Monday, April 29, 2013

Proof positive that FB censors conservative voices


Facebook: Beheading video 'doesn't violate' standards for graphic violence

By:

Facebook says beheading video does not violate terms of service 
"We reviewed the video you reported, but found it doesn't violate Facebook's Community Standard on graphic violence, which includes depicting harm to someone or something, threats to the public's safety, or theft and vandalism," Facebook said.

The video, which was removed from the page that was originally reported, has been spotted on other timelines and clearly shows a woman being decapitated, allegedly for cheating on her husband.

A post by Celia Mellow at GoPetition said that Facebook gave her the same response to the video. Shocked at the video, she started a petition demanding the video be pulled.

"We, the undersigned, call on Facebook to review any reports to remove the video posted by 'Freddy Guidi' and any other pages/users who have posted 'Beheading videos' in order to protect its users, the families of the victims and to prevent the spread of terrorist threats unnecessarily published on social networks," the petition says.

According to a post at the Daily Kos, the video was shared over 40,000 times from a different timeline.

Due to the graphic nature of the video, we did not provide a link.

Diane Sori, a Florida-based conservative blogger who was banned from Facebook over a link she never posted, was livid.

"I got blocked because I didn't take down a still pic of a beheading that I didn't even know was there and this actual video of one is allowed," she said in disbelief.

"I'm actually seething," she told Examiner. "If this isn't selective enforcement then I don't know what is."

We reached out to Facebook spokesman Fred Wolens for an explanation, but Wolens did not immediately respond.

Related:
Israel Bombs Syrian Chemical Weapons Plant

If not for Bibi, the Middle-East and the Planet would be so screwed ...!!!

DAMASCUS, Syria, April 28 (UPI) — The Free Syrian Army says Israeli air force jets flew over President Bashar Assad’s palace and bombed a chemical weapons site near Damascus, Maariv reported.

The report said the Israeli jets entered Syria’s airspace close to 6 a.m Saturday and flew over Assad’s palace in Damascus and other security facilities before striking a chemical weapons compound near the city.

The Hebrew language daily said a Syrian army air defense battery positioned in the city fired at the Israeli jets that left Syria’s airspace unscathed. FSA rebels posted a video showing smoke rising up from the headquarters for chemical weapons. There were no reports of the extent of damage or casualties.

Neither Damascus or Jerusalem responded to the report.

In January, foreign media reported Israeli jets bombed a weapons convoy parked outside a military research institute near Damascus allegedly en route to Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.



2008_03_21t090711_450x328_uk_afghan_cartoons 

The Dutch government says it will abandon the long-standing model of multiculturalism that has encouraged Muslim immigrants to create a parallel separatist society within the Netherlands. The Netherlands, where 6% of the population is  Muslim, is scrapping multiculturalism and most of the taxpayer-funded benefits to immigrant ingrates that it demands.


The Conservative Papers via Sheik Yermami (h/t Liz)  A new integration bill, which Dutch Interior Minister Piet Hein Donner presented to parliament on June 16, reads: “The government shares the social dissatisfaction over the multicultural society model and plans to shift priority to the values of the Dutch people.

 

In the new integration system, the values of the Dutch society play a central role.”With this change, the government steps away from the model of a multicultural society. The letter continues: “A more obligatory integration is justified because the government also demands that from its own citizens.


Multiculturalismfailure-viIt is necessary because otherwise the society gradually grows apart and eventually no one feels at home anymore in the Netherlands .. The new integration policy will place more demands onimmigrants.

 

For example, immigrants will be required to learn the Dutch language and the government will take a tougher approach to immigrants who ignore Dutch values or disobey Dutch law.” The government will also stop offering special subsidies for Muslim immigrants because, according to Donner; “It is not the government’s job to integrate immigrants.” 

 

The government will introduce new legislation that outlaws forced marriages and will also impose tougher measures against Muslim immigrants who lower their chances of employment by the way they dress.More specifically, the government will impose a ban on face-covering, Islamic burqas as of January 1, 2013.


Holland has done that whole liberal thing, and realized – maybe too late – that creating a nation of tribes will kill the nation itself. The future of Australia , the United States , UK and Canada may well be read here.

Controversial Dutch Politician Geert Wilders Arrives In The UK 

NOTE: Muslim immigrants leave their countries of birth because of civil and political unrest “CREATED BY THE VERY NATURE OF THEIR CULTURE.” Countries such as Holland , Canada , the UK and Australia have an established way of life that actually works, so why embrace the unworkable?

 

If Muslims do not wish to accept another culture, the answer is simple; “STAY WHERE YOU ARE!!” “Or go back to where you were!”

Benghazi Report Revives Troubling Questions

Benghazi Report Revives Troubling Questions
"What difference, at this point, does it make?"

That was former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's angry response to a question about the State Department's account of the attack on the Benghazi consulate where Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were murdered on Sept. 11, 2012.

Her response was cheered by leftist commentators on MSNBC. Righteous indignation is so attractive.

But of course it makes a difference. Hillary Clinton is leading in polls for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination and general election. It's always legitimate to examine the performance of a front-runner for the presidency. And of the president himself.

You can find such an examination in the Interim Progress Report that five House Republican committee chairmen released last Wednesday.

Democrats complain that this is a partisan effort. Sure, but Democrats are free to present their own view of the facts. My sense is that they would rather squelch critical examination of Benghazi and the Obama administration's response, as they did with the help of most of the press during the 2012 presidential campaign.

The interim report sets out copious evidence of the rash of security threats in Libya during 2012. There were more than 200 "security incidents" between June 2011 and July 2012 in Libya, 50 of them in Benghazi, it reports.

Britain and international agencies withdrew personnel from Benghazi. The United States reduced security forces despite a plea for increases from then-Ambassador Gene Cretz in March 2012.

"In a cable signed by Secretary Clinton in April 2012," the Interim Report reads, "the State Department settled on a plan to scale back security assets in the U.S. Mission in Libya, including Benghazi."

Later requests from Stevens after he replaced Cretz in May were also denied.

That contradicts Clinton's testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee in January 2013. She said the cable traffic never made its way to her.

If so, why was her name appended to a response? Maybe there's an explanation in the internal processes of the State Department. And, it should be said, high officials often make decisions that with hindsight seem obvious mistakes. But she has given us just an exclamation, not an explanation.

And, as the Interim Report goes on to explain, the accounts given by the Obama administration at the time were misleading -- deliberately so.

It noted that State immediately reported the attack to the White House Situation Room and two hours later noted an al-Qaida affiliate's claim of responsibility. There was no mention of a spontaneous protest of an anti-Muslim video.

Yet Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and press secretary Jay Carney spoke repeatedly for days later of a video and a protest. Clinton assured one victim's family member that the video-maker was being prosecuted.

In the meantime, a CIA draft of talking points for the House intelligence committee was edited at the behest of State Department officials. Omitted were references to previous Benghazi attacks, the al-Qaida affiliate in Benghazi and intelligence estimates of threats in Libya. Also struck, the Interim Report says, were "any and all suggestions that the State Department had been previously warned of threats in the region."

These changes were made, the chairmen conclude, not to protect classified information -- reviews of the draft were circulated on unsecure email systems -- and not to protect the investigation by the FBI.

"This process to alter the talking points," concludes the Interim Report, "can only be construed as a deliberate effort to mislead the American people."

The resulting talking points were delivered to Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice for her five Sunday talk show appearances on Sept. 16, in which she denounced the "hateful video."

Who might have ordered this "deliberate effort"? The Interim Report mentions Barack Obama only twice as recipient of letters of inquiry, but this comment seems aimed clearly at him and his first secretary of state.

We know that Obama was informed of the attack while it was occurring, that he ordered Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to respond to it (as he was already doing) and did not confer later with officials that evening. The next morning he jetted off to Las Vegas for a campaign event.

Benghazi threatened to undermine a central element of Obama's appeal, that his presidency would reduce the threat of Islamist terrorism. He managed to obfuscate that during the rest of the campaign.

But maybe not forever.

"Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of"

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer


If Obama intervenes, he will be aiding the jihadis and enabling the creation of yet another Sharia state that will be unshakably hostile to the U.S. Of course, that doesn't mean he won't intervene.

Andrew Bostom has some illuminating historical background here.

"Islamist Rebels' Gains in Syria Create Dilemma for U.S.," by Ben Hubbard in the New York Times, April 28 (thanks to Andrew Bostom):
CAIRO - In Syria's largest city, Aleppo, rebels aligned with Al Qaeda control the power plant, run the bakeries and head a court that applies Islamic law. Elsewhere, they have seized government oil fields, put employees back to work and now profit from the crude they produce. 
Across Syria, rebel-held areas are dotted with Islamic courts staffed by lawyers and clerics, and by fighting brigades led by extremists. Even the Supreme Military Council, the umbrella rebel organization whose formation the West had hoped would sideline radical groups, is stocked with commanders who want to infuse Islamic law into a future Syrian government.
Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.
This is the landscape President Obama confronts as he considers how to respond to growing evidence that Syrian officials have used chemical weapons, crossing a "red line" he had set. More than two years of violence have radicalized the armed opposition fighting the government of President Bashar al-Assad, leaving few groups that both share the political vision of the United States and have the military might to push it forward.
Among the most extreme groups is the notorious Al Nusra Front, the Qaeda-aligned force declared a terrorist organization by the United States, but other groups share aspects of its Islamist ideology in varying degrees.
"Some of the more extremist opposition is very scary from an American perspective, and that presents us with all sorts of problems," said Ari Ratner, a fellow at the Truman National Security Project and former Middle East adviser in the Obama State Department. "We have no illusions about the prospect of engaging with the Assad regime - it must still go - but we are also very reticent to support the more hard-line rebels."
Then don't.

"A man cannot be secular and Muslim at a time...We are not in favor of democracy, democracy is for Jews and Christians"

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer


The Taliban think that democracy and Islam are incompatible, and are murdering candidates to drive home their point. Democracy, they say, is just for Jews and Christians. Apparently the Taliban are all greasy Islamophobes.

"Eight people killed as Pakistani Taliban target more candidates," from CNN, April 28 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
(CNN) -- At least eight people were killed Sunday as the Pakistani Taliban continued to attack candidates in that country's upcoming elections, authorities said. 
The Pakistani Taliban, in a statement obtained by CNN, took responsibility for the bombings at the offices of candidates in Peshawar and the Orakzai Agency.
The Taliban said it targeted secular candidates, but many parties have been hit by the increasing violence.
"A man cannot be secular and Muslim at a time. These are two different doctrines in nature," the statement said.
The elections in May mark the first time in Pakistan's history that one democratically elected government will give way to another.
The nation has experienced three military coups, been ruled by generals for half its life, and it remains mired in near-constant political turmoil.
Pakistani Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud has told Pakistanis to stay away from the elections.
"We are not in favor of democracy, democracy is for Jews and Christians," he said in recent propaganda video.
"They are intended to divide Muslims; we want the implementation of Sharia (law) and for that jihad is necessary," he added.
Both attacks Sunday targeted independent candidates.
Five people died and 22 were wounded by Sunday's explosion in Orakzai, said Dilawar Khan Bangish, police chief of the Kohat District.
In Peshawar, three people were killed and eight wounded, said Khalid Mehmood Hamdani, a senior police official.
The bombings follow three attacks Saturday and one Friday....

Hagel can go screw himself!

U.S. delivers strong warning to Israel

Amid fears Iran about to cross so-called red line

Aaron Klein/ WND
TEL AVIV – According to informed Middle Eastern security officials, U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel delivered a strongly worded message to Israel – do not attack Iran.

The officials told WND that Hagel informed the Israeli government the Obama administration will not accept any unilateral Israeli attack against Iran and that Israel must not strike Tehran without coordination with the U.S.

Hagel further told Israel that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cannot decide alone whether Iran has crossed the nuclear threshold, or the so-called Red Line previously outlined by the Israeli leader.

In a speech at the United Nations in September, Netanyahu drew a red line on a drawing of a bomb, depicting the point where he said Iran will have enough medium-enriched uranium to move rapidly toward building a nuclear bomb.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu draws a red line on the image of a bomb at the U.N. Sept. 27, 2012.

Netanyahu said at the U.N. that Iran could reach that point this spring or summer. By contrast, Obama has resisted setting any such deadlines.

Last week, Israel’s former military intelligence chief, Amos Yadlin, said, “If Iran continues to enrich uranium at its current rate, toward the end of the year it will cross the red line in a clear manner.”

The information comes after a former International Atomic Energy Agency senior nuclear inspector warned that Iran has discovered a way to circumvent Israel’s red line and that the red line may have already been passed.

Last fall, an IAEA report on Iran’s nuclear program showed a dip in the amount of 20 percent enriched uranium. Commenting on the report, the former deputy director-general for safeguards at the IAEA and senior nuclear inspector Olli Heinonen explained in a recent opinion article how this decrease is likely a gimmick.

He wrote that Iran has the capability to reconvert the uranium material back to the gas needed for its nuclear program. The converted 20 percent enriched uranium, now in a less worrisome oxide form, can “be converted back into centrifuge feedstock within a week.”

Heinonen warned that Iran may be able to convert the uranium without risk of detection.

If, through this process, Iran can disguise the quantity of enriched uranium it actually possesses, then Israel’s so-called red line may be artificial.

Heinonen further argued Iran has already passed Netanyahu’s red line of 250 kilograms of 20 percent enriched uranium, estimating Tehran possess as much as 280 kilograms, excluding any material that has already gone through the conversion process.


Op-ed:                                                                  Chemical weapons...Obama's 'red line' in the sand  
By: Diane Sori

What makes a great leader...courage, vision, empathy, and knowing when it's time to lead, and I do NOT mean leading from behind.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a giant of a leader, an honorable man, and one known for keeping his word. When he says he's drawn 'a line in the sand' that Iran dare NOT cross, he means what he says and the world knows it, and fears the reality of those words.

But when Barack HUSSEIN Obama says he's drawn 'a red line in the sand' that Syria dare NOT cross in regards to using chemical weapons against their own people, the world laughs for the world knows this man will do NOTHING except spew rhetorical bloviations to try and make his narcissistic self look good.

Or get the U(seless) N(ations) to slap useless sanctions on them.

Two men at a crossroads in regards to their countries...one a man of his word...one a man of empty threats...empty threats for this past Thursday, coming just two days after playing down an Israeli assessment that Syria had used chemical weapons, White House spokesman Jay Carney said that US intelligence reports had decided 'with varying degrees of confidence' that Assad's government forces had used sarin gas in two attacks, but that NO definitive proof of the use of this gas existed as of yet.

So why even bother to say this especially when Syrian officials denied the accusations, with a senior official saying the country did not, and would not, use chemical weapons even if it had them.

Why...perhaps to divert our attention away from the 'we know it's coming' cover-up of the Boston Bombings and the call for further investigation into Benghazi.

Remember, Obama has said time and time again that crossing the 'red line' in regards to the using of chemical weapons would be one of two things that would prompt tougher action on his part, the other being if Assad's stockpile of chemical weapons was transferred to terrorists, and then his administration spokesman announces, in a formal letter to Congress, that chemical weapons were indeed used, but then in the next instant backtracks on the 'red line' statement because suddenly there's NO definitive proof to verify what he just said about the use of chemical weapons so NO aggressive steps can be taken at this point in time.

Whew...what a mouthful.

And while good leaders know you cannot have it both ways nor can you straddle the fence when you throw down a gauntlet, which is what Obama did with his 'red line' comment, 'We the People' know doublespeak when we hear it for doublespeak is a specialty of this administration.

And in the case of something as serious as the use of chemical weapons, a good leader would announce they were used only if they had proof in hand, and then immediately carry through with promised actions NOT suddenly decide that what is now wanted is a detailed U(seless) N(ations) investigation that can evaluate the evidence, and have them decide if chemical were or were NOT used and which side used them, as both sides are accusing the other of using said weapons. 

But that is exactly what Barack HUSEIN Obama has done...he's thrown the ball to the U(seless) N(ations) so he doesn't have to take a stand against his muslim brethren...brethren of which are on both sides of the Syrian conflict ...but with the rebels seemingly having ties to al-Qaeda. 

And by doing what he's done in regards to the UN, Obama's 'red line' comment can be swept under the rug with the help of the 'in his pocket' main stream media. 

And now to add into all this volleying back and forth on 'red lines' is that the New York City based 'Human Rights Watch' group has said that recent Syrian government air and missile strikes have caused 84 civilian deaths in the Aleppo province, and are 'in violation of the laws of war.'

But guess what, that's what war is about...people dying, and that includes civilians, unfortunately even children.

Lesson 101...if you don't want civilian casualties then don't go to war...kind of simple isn't it...especially when you have Barack HUSEIN Obama trying to add Syria into his 'Arab Spring' fiasco.

So while rebel forces accuse Assad's forces of firing chemical weapons, and with Assad's forces accusing the rebels of being the one who fired said chemical weapons, Obama has now changed the words 'red line' to the words 'game changer' but vacillates on what he will do or won't do if the UN does decide the weapons were used.

Bottom line...Barack HUSSEIN Obama is in NO rush to intervene in Syria's civil war as he would be forced to outwardly chose sides and upset what passes for his brethren's sensibilities.