Connect with us

Media

Egyptians Can Storm a Mosque. Why Can't We?

Published

on

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 and their intolerance for Islamists was at the Fateh Mosque in Rameses Square, Cairo. One report from a witness inside the mosque claimed that there 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 cleared 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.

Don't forget to Like The Washington Sentinel on Facebook and Twitter, and visit our friends at The Republican Legion.

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Washington Sentinel email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Media

ABC Busts Biden Campaign For Raising Taxes On Middle And Lower Class

ABC caught red-handed doing actual journalism.

Published

on

By

ABC Busts Joe Biden For Raising Taxes On Middle And Lower Class

ABC News’ Jonathan Karl confronts Biden campaign co-chairman Democrat Rep. Cedric Richmond: “Sen. Harris said that she wanted to repeal the Trump tax cuts on day one…that does raise taxes on middle-income earners”

ABC’s Jon Karl asked Biden campaign co-chair Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA), almost apologetically, but he still asked, doesn’t Biden’s plan obviously raise taxes on most Americans if you repeal the Trump tax cuts? Not just those making more than $400,000?

Biden campaign co-chairman responded that’s our “goal” but “on day 1” you’ll see our plan.

From ATR:

A repeal of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act would impose a large tax increase on the American people. Thanks to the tax cuts, a typical family of four earning the median family income of $73,000 saw a tax cut of over $2,000– a 58% reduction in federal taxes. A single parent with one child with annual income of $41,000 saw a tax cut of $1,304 — a 73% reduction in federal taxes.

As noted by the New York Times: “Most people got a tax cut.” The NYT also stated: “To a large degree, the gap between perception and reality on the tax cuts appears to flow from a sustained — and misleading — effort by liberal opponents of the law to brand it as a broad middle-class tax increase.” Biden is a key part of this misleading effort.

Biden also repeated a lie he made during his campaign kickoff speech, claiming only high-income households received a tax cut. The Washington Post gave this claim four Pinocchios, noting it was “clearly false.” The Post also stated: “Most Americans received a tax cut.”

Democrats think that the lesson learned from Nancy Pelosi’s famous: “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it” quote was that America bought it hook line and sinker. He will raise everyone’s taxes. We’re not stupid.

Continue Reading

Culture

CNN Analyst And Former FBI Agent “We Have A Biological Terrorist In The White House”

Published

on

By

CNN Analyst And Former FBI Agent “We Have A Biological Terrorist In The White House”

Asha Rangappa, an analyst for CNN and a former FBI special agent tweeted: “We have a biological terrorist in the White House.” This follows President Trump’s return to the White House on Monday evening after treatment for the Coronavirus.

Defending her claim, Asha Rangappa cited a Justice Department memo stating back in March that the novel Coronavirus “appears to meet the statutory definition of a biological agent” and that those who engage in the “purposeful exposure and infections of others” could be charged for terrorism-related offenses.

While there are allegations that he knew about his positive diagnosis significantly earlier than he had announced it on Thursday evening, there is no certifiable evidence that he knowingly exposed officials and staffers to the virus.

Twitter took aim!

Vile Democrats joined in with her:

Continue Reading

Media

Major Newspapers Assign Top Reporters To Update Trump’s Obituary

Ghouls!

Published

on

By

The New York Times’ Ben Smith says top reporters at three of the major newspapers in the nation, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times have been assigned to update President Donald Trump’s obituary, according to TDW.

Those reporters include Peter Baker at The New York Times, Marc Fisher at The Washington Post and Mark Z. Barabak at The Los Angeles Times, Smith claimed people from the various papers confirmed to him.

Smith noted of the “reporters arrayed at Walter Reed military hospital on Sunday” that “the White House press corps is working with admirable aggression and openness. We need to know who is in charge of the government, and to understand the outcome of President Trump’s long evasion of the coronavirus crisis as Americans begin to vote.”

Dr. Mark Fisher, a professor of neurology and political science at the University of California, Irvine, told Smith, “It will help if reporters are medically knowledgeable, and ask the right questions, e.g. blood pressure, heart rhythm, sleep disorders. The more specific and precise questions reporters ask, the better. A robust fund of knowledge by the reporter is a great advantage.”

The major newspapers preparing their obituaries for Trump’s possible death may likely be premature; on Saturday evening White House physician Sean Conley, D.O., released a statement on President Trump’s health which indicated he had improved significantly since he had been diagnosed with COVID-19. More

How can this possibly be true‽ Top reporters don’t work for The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times! The MSM has a significant case of Stage 4 TDS.

Continue Reading

Media

Leftists Go Nuts Over Trump Taking Short Ride Outside Walter Reed Medical Center

Published

on

By

Leftists Go Nuts Over Trump Taking Short Ride Outside Walter Reed Medical Center

Leftist MSM personalities took to Twitter following President Trump temporarily leaving Walter Reed Medical Center and taking a short drive to see his supporters who were outside showing their excitement for the president.

The most distinguished hit came from Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin, who went on a rant and called for the Maryland Attorney General to “indict Trump for reckless endangerment” and “assault.”

CBS News reporter David Begnaud complained that the president appeared to not wear the correct type of mask.

Elizabeth Landers a reporter for Vice News claimed that a Secret Service agent told her that Trump’s actions were “so reckless and careless and heartless.”

Continue Reading

Media

Trump Tax Return Hit Piece Fact Checks Itself: He Paid $1 Million in 2016 and $4.2 Million in 2017 to US Treasury

Published

on

By

The New York Times just published a so-called “bombshell” report on the president’s taxes, where they claimed Trump only paid $750 in federal income taxes for 2016 and 2017. Of course, the rest of the MSM has taken this and ran with it.

The MSM everywhere are pushing the story of Trump only paying $750 in taxes as 100% fact, but unfortunately, they’re missing an immense part of the equation.

TWJ:

The New York Times never lets the facts get in the way of a good story – it just buries them so far down no one will see.

Then it buries its own credibility, too.

That was the case Sunday when the most biased “news” organization in the country published its latest in-kind donation to the Democratic Party in the form of a nearly 10,000-word account of President Donald Trump’s income tax history, deliberately written to cast Trump as a villain to hard-working, taxpaying Americans.

But one key fact buried by The Times gives the game away on how misleading the article actually was.

The so-called “newspaper of record” started out the article with sentences apparently aimed at Everyman: It didn’t talk in billions or millions of dollars, figures most Americans don’t deal with on a regular basis (even Times readers).

Under the ominous headline “Long-Concealed Records Show Trump’s Chronic Losses and Years of Tax Avoidance,” it claimed that a billionaire who became president of the United States had “paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the presidency. In his first year in the White House, he paid another $750.”

That’s in the lede. The first sentence of a story that should set the tone for everything that follows. More

There is no wonder why President Donald Trump has to use Twitter to get his truth out! The Garbage times and other rags, never tell the truth!

Continue Reading

Democrats

Feminist Journalist Crank: Amy Coney Barrett Is “Weaponizing Her White Womanhood”

Like clockwork.

Published

on

By

Demented Liberal Fixates On Amy Coney Barrett’s Children

As reported by Newsbusters, Christine Grimaldi of Rewire News Group put her tweets on “protected” status after severe online backlash.

“This whole press conference is a display of Amy Coney Barrett weaponizing her white womanhood to grab whatever power managed to slip through the cracks in the Trump administration’s unrelenting misogyny,” tweeted Grimaldi.

“Trump and Barrett using her black children and child with down syndrome to score political points isn’t surprising, but it’s no less appalling,” she continued. “CNN keeps going on and on about Barrett’s family as if that makes her qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, and a whopping three years as a Trump-appointed federal judge, as if that’s enough to qualify for a lifetime on the Supreme Court.”

TDW:

Liberals are throwing everything and the kitchen sink at Judge Amy Coney Barrett in the race to keep her off the Supreme Court. After an “anti-racist” author referred to her as a “white colonizer” for adopting two black children from Haiti, feminist journalist Christine Grimaldi of Rewire News Group claimed that Barrett is “weaponizing her white womanhood.”

In a series of angry tweets on Saturday, while Barrett was accepting her nomination to the Supreme Court, Grimaldi claimed that Barrett was actually using her black children as props to gain political points. More

Continue Reading

Media

CNN Asks If The U.S. Military Can Intervene If Trump Doesn’t Leave Office

I love how they are asking President Trump this question when it was Democrats who actually said they would not concede.

Published

on

By

CNN Asks If The U.S. Military Can Intervene If Trump Doesn’t Leave Office

H.R. McMaster laughed in CNN’s Wolf Blitzer face when he asked a ridiculous question: “It’s so worrisome, indeed. And General, if the President were to lose the election on November 3rd, and if he were to refuse to concede — this is a hypothetical, but you’re a military guy — what role would the U.S. military have to play in that type of scenario?”

“Absolutely no role, Wolf,” H.R. McMaster firmly replied with a chuckle. “And those who suggest that the military would have any role in transition — they are being equally irresponsible.”

He invoked George Washington, who he credited for establishing a “very bold line between the military and politics” during the nation’s founding.

“The military should have nothing to do with partisan politics and nothing to do with any talk — any talk — about a transition between administrations,” McMaster told Blitzer.

“And the fact that we even have to ask a question like that is so worrisome in and of itself,” Blitzer defended his question. “I never thought I would have to ask if the U.S. military were to have to get involved in dealing with this.”

Twitter weighs in:

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Become an insider


Best of the Month

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!
 
Send this to a friend