In The War On Terror,Liberals Are More Dangerous Than Muslims

In The War On Terror, Liberals Are More Dangerous Than Muslims (Don Feder 9/11 Meditation Alert)

Don Feder.com ^| 09/19/06 | Don Feder


Posted on 09/20/2006 3:24:37 AM PDT

In a recent commentary, former New York Mayor Ed Koch - a Democrat with at least half a brain (which makes him the leading intellectual light of his party) - asked rhetorically, "Why do so many Americans refuse to face the fact that our country is at war with international terrorism?"
Because they're liberals?

During the Spanish Civil War, as the climactic battle for Madrid approached, Nationalist leader Francisco Franco told a reporter: "I have four columns marching on Madrid and a fifth within the city ready to rise at my call."

Franco's comment gave rise to the World War II-era expression "fifth columnist" - a subversive, the enemy within who works covertly to sabotage a nation or cause. That pretty much sums up the part liberals play in the war on terrorism - except many of them are open in their admiration for Muslim murderers.

If anything, liberals are even more dangerous than Islamacists. The terrorist attacks with bombs and bullets. The liberal saps our will to resist. He rationalizes evil. In the name of civil liberties, he constantly seeks to undermine national security and make it impossible to safeguard our people from another 9/11.

One of the nation's foremost liberal institutions, Harvard has trained generations of the best and brightest to subvert our republican institutions, corrupt the culture and destroy representative government.
Is anyone shocked that former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami will address Harvard's Kennedy School of Government tonight? Khatami helped to create Hezbollah, and calls his handiwork "a shining sun that illuminates and warms the hearts of all Muslims."

When challenged on this bizarre observance of the fifth anniversary of 9/11, David Elwood, dean of the Kennedy School, wrapped himself in the mantle of the free exchange of ideas. "Do we listen to those we disagree with and vigorously challenge them, or do we close our ears completely?" Elwood sniffed.

Good old Crimson - let every voice be heard and all that. Well, not quite every voice. When he dared to suggest that, regarding scientific aptitude, there may be inherent differences between men and women, the feminist jihad issued a fatwa on then-Harvard President Lawrence Summers, who was eventually driven from his post.

While terrorist honchos are welcome at Harvard, future military officers aren't. Harvard banned ROTC a generation ago. Students who want to enroll in the Reserve Officer Training Corps have to take classes at MIT, for which they receive no credit at Harvard.

Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney had it right when he characterized Harvard's invitation to Khatami as "It's blame America.; it's hate America." Back in 1978, Harvard alum John Leboutiller wrote a book called "Harvard Hates America." If he ever does another edition, the volume could be subtitled, "Now More Than Ever."

Our nation's colleges and universities - the People's Republic of Academia - are hotbeds of anti-Americanism. It's hard to say if Osama bin Laden is more popular in Islamabad or New Haven. Yale has the former Taliban mouthpiece on its payroll.

Within months of the murder of 3,000 Americans, Nicholas De Genova, an assistant professor of anthropology and Latino studies at Columbia, told an anti-war rally that he prayed for "a million Mogadishus" (in reference to the 1993 ambush where 18 U.S. soldiers died). De Genova added, "The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military."
Not all of the criminally insane are confined in East Coast institutions. Ward Churchill - the pseudo-Indian who was then a professor at the University of Colorado -- called the Americans who died on September 11, 2001 "little Eichmanns" who were defeated by the "gallant sacrifices of the combat teams."

The left was saturated in treason in the 1960s. Academia is occupied territory, which year after year indoctrinates the next generation of America-haters who will go forth to corrupt others through the mass media, publishing, education and non-profits.

All of the institutions liberalism controls are hotbeds of sedition. The New York Times works overtime to emasculate America's response to Jihadism.
In June, The Times exposed a covert program to track the financial transactions of suspected terrorists. National security be damned! Don't terrorists have a right to know who's looking over their shoulder?
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he was deeply troubled by the success of terrorist groups in manipulating the U.S. media. It's helpful to think of The New York Times as Al Jazeera's infidel subsidiary.
Mike Wallace, that most useful of idiots, recently interviewed Iran's lunatic-in-chief Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and reported the man who threatens to wipe Israel off the map is a helluva fellow. "He's actually, in a strange way, he's a rather attractive man, very smart, savvy, self-assured, good looking in a strange way," Wallace babbled to the Hollywood Reporter. As the German playwright says in "The Producers," "The Fuehrer was a great dancer!"

The liberal media specializes in sanitizing scum. The New York Times refuses to call Hamas a terrorist group, instead labeling it an "armed resistance" (and the Nazis were a social movement?). Says Reuters wire service, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" and one man's crematorium is another man's camp fire.

The judiciary has spent half a century legislating the liberal agenda. Now, it's decided to oversee anti-terrorist operations, applying the same principles here that have given us the Miranda warning, the exclusionary rule and furloughs for lifers.

In mid-July, U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor (a Carter appointee, naturally) declared that a government program to intercept overseas phone calls between persons in the U.S. and al-Qaeda operatives abroad was unconstitutional. The TPS (Terrorist Surveillance Program) had a chilling effect, Taylor Diggs ruled, in a suit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (speaking of terrorist operatives).

If Harvard needs a Khatami-class commencement speaker, is it not a gross violation of his civil liberties to monitor Dean Elwood's calls to some cave in Afghanistan?

In June, the Supreme Court's Shiite majority - Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer and Kennedy - blocked the trial of terrorist suspects by military tribunals. Presumably, this too has a chilling effect on Allah's frequent flyers. If the Supreme Court had told FDR that using military courts to try spies and saboteurs was unconstitutional, he would have hauled them before a military tribunal.

Our courts are the third branch of the Iranian government.
If American voters give the Democrats control of Congress this year, they might as well make Hezbollah leader Sheik Hasan Nasrallah Speaker of the House and have done with it.

The Donkey Serenade is predictably monotone. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid want us to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq at the end of the year, regardless of the situation on the ground. (Newsflash during the Battle of the Bulge: "Congressional Republicans Demand A Timetable For Withdrawal of US Forces From Europe").

Prior to the U.S. sending in ground forces, former President Jimmy Carter (who was instrumental in the fall of the Shah of Iran) was convinced, "There is no current danger to the U.S. from Baghdad." And if there was, little Jimmuh would have crashed a few helicopters in the desert to deal with it - or would have had his buddy Clinton bomb an aspirin factory.
Needless to say, Carter (who never met an anti-American thug he didn't adore) is getting a tete-a-tete with Khatami. Perhaps they can discuss their mutual aversion to Israel. (Carter in an August 15 interview in Der Spiegel: "I don't think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon. And I represent the vast majority of Democrats.")

Lastly, Sen. Patty Murray (who actually helps to depress the combined IQ of other Congressional Democrats) explained that Osama bin Laden's popularity in the Islamic world is due to his humanitarian achievements: "He's been out in these countries for decades building schools, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities and people are extremely grateful. He's made their lives better. We have not done that." Guess America doesn't have a foreign aid program.
Hitler built the Autobahn. Stalin gave Russia a swell public works program. Genghis Khan was into urban renewal and population planning.
Hey Patty, Osama is loved by his Muslim brothers because he kills Americans and Jews, not because he builds day care centers for fundamentalist Muslim career women.

As for that other bastion of brain-dead liberalism - Hollywood - there's a fierce competition to see who can be the most hysterical in denouncing the president.

"The (impending) war with Iraq is "unconstitutional, immoral and illegal" -- Jessica Lang. "I beg you to help save America before yours is a legacy of shame and horror" - Sean Penn. Bush has "taken the events of 9/11 and has manipulated the grief of the country, and I think that's reprehensible" - Dustin Hoffman. And my favorite Hollywood savant (and mistress of subtlety), "I hate Bush, I despise him and his entire administration" - Barbra Streisand.

From the ACLU to the Sierra Club, institutional liberalism is doing its best to assure an al-Qaeda victory. The Luddite left is still trying to block the development of oil reserves in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (estimated at 10.4 billion barrels) --presumably on the theory that it's good for America to be energy dependent on the terrorist-subsidizing Saudis.

The public schools too are doing their part to undermine morale on the home front.

One school district in California requires children to role-play at being Muslims, to better appreciate the religion of peace. ("OK, kids, let's pretend to strap explosives to our bodies and kill Zionists.") The same federal courts that say "One Nation Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is an establishment of religion, have sanctioned indoctrination in the left's favorite religion.

In Kentucky, a 7th-grade social studies teacher burned small American flags in two separate classes, supposedly to illustrate the right to dissent - the same flag that is draped over the coffins of U.S. servicemen coming back from Iraq.

What are smelly savages lurking in Baghdad's back streets compared to the foregoing?

The only way America will ever be defeated by death-worshipping theocrats who've crawled out from under a Dark Ages rock is with the help of the mullahs' fifth column - academia, the media, the judiciary, public education, Hollywood and the Democratic Party.
Of the two suicide cults America confronts, liberalism is by far the more lethal.

BTTT

Thanx for 'nailing it',Mr Feder :thumbsup:

Have a good one ! :stoned: :D

Yes They ARE TOROG... I have said it many times.....


Liberalism is a mental disorder...............Dr. Savage



LIKE i SAID...YOU DONT HAVE TO DIE...JUST GET THE FUCK OUT!

The way I see it, the conservatives are just as dangerous as the liberals. The liberals are so clouded by their hatred of Bush that they'll denounce any military action, claim 9/11 was an inside job, and firmly beleive that all Muslims are just happy, freedom loving folks without an angry bone in their body.

The conservatives, on the other hand, are so clouded by their anger and fear resulting from 9/11 that their willing to blow up anyone carrying the Koran. They blindly followed Bush into Iraq and then continue to come up with reasons for being their after it's been proven that their were no WMD's, no links to Al Qaeda, and no real threat to our security. Even worse, they fail to see that our being in Iraq has just pissed off thousands of angry young Muslims who were just pissed off camel jockeys before, but are now willing to strap on a bomb in the name of Allah. That's right folks, Bush has made us less safe from the threat of terrorism. Although I'm sure telling a conservative that is just as much a waste of time as telling a liberal that it really was Muslim terrorists that flew the planes into the Twin Towers and teh Pentagon.

People need to get a clue. Take a step towards the middle. Think for yourself and not what your parties tell you to think. $10 says Torog wouldn't be so supportive of the war if we had a gay President from San Francisco. But he'll gladly follow a moron from Texas. Sad, sad what America has come to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fengzi

The way I see it, the conservatives are just as dangerous as the liberals. The liberals are so clouded by their hatred of Bush that they'll denounce any military action, claim 9/11 was an inside job, and firmly beleive that all Muslims are just happy, freedom loving folks without an angry bone in their body.

The conservatives, on the other hand, are so clouded by their anger and fear resulting from 9/11 that their willing to blow up anyone carrying the Koran. They blindly followed Bush into Iraq and then continue to come up with reasons for being their after it's been proven that their were no WMD's, no links to Al Qaeda, and no real threat to our security. Even worse, they fail to see that our being in Iraq has just pissed off thousands of angry young Muslims who were just pissed off camel jockeys before, but are now willing to strap on a bomb in the name of Allah. That's right folks, Bush has made us less safe from the threat of terrorism. Although I'm sure telling a conservative that is just as much a waste of time as telling a liberal that it really was Muslim terrorists that flew the planes into the Twin Towers and teh Pentagon.

People need to get a clue. Take a step towards the middle. Think for yourself and not what your parties tell you to think. $10 says Torog wouldn't be so supportive of the war if we had a gay President from San Francisco. But he'll gladly follow a moron from Texas. Sad, sad what America has come to.

---

Howdy Fengzi,

My mind ain't clouded with fear,I am angry,but that's just a personal feeling,when it comes to defeating muslim-jihadists and the rogue regimes that support them,my mind is clear,my anger is not a factor..and I'm filled with a terrible resolve to defeat any who would attack us or desire to do such.

As for them 'camel jockeys',if strapping on a bomb is how they want to deal with things when they're angry..then they best be prepared for the consequences. Those kind of folks,need to be gotten rid of--not be made into friends.

I'd almost support a gay president from San Francisco,if he would fight the muslim-jihadists and the islamofascist regimes..with bullets and bombs,and not try to sweet-talk em. Anyhow,homosexuality is punishable with death,in fundy muslim countries,so he'd never be taken seriously and being gay,would be even more incentive for the muslim-jihadists to attack America and the Free World.

Do I win the bet ? lol

Have a good one ...! :stoned:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Torog

BTTT

Thanx for 'nailing it',Mr Feder :thumbsup:

Have a good one ! :stoned: :D

---

Though I agree with his stand on liberalism,a few years back in the Virginian Pilot,he was quoted as sayin pot was Toxic and caused death! We BOTH know that ain't true!

Yes, as a democrat it was difficult to understand how dangerous modern liberalism is. Once upon a time liberalism was enlightening and promoted rational progressive thinking.

Not anymore. They've perverted the democrats just as the neo-cons have subverted the republican party. Americans are being given two radical paths two lead the country into when neither should be considered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nylo

Yes, as a democrat it was difficult to understand how dangerous modern liberalism is. Once upon a time liberalism was enlightening and promoted rational progressive thinking.

Not anymore. They've perverted the democrats just as the neo-cons have subverted the republican party. Americans are being given two radical paths two lead the country into when neither should be considered.

---

Finally someone with some common sense:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Torog

You didn't comment on my thread,which you linked to in yer reply..will you comment on it now ?

---

Sure, though I'm going to have to disagree with almost all of it, as well as many of the comments in this thread. To start of with, this article is obviously aimed at working up support amongst the already converted, and not at actually trying to intiate a dialogue between opposing viewpoints. Not that there is anything wrong with writing something to preach to the faithful, but by the same token, don't expect it to convince a great many new people that your specific political opinion is the "correct" one.

Feder's article is simply full of hyperbole and insults, which he is free to write as much as he wants, but at the same time, they do not engender a sense of openness and willingness to actually talk about these issues. It seems that Feder would rather just yell and insult people with a different opinion than his.

Quote:

---

In a recent commentary, former New York Mayor Ed Koch - a Democrat with at least half a brain (which makes him the leading intellectual light of his party) - asked rhetorically, "Why do so many Americans refuse to face the fact that our country is at war with international terrorism?"

---

First time I looked at this thread, I stopped reading the article right there (though I obviously read it all the way through a little later). The above quote is an excellent example on how to not start an intelligent an reasoned debate, by insulting the mental capacity of an entire political party which probably represents the views of roughly half the electorate.

Indeed, it is an example of what has actually been causing the most discord and strife within this country since even before 9/11, and certainly since after then as well. The extreme partisanship that has only been fueled by pundits such as Feder, Coulter, Moore, Churchill, O'reily and others has done more to divide and turn the population against each other than the terrorists ever did. In a time when we should all be expressing our ideas equally, rationally discussing and debating those ideas, and then blending the best points from all sides of the political spectrum, we are instead pointing at each other and shrilly labeling each other as terrorist-supporters, fascists, Christo-Nazis, or liberal traitors.

Yes, of course there are people in this country who actually support the terrorists, and want to see them win. However, to say that everyone on one side of the political spectrum wants this country destroyed, and that they are actively (or even passively) giving help and assistance to the terrorists is not only ludicrous and unfounded, it is simply wrong.

wow, that was long-winded, but I really get your point--
b

wow what ever happened to being a libatarian? lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebgirl420

wow what ever happened to being a libatarian? lol

---

libation \ly-BAY-shun\, noun:
1. The act of pouring a liquid (usually wine) either on the ground or on a victim in sacrifice to some deity; also, the wine or liquid thus poured out.
2. A beverage, especially an alcoholic beverage.
3. An act or instance of drinking.


:what:

you know whats more dangerous then all?
A professional capitalist that doubles as a ninja in his free time.
OH and dont fuck with him, he's a professional memetic engineer.

Um, I'm sorry, but the right-wingers are just as dangerous as the left-wingers on this issue.

Take for example, the patriot act (the treasonous act), which all but renders our Bill of Rights meaningless.

Or how about all these security measures in our airports, enacted by the "conservatives". What have they done to increase our safety? Not a damn thing. All they've done is force the airlines to increase prices to cover the costs of the measures, and cause us more inconviences. Even Ann Coulter recognizes that!

Sorry, but the fact remains that terrorist attacks are one of the least likely ways for you to be hurt. They only serve one purpose : to inflict terror. And when we let our society become parylyzed by them, we only give into them. Here's some numbers for you:

1 in 88,000 of dying in a terrorist attack
1 in 55,928 of death by lightening
1 in 20,605 in your clothes igniting
1 in 10,455 of dying in your bathtub
1 in 10,010 by falling from a ladder or scaffolding
1 in 9,396 due to excessive heat
1 in 8,389 due to excessive cold
1 in 7,972 in a drowning accident
1 in 6,842 in a railway accident.
1 in 197 of dying in a homicide
1 in 299 of dying in an assault from a firearm
1 in 5,330 of dying in an assault by hanging or strangulation
1 in 207,261 in operations of war.

Of course, I have a solution that conservatives can feel comfortable with, and would also drastically reduce terrorism. Have everyone carry a concealed pistol :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sanguinekane

Sure, though I'm going to have to disagree with almost all of it, as well as many of the comments in this thread. To start of with, this article is obviously aimed at working up support amongst the already converted, and not at actually trying to intiate a dialogue between opposing viewpoints. Not that there is anything wrong with writing something to preach to the faithful, but by the same token, don't expect it to convince a great many new people that your specific political opinion is the "correct" one.

Feder's article is simply full of hyperbole and insults, which he is free to write as much as he wants, but at the same time, they do not engender a sense of openness and willingness to actually talk about these issues. It seems that Feder would rather just yell and insult people with a different opinion than his.



First time I looked at this thread, I stopped reading the article right there (though I obviously read it all the way through a little later). The above quote is an excellent example on how to not start an intelligent an reasoned debate, by insulting the mental capacity of an entire political party which probably represents the views of roughly half the electorate.

Indeed, it is an example of what has actually been causing the most discord and strife within this country since even before 9/11, and certainly since after then as well. The extreme partisanship that has only been fueled by pundits such as Feder, Coulter, Moore, Churchill, O'reily and others has done more to divide and turn the population against each other than the terrorists ever did. In a time when we should all be expressing our ideas equally, rationally discussing and debating those ideas, and then blending the best points from all sides of the political spectrum, we are instead pointing at each other and shrilly labeling each other as terrorist-supporters, fascists, Christo-Nazis, or liberal traitors.

Yes, of course there are people in this country who actually support the terrorists, and want to see them win. However, to say that everyone on one side of the political spectrum wants this country destroyed, and that they are actively (or even passively) giving help and assistance to the terrorists is not only ludicrous and unfounded, it is simply wrong.

---

Howdy sanguine,

Thanx for yer reply,sorry I didn't see it until now.

While you may be right in that the article was written mainly for the already-converted,it still needs to be pointed out,just how contrary the goals are of the Left,in securing our country and fighting the terrorists and rogue regimes. It needs to be demonstrated and high-lighted,that the Left has basically granted moral equivalancey to the terrorists and rogue regimes,the Left even continues to try and grant the terrorists,Constitutional rights and Geneva rights,when in fact,they are neither American citizens,except in a few cases,and that they are non-uniformed combatants.

I'll grant ya,that this country is very divided,because of articles that are distinctly biased,and pundits and politicians and activists,it's coming from both sides. However,at least my side--ain't willing to compromise with Evil,we ain't willing to dance with the devil..and we dang sure don't make excuses and apologies,for the despicable actions of the terrorists and rogue regimes.

So I will continue to highlight the fact,that the 5th column efforts are coming from the Left ..and that it's increasing..and just like in Vietnam,the 5th column wants us to abandon Iraq and Israel and once again,be a major part of the reason why millions of folks may die..when the ME is turned over to Iran and Syria.

I'm still wondering why you were the only one in the "Lottery" thread,that saw a need for at least a fortified compound..? It means that ya got some common sense in there,somewhere..lol.

Have a good one ...

and how exactly does no property rights and the pan american union fit in with all this new freedom we have torog?

destroying property rights and chucking our sovereignty (among an endless list of how the country's basically gone) are probably two of the most anti-american things that can be done...how exactly is that 'conservative' and 'freedom'?

setting up a dictatorship is freedom?

have you ever even read the constitution?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pisshead

and how exactly does no property rights and the pan american union fit in with all this new freedom we have torog?

destroying property rights and chucking our sovereignty (among an endless list of how the country's basically gone) are probably two of the most anti-american things that can be done...how exactly is that 'conservative' and 'freedom'?

setting up a dictatorship is freedom?

have you ever even read the constitution?

---

Have you ever came up with one good idea? Or do you just Bitch?


NEVER ONE Idea pissy, not one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Torog

It needs to be demonstrated and high-lighted,that the Left has basically granted moral equivalancey to the terrorists and rogue regimes,the Left even continues to try and grant the terrorists,Constitutional rights and Geneva rights,when in fact,they are neither American citizens,except in a few cases,and that they are non-uniformed combatants.

---

Is it so much to ask that these enemy combatants are at least charged with some sort of offense? That they be given a reason why they are being held in Guantanamo Bay for 5 years? Also, that they not be tortured. When the fuck did torture become OK in this country?

George Bush claims that one of the reasons we took Iraq is because Saddam had a nasty habit of torturing folks. Now we do it for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Torog

I'll grant ya,that this country is very divided,because of articles that are distinctly biased,and pundits and politicians and activists,it's coming from both sides. However,at least my side--ain't willing to compromise with Evil,we ain't willing to dance with the devil..and we dang sure don't make excuses and apologies,for the despicable actions of the terrorists and rogue regimes.

---

Who the hell apologizes for terrorists? You've been listening to too much conservative talk radio. I was all for the invasion of Afganistan. In fact, I think we should have sent everything we had to that place and SHUT DOWN the border. No terrorists or bombs in or out.

But instead we invaded Iraq, did not secure the border or weapons, and encouraged a whole new generation of America-hating Arabs. Not to mention causing the death of a hundred thousand innocent Iraqis. Plus the death of a few thousand soldiers. Not to mention the soldiers who survived with severe handicaps.

We all want the same things. We want to be safe, and not have to worry that terrorists are going to murder us. It's just that half of the country thinks the way to do this is to invade a country that had nothing to do with this conflict.

The invasion of Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place.

If you disagree, then open your eyes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cornelius

Is it so much to ask that these enemy combatants are at least charged with some sort of offense? That they be given a reason why they are being held in Guantanamo Bay for 5 years? Also, that they not be tortured. When the fuck did torture become OK in this country?

George Bush claims that one of the reasons we took Iraq is because Saddam had a nasty habit of torturing folks. Now we do it for him.



Who the hell apologizes for terrorists? You've been listening to too much conservative talk radio. I was all for the invasion of Afganistan. In fact, I think we should have sent everything we had to that place and SHUT DOWN the border. No terrorists or bombs in or out.

But instead we invaded Iraq, did not secure the border or weapons, and encouraged a whole new generation of America-hating Arabs. Not to mention causing the death of a hundred thousand innocent Iraqis. Plus the death of a few thousand soldiers. Not to mention the soldiers who survived with severe handicaps.

We all want the same things. We want to be safe, and not have to worry that terrorists are going to murder us. It's just that half of the country thinks the way to do this is to invade a country that had nothing to do with this conflict.

The invasion of Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place.

If you disagree, then open your eyes.

---

this is why we invaded Iraq.........

Have you ever had a ZIT?

Think of afganistan on One side ........IE, one finger....
Think Of Iraq on the other side..........IE other Finger

Think of IRAN like a ZIT we need to POP...... WE Have perfect POPPPING position.

I hope we get some on the mirror.........:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bong30

this is why we invaded Iraq.........

Have you ever had a ZIT?

Think of afganistan on One side ........IE, one finger....
Think Of Iraq on the other side..........IE other Finger

Think of IRAN like a ZIT we need to POP...... WE Have perfect POPPPING position.

I hope we get some on the mirror.........:thumbsup:

---

and you wonder why they might hate that? there are PEOPLE DIEING
killing human life and makeing people suffer brings more hate toward YOU. How does killing people who did nothing help anything? You are calling for more reasons for them to hate you. look how brain washed you are! How Sick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krogith

and you wonder why they might hate that? there are PEOPLE DIEING
killing human life and makeing people suffer brings more hate toward YOU. How does killing people who did nothing help anything? You are calling for more reasons for them to hate you. look how brain washed you are! How Sick.

---

Krogith the only smart thing you have said yet..........

I am Brain Washed...Pro american, Pro Capitalism, Pro Freedom, Pro Constitution, Pro Borders, Pro english language, Pro Family.

I LOTHE Pussy Mother fucking, commie bitches, that Hate america LIKE YOU.......

yeah and you wanting to distroy everything else is what will cause others to want you distroyed. Sad how hate brings more hate huh?

it makes me worried that people think the world is safer now than we were before 911. going into iraq has increased al qaeda recruitment and brought radical islam to a country that was free from it before.the propaganda machine is hard at work coming up with new ways to scare the american people like creating non existant words (islamofascism) and the rediculous color coded terror alert system. This administration has denied all accountability for its actions and instead chooses to blame others and make pathetic excuses for their shortcomings. it has taken the american people too long to realize that they are being jerked around but people are finally starting to see the man behind the curtain. in the words of our "great" president, "you fool the american people once, shame on you. you fool us twice....uh..uh..well you cant fool us again"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darkside

it makes me worried that people think the world is safer now than we were before 911. going into iraq has increased al qaeda recruitment and brought radical islam to a country that was free from it before.the propaganda machine is hard at work coming up with new ways to scare the american people like creating non existant words (islamofascism) and the rediculous color coded terror alert system. This administration has denied all accountability for its actions and instead chooses to blame others and make pathetic excuses for their shortcomings. it has taken the american people too long to realize that they are being jerked around but people are finally starting to see the man behind the curtain. in the words of our "great" president, "you fool the american people once, shame on you. you fool us twice....uh..uh..well you cant fool us again"

---

Shame on you Darkside, despite the fact that leading experts have told him otherwise, our glorious President says the war has made us safer from terrorism. How dare you disagree with a man who has trouble forming a coherent sentence. He's the president so he's always right.

I like the scope of thought that asks the question: Should we have not attacked Nazis for fear of creating more of them? The radical Jihadists need to be fought tooth and nail. The only thing that pisses me off is the element that the Administration didn't have a full coherant battle strategy or understanding of the area.

It's like this, I support 100% taking the fight to these new-age nazis. But I'm enraged that forethought wasn't considered at all by the ushers-of-war to prevent us from falling into the same trap as Israel is in: any means of defense or control is seen as aggression and advocated as such in Arab media. "I" know we're doing the right thing, but what difference does that make when the people you want to save are being told otherwise? That's the mess we're in.

if the USA went in and set up police and FBI/CIA looking into and finding out the terror groups it would be ok. USA IS NOT there blowing everything up and shotting up towns, sounds like they are the terrorests invadeing countrys and inforceing power over people whos only option to fight back is to kill them selfs. You gotta be kidding me, there are 5 sucide bombings a DAY over there and for some reason someone running around to all the crazy people in the USA telling them to WAIT FOR THE BIG ONE? Your going to sit there and say these people want us dead and are networked but some how some way no one has done IED's in other countrys? Who ever is running around the WHOLE world telling all the sucide crazys to wait for the big one is doing an awsome job:confused: . Whoever is Dumb enouf to belive that is so blind sighted there going to die with this crupted world of HATE AND GREED. Don't be dumb and fall for the propaganda.

krogith im sorry but i didnt understand a word of that rambling incoherent post lol.

how is it that islam extreamests can do 5 sucide bombings a day in there country. but some how they can't get this WORLD wide extreamizum to effect the USA. Some how all the crazy people are waiting for the next 9/11 and not just killing them selfs everyday in our country, Not even once in 5 years? you beliveing that is crazy. if they plained 9/11 and our boarders are wide open and there whole goal is to kill USA's ideas. why do we not see at least 1 attack a week?


there are bigger players involved controling what happends. this iraq war is causeing more to hate us. hence more money for war mongers.

real islam people pratice peace and know god judges, and when you kill others and yourself your makeing yourself god and you will die and be DUST. For you came from DUST and dust you will return.

God judges all and killing others is wrong, thoses who pick up the sword will die by it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darkside

krogith im sorry but i didnt understand a word of that rambling incoherent post lol.

---

You're not alone, Darkside. I find Krogith completely incomprehensible. What little I can decipher rarely makes much sense even when I can understand what he was attempting to say.

His post after the one you quoted from was equally incoherent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bong30

Krogith the only smart thing you have said yet..........

I am Brain Washed...Pro american, Pro Capitalism, Pro Freedom, Pro Constitution, Pro Borders, Pro english language, Pro Family.

I LOTHE Pussy Mother fucking, commie bitches, that Hate america LIKE YOU.......

---

Stop ranting and dissing other peoples ideas when yours are so simple and close minded, people like you is the reason our country is in political turmoil. Just shut up for once and listen, and maybe even COMPROMISE, I doubt you can even fanthom words like this though judging on what you've said so far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by birdgirl73

You're not alone, Darkside. I find Krogith completely incomprehensible. What little I can decipher rarely makes much sense even when I can understand what he was attempting to say.

His post after the one you quoted from was equally incoherent.

---

For me, at least, he's in the same league as most of the great philosophers - or even better.

There is no reason on Earth for America (and us Brits, I'm not blaming it all on the USA) to be in Iraq. Under Saddam's regime there was no Islamic threat to the rest of the world. The real reason that the USA is in there is entirely due to oil, nothing else. I'm all for wiping out the idea of Islamic fundamentalism, it's completely backward. The way to do that is to make sure that conditions do not exist in which it can flourish. That's not what is happening in Iraq, rather the opposite. Bring all our tropps home now and stop interfering in other people's affairs. We have enough trouble at home (both in the UK and the USA) to be going on with. Let the muslim world do as it pleases provided they do not bother us. Make this abundantly clear to them. Let them know that we will wipe them off the face of the earth if they wish to go down that route...other than that let's leave them be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignatius

The real reason that the USA is in there is entirely due to oil, nothing else.

---

If this was about oil we would be in Saudi Arabia and Iran. In the big picture, Iraq doesn't have enough oil to make a difference.

Iraq has plenty of Oil, also the USA needs a presence in that part of the world in case it goes tits up with Saudi . It's all about oil man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignatius

Iraq has plenty of Oil, also the USA needs a presence in that part of the world in case it goes tits up with Saudi . It's all about oil man.

---

Nonsense, thats a simpletons view of the world, we already had a "presence" in Saudi Arabia, Quater and AEI (were all the oil is) before the war started.

I agree with Ozarks, the war has nothing to do with oil. Nor terrorism, nor having a prescence in the Middle East. The war with Iraq is all about ego, namely George W. Bush's ego. Dubya had to do something to make his presidency noteworthy. He wanted to be the guy to take down Saddam. He would have figured a way to get us into Iraq one way or another. If Bin Laden had turned over a new leaf and became a florist, and Saddam turned over his "extensive stockpile" (LOL) of WMD's, Dubya would have sent the troops in the name of preventing camel abuse.

TOROG ... you and I are WISE men ... :thumbsup:

Deouncing liberals as the enemy is trademark in a fascist nation.

No, my view of the world is not that of a simpleton. But just for sport Ozarks why don't you tell me what the USA is doing in Iraq.

In your own time and all that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignatius

No, my view of the world is not that of a simpleton. But just for sport Ozarks why don't you tell me what the USA is doing in Iraq.

In your own time and all that.

---

This is my thoughts not Os.

We went to Iraq..... Pimple popping analogy

Afganistan is one finger............

Iraq Is the other finger........

Iran Is the pimple on the ass of the world.

We need perfect popping position, on IRAN.


Fuck the WMDs just say we went to Iraq to Fight Radical Islam.