Could the four American Deaths in Libya have been prevented?

It's looking more and more like the answer is "yes":

Revealed: inside story of US envoy's assassination

The killings of the US ambassador to Libya and three of his staff were likely to have been the result of a serious and continuing security breach, The Independent can reveal.

American officials believe the attack was planned, but Chris Stevens had been back in the country only a short while and the details of his visit to Benghazi, where he and his staff died, were meant to be confidential.

The US administration is now facing a crisis in Libya. Sensitive documents have gone missing from the consulate in Benghazi and the supposedly secret location of the "safe house" in the city, where the staff had retreated, came under sustained mortar attack. Other such refuges across the country are no longer deemed "safe".

Some of the missing papers from the consulate are said to list names of Libyans who are working with Americans, putting them potentially at risk from extremist groups, while some of the other documents are said to relate to oil contracts.

According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and "lockdown", under which movement is severely restricted.

Mr Stevens had been on a visit to Germany, Austria and Sweden and had just returned to Libya when the Benghazi trip took place with the US embassy's security staff deciding that the trip could be undertaken safely.

Eight Americans, some from the military, were wounded in the attack which claimed the lives of Mr Stevens, Sean Smith, an information officer, and two US Marines. All staff from Benghazi have now been moved to the capital, Tripoli, and those whose work is deemed to be non-essential may be flown out of Libya. [...]

Wouldn't the embassy's security staff have decided differently, had they been given the benefit of earlier mentioned intelligence information? Someone dropped the ball.

The UK's Daily Mail has some pretty dramatic photos of the continuing Middle East rioting.

     

The motives behind the terrorism in Mumbai

From Maynard at the Tammy Bruce blog:

India and Pakistan: To War?

Why was Mumbai attacked? Here's a theory:

Since the 9/11 attacks, America has bribed and pressured Pakistan to take further control over its lawless border with Afghanistan, which has effectively given militants a safe haven. This has been a delicate situation, but there seems to have been progress in recent months. We've lately heard news stories about American attacks inside Pakistan, and more aggressive moves by Pakistan's army. Such things only happen after behind-the-scenes diplomatic agreements have been reached.

The attack on Mumbai leaves the Indian people demanding revenge, and Pakistan is the obvious target. Does Pakistan deserve the Indian reprisal? Maybe, maybe not. The point is, if hostilities break out, Pakistan's army will have better things to worry about than the Afghan border. So a conflict between Pakistan and India serves al-Qaida's interest, in that it gives the terrorists additional breathing room. This may be why the Mumbai attack was launched. [...]

It makes a lot of sense. Condi Rice is no doubt very busy right now. As Maynard suggests, let's hope cool heads prevail.
     

Brussels' Mayor bans 9-11 observances

From Paul Belien at the Brussels Journal:

No Flowers for 9/11 Victims, Stones Thrown at Buses

Yesterday evening youths in Kuregem, an immigrant neighbourhood of Brussels, threw stones at buses of the Flemish public transport company De Lijn. No passengers got hurt though the buses, heading for Flanders, the Dutch-speaking area surrounding Brussels, were damaged and windows were shattered. The youths were said to be angry because earlier in the day Flemish politicians had tried to hold a vigil for the victims of the 2001 9/11 attacks in Manhattan.

Yesterday morning about 100 people gathered at the WTC buildings in Brussels to each lay down flowers in remembrance of the 9/11 victims. The participants were members of the Vlaams Belang party, which strives for the independence of Flanders from Belgium and also wants to halt Muslim immigration. After Filip Dewinter, a VB leader, laid down his flowers, the Brussels police intervened and stopped the ceremony.

[...]

Last week Freddy Thielemans, the Socialist Mayor of Brussels, had prohibited the 9/11 demonstration near the Brussels WTC towers. Mr Thielemans banned the demo arguing that the Brussels WTC towers are situated near an immigrant neighbourhood and that it is inappropriate to hold such a demonstration during Ramadan. An appeal against the Mayor’s ban was rejected by the Council of State, Belgium’s highest administrative court. [...]

The Mayor did allow a demonstration of so-called “truth activists” who claim that the American government was behind the 9/11 terror attacks.

"Racism" is the excuse they used to ban the 9-11 remembrance observances. It's also the excuse they are using to silence their political opposition. They are trying to strip VB opposition leader Frank Vanhecke of his position and eligibility to run for office, by charging him with the crime of "racism" for the publication of an article that he did not write, or even see prior to it's publication. The chilling details of this political lynching are shocking; welcome to Europe's new multicultural fascism.

Just remember, these are the people who insist we must elect Obama. Can you guess why?

"World Opinion" about Obama, and 9-11

I would guess they can all agree about "God damn America". An endorsement from such people speaks volumes about the agendas of all concerned.
     

We must abandon the principle of free speech

WHAT!?! If we want to reconcile with Islam, that is what we must do, according to some Islamist "authorities". American writer Joshua Trevino at the Brussel's Journal has the details:

Too Good to Win. Is the West Losing the War?

[...] Last week, I returned from the Third International Conference on the Muslim World and the West in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The aim of the conference was to “bridge the gap,” as they put it, between the Muslim world and the West.

Now, this seems like a worthy thing. Surely we of the West ought to find our common ground with the Muslim world, and vice versa. Surely there is common ground to be found. Surely the problems between us are predominantly problems of understanding and comprehension… and surely they are solvable with a little goodwill.

I admit to having been a bit dismayed when, at a pre-conference interview, the chairman — a Columbia University alumnus named Imam Feisal Rauf — told me that Muslim violence was “predominantly” the fault of Westerners. Nonetheless, I soldiered on in the belief that we could — how to put it? — bridge the gap.

To say that the luminaries of the conference disappointed my hopes is to understate things. But to say that that were luminous is to be perfectly accurate. I’ll just name three of the most prominent and powerful:

• Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Ekmeleddin Ihsanouglu of Turkey.
• Former Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz.
• His Royal Highness Prince Turki bin Faisal al Saud, former director of Saudi intelligence, and until recently the Saudi Ambassador to the United States.

These men are educated… well traveled… experienced… wealthy… and Westernized. And each of them told the conference that for the West and Islam to reconcile, the West must abandon the principle of free speech. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) Josh give the details of what they said, and it's shocking. It's bad enough that the whole conference was like that. But even worse, all the representatives from the West who were invited to speak agreed with them! Josh speculated about that:

[...] The deputy speaker of the French National Assembly was there, as was a Spanish ambassador, an Australian MP, and various other mostly European functionaries. Every single one of them accepted the demand for an end to free speech without complaint.

We might call this the mindset of the quisling. Or, to invoke the opposite side of that historical allusion, we might say that they merely adhere to Winston Churchill’s admonition that “it is better to jaw-jaw than to war-war.”

There is tremendous wisdom in Churchill’s statement — but to take it at face value is to ignore that the man himself would not “jaw-jaw” with simply anyone, on any terms. This, after all, is a man for whom Mohandas Gandhi was deemed a morally unfit interlocutor. (I believe Churchill was right on this, but that’s for another speech.) Churchill rightly understood that to talk with someone in the absence of conditions gives some measure of moral sanction to that person.

For Churchill, to sit down with Hitler on equal terms, conceding from the start the legitimacy of the Nazi’s desires, was to lose the battle before it began. [...]

Churchill wasn't a fool, and we would do well to follow his example. And lest you think this is merely a Muslim bashing article, it's not. Josh does not agree that these attitudes represent the whole of the Islamic world. He maintains that we must not accept the "logic" that our freedom is responsible for Islamic terror, and insists that we have an obligation, to ourselves and the Islamic world, to stand up and defend our freedom. He ends the article with an explanation of why he became a Republican at the tender age of nine. Way to go, I say.