Feedbak UVideos

¡Bienvenido a los Foros de Univision! Participa, intercambia mensajes privados, sube tus fotos y forma parte de nuestra Comunidad. | Ingresa | Regístrate Gratis
Responder
Junior
remedios111
Mensajes: 499
Registrado: ‎09-17-2012

Re: ¿Qué opinas sobre el asesinato del embajador de EU en Li

 

Libyan President Mohamed Yousef El-Magariaf told CBS “Face the Nation” host Bob Shieffer that the embassy attack was “preplanned.” He said: “It was planned, definitely. It was planned by foreigners, by people who entered the country a few months ago. And they were planning this criminal act since their arrival.”

An Israeli Foreign Ministry official, speaking in reference to the growing signs of “radicalization” in the Arab world, said: “We knew what was happening, but the Americans preferred to find excuses” (“Israeli Foreign Ministry: U.S. Ignored Arab Radicalization”; Haaretz.com; Barak Ravid/Jonathan Lis; Sept. 16, 2012).

Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations contradicted Libyan and Israeli intelligence about the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, saying: “Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what has transpired in Cairo.” My question is – how would the Obama administration know? Are we to believe that Obama’s “gang that couldn’t hit the ocean spitting over the side of a row-boat in the Pacific” is better informed than the Israelis? Or is the ambassador trying to cover-up for Obama’s abysmal foreign-policy record?

It is difficult to imagine a more stu...pid act by Obama than responding to Islamic barbarism by apologizing for a movie that accurately depicted Muhammad.

Having said that, his hasty apology must take a back seat to the stu...pid decision of his ambassador to Egypt, Anne Patterson, who “did not permit U.S. Marine guards to carry live ammunition” – the Obama administration trusting “Egypt’s new Muslim Brotherhood-backed government to ensure American security” rather than American Marines (“Report Says U.S. Marines In Cairo Not Allowed To Carry Live Ammunition”; Joe Newby; Examiner.com; Sept. 13, 2012).

America cannot be supportive of a commander in chief who is more like a paper-doll apologist than an iron-willed competent leader.

In 2007 Obama was feeling quite full of himself when he said that the very moment he was inaugurated the Muslim world would look at America differently, and that he was uniquely qualified to stabilize America’s relationships in the Muslim world because he had lived in a Muslim country (as a child) and his half-sister is Muslim.

It is the stupidity of a megalomaniac for Obama to believe he could simply call and talk to the rogue leaders of countries like Cuba and Iran and they would cease pernicious behavior. I submit it would be more prudent of him to call and talk to a good psychiatrist about his glaring narcissism and his emotional instability.

And it is the very portrait of stupidity for Obama and his minions (which apparently includes Republicans) to attack Mitt Romney for daring to condemn Obama for apologizing and making excuses for heathen Muslim behavior.


 

ricfeliu
Mensajes: 2,749
Temas: 10
Kudos: 18
Publicaciones de blog: 0
Registrado: ‎07-18-2008

Re: ¿Qué opinas sobre el asesinato del embajador de EU en Li

(CNN) — Mitt Romney dijo este lunes que sus polémicas declaraciones fueron capturadas en un video "espontáneo" y "no fue expresado con elegancia", pero defendió el mensaje principal de su discurso.

Romney tomó tres preguntas en una breve conferencia de prensa con los reporteros la noche del lunes en California, prevista de último minuto en respuesta a la publicación de un video grabado en secreto del candidato hablando en una reunión privada de recaudación de fondos en mayo.

El video rápidamente se convirtió en material potencialmente dañino para el candidato presidencial republicano.

En las imágenes, grabadas con una cámara oculta, Mitt Romney sostuvo que cerca de la mitad de los estadounidenses va votar por el presidente Barack Obama, ya que cuentan con el apoyo del gobierno y hacía bromas acerca de aparentes deseos de tener herencia latina.

"Hay un 47% de las personas que van a votar por el presidente, no importa", dice Romney en el video. "Hay un 47% que están con él, que dependen del gobierno, que creen que son víctimas, que creen que el gobierno tiene la responsabilidad de cuidar de ellos”.

Romney dijo que su "trabajo no es preocuparse por esas personas".

"Nunca voy a convencerlos de que deben asumir la responsabilidad personal y el cuidado de sus vidas", añadió. "Lo que tenemos que hacer es convencer al 5 y 10 por ciento en el centro que son independientes, que sean objetivos".

Los videos fueron publicados este lunes por la tarde en los sitios web de noticias de izquierda The Huffington Post y Mother Jones. La persona responsable de la filmación, dijo que él o ella desea permanecer en el anonimato por "razones profesionales y para evitar una demanda", según el Huffington Post.

David Corn, el autor del artículo en Mother Jones, dijo que el evento se llevó a cabo el 17 de mayo en Boca Raton, Florida, en la casa del ejecutivo de Sun Capital, Marc Leder.

Junior
valladolid1
Mensajes: 458
Registrado: ‎09-17-2012

Re: ¿Qué opinas sobre el asesinato del embajador de EU en Li

Obama’s Foreign Policy Fraud Has  Come Undone

By Daniel Greenfield On Sept18, 2012 In  Daily Mailer,FrontPage

 

 

The Islamist mobs shouted: “Obama, Obama,  now you have 1,000 Osamas”.  Was it Obama’s  constant bragging that he  killed Osama Bin Laden what provoked  the riots on over 30 cities around  the world and not the movie that nobody saw?

 

The mass riots and attacks on embassies do not mark the  moment  when Obama’s foreign policy imploded. That happened a long time  ago. What these  attacks actually represent is the moment when the  compliant media were no longer  able to continue hiding that failure in  bottom drawers and back  pages.

The media successfully covered for Obama’s retreat from  Iraq,  and the weekly Al Qaeda car bombings and rush to civil war no longer  make the  news. The media have also done their best to cover for Obama’s  disaster in  Afghanistan which has cost thousands of American lives while  completely failing  to defeat the Taliban.

Obama had hoped to cover up his defeat in Afghanistan by   cutting a deal with the “moderate” Taliban, but the Taliban, moderate or   extreme, refused to help him cover his pposition.  Attacks in Afghanistan  have  escalated, but the media have avoided challenging the bizarre  assertions from  the Obama campaign that the mission has been accomplished  and Karzai will be  ready to take over security in a few years.

And then the Islamists did something that the media just   couldn’t ignore. They staged a series of attacks on American embassies and   foreign targets beginning on September 11. These attacks, the most  devastating  and public of which took place on September 11, were  accompanied by Islamist  black flags and chants of, “We Are All Osama” in  countries across North Africa  and the Middle East.

The media have done their best to avoid dealing with the   implications of Islamists carrying out a coordinated series of attacks on   everything from foreign embassies to peacekeeping forces in the Sinai, by   focusing on a Mohammed movie which the Egyptian Salafists exploited for   propaganda purposes, rather than on the tactical support and level of   coordination required to launchh such a broad series of attacks and what  the  attacks and their scope say about the transformation of the conflict  from stray  attacks by terrorist groups to armed militias taking control of  entire  regions.

Rather than doing their job, the media seemed to be  dividing  their attention between reporting on the carnage without any  context and putting  out talking points to prevent Mitt Romney from taking  political advantage of the  disaster. The media’s accusations that Mitt  Romney was politicizing the conflict  were absurd, especially coming after  the New York Times ran an editorial on  September 11 attacking George W.  Bush for not preventing the attacks of that day  and after five years of  Obama and his media allies politicizing every suicide  bombing in  Iraq.

Junior
valladolid1
Mensajes: 458
Registrado: ‎09-17-2012

Re: ¿Qué opinas sobre el asesinato del embajador de EU en Li

 

 

US AMBASSADOR TORTURED, RAPE   AND  KILLED

While American embassies burned, the media were determined to  go on doing what they had been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. They  had covered  for Obama in three disastrous wars, one of which he had  begun and  which had exploded in the faces of staffers at the Benghazi  consulate. And they are still  covering for him, but the conflict has  moved beyond the  point where it can be relegated to the back pages of  the daily papers.

Obama had hoped that the Islamists would see the  advantage of allowing him to save face and give them another term of  the same  inept  appeasement disguised as diplomatic soft power.  Instead the Islamists seized on  his weakness and trumpeted it to the  world to  humiliate him and the country that  he had been temporarily  placed in  charge of.

If Obama had really understood Muslims, the way that  he   claimed he did during the election, then he would have known that  this was coming all along. The way of the desert raid is to catch the enemy  at his weakest and most vulnerable, and to humiliate him for that weakness  in the  eyes  of his peers. In the honor-shame culture of Islam, there  is only room  for honor or shame. Obama tried to cover his shame and retain  his honor  and his enemies  tore that façade of honor away from him  and left only  shame.

As Churchill said to Chamberlain, “Britain and France  had  to  choose between war and dishonour. They chose dishonour. They  will have  war.” Obama tried to have it both ways; he wanted the appearance  of being a strong  honorable leader who wins wars, while pursuing a  cowardly and  dishonorable  policy. Obama chose dishonor in  Afghanistan and Iraq, and now finds that he has a war to deal with  anyway.

Perhaps it was the empty bragging of a weak man about   killing  Bin Laden that infuriated them, but most likely it was the   weakness that he  showed by relying on drone attacks while cutting  the  military that led the  Islamists to launchh a series of global  raids on  American targets. What  looked like smart strategy to the DC  technocrats  told the Islamists that the  United States was no longer  willing or able to  send troops into combat. Drone  strikes might take  out Al Qaeda leaders  with minimal collateral damage, but were   useless when crowds of Islamist  raiders in major cities were  overrunning  American embassies and  consulates.

It would have been in the interests of the Islamists to   let  Obama save face, retreat from Afghanistan and give them another  four  years of a  free ride. But the Salafis carrying out the raids  are not the  cunning variety  that Obama bows to when meeting with the  Gulf royals, nor  are they even the  businessmen of the Muslim  Brotherhood. What they want  are military victories in the old Mohammedan  sstyle rather than winning  elections or tricking the  West into  overthrowing regimes for them.

The Muslim Brotherhood and the Saudis would not have chosen  to humiliate Obama because they need him. The Salafis carrying out the  raids, as opposed to the ones shaking hands with US officials in  Cairo, don’t care about  American elections; they care about blood in  the streets  and swords in the air.  These are the sorts of people who  fly planes into  buildings without considering what this will do to  the plans to use  immigration to change the demographic  balance of  Europe and set off bombs near NATO bases without caring that this  will  slow down the withdrawal of  the infidel troops. They are true believers  and  they believe that it is their unthinking commitment to Islam that  will give them  victory, rather than the calculations and  manipulations of their more upscale  Salafi  brethren in Riyadh and  Cairo.

The attacks have exposed the naked failure of Obama’s   foreign  policy. The sight of American embassies burning across the  Muslim  world has done  what the deaths of thousands of soldiers in  Afghanistan and  a near civil war in Iraq could not do.

Obama has lost the wars, he has lost the peace and now  he  has  also lost the lies.

 

Junior
valladolid1
Mensajes: 458
Registrado: ‎09-17-2012

Re: ¿Qué opinas sobre el asesinato del embajador de EU en Li

Suicide in slow motion: submission to  Islamic threats will doom the American people

By Coach Collins, Sept18 2012

by Doug Book, staff writer

 

If the United States is to survive, Barack Obama MUST be  removed from power.

Pamela Geller told Fox and Friends’ Tucker Carlson that Barack  Obama was literally “…sanctioning the motives behind the murderous Muslim riots  by trying to silence the Muhammad filmmakers.” (1) Geller is right. The clear  and perpetual purpose of Muslim jihadists is the intimidation into silence and  submission of all who dare express any view which operatives of the cult of  Islam consider contrary to the will of Muhammed or the “divine” call-to-global-murder he manufactured 1400 years ago.

After the attacks on the American Embassy in Cairo, Barack  Hussein Obama acted precisely according to the dictates of his Marxist-Islamist  upbringing as his Administration issued a string of heartfelt apologies to  Muslim terrorists for the inexcusable exercise of 1st Amendment rights by a  Coptic Christian who made an obscure film in the United States. “The Embassy of  the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided  individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims…” wrote Obama’s Cairo  Embassy. (2)

 

Junior
valladolid1
Mensajes: 458
Registrado: ‎09-17-2012

Re: ¿Qué opinas sobre el asesinato del embajador de EU en Li

 

 

A short time later, the president’s Ambassador doubled down on his  Morning apology with the now deleted Tweet: “This morning’s condemnation still  stands,” referring once again to the actions of those “misguided individuals” who injure Islamist sensibilities. (2)

Then, incredibly, on Thursday morning, after the murders of  Ambassador Christopher Stevens and 3 members of American Embassy staff in  Benghazi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued the following statement: “The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious  beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very  beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification  for violent acts of this kind.”

Americans had been murdered and reportedly raped (in that  order), their bodies paraded through the streets of Benghazi no doubt to the  cheers of Muslim masses. Yet the primary concern of the Obama Administration was  to apologize yet again for the insensitive treatment of Islam by the maker of a  15 minute home movie!

And to make an even more pointed display of regret for  America’s insult to the Prophet and his murderous minions, the man responsible  for the making of the film was picked up at midnight at his California home for  a little chat with the FBI as his name and address were prominently displayed on  television and throughout the media. (3)

Then, lest any foolish American still believe his 1st  Amendment rights should actually rival the political ambitions of the Obama  Regime as revealed during its 3 year world tour of apology, regret and  contrition, no less than the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General  Martin Dempsey, phoned Pastor Terry Jones asking that the preacher withdraw any  support he may have lent the filmmaking project.

A President of the United States has directed federal law  enforcement officials to harass a private individual for having the audacity to  exercise his 1st Amendment right of free speech! The highest ranking military  officer in the United States telephoned a private citizen asking that he “correct” thoroughly legal, constitutionally protected behavior because it had  been deemed offensive to the Administration and the most brutally corrupt and  murderous “religious” cult on the face of the earth!

The White House even contacted YouTube, asking that the  internet organization review the content of the offending film for a possible  breech by the filmmaker of YouTube’s terms of use agreement!

Barack Obama has not simply sanctioned the motives of Jihad.  He has willfully brought to bear the standards of blackmail and intimidation  exhibited by fellow, America-hating, Islamic thugs in order to manipulate the  sensibilities of the American people and undermine the basic, God given  liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. It is a treasonous and despicable  course of action through which an American president seeks to forge an  unbreakable suicide pact between the nation which bears his lifelong contempt  and the Islamic killers he hopes will complete its destruction.

If the United States is to survive, Barack Obama MUST be  removed from power.

ricfeliu
Mensajes: 2,749
Temas: 10
Kudos: 18
Publicaciones de blog: 0
Registrado: ‎07-18-2008

Re: ¿Qué opinas sobre el asesinato del embajador de EU en Li

 In a just released video, taken behind closed doors, Mitt Romney revealed what he thinks of the 47% of Americans who don’t pay income taxes: “My job is not to worry about those people.”

These comments are appalling. The President’s job is to represent 100% of the people. It’s to lift everyone up and unite us, not further divide us.

Stand behind President Obama and tell him you have his back as the President of 100% of Americans.

http://dscc.org/100percent

Thanks for standing with us,
Patty Murray 







Junior
valladolid1
Mensajes: 458
Registrado: ‎09-17-2012

Re: ¿Qué opinas sobre el asesinato del embajador de EU en Li

Picture of Al Qaeda Assassination  Plot  Emerges

By Arnold Ahlert On September 18, 2012 In Daily   Mailer,FrontPage

The Obama administration’s continuing efforts to maintain  the  narrative that murder of our ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens,  and his  three staff members was part of a “spontaneous” demonstration  inspired by a “very offensive video” took another hit yesterday. The Debka File  is reporting  that the executions were part of a carefully orchestrated  plan carried out by  well-trained al-Qaeda operatives. The 20-man  assassination team was given its  orders by the terrorist organization’s  leader, Ayman al Zawahiri. The assassins  were all Libyans who had been  serving sentences for terrorism under Muammar  Qaddafi’s rule. They were  freed when Qaddafi was overthrown.

The motive for the executions was revenge. On September  10th,  Zawahiri released a 42-minute video confirming that his deputy, Abu  Yahya  al-Libi, was killed in a drone strike in Pakistan’s Waziristan  tribal area on  June 4, according to SITE and IntelCenter. Libi was a  jihadst theologian who  rose to prominence in 2005 after he escaped from  U.S. custody in Afghanistan.  Considered al-Qaeda’s best propagandist, his  death reportedly dealt a major blow  to the organization.

“With the martyrdom of Sheikh Abu Yahya, may Allah have  mercy  on him, people will flock even more to his writings and call, Allah  willing,” Zawahiri said in Arabic, according to a SITE translation. In the  video, titled “The Lion of Knowledge and Jihad: Martyrdom of al-Sheikh Abu Yahya  al-Libi” the  terror master also referenced President Obama, whom he  characterized as a “liar” elected to “trick” Muslims, even as he is “being  defeated in Afghanistan.” Zawahiri brought up Warren Weinstein as well.  Weinstein is an elderly U.S. aid  worker kidnapped by Al-Qaeda just over a  year ago in Pakistan. Zawahiri vowed to  hold Weinstein until the U.S.  released al-Qaeda followers imprisoned in  Afghanistan.

According to Debka, the release of that video was a “go” signal for the mission in Benghazi. To disguise the nature of that mission,  the  assassination team took advantage of the demonstrations allegedly  incited by the  video “Innocence of Muslims,” storming the consulate in  conjunction with the  protesters. The gunmen subsequently split into two  groups of 10 men each, and  carried out their attack in two separate  stages.

The first stage involved one group firing rockets at the   consulate under the assumption that ambassador Stevens’ armed guard detail  would  grab him, get him out of the building, and take him to a safe house  where he  would receive Secret Service protection. According to CBS News,  that’s exactly  what happened. A Libyan commander told them a convoy of 22  vehicles, two of them  armored, fled the consulate, and headed down a road  towards the safe house  located a mile and a half away.

It was during that trip that al-Qaeda put the second phase  of  its plan into action. The second group of terrorists apparently knew  which  vehicles among the convoy contained the ambassador and his armed  escort, and  they set up an ambush to intercept them. As a result, Stevens  and his three  staff members were reportedly killed at point blank range.  Debka further reports  that the investigation by American counter-terror  experts and other “clandestine  services” is focusing on why no clues of  the attack were picked up by any  intelligence agency, as well as the  failure of surveillance authorities to  notice any preparations being made  by the terrorist group.

Yet Mohammed Magarief, the president of Libya’s newly  elected  national congress, while agreeing with Debka’s contention that the  attack was  deliberate, has offered up a somewhat different take on the  players involved.  Magarief contends that the Benghazi militia, Ansar  al-Sharia, was in  communication with al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb  (AQIM) AQIM is a group whose  origin goes back to the 1990s when it was  involved in the fight to overthrow  Algeria’s secular government. It became  AQIM in 2007. Magarief believes it was  Ansar al-Sharia that carried out  the attack, noting a communication they had  with AQIM last Tuesday, during  which they discussed the assault on the consulate  that night.

 

Junior
valladolid1
Mensajes: 458
Registrado: ‎09-17-2012

Re: ¿Qué opinas sobre el asesinato del embajador de EU en Li

PART 2

 

US EMBASSY IN PAKISTAN UNDER   SIEGE

The attack was a “deliberate, calculated  action  by a group working in collaboration with non-Libyan elements,” he  said in an  interview. He warned that Libya remains locked in a battle with  extremists who  wish to turn that country into a hard-line Islamist  state.Magarief  conceded that Ansar al-Sharia’s leadership was  divided, but insisted members of  that militia had still taken part in the  assassination. The group itself has  disavowed any involvement, but an  eyewitness claims he saw the group’s black  flag being carried by some of  the attackers. He also claims he saw one man fire  a rocket-propelled  grenade into the consulate’s grounds, and another shooting an  AK-47 at the  gate of the compound.

Magarief’s assertion was buttressed by the fact that  al-Qaeda  in the Arab Peninsula celebrated the attacks over the weekend and  called for  more of them. ”What has happened is a great event and these  efforts should come  together in one goal, to expel the embassies of  America from the lands of the  Muslims,” AQAP said. And like Zawahiri, AQAP  also linked the killing of Abu  Yahya al-Libi to the attack.

According to The Australian, the investigation of Stevens’ murder “appears woefully slow.” They note that American drones are circling  over  Benghazi, but the crime scene itself has yet to be secured. Magarief  revealed  that, as of yesterday, FBI investigators had yet to arrive and  the only arrests  made so far were of four “low-level” participants.

Late yesterday afternoon Fox News, citing an “intelligence  source on the ground in Libya,” also poked a hole in the  administration’s “spontaneous” demonstration narrative. “There was no protest  and the attacks  were not spontaneous,” the source said, adding the attack “was planned and had  nothing to do with the movie.” This story apparently  corroborates an account  published September 13th by McClatchy Newspapers.  They interviewed a man who  claimed to be a Libyan security guard posted at  the American consulate when it  came under attack. Hospitalized with  shrapnel and a bullet wound arising from  the conflict, the guard said the  area was quiet–“there wasn’t a single ant  outside” is how he put it–until  about 9:30, at which point armed men stormed the  compound. He further  contended that there was no warning an attack was  imminent.

 

Junior
valladolid1
Mensajes: 458
Registrado: ‎09-17-2012

Re: ¿Qué opinas sobre el asesinato del embajador de EU en Li

PART 3

Unfortunately, this seems to be the most accurate  information  garnered by American news organizations to date. The foreign  media referenced  above have seemingly done a far better job ferreting out  the real story. Perhaps  that is because last Friday, State Department  spokeswoman Victorian Nuland made  it clear no further information would be  released by the Obama administration  until the investigation is complete. “I’m going to frustrate all of you,  infinitely, by telling you that now  that we have an open FBI investigation on  the death of these four  Americans, we are not going to be in a **noallow** to  talk at all about  what the U.S. government may or may not be learning about how  any of this  this happened–not who they were, not how it happened, not what  happened to  Ambassador Stevens, not any of it–until the Justice Department is  ready to  talk about the investigation,” she told reporters. “So I’m going to  send  to the FBI for those kinds of questions and they’re probably not going to   talk to you about it,” she added.

On the other hand, the usual media suspects can still be   counted on to support the Obama administration’s effort to scapegoat a film  and,  by extension, filmmaker Nikoula Nikoula, for the failure of its  Middle East  policies. In that regard, CNN reached a new low yesterday.  They not only  published a picture of Nikoula, who has taken great pains to  hide his identity  due to death threats from Islamic terrorists, but  personal information about him  as well. In addition, CNN editorialized  that the video itself would be “Oscar  worthy, if HATEFUL were a  category.”

It is within the context of this odious narrative, fostered  by  an administration with an almost pathological aversion to taking  any  responsibility whatsoever for its mistakes, that any “investigation” into the  deaths of four Americans in Libya will proceed. And since there  is nothing about  this incident that remotely accrues to the interests of  this president or his  administration, Americans should expect that nothing  in the way of relevant  information will be disseminated before the  election–if it is ever disseminated  at all. On the other hand, the  possibility of great irony arises: if any  information reaches the public,  it will likely be the result of leaks from  inside the White House. An  administration that has demonstrated a great appetite  for “spiking the  football” when it suits them deserves nothing less.