Libyans Organize to End 41 Year Rule of Qadaffy Duck

A new revolution is planned for Libya just days after he called for protests across the Middle East, the dictator of Libya is facing some of his own medicine...

Here are some snapshots of the planned protests in Libya that have gotten off to an early start that I've gathered from around the Internet...

Several hundred demonstrators clashed with policemen in the Libyan town of Benghazi overnight on Tuesday, witnesses say. Fourteen people were injured in the unrest, a Libyan newspaper said on Wednesday.

The arrest of a lawyer and human rights activist in Benghazi sparked a protest, which turned into clashes with the police on Tuesday.

Online news portal Al-Manara reports that the families of 14 people killed at an Islamist rally in Benghazi in 2006 started the protest to demand the release of their lawyer Fethi Tarbel outside a police post.

Pro-government supporters joined policemen in fighting the protesters, witnesses say. According to the Libyan newspaper Quryna, 14 people were injured in the violence.

Pro-democracy movements have swept through northern Africa in recent months leading to the ouster of Tunisian President Zine-El Abidine Ben Ali and of the Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

Kadhafi’s regime has faced rare internet calls for protests by activists buoyed by the political changes in both Egypt and Tunisia. Demonstrations were called to commemorate the deaths of the people killed in Benghazi in 2006.

Under the banner "The 17 February Intifada: A Day of Strikes in Libya", a Facebook group urging a popular uprising had garnered more than 5,000 members by Tuesday.

Here is another video produced by organizers of the planned protests...

Here are some places to keep an eye out for developing news from the Libyans...

Twitter:

• #feb17
• #libya
• @EnoughGaddhafi
• @ShababLibya
• @KayriaT
• @OmarAlMukhtar
• @Tripolitanian
• @FreeLibya
• @ChangeInLibya
• @Cyrenaican
• @FreeLibyanman 
• @Libyan4Life
• @yalmega
• @hambon
• @rstripolina
• @HafedAlGhwell
• @Libya_Press

Possible News Sources and Web Pages (some of these aren’t mainstream, and may not have the best websites):

• AllAfrica.com/Libya
• Ahlul Bayt News Agency
• Libya News and Views
• The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information
• Asharq AlAwsat
• Tripoli Post
• National Conference of the Libyan Opposition
• EIN News: Libya
• Enough Gaddhafi

Arabic Language Resources:

• Libya Press
• Elaph

Read More

Americans should never be afraid to give their opinion...Or to burn a Qur'an

"Americans should never be afraid to give their opinion."


These words were spoken by the anonymous American who dared to exercise his first amendment rights and symbolically burn a Qu'ran at Ground Zero. I say dare because, in the eyes of the Leftist Media, the rights of violent Islamists easily trumps any of our rights that are protected under the US Constitution.


I cannot believe that I am seeing America fall under dhimmitude to the threats of reprisal from Islamists for simply exercising our rights. Islam demands special treatment above all other religions...it is hard for me to see a people who once stood against the Evil Empire of the Communist Soviet Union bow to the demands of religious pirates.


For those who do not know what dhimmitude is, here is a simple definition from Wikipedia:


Dhimmitude is a neologism first found in French denoting an attitude of concession, surrender and appeasement towards Islamic demands.


This man is a hero, and millions of Americans should be burning Qu'rans in exercise of our rights.

Read More

WikiLeaks Lies: The "Full Video" Released Has 20 Minutes Missing

...and the 20 minutes that are missing completely exonerates the Americans. Coincidence? I think not. I think that WikiLeaks is so focused on making American soldiers look bad, that they will do anything.

This is what Wiki Leaks is calling the "full video" of the incident that they describe as the "murder" of "civilians killed in Baghdad". Video that is causing outrage in Europe, Islamic countries, and among the American Left. The "full video" is nearly 40 minutes long.


Besides being dishonest about this being footage of mass "murder" and of those killed being "civilians", Wiki Leak is also being dishonest about this being the "full video". It's not. The so-called "full video" is missing 20 minutes of footage.


The editors of Wiki Leak are one part magician and one part defense lawyer. Like a good defense lawyer they are careful never to lie outright; just the convenient omissions coupled with spin which make innocent parties look guilty, and the guilty innocent.


Like a polished magician they want you to look at one hand -- the journalists, the casual manner in which the insurgents are talking to one another, the brutality of death in war, the wounded children -- so that your eyes are distracted from the hand which holds that which is important that you not see in order for the illusion to be complete -- the insurgent with an AK-47, the insurgent with a loaded RPG, the insurgent carrying a spare RPG round, firefights happening near the scene, the convoy which the Reuters cameraman is aiming his lens while surrounded by insurgents, the expressions of anger by the soldiers that insurgents had brought children to the area, the rescue of the children and their evacuation to two US bases for treatment.


But among the many glaring omissions in their perverse and evil slight of hand magic trick which is their narrative of innocence massacred, one sticks out more than anything else: 20 minutes of missing video.

Source: The Jawa Report (go read the entire article over there)


Previously

WikiLeaks Post Video, Claim US Troops Murdered Civilians: Here is the Truth 

Read More

WikiLeaks Post Video, Claim US Troops Murdered Civilians Here is the Truth Multiple Updates

**1.53PM update #3** Rusty Shackleford does it again...shows video proof of RPG (what Lefties had been calling a Zoom Lens being used by the Reuters Reporter)[link] I've swiped the animated image and posted it here in all it's glory.


Why is that Lefties and lefty libertarians are always so eager to make excuses for armed terrorists and are so quick to pounce on the forces of good, like our soldiers and our own police? Do they hate our civilization that bad? Or do they just enjoy being contrarians?


**11.36AM update #2** I found a chorus of approval for the WikiLeaks video at Daily Paul (a pro-Ron Paul website) [link] and expressions of hatred for America and our soldiers in the comment thread. Only one comment on the first page expressed anything remotley pro-American, and the commenter acknowledged a fear of being 'black-listed' at the website for daring to express a dissenting opinion. [link to comment][link to screenshot with text highlighted]  


**10.42AM update #1** More information on the editor of WikiLeaks: Julian Assange is president of a NGO and Australia's most infamous former computer hacker. He was convicted of attacks on the US intelligence and publishing a magazine which inspired crimes against the Commonwealth.


Read more at America Power. I believe that it will become even more clear that this organization is inherently anti-American.











A friend on Facebook, Paul D. Metcalf, posted a link to a video released by WikiLeaks alleging to show US Troops murdering civilians in Baghdad. I watched the video and found nothing wrong with what our pilots did. I commented on the link on Paul's page, saying something along the lines, "I see nothing wrong with what they did. If I were there, I would have engaged the targets as well." Paul, not being interested in hearing that, gave me the boot. I have noticed that that is something that a lot of people who call themselves "libertarian" minded or say they are for liberty. When confronted with an opposing opinion...they go nuts and shut down dialogue before they are proven wrong.


I had it in mind to go through the video and grab some screen captures of the terrorists (who WikiLeaks...and by extension, Paul were calling civilians) carrying weapons and seeking to kill American soldiers. Come to find out, that has already been done by some fellow Counterjihadists. I will link to some of them after I embed the videos purporting to show American soldiers murdering civilians...when they are quite plainly killing armed terrorists.


Here are the videos, the first is a very transparent propaganda piece:
















The Weekly Standard [link to article] has answered this piece very nicely, and an excerpt follows:

Wikileaks, the website devoted to publishing classified documents on the Internet, made a splash today with a video claiming to show that the U.S. military "murdered" a Reuters cameraman and other Iraqi "civilians" in Baghdad on July 12, 2007. But a careful watching of the video shows that the U.S. helicopter gun crews that attacked a group of armed men in the then Mahdi Army stronghold of New Baghdad was anything but "Collateral Murder," as Wikileaks describes the incident.


There are a couple of things to note in the video. First, Wikileaks characterizes the attack as the U.S. military casually gunning down Iraqis who were innocently gathering on the streets of New Baghdad. But the video begins somewhat abruptly, with a UAV starting to track a group of Iraqi males gathering on the streets. The voice of a U.S. officer is captured in mid-sentence. It would be nice to know what happened before Wikileaks decided to begin the video. The U.S. military claimed the Iraqis were killed after a gun battle with U.S. and Iraqi security forces. It is unclear if any of that was captured on the strike footage. Here is what the U.S. military had to say about the engagement in a July 2007 press release:


Soldiers of 1st Battalion, 8th Cavalry Regiment, and the 2nd Battalion, 16th Infantry Regiment, both operating in eastern Baghdad under the 2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, along with their Iraqi counterparts from the 1st Battalion, 4th Brigade, 1st Division National Police, were conducting a coordinated raid as part of a planned operation when they were attacked by small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. Coalition Forces returned fire and called in attack aviation reinforcement.


There is nothing in that video that is inconsitent with the military's report. What you see is the air weapons team engaging armed men.


Second, note how empty the streets are in the video. The only people visible on the streets are the armed men and the accompanying Reuters cameramen. This is a very good indicator that there was a battle going on in the vicinity. Civilians smartly clear the streets during a gunfight.


Third, several of the men are clearly armed with assault rifles; one appears to have an RPG. Wikileaks purposely chooses not to identify them, but instead focuses on the Reuters cameraman. Why?


Fourth, there is no indication that the U.S. military weapons crew that fired on this group of armed men violated the military's Rules of Engagement. Ironically, Wikileaks published the military's Rules of Engagement from 2007, which you can read here. What you do see in the video is troops working to identify targets and confirm they were armed before engaging. Once the engagement began, the U.S. troops ruthlessly hunted their prey.


Fifth, critics will undoubtedly be up in arms over the attack on that black van you see that moves in to evacuate the wounded; but it is not a marked ambulance, nor is such a vehicle on the "Protected Collateral Objects" listed in the Rules of Engagement. The van, which was coming to the aid of the fighters, was fair game, even if the men who exited the van weren't armed.

And now, WikiLeaks has released what they say is an unedited video...yet it begins in the middle of an engagement.


Here is that video:
















As I commented on Paul D. Metcalf's Facebook Page, I can see nothing wrong with what the US Military Pilots did. I would have pulled the trigger myself and engaged as they did. These men were clearly armed and a clear and present danger to our troops.


I was going to do some screen grabs, but the trusty Rusty Shackleford over at The Jawa report already has [link to article]. Here is an excerpt of what he (and his fellow Jawas have posted regarding this traitorous lie being told by the anti-war freaks at WikiLeaks:

Contrary to all of the "context" given by Wiki Leak which try to lead the viewer into thinking the US Military "murdered" several Iraqis including two who worked for Reuters, the video clearly runs contrary to the narrative. 

I've embedded the Wiki Leak video below. Just ignore all the propaganda they write before and after the video and watch it.

A crowd of men surround at least two armed insurgents. The voices indicate that a Bradley and some Humvees are headed in the direction and that a recent engagement has taken place.

So, the helicopter pilot and ground controllers see armed men with a convoy approaching and taking fire and .... Wiki Leak has the nerve to call thismurder?

They've even embedded it on a site they call "Collateral Murder."

These people are beyond stupid, they're evil.

Worst case scenario this is a few innocent being accidentally killed in the fog of war.

But the video doesn't even appear to be worst case scenario. It appears, in fact, that the video shows armed insurgents engaging or about to engage US troops. The Reuters camera men had embedded themselves with the insurgents. This makes them enemy combatants themselves and should have been shot.

Reuters has a long history of its local stringers embedding themselves with terrorist forces. Perhaps they do this because they are sympathetic, perhaps they do this to get "the story", but it matters little to those engaging insurgents.

When you embed yourselves with terrorists you know the risk. You are producing propaganda for them. You have become one of them.

Anything less than this understanding is purposeful naivite about "objective journalism". In war there can be no objective journalism. You're either with us or the enemy. If you want to stay neutral stay out of the war zone.

As for those who went in to pick up the bodies? Perhaps they were innocents. I've no idea.

But you drive your van into an active military engagement? What the hell were you thinking?

You are stupid. Innocent, but stupid. You're asking to be killed.

And if you brought children into the midsts of an ongoing military engagement that makes you more than stupid: it makes you criminally negligent.

"It's their fault for bringing their kids to a battle," says one of the Americans on the video. Indeed it is.

People, this is war. This happens in war. It can't be avoided. If you want to end civilian casualties then end war. Start by asking armed Islamists to put down their weapons. But you won't do that because your real objection isn't war, it's America. Which is why anti-war activists around the globe never protest al-Qaeda, only America.

They're not anti-war, they're anti-American.

Again, watch it. It's tragic, yes. War is tragic.

The people at WikiLeaks are so anti-war (and in my opinion, anti-American) that they cannot see what is before their eyes. They have no qualm about letting facts get in the way of telling a lie or stop them from propagandizing against America. 

Read More

Grover Norquist: Friend of the Jihad

Pamella Geller clues us in on Grover Norquist, who has been a friend and enabler of the jihad. His support of radical Islam and hatred of Israel is part of the reason I do not participate in the American Conservative Union [I'm not linking to website] and do not go to CPAC. Although I am hearing that Pam and Robert shook things up this year with their Freedom Defense Initiative. Anyway, here is an excerpt from her most recent article:

The Freedom Defense Initiative, a new organization I started with author and scholar Robert Spencer, hosted its inaugural event to an enthusiastic standing-room-only crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference on February 19. But this event was at CPAC, not of CPAC. Could this be because of the influence of conservative kingmaker and power-broker Grover Norquist, who is a member of the Board of Directors of the American Conservative Union, which hosts CPAC? The only event concerning the war on America at CPAC was worse than nothing at all: It was an Islamic propaganda (taqiyya) presentation entitled "You've Been Lied To: Why Real Conservatives are Against the War on Terror." Its message was that "real conservatives" don't support the war on terror because it is a creation of the "Israeli lobby."


How did CPAC come to this?


Grover Norquist's ties to Islamic supremacists and jihadists have been known for years. He and his Palestinian wife, Samah Alrayyes -- who was director of communications for his Islamic Free Market Institute until they married in 2005 -- are very active in "Muslim outreach." Just six weeks after 9/11, The New Republic ran an exposé explaining how Norquist arranged for George W. Bush to meet with fifteen Islamic supremacists at the White House on September 26, 2001 -- to show how Muslims rejected terrorism. Wrote TNR author Franklin Foer...

Source: The American Thinker (be sure to rest the rest of the article over there)


Also check out these excellent related websites:


Atlas Shrugs
Jihad Watch
Freedom Defense Initiative

Read More

Kangaroo Court for Geert Wilders

...the Amsterdam court rejected an assertion from Wilders' laywer, who argued in January at the start of the trial the Supreme Court should hear the case because as a politician, Wilders has a certain protection under freedom of speech laws.


Source: The Tundra Tabloids


Previously

The Geert Wilders Trial Before the Dutch Inquisition

Show Your Support for Geert Wilders
Project Fitna on a Building Near You!

A Petition on Behalf of Geert Wilders

Read More

The Geert Wilders Trial Before the Dutch Inquisition

Graphic Courtesy Gates of Vienna

“The trial against Galileo didn’t change physical reality or threaten the survival of European civilization; the forces that Wilders is warning against could indeed destroy European civilization if left unchecked.”


In 1633 the great Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei was forced by the Inquisition to recant his heliocentric model of the solar system and affirm that the Earth was actually the motionless center of the Universe. Legend has it that immediately after his conviction, Galileo was heard to mutter “Eppur si muove” — “And yet it moves”. The old man was unable to restrain himself entirely from speaking the simple truth.


In Amsterdam the day after tomorrow, another great man will be hauled before a court and charged with speaking the simple truth. The outcome of the Geert Wilders trial — like Galileo’s — is fixed in advance. Mr. Wilders is indeed guilty of speaking the truth about Islam, and he will undoubtedly be convicted.


Fjordman has written a brief essay outlining the parallels between Galileo Galilei and Geert Wilders, and examines the current trial’s enormous significance for the Netherlands, the continent of Europe, and the whole of Western Civilization.

Source: Gates of Vienna (go read the essay that Fjordman has written)

Commentary

For those who have been following the Geert Wilder case, it has been oddly reminiscent of the days when the Roman Catholic Church would would go to great lengths to hunt down and shut up people who held 'heretical' differences of opinion.


Like Galileo before him, Wilders has presented evidence of something the European Establishment in general, and the Dutch in particular, refuse to see. That Islam presents a clear and present danger to Europe, and Western Civilization.


A large part of his crime involves producing the film "Fitna." Efforts by Europeans and Muslims to remove the film from the Internet were epic, but equally epic was the effort to copy and distribute the film by people who agreed with what the film exposed in manner that could be understood by all who saw it.


In solidarity with Geert Wilders, here is my copy of Fitna and a short description:







Fitna is a 2008 short film by Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders. Approximately 17 minutes in length, the film shows a selection of Suras from the Qur'an, interspersed with media clips and newspaper clippings showing or describing acts of violence and/or hatred by Muslims. The film wishes to demonstrate that the Qur'an, and the Islamic culture in general, motivates its followers to hate all who violate the Islamic teachings. Consequently, the film argues, Islam encourages, among others, acts of terrorism,antisemitism, violence against women, and Islamic universalism. A large part of the film deals with the influence of Islam on the Netherlands.
The film's title, "fitna", is an Arabic term used to describe "disagreement and division among people" or a "test of faith in times of trial".[1] Wilders, a prominent critic of Islam, described the film as "a call to shake off the creeping tyranny of Islamization".[2]
On March 27 2008, Fitna was released to the Internet on the video sharing website Liveleak in Dutch and Englishversions. The following day, Liveleak removed the film from their servers, citing serious threats to their staff. On March 30, Fitna was restored on Liveleak following a security upgrade, only to be removed again shortly afterwards by Wilders himself because of copyright violations. A second edition was released later.

Read More