Sep 13, 2012 No Comments ›› Pat Dollard
(THE BLAZE) Islamists claim their bloody siege of the U.S. Embassies in Cairo and Benghazi on the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks was catalyzed by an “anti-Islam” movie
Experts say the real reason for the onslaught was not a movie mocking Islam, but part of a concerted “ten year plan” to make slandering Islam unlawful on an international scale
U.S. administration’s hair-trigger reaction was to first apologize for offending Islam, rather than meet fire with fire over the act of war on U.S. soil
A contingent of the Islamists waging the attacks were the very “rebels” America aided in the Arab Spring uprisings in Egypt and Libya
The bloody attacks on U.S. embassies in Egypt and Libya that left four American public servants, including a U.S. ambassador dead, have sparked international outrage and controversy. Islamists claim that the catalyst for the riots was the release of an American movie critical to Islam, but according to Middle East and foreign policy experts interviewed by TheBlaze, there is a more sinister motivation at play for these bloody acts of aggression than meets the eye.
The film, to experts, only served as a “convenient excuse” for Islamists — particularly Salafists and members of the Muslim Brotherhood — to escalate tensions to a fever pitch in the hopes of achieving their ultimate goal: To make “slandering” Islam unlawful on an international level.
If it sounds too far-fetched to come to fruition, those whose life work has been to study, analyze, and in many instances prosecute Islamic terrorists, provide some compelling food for thought. First it is important to understand the current complexity of the relationship between the U.S., Libya and Egypt following the Arab Spring uprising.
The genesis of Tuesday’s bloody attacks
While the Middle East has been no stranger to turmoil, the years 2010 and 2011 marked a significant turning point in the region, as the U.S., led by President Obama under the guise of NATO, intervened in Libya’s budding civil war between civilian rebels and forces loyal to the late Moammar Gadhafi. Preventing the carnage from overspilling further, America’s role in helping to overthrow the despot who ruled Libya with an iron fist for over four decades turned out to be a thankless job.
On Tuesday, militants — some of whom were likely part of the very rebel-base the U.S. supported against Gadhafi — breached the American Consulate in Benghazi, slaughtering four Americans including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. But a similar situation brews in Egypt. As with Libya, the Obama administration wholeheartedly signed on to aiding the “middle class folks“ trying to catch a break in Tahrir Square as they waged an ”Arab Spring” to oust then-President Hosni Mubarak. Again, Obama stepped in, aiding the very rebels who reports now indicate are largely Muslim Brotherhood operatives and other militants hostile to the West and Israel.
How did the newly “free” Egyptian “middle class folk” thank the U.S. for its efforts? Seize the U.S. embassy in Cairo, lower the American flag that had been flying at half-mast in honor of 9/11, and replace it with a black Islamic flag declaring jihad that read: ”There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger.” The configuration of the letters formed an emblem often used by Islamic radicals. Meanwhile, protesters chanted, “we are all Osama.”The U.S. response
Islamists claim that the catalyst for both the attacks in Cairo and Benghazi were based on the release of an obscure American film critical of Islam.
Even some members of the embassy’s staff took to Twitter to state that the U.S. government even condemned the movie. The tweets were subsequently deleted and the State Department and the White House has since distanced itself from the comments.
Nonetheless, U.S. consulates and its employees — especially after three and half years — are indeed part of the administration, thus many believe the tweets in question reflect the overall view of the Obama White House: apologize for offending Islam rather than go toe-to-toe with enemies who carried out an act of war on American soil.
The president stated that while the United States “rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.” Hardly the kind of self-assured response one would hope for in a commander in chief following an act of aggression on this scale.
