(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF NPR NEWS)
Through Ignorance World Leaders Wasted Our Blood And Gold
Yes I did say our, as in (you and I) we are all part of this world conversation we call our lives. There is a section of the world’s population who have no faith system of any kind, what percent, I don’t know that answer but it probably varies from nation to nation wouldn’t you think? What I am going to get at is this, you don’t have to believe in something, for that something to kill you. Here in the States there are a lot of Atheist type folks who through their lack of knowledge degrade Christianity and Judaism every chance they get. Unfortunately we find many of these people in seats of power throughout many nations.
I want to ask you what you thought when your nation (if yours did) put blood and money into these Islamic nations, putting our soldiers in direct open conflict with various Islamic faith factions. I totally agree that after 911 when the experts figured out that Osama was behind it and they learned that he was in Afghanistan being protected by the Taliban whom would not give him up, we should have removed them from the face of the earth. The bigger problem after running those Satanic embers out of power was in how to rebuild this broken nation both physically via helping them build a national infrastructure and a solid national pride in getting all of it’s people a quality education both boys and girls. But, big but, how do you cure the inside of a person when their moral fiber is evil and they refuse to change their beliefs or culture within their own brains?
Our nations leaders should all have known that there is no way to help create a puppet government that can only stand for as long as we prop it up with a lot of our blood and money and honestly expect the nations of fundamental Islam to not retake everything once we leave? O, but isn’t that the same lesson our leaders didn’t learn in Iraq either? There is a fundamental reality about the Islamic faith at it’s core, they do not believe in democracies as the rule of law.
The whole world is in a position to have it’s ground stained with the blood of their own children. There are many major brewing and open conflict areas on the globe, all are dangerous, but no conflict can ever be as dangerous as one that is about what a group’s Faith teaches, especially if that Faith teaches global enslavement by force. I would like to say to the world, please wake up, but I have no faith that we will. Folks the world of Islam is very much at war with you and they will kill you whether you believe in them or not, they would prefer we all be foolish, it makes us all easier to kill. Only Islamic believers can put an end to Islamic violence that is generated by Islamic believers who believe that they are following the teachings of G-d via the Quran and the Hadith. I believe that there is little chance of this ever happening as I believe that way to many folks within the different clans are complicit with this evil.
What If Turkey Did A Full Out Military Attack On The U.S.?
I know that to most folks this idea sounds absurd, you think that it will never happen. I agree that it will probably never happen, not on a straight up one country against another all out war. Could it happen someday if they joined with all of the other Sunni Arab Nations and attacked us, at least that is the more likely of the two. It is difficult to say what all will happen in world politics in the next 10, 20 or fifty years though. There is a reason that I am bringing up this conversation with you today though. If you remember, a couple of years ago Turkeys President was out of Country when a small sect of the Turkish Military as well as some others throughout the Nation tried to perform a coup, which badly failed. When President Erdogan got back home to Turkey he started a year or more long purge within Turkey. The purge was not only within his military it was also throughout academia and the business world. He has now created for himself quite a Dictatorship within Turkey. President Erdogan says that there is a Turkish Cleric whom lives and teaches here in America in the State of Pennsylvanian whom he fills is responsible for the Coup attempt and President Erdogan has insisted that the U.S. Government turn this Cleric over to the Turkish Government, so far the U.S. Government has steadfastly refused to do so.
In the 9/11 attacks in 2001 here in the US. it is said that 2,996 people died, in the Coup attempt in Turkey a little over 300 people died with 2,100 injured. In 2001 when our government figured out that Osama Ben laden was the guilty party leader and that the Government of Afghanistan (The Taliban) was shielding him and refused to give him to us, we attacked Afghanistan in an attempt to get/kill him. Ben Laden has been dead now for almost 6 1/2 years and our military is still in Afghanistan, we have been there now for over 17 years with no real end in sight. My question to everyone is, why do we have the right to do this (killing Ben Laden was something I agreed with) but Turkey doesn’t have the right to do the same thing? If Ben Laden had been hiding in Russia or in China, would we have so eagerly attacked their countries? I am going to finalize this note to you today with a matching question. Is the only reason that President Erdogan of Turkey did not order his military to attack the U.S. and to find and kill this Cleric is because he knew that he had no chance of winning that war? Is the only reason that the U.S. attacked Afghanistan was because we were bigger and badder than them? I’m just wondering, so, what do you think?
(This article is courtesy of the Washington Post News Paper)
The Senate on Wednesday voted to override President Obama’s veto of legislation that would allow 9/11 victims’ families to sue the Saudi Arabian government over its alleged support for the terrorists who carried out the attacks.
The vote was 97 to 1.
The House is expected to vote later in the day and if successful, it will be the first time Congress has overridden a veto during the Obama administration.
“Overriding a presidential veto is something we don’t take lightly, but it was important in this case that the families of the victims of 9/11 be allowed to pursue justice, even if that pursuit causes some diplomatic discomforts,” Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who co-authored the bill with Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), said in a statement.
Traveling aboard Air Force One Wednesday, White House press secretary Josh Earnest called the vote “the single most embarrassing thing the United States Senate has done possibly since 1983.”
“Ultimately these senators are going to have to answer their own conscience and their constituents as they account for their actions today,” Earnest said, noting that at least one GOP senator said some of his colleagues had failed to read the bill before voting on it initially. “To have members of the United States senate only recently informed of the negative impact of this bill on our service members and our diplomats is in itself embarrassing.”
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) cast the lone vote to sustain the veto after receiving a letter from Obama arguing the consequences could be “devastating,” and urging him “to vote to sustain the veto.”
In the letter, which Obama sent Tuesday to both Reid and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the president said that he was “fully committed to assisting the families of the victims of terrorist attacks of Sept. 11″ but the legislation would military and other U.S. officials overseas at risk. The bill’s enactment, he warned, “would neither protect Americans from terrorist attacks nor improve the effectiveness of of our response to such attacks.”
Reid voted against the override despite telling reporters earlier this month that “I support that legislation” and Schumer’s efforts.
“He’s always had the president’s back,” said Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson.
McConnell spokesman Don Stewart said the president called the majority after the override vote was scheduled, but neither the conservation nor the letter did anything to change his mind.
Both chambers passed the legislation without dissent earlier this year, but now several lawmakers are echoing the White House’s argument that the legislation could set a dangerous precedent, inviting other nations to respond by suing American diplomats, military personnel and other officials in foreign courts.
Critics of the bill are now focusing on how to scale back the measure once it becomes law. Approximately 20 senators have signed onto a letter expressing their intention to return to the issue during the lame duck if there are negative consequences once the 9/11 bill becomes law.
“We see the writing on the wall: the override is going to occur,” said Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who has been leading efforts to negotiate a narrower alternative, before the vote.
Corker is one of several members who argue the bill, which would allow courts to waive claims to foreign sovereign immunity in situations involving acts of terrorism on U.S. soil, is so broad that it could expose the United States to retaliation in foreign courts.
He complained that if the bill becomes law “what you really do is you end up exporting your foreign policy to trial lawyers,” adding that U.S. personnel might find themselves dragged into lawsuits abroad over American drone use in Pakistan and Afghanistan, or even its support for Israel.
Yet he and other senators who expressed similar concerns elected, in the end, to vote for the override.
Sen. Angus King (I-Me.), who asked Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter about potential repercussions for military personnel last week, said he voted for the override because “concrete benefit” for the 9/11 victims’ families outweighed “speculative detriment” to American officials and foreign relations.
In a letter Monday to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Tex.) and ranking member Adam Smith (D-Wash.), Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter warned that allowing the bill to become law risked “damaging our close and effective cooperation with other countries” and “could ultimately have a chilling effect on our own counter-terrorism efforts.”
Thornberry and Smith both circulated letters among members in the last few days, urging them to vote against overriding the veto.
CIA Director John O. Brennan also warned of the 9/11 bill’s “grave implications for the national security of the United States” in a statement Wednesday.
Members who criticized the legislation guessed their colleagues might be more open to scaling back the measure after observing the international “blow-back” once it becomes law. Corker said he is working with Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Ben Cardin (D-Md.) — who also supported the override Wednesday — in the hopes that “during the lame duck, maybe there’s a way to be successful in tightening this up.”
One alternative lawmakers have discussed is limiting the measure to the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, as a way of satisfying the demands of the 9/11 victims’ families without opening the United States to continuing diplomatic and legal problems.
Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in an interview that it could take time to grasp the bill’s full implications, and there may be “some time to tweak the law before some of the most damaging consequences become clear.”
“But the biggest issue is that it opens up government agencies to court-ordered discovery,” Alterman said, adding that the federal government might not only be forced to hand over documents related to 9/11 litigation but could face lawsuits from those who have been victims of drone strikes and other American military activities. “It’s not limited to Saudi Arabia, and it’s likely to have a much larger impact on the U.S. government than the Saudi government, because the U.S. government takes rules very seriously.”
While Congress continues to approve arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the executive branch closely collaborates with its government on intelligence sharing and military operations against Islamist extremists, the vote comes at a time where tensions between the longtime allies are rising.
“This is not a time when U.S.-Saudi relations have much popular support on either side,” said F. Gregory Gause, head of the international affairs department at Texas A&M University’s Bush School of Government and Public Service. Just as the Saudis think the administration has titled too closely towards Iran, he said, many U.S. politicians blame Saudi Arabia for the globe spread of Sunni extremism. “I think that’s really simplistic.”
The Saudi government has denied it had any ties to the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks and has lobbied fiercely against the bill. But victims’ families have pushed for the legislation so they can press their case in courts and lawmakers who support the measure argue if the Saudis did nothing wrong they have nothing to worry about.
While White House staffers have reached out to certain members of Congress, Obama did not launch an all-out lobbying push to pull members away from this bill.
“I know of no counting or anything they’ve asked me to do on that,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters Tuesday. Pelosi intends to vote to override Obama’s veto.
Bill supporters have not warmed to any of the alternative proposals critics are floating and Cornyn dismissed the idea Congress will revisit the legislation later this year.
“As far as I’m concerned this bill is a done deal,” Cornyn said. “Obviously any senator or group of senators can offer any additional legislation they want, and we’ll take it up in due course.”
Mike DeBonis contributed to this report.
un teatru pentru suflet
Health, Rights, Life
El Blog de Rosarin sobre escritos, relatos, pensamientos, música y moda
Sometimes we need fantasy!
Tout en vrac
Pour vous toucher par les mots... avec le concours de Lilou, ma nièce, photographe en herbe Site: www.freellium. wordpress.com