Egyptians Can Storm a Mosque – Why Can’t We?

by: the Common Constitutionalist

 

Maybe we can learn a little from the Egyptian army and I’m only being half facetious. Not that I agree with the wholesale slaughter of people, but the Egyptian military appears to have little tolerance for uprisings and Islamists.

 

Now wholesale slaughter may not be accurate. I’m not currently in Cairo and wasn’t during the last week of violence and hundreds of dead. As far as I can tell there has been no determination of massive loss of “innocent” lives. It may very well be mostly Muslim Brotherhood radicals. If that’s the case, it’s fine by me.

 

The most recent incident of Egyptian authorities intolerance for Islamists was at the Fateh Mosque in Rameses Square, Cairo. One report from a witness inside the mosque claimed that they were 700 people including women and children. One has to wonder if the women and children were to be used as human shields.

 

NBC news reported that armed men began entering the Fateh mosque last Friday night and on Saturday gunmen in the mosque “unleashed bullets at security officials below”. The gunmen were positioned on a minaret.

 

The Huffington Post reported that Egyptian security forces stormed the mosque after firing tear gas at hundreds of “Islamists” barricaded inside. Huff Po also reported that gunmen on a minaret fired first.

 

The New York Times described the scene similarly and also called the mosques occupants “Islamists”.

 

The Egyptian security forces did storm the mosque and did clear out the “Islamists”. They didn’t give a second thought to returning fire when fired upon from inside a mosque.

 

Although I feel for the innocent civilians being caught up in the violence, that’s not what this is about.

 

What surprised me, a little, was the liberal use of the word “Islamist” by the lefty news outlets. Although, not surprisingly, Al Jazeera made no mention of that word. They called them protesters.

 

In not one of the mainstream media articles I read, was there any mention of “freedom fighter” or “insurgent”. I guess those terms are reserved for those who kill Americans.

 

It also appears that the mainstream media has little problem with the Egyptian security forces “rules of engagement”. Nowhere did I see any condemnation or any editorial comment regarding the firing upon or storming of a mosque. Funny how that is.

 

So why don’t the Egyptian military or police appear to care? Simple; they want to win and do so quickly and decisively.

 

This prompted me to look back at America’s politically correct “rules of engagement” for some contrast.

 

It seems that if we fire upon a mosque even after being first fired upon, it will just lead to further jihadist recruiting and riots in the streets – that a mosque attack would just further the notion that America is at war with all of Islam.

 

A military spokesman said US soldiers do not enter mosques. They are to respect the sanctity and holiness of all places of worship. I wasn’t aware firing an AK-47 was integral to prayer.

 

During the Iraq war soldiers were forbidden from entering mosques even during a firefight without permission of senior commanders under consultation with Iraqi authorities.

 

A military strike that might have caused more than 30 civilian casualties had to be signed off by the Secretary of Defense. You read that right; The Secretary of Defense!

 

Yet even according to the Geneva Convention – a place of worship, a hospital or any structure that is used for military purposes is considered a “dual structure” and can be targeted.

So the politically correct girlie men that set American military engagement policy evidently believe the Geneva Convention doesn’t go far enough.

 

Andrew Exum, a former Army Ranger and counterinsurgency specialist said: “They (our leaders) are thinking – How’s that gonna play on Al Jazeera? ”

 

In contrast, the Egyptian military evidently couldn’t care less what Al Jazeera thinks. That’s why they will most likely win. And that’s why we haven’t won a war since the Second World War and assuming we don’t change, why we never will again.

 

It’s a sad fact, but a fact nonetheless.

‘Islamist Firster’ President not What he Claimed

By Charles Hurt, The Washington Times:

GOLAN HEIGHTS — Surveying the live minefields, cratered roads and mortar-pocked concrete buildings along the border here between Syria and Israel, it is hard not to be reminded of the historic and monumental disappointment President Obama has been.

When he was campaigning to become the most powerful man in the last standing superpower on Earth, he spoke passionately about changing the world, restoring America’s greatness and bringing more peace and fairness to everyone.

In both foreign and domestic matters, Mr. Obama had unique credibility to change things as few presidents ever had.

Despite his background as a liberal street organizer, he campaigned on tax cuts and personal
responsibility and preached that the government simply cannot be the answer to every problem. Republicans would have no choice but to go along with an agenda to shrink the tax burden and get the federal government out of our everyday lives.

Instead, Mr. Obama has devoted his administration to raising taxes, adding to the byzantine structure of the federal government, and has created a whole new massive bureaucracy he claims really will cure our every little boo-boo.

As for the rest of the world, Mr. Obama promised to devote himself to healing the grave injustices and halting the atrocities that have afflicted the world since the rise of radical, violent jihadism. With his Muslim roots, Mr. Obama was positioned better than any leader on the global stage to speak with authority to radical Islamists and finally bring about permanent peace.

Instead, Mr. Obama chose to unilaterally alienate perhaps our most strategically important ally in the world and do all he can to cozy up to the very

people who are dedicated to destroying not only Israel, but America as well.

Leading Democrats have been in the news lately sliming Americans who stick up for Israel as being “Israel Firsters.” Well, Mr. Obama has become an “Islamist Firster.”

Since becoming president, he has not once visited our greatest ally in the region. Rather, he has gone to places like Cairo to tell the Muslim world how much he likes it. He also stunningly trashed the oath of office he took by saying it is “part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

And, of course, he apologized for the “sexuality” and “mindless violence” from the West permeating the Internet. But Internet porn and creepy videos are little match for virginity tests, stoning women and beheading Jews — all for the fun of it.

When Mr. Obama finally addressed Israel, he shockingly said the tiny country should further retrench so its well-armed enemies can retake high ground from which to fire rockets at Israelis and move closer so they can hit major population centers such as Tel Aviv.

Such a twisted and half-baked view of justice is bad enough in a president. But things are about to get much more terrifying when Iran finally gets its hands on a nuclear warhead, which appears likely to happen in a matter of months.

It will be a very complicated situation because the most powerful man in the last remaining superpower on the planet is an Islamist Firster