its weapons.

But go ahead and try to put IRA on the same level as islamic animals.

Nice try, but you fell short (way short)...again...

 

Go on your way Muslim. No one needs your hate.

 

Ah here we go poor Midas can not read again, selective blindnes kicks in
Which bit of These people are no more followers of Islam than the IRA was a Catholic terrorist organisation, Makes no difference to the people they killed if they are on or off some list run by the Americans.
They claimed to be religiouse so yes I can compare them, just because you dont like that means squat and lets not forget that the IRA is still active and killing, again regardless of what the State department thinks.
Just checked and well what do you know the IRA is still on the list

Yep there they are the 1st ones under the letter R

 

Asked and answered...

They (the islamic terrorists) are in fact followers of islam the way mohammad intended. The koran and all of their holy texts COMMANDS them to fight with 100's of passages. Obviously, their ACTIONS are clear on this.

This call to fight and become islamic warriors (ilhaq al-qafila) can be found throughout the jihadi literature; the meaning is clear: the definition of jihad as an individual duty, obligatory for every muslim and to join the existing fight, so join the fight and gain one of the two most beautiful things: victory or becoming a shahid.

Islam is clear on this...they are simply following the koran and their prophet's teachings like good muslims. The muslims that are not fighting (yet) are the bad muslims...the koran makes it clear.

See this muslim animal is simply pointing the commands in his koran to kill and wage war:

 

Can you possibly write about something else?

 

This all started with B.O. appeasing the worst form of hate experienced over the last 1,000 years and I am simply demonstrating the errors of his actions.

It is a terrible mistake to appease muslim animals. It has never worked in the past and present, so make no mistake...it will never work in the future.

 

Yet you can not show a single act of appeasment can you Midas LOL all he has donre is what other US presidents have done and I do believe that you commented somewere that you dont care what any American President says!

 

Any appeasements by any U.S. official, must less the president has been wrong.

History is clear on this...

Shoot...even as far back as the early 1800's, Thomas Jefferson had to dispatch our newly formed Marines "...to the shores of Tripoli" to deal with these muslim animals.

At least Jefferson had it right. He read the koran after meeting with the Libyan diplomat in London who told Jefferson and Addams that it was their RIGHT as muslims to capture, enslave, hold for ransom and fight the new country of the United States. Why? Because we are infidels!

Jefferson...reading the koran on his return to the United States (which he then kept in his library) deemed that these people are nuts and the only thing they understand is fighting and dying for their religion.

So...sing it with me..."to the shores of Tripoli"​

BTW...that was the FIRST attack by muslim animals on the United States. Jefferson at least realized that we, as infidels, can NEVER appease these animals...

 

Still waiting for you to show us this act of appeasment

 

Not going to happen...appeasing the islamic nation has, is and will always be a mistake.

"The only way Muslims can have assurance of salvation and eternal life is by becoming a martyr for the cause of Islam... dying and killing for the cause of Islam is not only an honor, but also a way of pleasing Allah."

.... From Reza F. Safa, author of Inside Islam.

Spoken like a true islamic animal which he is!

You can never appease Islam.

For God's sake, look at what islam is doing to YOUR country....

 

Show us the Appeasement Midas? Not a lot to ask is it?

 

B.O. has appeased the muslim world and even Forbes cited so...

**********************************************
Obama The Appeaser

Claudia Rosett, 02.26.09, 12:00 AM EST

Imagine Reagan tearing down 'that wall' with 'engagement.'

President Obama's broad scheme for foreign policy has been something of a puzzle, short on specifics and long on talk about forging alliances, extending hands and "engaging." (translation - - appeasing)

In his first address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday evening, Obama offered a further hint--repeating the gist of the argument with which, as one of his first acts in office, he ordered the closing of Guantanamo Bay: "Living our values doesn't make us weaker. It makes us safer, and it makes us stronger." A message to the Muslim World.

So far, there's not much reason to feel safer. If anything, the world seems to be getting less safe, at speed. On Wednesday, just hours after Obama delivered his speech, Iran began its first test-run of the nuclear reactor built with Russian help at Bushehr.

Barring forcible intervention of some kind, it's highly likely Iran will fire up this reactor in earnest later this year--and start cranking out, on an industrial scale, spent fuel that can be processed into plutonium for nuclear bombs. That's in addition to Iran's uranium enrichment, another route along which Iran, according to U.N. officials, has now traveled far enough to have the makings of a bomb.

The Bushehr test run follows a month, post-Inauguration, in which Iran has launched a satellite, underscoring its interest in long-range missile capability. North Korea in short order announced its aim to soon do the same. Russia has been flexing its muscles in its continuing bid to reassert hegemony in what Moscow considers the "near abroad."

Pakistan released from house arrest the godfather of its nuclear program and chief broker-dealer of its proliferation networks, A.Q. Khan. The International Atomic Energy Agency released a report confirming the finding last year of unexplained "uranium particles" at the site of Syria's secret nuclear reactor.

Syria has just replied by denying the reactor's existence, but telling diplomats that the site now hosts a missile launching facility. On a related note, rockets hit Israel again this week, out of both Hamas-controlled Gaza and Hezbollah-infested Lebanon.

So what are the values with which Obama plans to address this landscape?

Are they the values now on display in U.S. policy toward Gaza, run by the terrorist group Hamas? There, despite overwhelming evidence of the Iranian-backed terror nest that Gaza has become, the U.S. seems less interested in ending the terrorist reign of Hamas than in bankrolling its territorial base.

Reports earlier this week, citing an unnamed U.S. official, said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton plans to attend a funding conference in Cairo next week where she will pledge $900 million in U.S. aid for Gaza. At a Tuesday press briefing, a State Department spokesman confirmed that while details, including the exact amount, are still being worked out, a whopping pledge is indeed in the offing: "It'll be, you know, several hundred million."

Will we be living by the values implied in the Obama administration's decision to "engage" in preparations for the United Nations Durban II conference scheduled this April in Geneva. This conference, convened in the name of fighting "racism," is actually an exercise in censorship and condemnation directed at the free world, starting with Israel.

Durban II is a pet project of the despotic lobbying bloc that controls the 192-member UN General Assembly, which is led most of the time by the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference, or OIC (headquartered in Saudi Arabia), which overlaps with the 130-member Group of 77 (currently chaired by Sudan). The Durban II conference preparations were captured from the start by such nations as Libya, Iran and Pakistan (on behalf of the OIC).

The Durban II conference is already configured to savage Israel and endorse a global gag-order on free speech about Islam. It is styled as a "review" of the U.N.'s 2001 conference in Durban, South Africa. That played out as such a bacchanal of bigotry that then-Secretary of State Colin Powell told the U.S. delegation to walk out.

And then there are the values implicitly endorsed by Obama's new Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke. He's been talking about Iran's reach into Afghanistan not as part of the problem, but as part of the solution. Despite allegations, some by NATO officials, that Iran has been helping Taliban "extremists"--as Obama labels the terror-dedicated Taliban--

Holbrooke opined recently on an Afghan TV station that Iran (yes, the same Iran run by the totalitarian mullahs who applaud Palestinian suicide-bombers, jail and torture dissident bloggers, and execute children and homosexuals) has a "legitimate role to play in this region, as do all of Afghanistan's neighbors."

Writing in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal, Gabriel Schoenfeld quotes a 2006 posting on a confidential Internet site, in which Freeman offered his view of "the truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities"--which apparently was not the decision by China's despots to order in China's own army to shoot China's own people--but "the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud."

For that matter, will America be engaging abroad on the terms of the values displayed by Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, who from his high national pulpit recently denounced America as "a nation of cowards"--with no public rebuke from Obama.

Holder was speaking about race in a speech to a domestic audience. But is anyone in the Obama administration paying attention to how such talk might feed the aggressive ambitions of America's enemies abroad? For that matter, in appointing Timothy Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury, despite the tax-cheat scandal, has Obama considered what kind of signal that sends not only to Americans but beyond our shores, regarding the value placed by the current White House on integrity in financial dealings?

What are we to make of the values involved in Obama's signing, with fanfare, an order to shut down Guantanamo Bay, our holding tank for alleged terrorists--while holding out olive branches to assorted despotisms that specialize in consigning democratic dissidents to some of the world's worst dungeons?

If the world is one, and Obama is a citizen, how do we reconcile the showmanship over Guantanamo with the sidelining of issues that lead to the doors of Syria's horrific Tadmor Prison, Iran's Evin Prison, Libya's Abu Salim or the labor and death camps of North Korea?

On two fronts, Obama has displayed sharp concern for "values" over realpolitik--or whatever we might call the above mix. Guantanamo, as just mentioned, and Darfur, on which Obama and Vice President Biden recently held an evening pow-wow in the White House with actor George Clooney.

These are not equivalent issues. What they do have in common, however, is that, unlike the dissidents of Iran and Syria, the vanished dissenters of North Korea, the smothered voices of democracy in China, they are favorite causes of the American media and Hollywood.

Obama has been described, at least in his speech delivery, as Reaganesque. But had Ronald Reagan lived by such values, it's a good bet he never would have delivered the mortal blows he did to the Soviet Union and its satrapies, summed up in his 1987 demand in West Berlin: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." Instead, we might have heard something like "We've made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not always lived up to our best intentions"… Oh, wait! We did hear that, not so long ago. That was Obama, speaking last July, in Berlin.

It is one thing to tear down a wall that imprisons people within a tyranny. It is another to tear down distinctions between democratic and despotic governments, ignoring profound differences of principle in the hope that appeasing and engaging, with maybe some cash thrown in, will bring peace.

In Obama's defense, it might be said that no government is entirely consistent in such matters. The world is too complex for that. Reagan stood up to the Soviets but flinched when Iran-backed Hezbollah bombed the marine barracks in Beirut.

George W. Bush talked big about democracy, and wrestled it through to where it stands a chance in Iraq, but otherwise tilted heavily in his second term toward engagement--negotiating with North Korea, hosting Syria at Annapolis, attending the Beijing Olympics and largely turning over the urgent matter of Iran's nuclear ambitions to the feckless care of the European Union and the UN. If America's values are freedom, democracy, individual liberty and justice for all, then every presidency has come freighted with some big exceptions.

But by lights of American values, the Obama presidency at its outset is charting a course in which such exceptions look more like the rule. To the great benefit of both the wider world and its own people, America has stood and prospered for a long time as a beacon of freedom.

Is the future as bright with America transforming itself into a beacon of "engagement"?

 

Check your history on previouse statements by American leaders of both parties, he has said and done no more than they have, you might not like that but it happens to be the truth. Reagan extended the hand to the Russians, America happily supported Sadam, I have given links to many documents here showing that but No you only pick on Obama and are yet to show a single act of appeasement
Show me were he has withdrawn any support for Israil, show me one single country that he has given up.
The simple fact is Midas you cant but dont have the honesty to admit it.
Do you think that the Iranian race for nuclear wepons only started when he got into the white house? or that Syria has not been activly persuing this goal for years? I have allready posted evidence about the North Korean nuclear programe starting long before I believe President Obama was even born, yet you choose to ignore little facts like those.
Now I will ask you as I asked Jack what exactly do you want President Obama to do? would you like him to invade North Korea, Iran, Syria, Pakistan and every other muslim country? or how about Nuking them all? Just what do you want him to do?

 

What would I like O to do?
Simple. Send "black ops" into Iran and kill this fooker. It really is that simple.

 

Then what happens?

 

Who exactly should they kill?

 

When Gadafi F...ed with us, Reagan went after him and that was pretty much the last time we heard from that muslim animal.

Almost 200 years earlier, President Thomas Jefferson dispatched our marines with the USS Constitution to deal with the same islamic animals and guess what? It worked! Those bas-tards then behaved themselves and killed and raped among themselves.

Just goes to show you that the only tactic islamic animals understand is force because history has proven that you can NEVER, EVER enter into peace with those that follow islam who themselves believe that peace will only be obtained once one "submits and surrenders" to their religion and sharia way of life...which is the definition of the word ISLAM!

Shoot first and then let their allah sort it out...it's a good deal for "true" muslims because they get to cash in on 72 virgins and eternal paradise...no matter how of much of rape and murder they committed on this Earth!

 

Yes lets commit Genocide, Midas has spoken we shall reopen the Death camps, lets gas them all or should we nuke them, how about Anthrax or bottulism. Woo just thing of the fun Midas and his little palymates can have all dressed up in thers nice new uniforms with shiny whips.

 

Oh boo hoo...when you fight wars, you have to kill people and knock down their buildings. I can't make it any more simple than that.

Islam declared war on the WEST well before 9/11, it is in their koran, their texts, their prophet's actions and yes...their complete history.

Until a nation has embraced Islam, it is legally considered a battlefield (Dar-ul-Harb). Once it has converted to Islam (or all its citizens have been slaughtered or driven out), it then becomes a Land of Peace (Dar-us-Salaam). Look this up and see for yourself!

If you think that the threat of islam is only a phenomenon of the Middle East, think again! Remember, the Jews have been fighting a brave and fierce battle against Islam for over 50 years alone. Isreal is the last bit of land with Western culture left in the Middle East...and it is driving muslims crazy!

There are many other "hot spots" in the world...hence the reason why 95% today's wars and conflicts all have islam at is core.

But go ahead and crawl under your bed hoping they will go away and stop.

 

Remindes me a lot of what they said at Nuremburg LOL come on admit it Midas bring it out into the light of day, you are advocating Genocide. Why be shy about it, be true to your beliefs
LOL this is the man who thinks a couple of bombs on a london tube train and a bus is funny!!