"What Daisy Khan [on ABC News’ “This Week,”] doesn’t seem to understand is that perhaps this isn’t about Muslims at all, but about Americans protecting and defending a site that is now precious to us. The malignant Narcissism of these people is astounding and so encompassing they, like the Obama admin in fact, cannot see beyond their own self-obsession. Little Daisy is loathsome–we didn’t start this, they did. We didn’t choose the location, they did. And the gall to claim opposition to the GZ mosque is “metastasized antisemitism” is the same as our own government calling Tea Party Patriots Nazis, UnAmerican, and the Mob. They’re all the same. There’s only one group of people who were mass murdered on 911 and that was Americans, not Muslims. And there has been only one group continuing to implement mass murder since then–Muslims. And there is one country that still calls for the mass extinction of Jews in the world, and it’s a Muslim country.
As Khan and her gang point fingers at Americans, another little reminder–since 9/11 we didn’t set out to annihilate Muslims around the world–we set out to free them. Thousands more Americans have died voluntarily serving in our military knowing they would be sent to the front line and whom ultimately liberated 53 million Muslims. And this detestable woman and her parasitic husband call us names as they decry that we haven’t gotten over 9/11 yet.
I’m convinced this mosque was Obama’s idea. The notion of it and its location. I think he knows he’ll be a one-term president and wants as much destruction to the American psyche as possible. The legacy this man is now establishing is a continuation of the terrorism unleashed in the 90s and defined by 9/11.
So do not blink, keep the pressure on the stop this atrocity at Ground Zero and . . .
Remember in November."
Tammy Bruce
Jihad Watch
One-sided Amanpour
New York Post
Monday, August 23, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
Hi Norma . . We sure got ourselves in a mess when we elected Mr. Obama. The sad part is that we should have known better. He told everyone what he was all about. The hidden facts, the ultra liberal Ivy League education, the radical friends, the ties to Chicago political corruption, the sleazy and incompetent appointments to his staff, the disregard of the American Constitution, the appointments of czars with no congressional oversight required, and so on. The man is not a simple ultra left Democratic politician. By ignoring reasonable constraints, ignoring American traditions, ignoring any and all financial advice, and finally, not listening to the citizens of America, he has proven in less than two years, to be our first anti-American President. This guy and his cabinet boobs are not just ultra-ultra socialist leftist politicians, they are anti-American. Let's remember that in November.
Bump
Murray sez:
Great comment Bump. I wish I would have said that.
Yes, we did liberate them.
We liberated about 750,000 of them right of living. Using a triumphed up charge of looking for WMD's.
And they have a nerve to be angry about that? That's gratitude for you.
Before you go screaming about how they attacked us, I am talking about Iraq here. They did not attack us, in spite of the lies and campaign to link Afghanistan with Iraq.
750,000 people. How many women and children is that? How many grieving mothers? All your right-wing blather and lies cannot change that fact. What does democracy mean when you are staring at your dying son blown to pieces by an invading country?
Hi Norma . . . I don't know exactly what question Anonymous 2 was answering but regardless his (or her)answer is incomplete. The case for WMD's is over. Every sane person believed Saddam's boasts, and every country's intelligence people botched the job badly. Not Mr. Bush. He was backed into a corner and given faulty information. Let's find fault with the right people.
Suppose Iraq did have WMD's. They would surely have used them on Israel as promised, and if our President had done nothing - and Iraq attacked Israel - it would have been a disaster. America would have failed to protect Israel as promised for decades. Iraq joins with the Palestinians. Fragile Israel dissolves. Iraq dumps it's American customer and finds a new one (China perhaps) for it's oil. The Palestinians occupy Israel and begin a civil wars. Iran and Syria want their share of the booty, and Jordan would be renamed as part of Palestine and the maps changed.
Who knows, but there is at least a chance that more than 750,000 would have lost their lives if Mr. Bush had done nothing. BUSH'S MISTAKE WAS THE "PREMPTIVE THING". Looking back at how we went to war with Iraq it is now fairly certain that if Congress had debated the reasons for doing so, it is possible that our War in Iraq would not have happened. Hindsight is wonderful isn't it.
Bump
Bumps,
I was referring to the post sentence "another little reminder–since 9/11 we didn’t set out to annihilate Muslims around the world–we set out to free them"
Every "sane person" DID NOT believe Saddam's boast. Several in the intelligence agencies express protest in the "stovepiping" of the intelligence reports. The British intelligence agencies absolutely did not believe there was any WMD'S as the latest government hearings showcased.
I do not understand your hypothetical "suppose that Iraq did have WMD's"?? The FACT is that they didn't have them.
The argument that we "had to assume" doesn't make those people any less dead, does it?
Explaining some hypothetical scenario in which MORE than 3/4 of a million people die, so we saved lives by killing just 750k, borders on the imbecilic.
I do agree that hindsight is wonderful, 20/20, whatever.
But the upsetting thing is that we have squandered so many resources, so many lives, ours and theirs, and there is NOT one shred of remorse, any attempt of "well we made a mistake, how can we prevent it next time. How did the system fail us and how can we correct it?" not a single stinking thing! Some of our boys have been over there for 3 or 4 tours of duty, for alot of their young adult life.
You don't think that they won't be affected by what they have seen?
We are talking a generation of youth here! A generation!! Our leaders FAILED us and committed those boys to that hell hole and it still is business as usual.
Anon 2 . . . Your recent reply is even further from the truth.
1. Since 9/11 we identified the attackers as radical, fundamentalist, desert bred Muslims. They were the specific enemy and the entire Islamic world was not.
2. Rational people everywhere questioned whether or not Saddam's WMD's were a lie or not.
3. The intel from most of our allies agreed that he could be telling the truth. That includes Great Britain, Israel, Italy and France.
4. You miss the point altogether. A decision had to be made because we could not be certain.
5. Of course it doesn't make 750,000 people less dead. But where did you get that number? You are not even close.
WAR CASUALTIES (DEAD & WOUNDED)
Civil War 640,000
WW I 310,000
WW II 1,000,000
Korean 130,000
Afghanistan 15,000
Iraq 52,000
6. You and I see this WAR on terror differently. That doesn't mean I am any more of an imbecile than you are.
Comment: We were provoked into Iraq with questionable rhetoric. Once we discovered the WMD lies and impotent military forces there, we should have withdrawn as fast as we could and let their backward society fight among themselves. Then were we drawn into Afghanistan by a relative few dirt bag terrorists. Another mistake. Then we are being lured into Pakistan (unofficially of course) and we have compounded our miserable errors. We can't help Afghanistan or Pakistan. Our brilliant leaders need to find a new way to flush out the terrorists from those host nations. Let's bring'em home and try something other than territorial wars.
Bump
I got those numbers from several sources. The Lancet, a most respected 2 peer reviewed journal, a research report by GlobalSecurity.Org, and also a study funded by John Hopkins. There is also a site called IraqiBodyCount but I believe that they are overestimating by stating 1.2 million.
I didn't mean to imply that you were imbecilic, sir, just the hypothetical argument. If I conveyed that, I apologize. It is obvious of your intelligence by your intelligent and level headed arguments.
We may disagree about some of these viewpoints but I DO agree with your last paragraph. Especially the "Let's bring'em home and try something other that territorial wars".
That is wisdom, pure and simple.
Anon 1:53: I'm glad you clarified where you got your stats, which were debunked by people who understand self-reporting AND statistics, and left wing bias, all 3. I think the original figures were from 2004, and people just kept multiplying. However, just a note from me, a medical librarian who reads regularly Lancet and JAMA--the editorial policy was decidedly left of center and anti-war. Still is.
These war "civilian death" stats remind me in a way of a tiny study done on ER admitted teens in Flint MI recently reported in JAMA. Did you know that a little counseling combined with computers could reduce violence and drinking among teens? Wow. Self reported of course. Think of the MSW job growth and more gov't grants forthcoming based on that!
Norma,
I cannot voice an opinion of The Lancet or JAMA being "left of center" or liberal biased. But being medical journals, it would be surprising if they weren't anti-war.
But I feel that we have different opinions of the need for war and when is should be utilized.
I thank you for your "comment" space here and allowing me to voice an opinion. The ability to even have this discussion is part of what makes America great.
What of the numbers of muslims killed by car bombs and suicide bombers in the marketplaces. That's where most of the death count comes from.
Oh! I disremembered.
I'm an american.
We kill muslim mothers and eat their babies.
Others are more pc, forgiving and tolerant than myself.
Anonymous....GTH.
Post a Comment