Democrats Introduce Pro Islamic Resolution

There is no other way to interpret this other than another gesture of support for Islamofascist terrorists by their Democratic sycophants. Guess what ‘resolution’ they introduced?

In its entirety:


1st Session

H. RES. 635

Recognizing the commencement of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal, and commending Muslims in the United States and throughout the world for their faith.


September 5, 2007
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas (for herself, Mr. MEEKS of New York, and Mr. ELLISON) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs


Recognizing the commencement of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal, and commending Muslims in the United States and throughout the world for their faith.

Whereas since the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, threats and incidents of violence have been directed at law-abiding, patriotic Americans of African, Arab, and South Asian descent, particularly members of the Islamic faith;

Whereas, on September 14, 2001, the House of Representatives passed a concurrent resolution condemning bigotry and violence against Arab-Americans, American Muslims, and Americans from South Asia in the wake of the terrorist attacks;

Whereas it is estimated that there are approximately 1,500,000,000 Muslims worldwide;

Whereas Ramadan is the holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal for Muslims worldwide, and is the 9th month of the Muslim calendar year; and

Whereas the observance of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan commences at dusk on September 13, 2007, and continues for one lunar month: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That–

(1) during this time of conflict, in order to demonstrate solidarity with and support for members of the community of Islam in the United States and throughout the world, the House of Representatives recognizes the Islamic faith as one of the great religions of the world; and

(2) in observance of and out of respect for the commencement of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal, the House of Representatives acknowledges the onset of Ramadan and expresses its deepest respect to Muslims in the United States and throughout the world on this significant occasion.

Sponsor: Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice [TX-30] (introduced 9/5/2007)
Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1] – 9/18/2007
Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] – 9/17/2007
Rep Cleaver, Emanuel [MO-5] – 9/18/2007
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] – 9/17/2007
Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7] – 9/20/2007
Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10] – 9/24/2007
Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] – 9/5/2007
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] – 9/17/2007
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] – 9/7/2007
Rep Hinojosa, Ruben [TX-15] – 9/24/2007
Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] – 9/7/2007
Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15] – 9/14/2007
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] – 9/7/2007
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] – 9/17/2007
Rep Lampson, Nick [TX-22] – 9/17/2007
Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] – 9/20/2007
Rep McCollum, Betty [MN-4] – 9/7/2007
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] – 9/17/2007
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] – 9/7/2007
Rep Meeks, Gregory W. [NY-6] – 9/5/2007
Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [NJ-8] – 9/7/2007
Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] – 9/24/2007
Rep Rothman, Steven R. [NJ-9] – 9/19/2007
Rep Sanchez, Linda T. [CA-39] – 9/24/2007
Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-16] – 9/7/2007
Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] – 9/18/2007
Rep Van Hollen, Chris [MD-8] – 9/17/2007
Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33] – 9/20/2007
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] – 9/20/2007
Rep Wu, David [OR-1] – 9/24/2007


Scuse the fuck outta me Democrats, but the perpetrators who directed the violence before, during, and subsequent 9/11 were and are Islamofascist Christian/Jew/anyone not muslim hating scumbags. This might strike the Democrats as odd, but honoring a rabid group of religious fanatics who would like to put a minaret in place of the U.S. Capitol, isn’t conducive to a freedom-loving society.

There’s been a shitload of “Americans of African, Arab, and South Asian descent, particularly members of the Islamic faith”, arrested for belonging to terrorist groups and plotting another attack on this country. I’d like to see the so-called “patriotic Americans of African, Arab, and South Asian descent….of the Islamic faith”, come out of the woodwork and take up arms against the bulk of their culture that propagates and commits worldwide atrocities. Maybe you can come up with a resolution telling them to stop blowing things and people up in the name of Allah. Morons.

The Democrats have their heads so far up their asses it will take a lengthy surgical procedure to remove them.

This is a slap in the face of America and to those who put their lives on the line to defend it. This is not what I fought for in the GWOT. Soldiers do not go to Iraq and Afghanistan to make concessions with Islamofascists who want the world transformed into a Caliphate. We go to kill the bastards so that won’t happen.

If there was any doubt as to the Democrats’ allegiance, this outrageous resolution should put that to rest.

17 thoughts on “Democrats Introduce Pro Islamic Resolution”

  1. Oh you’re a McCarthyite. Got it.

    Oh, so you’re a kneejerk liberal who never read the Venona papers. Got it.

    So assault rifles can be purchased illegally anytime. You must be an advocate of legalizing heroin, because that can be purchased anytime, How about rape? Can be done anytime. How about shoulder fired rockets? Those are cool with you too?. A more sane use of the 2nd amendment is necessary. I think there is a middle road necessary.

    Why not legalize heroin? Why not all drugs? The war on drugs is an ineffectual multi-billion dollar waste. I’d do it with one stipulation: you harm anyone during the use of said drugs, you get the book thrown at you. Your moronic descent into a tirade about ‘legalizing rape’ is a desperate grasping at straws. Bottom line up front: ‘Gun control’ has been about as effective as the ‘war on drugs’, hasn’t it? Only law abiding citizens bother to adhere to the regulations. BTW: Didn’t New York City ban all hand guns years ago? Criminals and people who simply want to protect themselves from criminals bring them in from across state lines. A sane use of the 2nd Amendment does not mean disarming the public, which is precisely what the ACLU and Sarah Brady have in mind. That’s one of the first things that happened in Nazi Germany. Want to prevent the smuggling of weapons like RPGs? Try securing the borders and scrutinizing the ports more closely.

    “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;”
    What part of that didn’t you understand? There is no room to wiggle. Period. You did not see it apparently. The first unaminous vote in Congress. Does that say anything to you?
    I’m saying Christianity was the prevalent religion in America, and some of the Constitution had some Judeo Christian principles, but it is not a christian nation it is neutral. Practice what you want.
    So creator means a certain type of Christian religion? Creator was a deist term. As for the author , Jefferson, he REWROTE the bible and took out any supernatural references. He did not believe that Jesus was the son of god. He thought his teachings were commendable works, but that he was not the son of god.
    Adams summed it up in a letter to Jefferson “with all things be just and true”
    Also he said “This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it!”
    There are many more that point to the neutrality of their thoughts on religion and their outright disdain for it.
    Mohammed is on the frieze of the Supreme Court, what’s that say?
    The key to the Constitution is it is neutral on religion. The founders debate putting the bible in the Constitution, and decided against. There are principles in the Constitution which are universal. But Jesus is not mentioned in the document. It is neutral, that is the genius of it.

    So, creator is just a “deist” term. Well, that “deist” designation has been interpreted throughout our history as being a Christian god. Name one signer of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights who was an atheist, muslim, or for that matter, jew. Uh, last time I checked the Book of Thomas in the Bible did not refer to Jefferson. To even suggest that he “re-wrote” the bible is a wild, ludicrous fantasy. He may have written opinions on it, but he never edited the King James version to his specifications. I’m sure the people who worship according to the bible will be real surprised at the ‘amendment’ that somehow snuck by without being approved by the church hierarchy. Go ahead and try to remove every hint of “god” from U.S. currency, documents, and legal proceedings. Even Madalyn Murray O’Hair only got so far.

    Well, every President swore on the bible, worked real well for Bush.

    Yeah, worked pretty well for Clinton, too.

    Now most of the citizens were Christians, indeed. But they understand by having a document mandating religion, they would just negate what they were fighting for in the war. Court witnesses do not have to put their hand on the bible anymore. In God We Trust was added to our currency in the 50’s as was one nation under god in the pledge of allegiance so sorry you lose on those points.

    Again why didn’t they explicitly put the bible in the Constitution? Can you point out the Judeo Christian parts of the bible?

    ‘In God We Trust’ wasn’t a reflection of the “founding fathers” intentions? C’mon, every bible-totin’ evangelical says so. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were rebellious documents meant to be an in-your-face response to British tyranny, both governmental and religious. No wonder there’s scant mention. Aside from the “creator” reference in the DOI, there’s Article 6 in the Constitution which states that there shall be no religious test for political office. That doesn’t mean they (back when it was written) would have elected an avowed atheist, does it? Interestingly enough, the First Amendment applies only to the federal government. When Madison tried to enforce it on the states, it failed. The probable intent of the Constitution was to leave religion up to the states. Jefferson, by the way, proclaimed a day of prayer in 1779. As president, Jefferson attended church services at the House of Representatives, and signed a law providing for a missionary and a church to the Kaskaskia Indians. His second inagural address included these words:
    “In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of state or church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.” Funny how the Federal Government usually supercedes state’s rights at every turn, anyway. Wasn’t the Civil War a result of that?
    BTW: The military oath of enlistment and the presidential swearing-in also has the words: “So help me God”. The underlying principles of religious values in the foundation of this country are everywhere. Over half of the founders were Episcopalian/Anglican. They (pardon the pun) preached tolerance, but definitely inculcated their deep religious faith into the basic principles of this country. Four of them were former reverends, some were children of clergymen, and most were active churchgoers. Some of that had to and indeed did influence their writings and governence. They might have been secular, but they were religious nontheless. United States Supreme Court once stated, “this is a religious nation.” The religious figures depicted at the Supreme Court include Moses, Confucius, and Mohammad. BTW: In 2006, the muslims finally noticed mohammad’s face on the sculpture and protested. Gee, I wonder if they’re gonna burn down the building. After all , isn’t portraying his likeness punishable under the ‘peaceful religion of Islam’? What I find ironic in this whole scenario, is out of all of the sculptures on the frieze, there’s no “god”. But plenty of his ‘prophets’. Nice way to skirt that “church and state” separation.
    Since the main prophet mentioned in the bible is ‘Jesus Christ’, his followers and mulitude of believers called Christian, and Jews are mentioned throughout the bible (the ‘chosen people’, etc) what about the “judeo-christian” aspect don’t you get? It sure as hell doesn’t pay any mind to Mohammad. You’re behind on points.

    Hey I think they’re all archaic bronze age doctrines that have outlived their usefulness. The old testament is still followed, just look at the nutcases against “the gay lifestyle” they just pick and choose which doctrines they follow. Yes they don’t stone to death their children who disobey them, but they still hold plenty of the doctrine close to the hearts. As far as radical Islam, you are correct, they do those things. But not all muslims believe in this practice, as not all christians want to outlaw gay marriage. Some Christians did support the bombings in Iraq, but it doesn’t hold that all Christians support bombing and killing innocent people.

    Wait a minute, if you think that christian fundamentalists are anti-gay, try asking the muslims what they think. Iran and other Islamic states still inprison them and put them to death. Didn’t Amahdinijad say that “they don’t have homosexuals in Iran”? *wink* The current crop of muslim fanatics follow the koran to a tee, and put it into practice. As for “bombing and killing innocent people”, you mean the ‘innocent’ al Qaeda, Taliban, al Quds, Sunni militants, or al Sadr’s thugs? Civilians get killed in every war…..your point is?

    I agree more muslims should openly stand out against radical islam, but some are, not enough. But here a little primer on the term fascist, it rose as a term for the nation state which supports the total power of business, as Mussolini termed it. Which of these states should we support? Why Saudi Arabia and not others?

    I don’t like Saudi Arabia either. To tell the truth, the only reason the strict Wahabists maintain power is by placating the even more extreme religious elements in their country and looking the other way when their own becomes a terrorist. In fact, Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia “joined” in the GWOT fight only after intense pressure from Washington following 9/11. Its contribution has been minimal and unenthusiastic. Riyadh has refused to allow use its bases in Saudi Arabia to be used for counter-terrorist operations. The Saudi government has been a financial backer of the Taliban since 1996. It has also funded Hamas, “charities”, (the codeword for money-laundering funds to terrorist cells) and madrasses which promugate anti-American/anti-Western/death to the infidels practices.
    This again, proves that Islamofascism is supported throughout the ME.

    Ok, you still didn’t get it. The writ of Habeus Corpus shall not be suspended. Of course some of them are guilty, but some are innocent, what’s wrong with showing the world the fairness of our system? What does America gain by torturing, imprisoning and holding without charge alleged terrorists. Let’s make sure the ones we hold are no longer alleged, if guilty, penalize them, if not let them go. It was the American Way, we did it in Nuremburg. What were are doing is not helping us in the long it creates more enemies, not the goal here.
    As far as “Kill them all” that’s where you have gone off the rails. If you really mean that, Congratulations you have just joined those “islamofascists”, Hitler, Milosevic, Stalin and their ilk. There is no defending that line. When someone says something like that they are sick vile human beings and are EXACTLY what we should be fighting against. You need help, practicality my ass. You disgust me with that quote. I was trying to have a dialog with the intension of understanding another point of view but if you really meant that’s where I end it, I don’t talk with delusional pyschopaths, good luck with your murder and mayhem.
    As for Bush the long list of subversions of the Constitution it’s too long to list and I’m done with you because you are too unstable to deal with.

    You cannot possibly be this dense. The writ of habeus corpus does not pertain to POWs or foreign terrorist detainees. Where in the hell does it mention them? Please provide the details. If you think I’m going to lose sleep over the “torture” of a terrorist scumbag to extract information that will save American lives, you’re nuts. In addition, we seem to be the only ones concerned with “fairness of our system”. The Islamofascists damn sure don’t practice “fairness” with captured POWs nor could they find Geneva on a map. You get your panties in a wad over “creating more enemies”? You’ve gotta be kidding. Isn’t that the mantra of the left after 9/11? We “created” enemies with our ME policies, therefore “America had it coming”? Islamofascists and terrorists existed long before our invasion. Have you bothered to listen and read the rabid statements of the Islamofascist jihadists? They have “gone off the rails”, sweetpea. People who don’t take them seriously are incredibly stupid, and dare I say, delusional. Obviously, you subscribe to the peurile “muslims aren’t all that way” without giving good reasons as to why anyone with common sense would believe that. Again, where are the “moderate muslims”? I’m waiting, but I won’t hold my breath. And this spew of yours is absolutely hilarious:

    When someone says something like that they are sick vile human beings and are EXACTLY what we should be fighting against. You need help, practicality my ass. You disgust me with that quote. I was trying to have a dialog with the intension of understanding another point of view but if you really meant that’s where I end it, I don’t talk with delusional pyschopaths, good luck with your murder and mayhem.
    As for Bush the long list of subversions of the Constitution it’s too long to list and I’m done with you because you are too unstable to deal with.

    Honey, you’re so clueless of the emphatic nature of the Islamofascist threat that a turbaned thug could come knocking on your door to impose Sharia law and you still wouldn’t get it. The muslim fanatics have fine-tuned the “murder and mayhem” aspect. “Delusional psychopaths” don’t begin to describe them, but I’m insane for suggesting we wipe them off the planet? You’re not only delusional, you’re Zawahiri’s wet dream. Your version of “dialog” is Chamberlain-esque: “Enemy? What enemy?”
    We should adopt a simple policy; you attack us, we anihilate you. You know what peedo my man, Mohammad Atta didn’t hit close enough to your own back yard. Guileless and craven is no way to go through life.

    Your paranoid fantasies of Bush subverting the Constitution are way off in the ozone. “Knock knock”. “Who’s there”? “It’s me GW, I’ve come to drag you off to a right-wing gulag where you will spend the rest of your life reading the bible.”
    Listen sweetpea, if you want examples of “subversion of the Constitution” turn the history pages back to the Clinton regime. He not only commited treason, among other felonies, but used the Constitution as toilet paper.
    Well, that’s all for now. Do come back if only to screech about your phobias.
    Don’t forget to leave the night lite on to ward off the big, bad Bush boogey man.


  2. SFC Mac
    Jumping back in been busy, here you go,

    I’m not sure how many US companies are doing business in Cuba now, but you’d be against them being there too? I think they face restrictions and I didn’t have any luck in finding who the companies are. I’m not a fan of Castro at all, one of my friends growing up had made it out here in the 60’s. But I think by opening up opportunities there, I think we can have a better effect on conditions there. The embargo doesn’t seem to have had it’s desired effect.
    So have you read the book in question? From the review on Amazon I guess it’s for 2-4 th graders in a series of books around the world about culture, so I don’t know if it’s goal is poltical education or just a basic understandung of culture.
    I’m not a proponent of censorship so I would lean on keeping the book in the library, but not having read it, couldn’t comment much more on it, so if you’ve seen the book your comments would be appreciated.
    The quotes from the founders of the ACLU are over 50 years old aren’t they? A whole lot has chaged in 50 years, so I don’t know if they can be counted on for current philosophy.
    The reference to the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities from the 40’s and 50’s is not a real great period in American Politics, not a big fan of a fraud like McCarthy, you may be, but I’m not big on witch hunts.
    I haven’t dug much on the nambla case, but am interested in checking that out. The reasons would have to be tied to losing other freedoms for me to even begin being in favor their activities. Hard to understand why anyone would support a group like that, but there could be more to it than meets the eye.
    I’m not against the 2nd amendment, I just don’t think people should be able to easily get an assault rifle. I think a waiting period and background checks are a bad thing. I think this is one the Convention could have expounded a little more. It’s so tied to the period and a little unclear, although I think it gives us the right to bear arms.
    You said:
    Did they actually say that?
    Gotta say this one is just plain wrong. The Ten Commandents are not in the Constitution, and some are in direct conflict with the Bill of Rights.
    The 1st Amendment is in direct conflict with the commandment
    “Thou shall have no other gods before me”
    Thou shalt not kill is a universal and not unique to civilization it goes back to basic group survival.
    The 2nd amendment gets nothing from the Bible
    Honor thy mother and father is universal .as is thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not murder, covet your neighbor’s house, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife.
    The branches of government got inspiration from the Iroquois nation according to Adams and Jefferson, there was much studied on their system.
    Sorry to say the French helped out too.
    There’s plenty of cruel and unusual in the bible so strike that one too.
    10 th amendment power lies with the people not god.
    The other big thing is Jesus Christ or god are not mentioned, curious isn’t it?
    It is the first secular document in government, that’s what makes it so special. Not it’s Christian content, because it’s not in there.

    This is from the Treaty of Tripoli the first unaminous bill to be signed in our country. John Adams signed it into law in 1797 it doesn’t get much clearer than this:
    “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

    The founders knew the danger of religion so they kept it out. Our lawmakers are not to make laws regarding religion, so public religious displays should not be part of what govt dictates.

    I am against any govt funding of any religion on public property no matter what religion, so I am against the ACLU if they support any religious public funding.
    As far as terrorist Christians , there’s Timothy MacVeigh, Eric Rudolph and the whole Army of God degenerates who kill abortion doctors. Not on the whole 9/11 scale, but who has orchestrated on like it, but they are out there.
    You are lumping all muslims in with the fanatics which says nothing about the muslims who follow a more tolerant path. The terrorists are pathetic human beings period.
    As far as being hauled off to a gulag there are people in Guantanamo who are not getting the right to a speedy trial. The worst thing about this is many of them are probably deserving a conviction, but we may never know because of the methods used will disallow the govt from prosecuting them. They’ll probably have to keep them indefinitely. I want due process of law the core American value that has made our country great however flawed it is, it’s still the best thing the world has ever known.
    So, Bush Derangement Syndrome, is that any criticism of the President is dangerous no matter what his track record?


    China benefits from our import/export trade but still won’t hesitate to crack down on free speech, religion, and enterprise if they run contradictory to the government. In 2000, a law was passed as an exception to the over 40-year Cuban embargo, which permits commercial sales of American food and agricultural products — as long as payments are made in cash. Infusing capitalist dollars into Communist countries only serves to help prop up the regimes. Castro and his brother Raul, still have a stronghold.

    Understanding the history, philosphy, and the modus operandi of the ACLU, should preclude any doubts as to their proclivities. Just look at their record. Re-read the examples I’ve provided. They’re just a small sample of the overall leftist/anti-American legal wranglings practiced by the ACLU. The quotes may be over 50 years old, but nothing’s changed. The goal of the book is undoubtedly a rubber stamp of Castro’s communist “paradise”, which has resulted in Florida becoming a “northern Cuba”, population-wise. Putting a smiley face on totalitarian dictatorships is an ACLU rule of thumb. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it will still be a pig.

    In order for there to be a “witch hunt” you first have to assume there’s no witch. The Venona Papers published by the NSA years ago reveal the extent to which the KGB and GRU penetrated the U.S. government. The damage and the threat was all too real. McCarthy was right. He didn’t sell his case too well though, by losing focus on the real culptrits. And as for NAMBLA, what is left that ‘doesn’t meet the eye’? No legal organization should touch that group of degenerates with a 10 foot cattle prod.

    For some reason the quote didn’t appear in your response but I’m guessing you meant: “According to the ACLU, individuals should rely on “a well regulated militia” to fend off armed criminals…” They all but said that. I was referring to their approach to the 2nd amendment. They invariably come up with the “well regulated militia” argument while ignoring the “right of the people to keep and bear arms”.
    Assault rifles can be purchased illegally anytime. No waiting period.

    Ok, what you’re arguing is that this country was not based on Judeo-Christian principles? Wait a minute, last time I checked, there was a certain phrase in the Declaration of Independence that said: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” I don’t think they were referring to “Allah” or a “secular God”. In addition, every elected President of the United States swears an oath with their hand on the Bible, likewise a court witness. “In God we trust” is all over our currency. The State motto of Ohio , where I hail from, is: “With God all things are possible”. Kinda makes you wonder about Christianity not being mentioned in our government documents and principles. It’s in there. As for “cruel and unusual things” the Koran wins that battle, hands down. When was the last time a Christian or Jewish organization put the Old Testament dogma into practice? I’ll repeat what I told Kim: Both of those particular religions have evolved to a place where people can worship peacefully, without using beheadings, bombs, or stonings as a sermon or a standard policy.

    Timothy McVeigh did not have a world-wide religious fascist/fanatical network as a support base. He and Terry Nichols carried out the Oklahoma City bombing by themselves. Their single act of terrorism pales in comparison to the body counts, well funded and organized Islamofascist support found in the Middle East, and quite possibly, in your local mosque. I want to see those “tolerant path” followers become vocal and visable instead of hiding behind a wall of silence. When they actually differentiate themselves from their terrorist representatives, that statement about “lumping” might have some meaning.

    I’ve said this before: People tend to ignore the atrocities that earned them a spot in GITMO. This is where the ACLU rears it’s ugly head again: In 2005, the Pentagon allowed some ACLU moonbats to sit in on some interrogations, and they promptly told these terrorist non-U.S. citizens who have no bona fide rights or privileges under OUR Constitiution, “not to talk”. What. The. Fuck. Over. ? Talk about a gigantic brain fart in the name of political correctness. As for me, I say we need to stop taking prisoners. Kill them all, let “Allah” sort them out. It’s a matter of sensible practicality.

    Bush Derangement Syndrome is demonstrated by people who have an anal fixation with Bush to the point where they see him as a bogey man hiding behind every conspiracy theory. Hurricane Katrina? Bush’s fault. Democrats not pleased with the Islamofascists getting an ass whipping? Bush’s fault. Oh yeah, and according to them, Bush was also behind the 9/11 attacks. He supposedly brought down the World Trade Center, crashed the plane into the Pentagon, and was going to hit the U.S. Capitol, but that was foiled by the people that Michael Moore called ‘scaredy-cats’ because they were mostly white. If the passengers had included black men, he claimed, those killers, “with their puny bodies and unimpressive small knives, would have been crushed by the dudes, who as we all know take no disrespect from anybody. …”
    Oh yeah and this: “If someone did this [9/11] to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, D.C., and the planes’ destination of California — these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!” — Michael Moore On 9/12/2001
    Still doubtful about BDS? There’s lots more where that came from; some of it from democrats in Congress and Senate, as well as MSM “journalists”.


  3. Kim Iannone


    I have to agree with you re being PC. I agree that being PC leads to a lot of silly, and sometimes dangerous, behavior.

    I also have to admit, that you have done a good job presenting your case regarding your belief in the potential dangers of the WMDs.

    I also agree with you regarding your interpretation of General Petraeus’ remarks.

    Regarding the image of the US in the Muslim world, we were once viewed as a bastion of hope, fairness, and integrity. Because the US did not participate in wars of colonization there during the 19th Century, these countries looked upon us as a reasonable intermediary. Americans founded well-regarded universities throughout the Arab world (including one in Turkey the name of which I’ve forgotten), educating entire generations of leaders and professionals.

    I’m not so sure about that. Islam has always been diametrically opposed to Christianity and Judeaism. Don’t forget, the reason the Crusaders fought was to counter the oppressive expansion of Mohammad’s legions.

    Among the educated middle classes, there is a secularization of the people much like there is here. The Muslimi who live here, generally accept American laws and customs. Mosques sit next to Baptist churches. Stores owned by Jews and Pakistanis sell Jewish and Muslim products side by side; some products are the same (halal). So, yes, I think that many Muslims here and abroad do make a distinction between themselves and the terrorists.


    The muslims who live here need to do more than just remain silent to “make a distinction between themselves and the terrorists”. CAIR sure doesn’t. Everytime an atrocity or a brutal act of terrorism is carried out, it’s done in the name of Islam, which makes no distinction between them and the phantom moderates. Will the real secularists please stand up? Enmasse?

  4. Kim Iannone


    The US military has not been officially racist for 60 years. The Republican party is against anti-Muslim racism. President Bush has welcomed Muslim leaders to the White House. He and his Administration have been careful to make a distinction between the terrorists and the rest of the world’s Muslims. One arguments for the war, was to bring democracy and justice to the Iraqi people. Just this past week, Bush has come to the defense of the Turks, a mostly Muslim people, as important US allies.



    Well, we shouldn’t be “officially” PC to the point where we lose common sense over who the enemy is, what they represent, and how they use their religion as a terrorist tool. If the “rest of the world’s muslims” don’t help stop the terrorism done in their name, it’s because they don’t want to. Tacit disapproval does not do any good. As for the Turks, knowing their history, I don’t view them very favorably. At the beginning of this war, they refused to allow us to use their territory as a staging base for a northern ingress into Iraq. We were forced to attack from the south, a much longer and dangerous route. Yeah, I know we have a base there at Incirlik, but a lot of good it did. Any so-called “allies” we have in the region are tenuous at best. It’s in their (and our) best interest to carry a fascade of cooperation. Every one of them will side with each other whenever necessary against the U.S., and work with us when it’s convienient. When the muslims make a distinction between themselves and terrorists, that assumption might carry weight.

  5. Kim Iannone

    Hi Cheryl,

    152, or 70%, of the Republicans present voted for the resolution, not one voted against it, so it’s by-partisan.

    I don’t care who voted for it, it’s asinine considering we are at war with the proponents of the religion they’re recognizing. It’s PC crap, pure and simple.

    It’s not Islamo-fascist. I don’t see any value in calling it that, or calling Muslims in general that way. I don’t see any value in increasing the numbers of our enemies. 9/11 started with 19 men from a group of a few thousand Al Qaeda. Then, our enemies expanded to the tens of thousands of Taliban. Then, to millions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Why increase our enemies to a billion?

    Yes, it is Islamofascist. What else would you call the characteristics of a religion, which at its very core is oppressive, brutal, and fascist in nature? Peace-loving, it ain’t. Gawd forbid we should ‘anger’ the muslims by fighting back. Let’s not offend anyone.

    People in the Muslim world do read our websites and our blogs. When an American, or a group of Americans, spout racist anti-Muslim stuff — sandbleepers, nuke them all, Muslims eat their babies for breakfast, etc. — people in the Muslim world reproducce it, they share links, they post from web pages, and they say “You see, the Americans really are our enemies. They call us dirt. They want to kill all of us.”

    Well, they also pay attention to the mealy-mouthed democrats and the defeatest-pro al Qaeda leanings. Why do you think they want Hillary elected? And yes, killing them is what it takes to win. They declared war on us decades ago. No one paid attention until they finally scored a direct hit in 2001. Have you bothered to read the blogs of the muslim jihadists? Kim, what is the area code of your cave?

    As General Petraeus said, this war will not be won by the military.

    Really? Find the quote. I served under General Petraeus, and I’ve never heard him utter such a thing. He might have said it won’t be won by the military alone; implying a concerted effort needed on the part of the Iraqis if they want a better future.




  6. Hi,

    I am guessing (based on Google) that you are the person who published a letter in the LA Times this past day.

    I don’t think in the military, if something bad happened on your watch, you could say, “Well, gee, somebody else had my watch 9 months ago, it’s their fault.”

    With respect,

    Kim Iannone

    Comment by Kim Iannone — July 23, 2007 @ 2:42 pm | Edit This

    I can guess by your signature that your letter was published simultaneously. As far as something happening on someone’s watch, consider all of the terrorist attacks on our soil and against Americans overseas on Bubba’s watch. It’s not just the terrorist act itself, it’s what a President does or does not do in response. While people were fixated on his perjury and Monica’s mouth-to-crotch recuscitation, he and ‘algore’ used the Oval Office as a conduit for treason (Chinagate), illegally obtaining personal files (FBIgate), and engaging in some highly questionable firing practices (Travelgate). All this and eviscerating the military and national security to boot. What happened on his watch set the stage for 9/11. You are aware that Army SF had bin Ladin in the crosshairs and Bubba said “no”, aren’t you?
    And this statement of yours is a sidesplitter:

    “Muslim terrorists couldn’t care less about our “liberty” or our “democracy”; they believe that all non-Muslims are headed to hell anyway. They fight us because we foreigners have, for centuries, been invaders and occupiers of their countries. We have created countries at will (Iraq), propped up “our” dictators and taken their oil. Imagine that King Bush ruled us as a Saudi proxy and that the Saudis controlled our economy. Imagine that there were Saudi military bases across the U.S. and that the Saudis used these bases to attack other countries. Patriotic Americans would also take up arms against the foreign invaders. Neoconservatives support U.S. domination of other countries not to benefit the peoples of those countries, not to protect “us” from the “enemy,” but to ensure and extend the power of the American petroleum-military-industrial oligarchy. We are the invaders. We are the imperialists. We are the bad guys.”

    Really? And who pray tell were the bad guys on 9/11? The perfunctory “it’s all about oil”, blah, blah, blah…is hackneyed BS. If we wanted to take all the oil, and indeed had done so, we’d only be paying 3 cents a pop instead of 3 bucks. We weren’t in Iraq prior to 9/11 attacks, and in case you forgot, sources of al Qadea are throughout the Middle East. We went into this war for a multitude of reasons.
    I’ve said this before and it bears repeating:

    Let me make this simple:
    The invasion of Afghanistan was prompted by its use as the major operating base for al Qaeda.
    The invasion of Iraq was instigated by 12 years of nose thumbing on the part of a WMD-wielding terrorist-supporting megalomaniac. U.N. Resolution 1441 gave Hussein an ultimatum and us the specific authority to force compliance, by any necessary means. That included military force. I was an Intelligence Analyst and cannot discuss classified material, but there are plenty of open source publications available for your perusal. In case you didn’t know, we found a substantial amount of hidden WMD along with documents and recordings in which Saddam Hussein emphatically stated his intention to continue WMD development and deception.

    Cutting off war funding will send al Qaeda and other terrorist groups the message that the elected officials of the United States don’t have the guts to stand up to Islamofascist tyrants who want to transform the whole planet into a Caliphate.
    Afghanistan is never mentioned in anti-war commentaries. For the life of me, I can’t figure that out. It’s probably because our success in pounding the Taliban and al Qaeda into the sand in Kandahar doesn’t make for good press.

    And what about our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan don’t you get? Where do you think we should fight back? Hell, they’re just two of the countries I would have leveled on 12 September 2001. We were attacked by Islamic thugs supported not only by Iraq and Afghanistan but throughout the Middle East and they are two good places to start retaliation.

    Had I been in power, I would have made William Tecumseh Sherman look like a Boy Scout. Four countries would have been carpet-bombed into asphalt parking lots: Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Syria. That is how you fight a war. But I was a Soldier, not a diplomat.

    President Bush has repeatedly stated that the war against Islamofascism will not be easy; it will not come without sacrifice. The problem is a great number of people like nice, neat, little sound bite wars. Well, wouldn’t we all? In reality, war is a brutal, often necessary endeavor.
    No matter how badly some people salivate over the possibility of a “civil war” in Iraq, it ain’t happening. Most of the agitators are coming in from Syria and Iran, with the bulk of the violence taking place in specific areas around Baghdad. The rest of the 26 million Iraqis are too busy getting on with their lives to jump on the “civil war” bandwagon.

    This is what the GWOT in Iraq and Afghanistan has accomplished:
    Elimination of at least two of the ME terrorist operating bases and establishing influence and the spread of freedom right smack dab in the middle of an Islamofascist region. Iraq and Afghanistan are making great progress. For the first time in their existence, they have an opportunity to enjoy the freedoms we take for granted; they vote, run for office, run independent businesses, and speak through a free press. They are being prepared for the day when our mission is complete and theirs begins. They now have a representative Parliament and a military that is being trained to provide for the defense of an independent Iraq. You don’t hear about the good things, because, as the saying goes,” if it bleeds, it leads.”

    By the way: one of the most important campaigns of this war is being waged as we speak. It’s called “Operation Arrowhead Ripper”. The United States Army and Iraqi troops are gaining significant ground and kicking al Qaeda’s ass in places like Baqubah. I guess in your view, that’s not as important as voting to cut off our funding and sniveling about all the reasons you think we shouldn’t have picked one of the terrorist/WMD havens as a target for retaliation.

    Another ploy by critics is to assign the “Vietnam” mantra to every war it disagrees with. No matter how badly they want it to be another “Vietnam” it isn’t happening, and their historical amnesia kicks in every time this war is debated.

    Here’s an easy scenario:
    In spite of ominous indicators and turmoil that was contained on someone else’s turf, we remained complacent.
    An enemy sends planes to bomb and crash into U.S. territory. The attack kills roughly 3000 Americans.
    War is declared and retaliation begins against the perpetrators and their allies.
    Sound familiar?
    It happened 7 December 1941.

    There’s your comparison.

    You didn’t expect the bad guys to be very happy at the fact that we brought the war they started, back to them, did you? Of course they’re going to be pissed. Of course they’re going to fight back, not just with weapons but through media exploitation. 9/11 was the Pearl Harbor of the 21st Century and all the critics are capable of is spouting nonsense and being al Qaeda apologists.
    In case you still don’t get it, they want to kill us. They made that pretty clear on 11 September 2001.
    If you don’t understand that, maybe they didn’t hit close enough to your own back yard.
    We’re what stands between your freedom and Sharia Law. Would a little gratitude be too much to expect?
    You sure have a warped view on what constitutes “bad guys”.

    Comment by sfcmac — July 23, 2007 @ 5:06 pm | Edit This

    Hello Everyone,

    First, I’d like to point out that I ended my two sentence comment by saying “With respect”. I am going to stay on the subject of the 9/11 and its connection to the Afghan and Iraq Wars. I will not wander into name-calling, nor stereotyping, nor other subjects.

    Second, after World War I and the fall of the Ottoman Empire, to take just the example of Saudi Arabia, the British set up the Saudi family to rule the Arabian peninsula, and the Americans founded the Arab-American Oil Company, aka ARAMCO. The Saudis have always been dictators and we have supported them. Radical Islamist Saudis hate their rulers. They hate us for supporting those rulers. They believe that we are infidels — non-believers — who desecrate their “Land of the Two Holy Cities.” All you have to do is read what Bin Ladin has said, watch what he has said. Fifteen of the nineteen men who killed us on 9/11 were Saudi.

    Third, none of the bad guys on 9/11 were Iraqi. Bush himself finally said that he knew of no connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. There were no weapons of mass destruction, nor a WMD program, no yellow cake from Niger, no eminent Iraqi threat to the United States, no mobile biochemical war labs, no biochemical weapons depots “to the north, the south, the east and the west” of Bagdad. Bin Ladin called for Hussein’s assassination. Hussein ran a very tight dictatorship. The CIA and US military intelligence agencies never reported that Iraq was involved in any terrorist attack against the United States.

    Fourth, Bin Ladin was the baddest of the bad. US intelligence had put him within a 16-square mile area in the Tora Bora Mountains. How did the world’s best, most powerful military let him escape? Or perhaps the question should be, why? And with the mission unaccomplished in Afghanistan (or, perhaps, eastern Pakistan), why did we turn to Iraq?

    Fifth, before we invaded, Iraq was not an “Islamo-fascist” state. Iraq under Hussein was a secular state, run by a pseudo-Socialist party, the Baath. Hussein saw the Muslim clergy as competitors and rivals for power. He suppressed them and tightly controlled them. Bin Ladin called for Hussein’s assassination. Yet another reason why the “war on terror” as a “war against “Islamo-fascists” doesn’t make sense.

    With respect,

    Kim Iannone

    Comment by Kim Iannone — October 4, 2007 @ 11:03 pm | Edit This

    Hello again,

    One more thing: I don’t believe that most people in the Arab world are monsters who deserve to be killed. Most of them are like most of us — truck drivers, teachers, bowling alley clerks, insurance sales people, etc. You are talking about mass murder. Most of the people you would kill would be innocent.

    With respect,


    Comment by Kim Iannone — October 4, 2007 @ 11:13 pm | Edit This

    Corrections to your version of history:
    Stating the obvious about the British colonization of Iraq and Saudi Arabia does not change the fact that they quickly morphed into the extremist element they are now. They were headed that way, anyway. The culture has never been exactly progressive; having been stuck in a 7th Century writing and mindset. Saudi leaders ironically, have not been completely immune from elements that are even more radical than they. They’re just the lesser of the two evils.

    Secondly, The 9/11 hijackers had training from al Qadea, with funding, logistics, and support from countries including Iran, Sudan, and Afghanistan. Hussein (aside from provoking us by thumbing his nose at U.N. Resolution 1441 for 12 years) gave thousands of dollars to families of suicide bombers, and gave shelter to Musab al-Zarqawi (remember him?) when he escaped from Afghanistan after being wounded.

    YES, my dear, WMDs WERE DISCOVERED. You must have have been in a deep coma when these were found:

    1) 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
    In a joint Energy and Defense Department operation, 1.77 metric tons of low-enriched uranium and approximately 1000 highly radioactive sources were secured from Iraq’s former nuclear research facility, packaged and then airlifted on June 23, the press statement said.
    “This operation was a major achievement for the Bush Administration’s goal to keep potentially dangerous nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists,” Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said in the statement. “It also puts this material out of reach for countries that may seek to develop their own nuclear weapons.”


    2) 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents
    U.S. troops raiding a warehouse in the northern city of Mosul uncovered a suspected chemical weapons factory containing 1,500 gallons of chemicals believed destined for attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces and civilians, military officials said Saturday.


    3) 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas) “Laboratory tests showed the presence in them of cyclosarin, a very toxic gas, five times stronger than sarin and five times more durable,” Bieniek told Poland’s TVN24 at the force’s Camp Babylon headquarters. “If these warheads, which were still usable, were used on a military base like Camp Babylon, they would have caused unforeseeable damage.”


    4) Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas: “Along with 1.77 tons of enriched uranium, about 1,000 “highly radioactive sources” were also removed. The material was taken from a former nuclear research facility on 23 June, after being packaged by 20 experts from the US Energy Department’s secret laboratories.”


    5) Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and “conventional” sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency


    And this bombshell:

    “Tapes Reveal Hussein’s plans”: An excerpt: “There also exists a quote from the dictator himself, who ordered the tapings to keep a record of his inner-sanctum discussions, that Mr. Tierney (Bill Tierney, a former Army warrant officer and Arabic speaker who was translating for the FBI tapes unearthed in Iraq after the invasion) thinks shows Saddam planned to use a proxy to attack the United States.” “Terrorism is coming … with the Americans,” Saddam said. “With the Americans, two years ago, not a long while ago, with the English I believe, there was a campaign … with one of them, that in the future there would be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction.”


    Geez, and to think “Chemical Ali” slaughtered thousands of Kurds with “non-existent” WMDs.

    Hussein met with al Qadea operatives, provided training camps, and gave support to Zarqawi, who is right along side him in hell.

    Third: You can thnk Bubba Clinton for letting Bin Laden escape. Army SF personnel had the bastard in their crosshairs, and Bubba said no. The world’s most powerful military would like to have done alot of things, but you civilians (who incidentally are the nation’s leaders) keep tying our hands.

    Here’s a run down:


    1. Did not follow-up on the attempted bombing of Aden marines in Yemen.

    2. Shut the CIA out of the 1993 WTC bombing investigation, hamstringing their effort to capture bin Laden.

    3. Had Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a key bin Laden lieutenant, slip through their fingers in Qatar.

    4. Did not militarily react to the al Qaeda bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

    5. Did not accept the Sudanese offer to turn bin Laden.

    6. Did not follow-up on another offer from Sudan through a private back channel.

    7. Objected to Northern Alliance efforts to assassinate bin Laden in Afghanistan.

    8. Decided against using special forces to take down bin Laden in Afghanistan.

    9. Did not take an opportunity to take into custody two al Qaeda operatives involved in the East African embassy bombings. In another little scoop, I am able to show that Sudan arrested these two terrorists and offered them to the FBI. The Clinton administration declined to pick them up and they were later allowed to return to Pakistan.

    10. Ordered an ineffectual, token missile strike against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory.

    11. Clumsily tipped off Pakistani officials sympathetic to bin Laden before a planned missile strike against bin Laden on August 20, 1998. Bin Laden left the camp with only minutes to spare.

    12-14. Three times, Clinton hesitated or deferred in ordering missile strikes against bin Laden in 1999 and 2000.

    15. When they finally launched and armed the Predator spy drone plane, which captured amazing live video images of bin Laden, the Clinton administration no longer had military assets in place to strike the archterrorist.

    16. Did not order a retaliatory strike on bin Laden for the murderous attack on the USS Cole.

    Gee, ya think he had enough chances????

    And don’t get me started on Joesph Wilson and his CIA wife. (Your Niger reference) She hadn’t been covert since 1992. She was a desk jockey. She was the one who manipulated Joe’s way into that little trip. Both of them are established Bush-bashing professionals. And YES, Iraq DID go shopping for uranium in Niger:

    Christopher Hitchens summarizes:

    In the late 1980s, the Iraqi representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency—Iraq’s senior public envoy for nuclear matters, in effect—was a man named Wissam al-Zahawie. After the Kuwait war in 1991, when Rolf Ekeus arrived in Baghdad to begin the inspection and disarmament work of UNSCOM, he was greeted by Zahawie, who told him in a bitter manner that “now that you have come to take away our assets,” the two men could no longer be friends. (They had known each other in earlier incarnations at the United Nations in New York.)

    At a later 1995 U.N. special session on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Zahawie was the Iraqi delegate and spoke heatedly about the urgent need to counterbalance Israel’s nuclear capacity. At the time, most democratic countries did not have full diplomatic relations with Saddam’s regime, and there were few fully accredited Iraqi ambassadors overseas, Iraq’s interests often being represented by the genocidal Islamist government of Sudan (incidentally, yet another example of collusion between “secular” Baathists and the fundamentalists who were sheltering Osama Bin Laden). There was one exception—an Iraqi “window” into the world of open diplomacy—namely the mutual recognition between the Baathist regime and the Vatican. To this very important and sensitive post in Rome, Zahawie was appointed in 1997, holding the job of Saddam’s ambassador to the Holy See until 2000. Those who knew him at that time remember a man much given to anti-Jewish tirades, with a standing ticket for Wagner performances at Bayreuth. (Actually, as a fan of Das Rheingold and Götterdämmerung in particular, I find I can live with this. Hitler secretly preferred sickly kitsch like Franz Lehar.)

    In February 1999, Zahawie left his Vatican office for a few days and paid an official visit to Niger, a country known for absolutely nothing except its vast deposits of uranium ore. It was from Niger that Iraq had originally acquired uranium in 1981, as confirmed in the Duelfer Report. In order to take the Joseph Wilson view of this Baathist ambassadorial initiative, you have to be able to believe that Saddam Hussein’s long-term main man on nuclear issues was in Niger to talk about something other than the obvious. Italian intelligence (which first noticed the Zahawie trip from Rome) found it difficult to take this view and alerted French intelligence (which has better contacts in West Africa and a stronger interest in nuclear questions). In due time, the French tipped off the British, who in their cousinly way conveyed the suggestive information to Washington. As everyone now knows, the disclosure appeared in watered-down and secondhand form in the president’s State of the Union address in January 2003.

    Lastly: Hussein modeled himself after his idol Joesph Stalin. Totalitarian/fascist/secular/whatever doesn’t begin to describe it.

    As far as “all Arabs not being monsters” and “innocents being killed”….We didn’t mess around with Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or Dresden, now did we? We were as brutal as necessary to fight an enemy hellbent for world domination. Sound familiar? And just where in the hell are the so-called “moderate muslims”? I haven’t seen any lately. Have you ever read the koran? It’s one of the most bellicose, misogynist, anti-non muslim screeds, ever. Wanna know where the terrorists get their ideas? Read it.

    Comment by sfcmac — October 5, 2007 @ 10:53 am | Edit This

    Hi Cheryl,

    I just scanned your long response. You and I strongly disagree about many things, but I appreciate your passion about what you believe. There are many people whose deepest experience with American democracy is watching “American Idol”.

    I appreciate the links. It’s always useful to see the information sources that people use to form and support their opinions. I tried the first link: I get a “Server not found” error. I will try to track this down when I can devote more time to it.

    I will response to your last paragraph. Though I have been to Hiroshima several dozen times as I lived in Fukuyami-si, about two hours northeast by Shinkansen, I would like to keep our discussion focussed on the Arab-Western clash. World War II, the Japanese-American struggle, the dropping of The Bomb and the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo are other subjects.

    Yes, I have read the Koran. Like any religious text — such as the Bible, from which the Koran takes much of its material — the Koran is complex and subject to all kinds of interpretations.

    For example, in the first Sura, “The Cow”, Christians and Jews are referred to as “People of the Book” meaning The Bible; Muslims are told to respect them. Joseph and Jesus are both mentioned and revered. In other Suras, there are statements that a Muslim on the way to prayer should not touch a non-Muslim, should wash if they do, etc. I’m sure, if you know your Bible, that you know of seemingly contradictory passages.

    I agree with you that much of the Koran is “bellicose, misogynist, anti-non muslim”. But then, I can find parts of the Old and New Testaments that are comparably non-tolerant.

    Yes, I do know of moderate Muslims. I lived in Al Ain, in the United Arab Emirates, from January 1993 to June 1994. I worked at the National University. I had daily discussions with many people. Most people simply wanted a good life. At the time, most Emiratis and other Arabs had good feelings about Americans. I know and have known other Arabs — Muslims, Christians, Druze — all throughout my life, in many countries, including here.

    I wish I had more time. I have to walk my 10-year old to school.

    With respect,

    Comment by Kim Ianone — October 5, 2007 @ 2:25 pm | Edit This

    Okay, several things:
    My comparison to WWII is very relevant to this argument. We were attacked by fanatical enemies and their supporters. We retaliated and didn’t pull any punches. My point is that we should have responded the same as we did in WWII. Get not only the perpetrators but their supporters as well. That makes sense, doesn’t it?
    Secondly, I do “know my Bible” being a former Baptist-turned agnostic. I know all about the contradictions. I also know about the comparisons between the Koran and the Bible, the two predominate prophets (Christ and Mohammad) and the stark differences. The Koran outdoes the Biblical fire and brimstone by 100 fold. The Bible’s misogyny for instance, (”women should remain silent in the church, not usurp power over men”, etc) is limited and BTW, Christ never ascribed to that philosophy, although the apostle Paul did. By comparison, Mohammad has an entire chapter on beating wives. How nice.

    From the Koran:

    XVI.8: It may be that your Lord will have mercy on you, and if you (again return to disobedience) we too will return (to punishment), and We have made hell a prison for the unbelievers.

    II.161: Surely those who disbelieve and die while they are disbelievers, these it is on whom is the curse of Allah and the angels and men all.

    IX. 5-6: Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them.

    IV.76: Those who believe fight in the cause of God.

    IV.74: Let those who fight in the cause of God who barter the life of this world for that which is to come; for whoever fights on God’s path, whether he is killed or triumphs, We will give him a handsome reward.

    VIII.39-42: Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God’s.

    4.56: (As for) those who disbelieve in Our communications, We shall make them enter fire; so oft as their skins are thoroughly burned, We will change them for other skins, that they may taste the chastisement; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise.

    5.51: O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

    And one of the many verses concerning women:

    Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband’s) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all),” (4:34).

    Now pray tell, what got lost in translation? How can you ‘misinterpret’ something so cut and dry?
    The Ottoman wannabes brought their war right into the 21st century. There was certainly no pretense as to the religious context of the 9/11 attacks. According to Atta and company, it was the will of Allah. There were no reports of 19 Catholics, Episcopalians, Baptists, Methodists, or hell, even snake-handling Pentecostals from Appalachia flying planes into American buildings. The ones who struck America had lots of support across the ME.
    I was an Intelligence Analyst (tactical and strategic) and an Iraq War vet twice over. I’ve been to Kuwait, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. I’ve had contact with them, and it only re-inforces the facts. Worshipping peacefully instead of blowing things and people up in the name of Allah is not optional for a devout muslim. The Koran spells things out pretty clear, doesn’t it? Will the real ‘moderate muslims’ please stand up…or maybe help in the fight against extremists? I won’t hold my breath.

    Hi Cheryl,

    I found various reports regarding the “discovery” of the 1.77 tons of uranium. The counter to this:

    “That 1.77 tons of enriched uranium had been under IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] seal since 1991. It was last visited by IAEA inspectors in February 2003″.” You can easily find various links giving the other side to this story.

    In other words, 12 years before the start of the second Iraq War, Father Bush and the world knew about this material. That same atomic research institute, long deactivated, was visited by IAEA inspectors in February 2003 — hardly a month before we invaded. That material was not weaponized. There was no Hussein program to weaponize it. When the material was removed in 2004, it was intact, had not been diverted, etc. If it was so dangerous, why did the US wait a year to remove it?

    Was it a good idea to remove it? Sure. Does it constitute evidence of the WMDs that Bush et al. used as partial justification for the war? No.

    With respect,

    Comment by Kim Ianone — October 5, 2007 @ 3:14 pm | Edit This

    That the war in Iraq is justified, is self-evident. What doesn’t constitute the invasion? The fact that Res 1441 spelled out in detail the consequences of Hussein’s continued defiance? The fact that he had WMD and showed a willingness to use them? That he was a viable threat to U.S. forces in the region? Secondly, if you think invading Iraq wasn’t a foregone conclusion, you’re forgetting that he would have most certainly thrown his hat into the ring had we merely focused on just striking Afghanistan, just like Syria and Iran are now. It took awhile for the WMD to be removed because we were a bit busy with initial combat ops, and the EOD, HazMat, and inspectors had to wait until they could be accessed. The WMDs were real and dangerous.
    Here’s another interesting viewpoint taken from an interview with an inspector who found some of the WMD:

    The Republicans won’t touch this because it would reveal the incompetence of the Bush administration in failing to neutralise the danger of Iraqi WMD. The Democrats won’t touch it because it would show President Bush was right to invade Iraq in the first place. It is an axis of embarrassment.

    It’s a very interesting article. Read it in its entirety here:
    I don’t know how many times I can point this out: No matter where we strike, they will cross borders to get there. That is why our initial strike should have been widesweeping.
    PS: Here’s a better link to the one in question:

    Hi Cheryl,

    Thanks for your response.

    I just finished reading the last link you gave me — at The first paragraph sums up the issue we are debating: the use of the word “potentially”.

    In other words, as I mentioned before:
    1. These materials had not been weaponized or altered for twelve years.
    2. The DOE press release does not mention that the materials had been identified, inventoried, and tagged twelve years earlier by the UN. Surely the US knew this, so why was it left out of the release?
    3. The DOE release does not mention that this precise dump was visited and re-verified by the IAEA in February 2003. The US knew this too, and did not report it.
    4. The DOE release does not explain why, if the dump were so important, US forces didn’t remove the materials for a year after our invasion.

    I am not surprised that you have become an agnostic. My Italian dad was preparing to enter the priesthood when Pearl Harbor happened. The next day he went into the Navy. He came back from the war an atheist (not an agnostic). He never talked about the war. For years when I was a kid, he would occasionally wake us all up at night, screaming. I can only surmise, that his experiences were so horrible, that he decided that there could be no God. Being an agnostic is, I think, both more hopeful and open-minded.

    Re the Koran, I grant your point. You and I have both lived in the Arab and Muslim world. Some parts of that world have a long way to go. Yet other parts — Iraq for one — were primarily secular countries in which religion was expressly shut out of the government.

    My experience over there was not that most people wanted to kill me. I was treated with considerable respect. I lived in the UAE.

    I visited Egypt. I was in Egypt the week after a bomb blew up a busload of mostly German tourists in Luxor. When I visited the pyramids at Giza, I was the only tourist. Strange. Many of the Egyptians I met depended on the tourist trade, and they were angry and sad that those Germans had been killed. It meant that they would not make money, and some would go hungry.

    I also visited Oman many times. Similarly, people were friendly.

    I was in the Middle East, of course, just two years after the first Iraq War. Most people in the Arab world saw that war as justified, because Saddam Hussein had invaded another Arab nation. Most people that I met over there liked Americans, and they liked GHW Bush.

    Bush 41 led a coalition of over 100 countries, including every Arab country save Jordan. That invasion was sanctioned by and supported by the UN.

    Today, most Arabs don’t like us. Today, most Arabs do not accept the arguments that the US has given for the invasion of Iraq. More than ninety percent of Iraqis want us to leave. I don’t know if you watch, read, or listen to Arab news coverage, but on the Arab side, the presentation of the war is many times worse than what our corporate-controlled media allow us to see here.

    As a leaked classified document by a Joint Chiefs analyst last Spring put it (I haven’t got the link, but if you wish I could search for it), the net result of our presence in Iraq is to grow — not reduce — the numbers of those who violently oppose us.

    It’s a beautiful day in California. I will try to fix the dishwasher this morning.

    With respect (as always),

    Comment by The Kim Iannone — October 10, 2007 @ 4:34 pm | Edit This

    When you’re done with the dishwasher:
    The fact remains that in spite of the repeated denials by the left, WMD were found and destroyed. Some, by the way, were looted before we got to them:

    A CIA report released last week by chief U.S. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer showed that some equipment could have been taken during the chaos of the 2003 invasion.

    However, IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky said the looting apparently continued after that.

    “From our satellite photos, we’ve seen evidence that some of the facilities we used to monitor closely have been dismantled completely,” Gwozdecky said, indicating that it happened over a longer period with more forethought.

    “We need to answer the question, ‘Where did this material go?’ ”

    In a letter to the U.N. Security Council dated October 4, IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei said that while some radioactive equipment taken from Iraq after the war began has shown up in other countries, none of the high-quality, dual-use equipment or materials that is missing has been found.

    In addition:

    The missing explosives from al Qaqaa also raise the possibility that other WMD-related materials met the same fate. The IAEA had seen the al Qaqaa material in January 2003, but by the time U.S. troops showed up on April 10, they had disappeared. The dual-use technologies mentioned in the other IAEA report also had been moved or looted. This suggests that still other WMDs and related technologies might have been given or taken away in the days leading up to the war, or shortly after the Coalition attacks began. It is widely believed, though not conclusively proved, that much of this went to Syria. The Iraq Survey Group interviewed Iraqi agents who claimed to have helped moved the WMD materials. This charge was repeated by David Kay when he left the ISG earlier this year.

    Piss poor planning yes, but we also had an invasion to carry out and since Turkey would’nt allow us to utilize their territory, access to some of the WMD storage units and attacking from the north was inhibited.
    Speaking for myself and other Soldiers, we were pretty glad that alot of the WMD were discovered and destroyed before Hussein or anyone else got a chance to use them. As for the rest, (looted stuff) there’s always the possibility that they could be used in the future.
    “Unaltered and not weaponized” in NO WAY changes the fact that the material in storage could have been used and was in direct violation of the Res 1441. The SCUDS that were fired at us had the capability of being armed with one of four types of weaponry: HE, nuke, Chem, Bio.
    Our invasion limited their choices. You also need to pay attention to the follow up stories in 2004 about the sites. Again:

    The departments of Energy and Defense removed “1.77 metric tons of low-enriched uranium and roughly 1,000 highly radioactive sources from the former Iraq nuclear research facility,” Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said Tuesday.

    “This operation was a major achievement for the Bush administration’s goal to keep potentially dangerous nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists,” Abraham said. “It also puts this material out of reach for countries that may seek to develop their own nuclear weapons.”

    The material was gathered from around Iraq and taken to the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center, 11 miles southeast of Baghdad and the main site for the Iraqi nuclear program before the war.

    The United States notified the International Atomic Energy Agency of the planned transfer on June 19, but “requested IAEA to keep the information about the intended transfer confidential for … security reasons,” Mohamed ElBaradei said in a letter released Wednesday by the United Nations.

    It was then was flown to the United States on June 23, where it will be held at secure sites, said Brian Wilkes, a spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration.

    Your trivialization of the word “potential” is a clear indication of your naivete. I own a .380 Browning semi-automatic with the potential to kill. The word ‘potential’ in this case, is the same. Both are potentially dangerous and when prepared, can render harm. The WMD in the wrong hands would have been used to harm and kill alot of U.S. troops. I’m glad Hussein’s potential was cut short, thank you. As far fetched as this sounds, Hussein really did not believe we would follow through with our threat to invade. He had just about enough time to scramble to a bunker.

    As I said before, the WMD were not accessable to the coalition during the initial chaos of the invasion, and along with the material discovered subsequent the invasion, was not removed and destroyed until afterward; the invasion taking priority. The bad guys only had time to loot what they could and run. Luckily, there wasn’t time for them to stop long enough to do anything else.
    As for the Arabs not liking us now as opposed to the first Gulf War, consider WHO was attacked and WHY. You said it yourself: As long as we’re protecting one muslim state from another, it was acceptable. Ironically, when we were attacked by a muslim state supported by other muslim states they didn’t like the idea of retaliation. Am I supposed to lose sleep over that?

    The assertion: “the net result of our presence in Iraq is to grow — not reduce — the numbers of those who violently oppose us”, is hogwash. You cannot possibly be that dense. Our presence in Iraq is–along with our efforts in Afghanistan–to reduce the numbers of Islamofascists; to kill them. C’mon, you didn’t think they’d be happy about us striking them where they live, didja? No enemy likes getting their asses kicked, especially on their own turf. Oh, gawd forbid we fight the Islamofascists across the ME, where they thrive, get funding, training, indoctination, and originated. You cannot possibly be that dense. At the risk of repetition: Where ever we strike, they will cross borders to get there, which is precisely why a widesweeping MOAB mission was imperative. Too bad it wasn’t done.

    As for Arab news coverage as opposed to what you call ” our corporate controlled media”, that has got to be one of the most clueless statements I’ve read. Put Al Jazzera side by side with the NBC/ABC/CBS/CNN/MSNBC news conglomerate, and there’s very little difference.
    Only Fox News dares to show the successes. Good news from the GWOT equals bad news for the MSM. The Arabs, by default, are never going to present their news in any other way. The U.S. MSM took a sharp left turn in the 60’s and never looked back. Same with the Democrats. I’ve said this before: The fact the Bin Laden mentions Reid, Pelosi, Hillary, et al, in his videos is no accident.
    When I was there, the Arabs were ‘freindly’ by necessity. I wouldn’t trust any of them as far as I can throw them…collectively. As a wise infidel once said:

    “The Western mind-set—that if we respect them, they’re going to respect us, that if we indulge and appease and condone and so on, the problem will go away—is delusional. The problem is not going to go away. Confront it, or it’s only going to get bigger.”
    —Ayaan Hirsi Ali

    As for my agnosticism, I became an agnostic years ago…long before my first deployment to war.

    Hi Cheryl,

    I think that you have to concede my point regarding the 1.7 tons. Found and tagged 12 years ago, inspected again by the IAEA one month before we invaded, not touched by us until one year later.

    Hi Kim, (my comments are bolded)
    Yes, because of the invasion, and subsequent chaos. What difference though, does it make? You have to concede that they existed, and were (finally) confiscated.

    Re your second link in our first go-round, I read it just now. Here is a quote:

    “Boylan said the suspected lab was new, dating from some time after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.”

    In other words, also not developed under Saddam Hussein, and, therefore, not a fact justifying our invasion.

    In other words, there were still efforts on the part of renegades to continue development. All the more reason to invade and bring that to a halt.

    Your point regarding the security concerns of our troops is well-taken. But all of the improvised bombs — all of them — have been conventional. Many tons of conventional munitions were stolen after the invasion, because we did not secure the dumps, in particular one huge dump, the name of which I’ve forgotten.

    True, but that’s because conventional means are the most expeditious. If/when they get a chance, that may change.
    BTW: Roadside bombs were found loaded with mustard and “conventional” sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency. (source) (,2933,120137,00.html)

    Re Arab media, I argue that there is a huge difference. They show all of the civilian dead. They interview the families. They are living the war. Here, last year Ted Koppel on ABC’s Nightline just read the names of our dead, and he was fired shortly thereafter. There, the war is front page news, every day. Here, at least in the LA Times which I read daily (and where I first read your letter), there are many days when the war doesn’t appear until page 5 or 7. Our news media don’t even cover our dead and wounded when they return. Isn’t it illegal now to show the planes coming in at Dover?

    And in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the (American) newspapers showed millions of people killed. Civilian and military. Burned bodies from flame throwers. Bodies torn apart from bombs. Dead people in destroyed towns from house-to-house fighting….and your point is? People die in war. That is a fact. Should that deter us from fighting? Did it deter our enemies then or now? I don’t mind a roll call of our honored dead. The problem is that in the MSM, it’s done in a context far from showing respect. It’s an anti-war statement, which makes Ayman al-Zawahiri real happy. I read the names of the dead and casualties in my monthly VFW and American Legion magazines. I also keep in touch with Soldiers at places like Ft. Campbell, one of my last duty stations. They honor and respect the fallen; not so the MSM. As for the Dover planes, I can see why the Pentagon censored the photos. Idiots like Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, and A.N.S.W.E.R., would make an anti-war circus out of it. Thankfully, there are organizations like Move America Forward and Vets for Freedom who counter them. Some Americans have lost their will to fight for our freedom and survival, and to support those who do what it takes to maintain it. Those fallen troops died for a noble cause: making sure that the Arab-Islamofascists you excuse don’t get that world-wide Caliphate they want. How anyone with a shred of courage and common sense can oppose that, is beyond belief.
    The Arabs are living the war THEY started. We are living the war we must finish. Huge difference.

    For many Americans, the war is just not important. It is something they occasionally see, for a few seconds, on tv, unless they are touched personally. They watch “American Idol,” worry about their bowling league or their myspace posts, discuss Britney Spear’s latest mistakes. Americans spend more time watching and discussing sports.

    Many Americans don’t really care that all kinds of people are killing and being killed over there. This is why our returning soldiers have been treated so badly, why the VA has been underfunded, why the VA did not have and still does not have a credible program to treat the psychological problems of returning vets, why the Walter Reed scandal was possible.

    I agree, most Americans should care as if their lives depend on it, because it does. I’ve caught glimpses of the “reporting” on the MSM (as much as I can stomach) and it’s nothing but bad news. Good news does not get its due. Do yourself a favor and go to the following websites: and Michael Yon and Bill Roggio are two former Soldiers-turned-journalists who are attatched to Army units and blog dispatches from Iraq and Afghanistan. They report everything, especially the order of battle and successfull campaigns ignored by the media. Operation Arrowhead Ripper and Phantom Thunder were two recent highly successful operations that (again except for FOX News) received scant reporting. It’s no wonder some Americans “don’t care”.
    If I only got my news from hacks like Brian Williams, Charles Gibson, Katie Couric and Chris Matthews, I’d be depressed too.

    The troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan receive some of the best medical care in the world. I had surgery at Bethesda, and I can attest to what I’ve seen. This is not to say that there aren’t issues with care and competency at military hospitals, but Bethesda and Walter Reed are the high-profile, premier military hospitals that treat U.S. dignitaries as well as troops. The personnel at those facilities are likely to be the best. The staffs at places like Walter Reed and Bethesda deserve a pat on the back for all the excellent care, concern, and treatment given to veterans. The problem with the facility at Walter Reed was thanks mostly to a civilian contractor and the ongoing construction of temporary buildings housing the wounded. BTW: You can thank the politicians for lack of progress because a civilian review panel’s recommendation that the Pentagon accelerate the expansion of the facilities was met with concerns by the local officials over traffic problems. The VA has ALWAYS been understaffed and underfunded, but they do their best at treating PTSD. The only time I’ve been aware of troops being ‘treated badly’ is when the Code Pink morons stood outside military hospitals and Andrews Airforce base holding up signs that said: “You got maimed for a lie” to show the returning wounded. And you wonder why Dover is closed to the public.

    One of our students, at ITT where I teach, died yesterday. He was a vet, returned from Iraq with some kind of infection in his body that the doctors couldn’t treat. His brother told his teacher — I was in the same room — that the doctors told him, that the only treatment would have been to cut off the guy’s leg before the infection spread. Unfortunately, it was too late. 19. Another teacher here, a retired Navy chief, told him that this infection has been known for many years, that it is in the earth over there. Information about this has been suppressed.

    I wish I had more time. I can’t keep up with your energy level. Thanks again.

    With respect,

    Comment by Kim Iannone — October 11, 2007 @ 5:00 pm | Edit This

    Okay, I’ll try to deal with this “earth-based” infection without lending creedence to any ridiculous conspiracy theories. 1) Did the family consult with the doctor to get a full diagnosis of the type of infection? 2) Did the doctor offer any possible sources of the infection? 3) If it’s “in the earth over there” doncha think more people besides American troops would be coming down with it? 4) Before anyone goes on a tangent about cover ups and “suppression”, here are some other facts:

    The “Gulf War” syndrome, a condition contracted by some of the troops returning from Desert Storm, still hasn’t been solidly traced to any source or sources. It can have one or all of the following symptoms: fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, cognitive problems, skin rashes, and diarrhea. The last known percentage of those afflicted was 12% of Desert Storm veterans. The possible causes were either one or a combination of the following: Chemical warfare agents (you know, the “non existent” nerve gas developed by Hussein), the pyridostigmine bromide pills, which were given to us as a preventative measure against exposure to nerve agents, psychological stress, exposure to the oil well fires, (breathing in the contaminated air), depleted uranium, and pesticides. There is no specific treatment, just experimental procedures.

    I and my fellow Soldiers took the pills for a little while, breathed in some of the filthy air, used DEET repellent, were exposed to depleted uranium, and god knows what else was being blown up around us. I have received 3 letters so far, from the Secretary of Defense regarding Gulf War illnesses, telling me to contact them if I exhibit any of the symptoms. So far, I’ve not exhibited any of the illnesses, although some who know me would argue as to my psychological condition (ha ha). The government, to my knowledge, has never suppressed this information. They were reluctant at first, to acknowledge the medical condition because of the usual paranoia and tin-foil hat loonies that label everything a government cover-up. Once the number of troops affected became substantial, the government, to it’s credit, started checking up on everyone who had been deployed to the region. I can remember being asked about my health as early as 1992.


    Hi Cheryl,

    I read about your surgery. You wrote, that you received the best medical treatment in the world. You defended the care that the US government gave you, and has given our soldiers. I concede all of your points. I do not wish to contest this issue with you.

    The kid’s story I told you about, well, his doctors were US Navy. I assume that they were pretty good and tried hard.

    Regarding the third link in your initial response in our ongoing argument about why we went to Iraq, the materials found by the Poles were identified by US and UN inspection teams in 1991. These materials were, as in your first link, leftovers of the WMDs destruction program started in 1991 and supervised by the UN and the US. These materials, and the facilities and machinery to make them, were developed in the 1980s during the Iraq-Iran War. The Reagan Administration supported Iraq during that war.

    The warheads containing cyclosarin were still usable, and dangerous. All of the ‘leftovers’ and the subsequent weapons developed after Hussein kicked out the U.N. inspectors in 1998, weren’t removed until post-initial combat ops. The facilities and machinery developed in the 80’s were still functional in 2003.

    When the first inspectors were in Iraq from 1992 to 1998, it took until 1995 to learn Iraq had an offensive biological weapons program. That only came to light because Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law defected. Hussein Kamal had been in charge of the Iraqi biological warfare program since 1988. He told inspectors about the program and where to look.

    He detailed a large research and development effort looking at a range of biological weapons from anthrax to ricin to possibly smallpox. He also detailed a number of industrial plants around Iraq where large-scale production occurred. Finally, he revealed the extent of the Iraqi program to “weaponize” these materials and research into other dispersion methods.

    Inspectors located some of this infrastructure. But Saddam Hussein continued to hide and lie and deceive the inspectors up until he kicked them out in 1998. When the inspectors left, Iraq had declared 8,500 liters of anthrax. Inspectors believed the Iraqi government actually had 15,000 to 24,000 liters. The Iraqis declared they had 19,000 liters of botulinum toxin, the inspectors maintained they actually had 26,000. According to U.N. officials, Iraq has yet to prove even these declared amounts of biological agents have been destroyed.

    The rest of the weapons and material (provided in the other links) which were uncovered and destroyed, were just as lethal.

    The US and the UN did not ignore these weapons or allow the continued development of them after we took over the country in 1991. We instituted a program there to destroy the Iraqi WMD facilities. The inspections program continued, with interruptions, up to the invasion in 2003.

    Took over what country? If you mean the “no fly zone” and the pitiful U.N. inspections and “enforcement”, surely you jest. Saddam Hussein was still firmly in power, and being very deceptive and uncooperative. Again, the “inspections program” ground to a halt when he kicked them out in 1998.

    According to Hans Blix:

    In his Jan. 2003, report, UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix stated that “Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it.”

    Given that he continued the program beyond that point, was a clear indication that he was not going to stop willingly. Secondly, the so -called sanctions were a joke. Koffi Annan’s “Oil for Food” program was a scam that helped prop up Hussein’s wavering status. The list of those who received oil from Hussein’s regime, (at below-market prices) include the French and Russians, along with kickbacks given to the former U.N. Assistant Secretary-General Benon V. Sevan, executive director of the oil-for-food program, and former U.N. Secretary Kofi Annan, and his son.

    There’s also strong evidence that the program probably helped terrorist organizations.

    On September 10, 2006, Dick Cheney said that Iraq did not have any WMDs prior to the 2003 invasion. Here’s a link:


    Comment by Kim Iannone — October 12, 2007 @ 4:10 pm | Edit This

    Well, the tons of WMD material uncovered and destroyed, after the invasion kinda belies that statement, doesn’t it?
    Oh, and speaking of former allies, the Soviets shared that status with us at one time, didn’t they?

  7. Excellent post! In my own post at Snooper’s blog, I went further: I cursed the Congress, applied the traitor label, and demanded that they be turned out of office at the next electoral opportunity.

    I did not stop there. I exposed the Goddamn doctrines which make Islam inimical to life and liberty. Faith has a content component, and Islam’s content is pure unmitigated evil.

    Thanks for the support and compliments! The scary thing is that the enemy understands our politicians and the liberal mindset better than anyone thinks. The fact that the Islamofascist jihadists endorse Hillary for President, is no accident. The war of ideas and propaganda in the media is just as important as it is on the battlefield. The Democratic party is no longer the ‘loyal opposition’. They turned to communism in the 60s and morphed into an al Qaeda mouthpiece in 2001. Your point of Islam’s inherent evil is right on the money. As I’ve told some of the posters on here, the nature of Islam’s founder and the writings contained in the koran are all the explaination needed.

  8. Key in your point is “public places”, it’s ok to have a Christian display and not a Muslim display? This is why I don’t think public grounds should be used for religious purposes. Can you cite a recent Pro-comunnist position by the ACLU? And an anti Christian position? I’m seeking knowledge on this.
    I think their stance on the 2nd amendment could debated, whether they would be considered neutral because of ” a well regulated militia” quote within the 2nd amendment. Could you name an anti-2nd amendment position?
    I don’t think they contribute to Nambla, I looked on the website for an explanation and although it’s a poor choice of people to represent there could be an argument for the right to speak about it, because the ruling could end up cover other areas of free speech. It’s a hard defense to make, but that wouldn’t wipe out everything else they stand for.
    No one agrees with everything someone else does.
    Religions that have been violent to other peoples and religions are numerous and at different times Christianity has been too, but lumping them together as if one in the religion is violent they all are, is I think, an error. Each religion on this earth has it’s despots and it’s heroes. So it makes sense to not lump all followers into one violent aspect of a religion. We have plenty of Christians in our country who fit that bill, but I wouldn’t lump all into that category.
    If you substitute Christo in your definitions it could very well define the Bush Administration , too.

    Well it’s apparent that you’ve never bothered to pay attention to the proclivities of the ACLU. You cannot possibly be that naive. If you’re simply looking for rebuttals to your pro-ACLU stance, here they are.
    What about Baldwin’s declaration don’t you get? What about the following don’t you understand?:
    On communism:

    In 2005, for example, the ACLU endorsed an amendment lifting the ban on tourist travel to Cuba – a long-distance slap in the face to Cubans, who now watch foreign tourists feed corruption, pesos and dollars to the Communist machine, while they themselves are stripped of nearly all human rights. The insult was multiplied a year later, when the ACLU demanded an end to bans on academic travel, so scholars could lend their support to the regime.

    But ACLU leaders are as eager to export Cuban communism as they are to import American tourist dollars. Last week, the ACLU was in federal court, arguing that a Miami-Dade County school board broke the law by removing from its school libraries a book entitled Vamos a Cuba (Let’s Visit Cuba), which offers a strangely luminous view of life in Castro’s island “paradise.” A federal judge has already ruled that the book be returned to the shelves until the case can play out in court.
    The school board’s beef isn’t with what is on the pages, but with what isn’t. Parents filed complaints after finding the book to be devoid of any mention of the oppressive regime instituted by Fidel Castro nearly 50 years ago. Instead, its pages are filled with breezy commentaries on how Cubans enjoy chicken with rice (under the country’s subsidized ration plan, the average Cuban is allotted a whopping 8 ounces per month) and boating as a leisure activity (“boating” being a rather ironic term for the fragile, homemade rafts so many launch out onto the ocean, in desperate bids to escape the regime).

    The book’s cover, available in both English and Spanish versions, is adorned with beaming children dressed in the uniform of the Pioneers, the Communist youth organization that Cuban children are required to join. They look like Cuban Bobbsey Twins.


    More quotes from their founding members:

    Earl Browder, the general secretary of the Communist Party of the United States, admitted that the ACLU served as a “transmission belt” for the party. Baldwin agreed, claiming, “I don’t regret being a part of the communist tactic which increased the effectiveness of a good cause.”

    Roger Baldwin, founder and guiding light of the ACLU for over 30 years, is now a member of the National Committee of the ACLU. Mr Roger Baldwin has a record of over 100 communist-front affiliations and citations (documented in detail, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD May 26, 1952). In an article written for Soviet Russia Today (September 1934), Roger Baldwin said: “When the power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatsoever.” “The class struggle is the central conflict of the world, all others are coincidental.”

    Dr. Harry Ward, first chairman of the ACLU. Dr. Harry Ward has a record of over 200 Communist front affiliations and citations listed by the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities (HCUA). Dr. Harry Ward was chairman of one of the largest Communist fronts to flourish in this country, “The American League for Peace and Democracy,” which was placed on the Attorney General of the United States list of subversive organizations on June 1, 1948. Dr. Ward is the author of “Soviet Democracy” and “Soviet Spirit,” two pro-Communist books which clearly show Dr. Ward’s love for the Soviet system of government. The California Senate Fact Finding Committee on Un-American Activities, in their 1948 report, page 246, said: “The Communist affiliation of Dr. Harry F. Ward is indicative of the Communist sympaties of the members and sponsors of the “Friends of the Soviet Union.”

    Child porn: They defended the pedophile organization of NAMBLA as a ‘free speech’ issue.

    When it comes to ‘discrimination’ the ACLU is pretty skewed with its preferences. They claim to be “neutral”, but the overwhelming bias says other wise.
    Their view of the 2nd Amendment:

    “The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court’s long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual’s right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.”

    The problem is that they rely too much on the “militia” part without actually acknowledging the intent of the 2nd Amendment or those who wrote it:

    As John Adams observed, “Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion…in private self-defense.” Or consider the following, from a newspaper article in the November 1, 1787 Boston Independent Chronicle: “…that it was in the law of nature for every man to defend himself, and unlawful for any man to deprive him of those weapons of self-defence.”

    …….Similarly, Article XVII of the Rhode Island Convention, May 29, 1790, declares: “That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state…”


    That’s the one part of the amendment the ACLU skips over everytime:

    “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    According to the ACLU, individuals should rely on “a well regulated militia” to fend off armed criminals who break into homes and ignore “gun control” to begin with. Just great. Maybe we should put the ACLU number on speed dial and hand the phone to criminals in the act of robbery so Baldwin’s kids can explain their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Til then, I’ll just hang on to my .380 Browning.


    A spokesman for the Alliance Defense Fund says the ACLU’s now-standard strategy of demanding that opening prayers at government meetings be stopped has worked in Oconee County, South Carolina, as county council members voted Tuesday to drop their invocation and adopt a moment of silence.


    The court cases involving religion and the ACLU are overwhelmingly anti-christian. In case you (and the ACLU) don’t get it, the U.S. was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and the society, including most of the public displays, reflect that. I dare say they wouldn’t, and indeed have not, pulled the same crap with muslim fundamentalists.
    This is what happened when journalist Hillel Stavis confronted the ACLU on the matter of a religious structure on public property:

    …..Now imagine my surprise when I couldn’t find anyone – either at the Massachusetts ACLU – or at its big brother in Washington who had brought legal action – or who would even render an opinion – on the construction of a $22,000,000 religious structure on land virtually given away by the city of Boston and attendant religious instruction courses forced on a nearby state-funded college. How could such a monumental religious undertaking involving the obvious endorsement by government officials at every level escape the withering gaze of the watchdogs of the ACLU?
    It took only a few phone calls to find the answer. The religious structure and institution was neither a church nor a synagogue. It was a mosque. And not just another mosque. The Islamic Society of Boston’s mosque project will be the largest on the east coast of the United States and will be funded primarily through Middle East emirate money.

    Not content with support pledged by Wahhabist Saudi Arabia, the ISB sought to purchase the city-owned land at a bargain basement price. And did they ever succeed. The City of Boston obliged the group by selling its 1.9 acre site valued at $2,000,000 for $175,000. Boldly compounding the fraudulent conveyance part of the scam, the city agreed to receive further in-kind payment from the ISB in the form of an Islamic Library and courses in Islamic instruction at a state facility, Roxbury Community College; not a $200 crèche or a menorah made of scrap tubing, but a multi-million dollar enterprise based on defrauding taxpayers and establishing ongoing indoctrination courses on the glories of Islam. Not only did this enterprise represent “inherent religious activity”, but it went far beyond the ACLU’s floor for triggering action by involving explicit and manifold religious activity.

    If, as de Rochefoucault had it, “Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue”, the ACLU has to be first in line at that altar. Carol Rose, Director of the Massachusetts ACLU, told me in 2004, in response to a private lawsuit brought by an individual based on violation of the establishment clause, that her organization favored the ISB’s position insofar as the lawsuit “violated that organization’s right of free speech.” After I put my dropped jaw back into place, I suggested that a $22,000,000 mosque built on giveaway city land along with taxpayer funded Islamic indoctrination amounted to a textbook case of Establishment Clause transgression and made the crèche case look like a minor infraction. At that point she terminated the conversation.


    They simply want to use legal means to remove every single hint of (christian) religious symbolism from public life. Whats’ next? Hiding churches from public view?
    As I said, I’m agnostic, but I can’t remember any time during my 50 years on this earth when a Christian/Jewish organization has used planes as human-filled missiles in the name of a Christian or Jewish god. Maybe they should. I think the Islamofascists could use a taste of their own medicine.
    Which brings me to your “why lump them into a category”? Because they created the category they fit. The Koran describes every single aspect of Islamofascist practice. When they carry out stonings, beheadings, bombings, and beatings, they are doing exactly what Mohammad demanded.
    Christianity and Judaism have evolved to a place where people can worship willingly. Islamofascism, on the other hand, is not exactly the kind of religion to embrace that sort of philosophy. Their idea of “worship”, as proscribed in the koran, is covert or die. Religion of peace, my ass.
    As for “substituting “Christo” in the definitions could very well define the Bush administration”: I’ll chalk it up to the usual liberal Bush Derangement Syndrome, and point out that no liberal has yet to be dragged off to a right-wing gulag. No one is a victim of state-sponsored, forced church attendance. Funny how striking back against Islamofascists who would gladly take away your freedoms always gets that kind of squalking BS.

  9. SFC MAC I think you may want to research the foot bath thing a little more, it’s part of the interfaith center at the university. So they do include holy water for Catholics. And actually the ACLU does have a record of representing many different religions icluding Christianity. I was curious about the foot bath thing so I went to the ACLU website, I didn’t know if the ACLU was involved the foot bath issue and I didn’t find it on the website, although I didn’t spend too much time on it. Do you have an article that points to the ACLU taking it up as a case? I heard it somewhere else before but haven’t been able to find it linking w/ the ACLU.
    Here are a couple cases the ACLU defended:
    PROVIDENCE, RI – The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island today announced the favorable settlement of its lawsuit on behalf of a Christian prisoner who has been barred since 2003 from preaching during Christian religious services at the state prison.
    NEWARK, NJ – The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today praised a decision by U.S. District Court Judge Freda L. Wolfson protecting the religious expression rights of students. The court held that a Frenchtown Elementary School student had the right to sing the song “Awesome God” at a school talent show. The ACLU of New Jersey submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the student.

    Just out of curiosity, what is your definition of Islamist? Is that anyone who follows Islam? And the Islamofascist definition is another one maybe you could help me with. I think it would mean Al-Qaeda and such groups, but it seems to be a bit of a misnomer, maybe you could clarify it for me.

    The ACLU’s reputation is very arbitrary when it comes to representing the christian faith. Every Christmas the news carries stories of battles over nativity scenes, holiday signs, and decorations in public places. Somewhere in the mix is the ACLU. Everytime. When push comes to shove, they usually side with anything blatantly anti American, anti-christian, pro communist, and (now) pro Islam. Look at their history. They made a reputation for being a socialist proponent.

    Roger Baldwin, the ACLU founder, was very succinct:
    “I have been to Europe several times, mostly in connection with international radical activities…and have traveled in the United States to areas of conflict over workers rights to strike and organize. My chief aversion is the system of greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment…Therefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself…I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal”.

    Some of what they “represent”: They are anti-2nd Amendment, pro illegal alien, and they support NAMBLA (The North American Man-Boy Love Association), a sick group of pedophiles. Most of their activism is a perversion of what the writers of the Constitution intended.
    As for the ACLU being involved in the foot bath issue, this was my quote: “What kills me is all the clamoring from idiots like the ACLU about ’separation of church and state’ as long as it pertains to christians.” And that is usually the case. You’d think they’d stick to their mantra of ‘separation of church and state’ and sue for the removal of all remnents of religious paraphrenalia. Holy water aside, I don’t like the inclusion of a religion that is inherently violent against other people and religions, and puts it into practice with terrorism. Make sense?
    Islamist by definition : often characterized by moral conservatism, literalism, and the attempt to implement Islamic values in all spheres of life, ie: the cause of Islam.
    Islamofascism: the ideological or operational characteristics of Islamist movements with European fascist movements of the early 20th century, neofascist movements, or totalitarianism. It has the same characteristics of fascism: authoritarian, oppressive, brutal. Combine those commonalities with the Islamic theocracy, and you have Islamofascism. Theocracy, by the way is the force of religious docrine by the state on its citizens.
    Islamic, Islamofascist: a practitioner of the above.

  10. Actually the missing point here is a seperation of church and state issue “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” that’s in the Constitution. So the issue is Congress should not even be addressing thi issue. Of course they’ve done things like this in the past, such as national day of prayer, but this is why they shouldn’t be in this business. Stick to state issues. Period. What happens if for some reason most people become Moonies or any other religion and want their beliefs to be foisted upon the masses. Tine to take Jefferson’s and Madison’s advice on this one. Don’t make these resolutions in the first place. Glad to see my Rep didn’t vote for it.

    I agree. The problem is they’re also given favoritism in academia. New York University has installed foot baths for muslim students. Apparently it’s part of their prayer ritual. They have to be kidding. Are they going to include Catholic holy water basins, as well? What kills me is all the clamoring from idiots like the ACLU about ‘separation of church and state’ as long as it pertains to christians. Accomodate the Islamists, who are anti-jew and anti-christian, as well as terrorist-supporting, and not a peep out of the liberal blockheads.

  11. You are using one of the classic logical fallacies that is soundly defeated in any classroom.

    Your argument runs along these lines:

    Some terrorists have harmed US Soliders
    Some terrorists are Muslims
    Therefore, all Muslims are terrorists.

    Now that’s about as deep as a birdbath but I enjoy reading your spit flecked responses to comments here that skewer your laughably bad assertions.

    Speaking of ‘spit-flecked’…your moniker gives tribute to one of the best ‘spit-fleckers’ of all time. Didn’t he “fleck” a few chairs across the basketball court? Read some of the comments that I respond to if you’re amused by “spit-flecked”. They don’t “skewer”, they usually provide me with all the ammo I need to shoot down their inane BS. BTW: I usually counter with calmer fact-based responses unless the commenter is as stupid as say, “you’recrazy”, the loon from Berkeley, or an idiot who called himself “JimBimbo” who posted on here in the past. Wanna get nasty? I respond in kind. Read my reponse to Kim in “about me and this blog” section:
    I refute her assertions point by point, without the “spit flecks”.
    Here’s a real side-splitting assertion:
    Islamofascist muslim fanatics, supported by a pretty much an entire Middle Eastern region of muslim fanatics killed 3000 people on American soil to kick off a new Ottoman empire.
    No outrage from the “muslims who aren’t terrorist”.
    Therefore, they either support the actions of the muslim terrorists, or they do a good job feigning ignorance.
    Now, laugh your fallacious ass off, funny boy. *spit*
    Hope I didn’t disappoint.
    Class dismissed.

  12. Wow SFC Mac, you’re one crazy bitch. And I DON’T mean that in the nicest possible way. Thanks for your service to this country, however, at least you put your money where your mouth is unlike the rest of the 101st fighting keyboarders. You would have made a good brownshirt too btw…

    Wow “YoureCrazy”, you are one stupid motherfucker. Nothing nice meant, either. I was in the REAL 101st Airborne Division, by the way. How nice that you spew the requisite “nazi” tag. Dick Durbin, is that you?

  13. Wow… “shitloads” arrested (hmm, and how many actually CONVICTED… shitloads?) What number exactly is shitload?

    Dude, chill… browning your pants over a meaningless resolution LETS THE TERRORISTS win! If you think a resolution negates the efforts of soldiers supposedly like yourself you need to really sit and have a long talk with yourself about what you were doing over there… and whether you harbor the same bigotry the Islamofascists have at even the mention of a religion different than theirs.

    Also, if you fear Muslims to this extent, why did you not kill each and every one you encountered over there? I mean if they are a threat so much that you pee yourself over a friggin’ meaningless resolution don’t you think you were derelict of duty by not plugging each and every one?

    And to maybe make this understandable to you: so if I felt like people making a resolution celebrating St. Patricks Day in Public Square is like making a concession to the fucking papist IRA cunts and their American sympathisers who sent money to the IRA who by action killed relatives over there during the troubles… given your logic would I be justified to hold this feeling?

    See where I’m getting at? Looks pretty ugly eh?

    You know what’s ugly? Our own legislators honoring a culture that uh, WANTS TO KILL US. They made that pretty clear on 9/11. Tell you what, when the Catholics, Protestents, Lutherans, Episcopalians, or hell, even wacky snake-handling Pentacostals from West Virgina start crashing planes and blowing up things in this country (enmasse) then you can talk about other religions. I’m agnostic, by the way, and I don’t care for institutionalized religion as a whole, let alone one that condones and promulgates in its very book, fighting and killing everyone who is not muslim. Last I checked, they started this “holy war” and they’re not finished. Have you read any of the Koran? I have, and it’s without a doubt one of the most bellicose things I’ve ever seen. You want to know where the muslims get their ideas? Read it. As for killing each and every muslim I encountered over there…if I could have I would have. It’s not just a “meaningless” piece of legislation. It’s wholesale acceptance on the part of the Democratic party as ‘useful idiots’. They are trying to legitimize a fascist religion and its practitioners by enacting a supporting resolution in this country. That is very ugly. A Shitload: In 2003 alone, the Border Patrol arrested 39,215 so-called ‘OTMs,’ that’s abreviation for (“other than Mexicans”) along the southern border. Among the shitload of illegal aliens were a substantial number of Middle Eastern nationals. Many of them come into the country on visas, for “work” or “school”, then dissappear. In 2004, the number arrested jumped to 65,814.

    Some information:

    A Hizballah operative in a car trunk enters the United States over the southwest border. Mahmoud Youssef Kourani left Lebanon to travel to Mexico after bribing a Mexican consulate official in Beirut with $3,000 to obtain a Mexican visa. Once in Mexico, he sought entry into the United States. Around February 2001, Kourani succeeded: he illegally entered the United States across the southwest border by hiding in a car trunk.

    In November 2003, a federal grand jury indicted Kourani on charges of conspiring to provide material support to Hizballah, a designated foreign terrorist organization. The indictment alleges that Kourani was a “member, fighter, recruiter, and fundraiser for Hizballah who received specialized training in radical Shiite fundamentalism, weaponry, spy craft, and counterintelligence in Lebanon and Iraq.” It also claims that Kourani recruited and raised money for Hizballah while in Lebanon. Kourani goes to trial in April 2005.

    An Al Qaeda operative attempts entry over the northern border. Nabil Al-Marabh stayed at a terrorist guesthouse in Pakistan known as the House of Martyrs, engaged in weapons training in Afghanistan, and worked for the Muslim World League—then an important source of al Qaeda’s funds —in the early 1990s. He then worked at the same Boston cab company as individuals convicted in Jordan for the Millenium plot to blow up religious and western tourist locations in Jordan. These individuals identified Al-Marabh as an al Qaeda operative. Al-Marabh maintained a Boston address from 1989 to 2000. He also lived in Toronto, Detroit, Tampa, and Chicago.

    On June 27, 2001, Al-Marabh tried to illegally enter the United States near Niagara Falls by hiding in the back of a tractor-trailer. He had a forged Canadian passport and fake social insurance card. Previously, he had regularly traveled illegally between Canada and the United States. Moreover, Michigan state records showed Al-Marabh receiving five driver’s licenses there in thirteen months; he had licenses for Massachusetts, Illinois, Ontario, and Florida, and a commercial driver’s license and a permit to haul hazardous materials, including explosives and caustic chemicals.

    In September 2001, authorities raided a Detroit residence that had Al-Marabh’s name on the mailbox. They found three men with fake immigration documents, airport identification badges, and a notebook containing handwritten notes about security at a U.S. military base in Turkey and an airport in Jordan. These men, who may also have been involved in a plot to kill former defense secretary William Cohen during a visit to Turkey, were later charged with being part of an al Qaeda sleeper cell. They were convicted, but the verdict was thrown out in September 2004.

    Al-Marabh was arrested in Chicago in September 2001 on a parole violation related to his stabbing of a man who had lived in his apartment. In 2002, he pled guilty to conspiracy to smuggle an alien into the United States and was ordered deported. Prosecutors said the government had no evidence linking him to terrorism. The judge questioned the government’s previous documentation of Al-Marabh’s ties to terror and also noted he was found with $22,000 in cash and $25,000 worth of amber jewels in his possession when he was arrested. He was deported to Syria in January 2004. Months later, a press release from Immigration and Customs Enforcement called Al-Marabh a “suspected terrorist.”


    Think of how many that were never caught. Think about the fact that they come across the Mexican border into the United States because they can. Check out all of the reports of thwarted terrorist plots in America. Two more were just arrested in Florida:

    Two men — Auhmed Mohamed and Youssef Megahed — were arrested in August and were accused of explosives possession. According to the indictment, Mohamed tried to help terrorists by aiding, teaching and demonstrating the use of explosive devices. That student was at the University of South Florida on an F-1 student visa, approved by DHS.


    Did you get that? Approved by the fucking Department of Homeland Stupidity. That, “Blablabla” my dear, is ugly. Time to shit one’s drawers, eh?
    BTW: Read the “about” section in my blog. I’m a retired female Soldier, not that it makes any difference, dude.

  14. Rush Coulter

    You’re right! All muslims and arabs are the enemy! There should be a Final Solution to the Muslim problem! We should cram them in cattle cars and take them to concentration camps! We should gas them and reduce their filthy brown bodies to ash! Sieg Heil! Heil Bush!

    Hey “Rush Coulter”:
    Yeah, and while we’re at it Heil Pelosi, Reid, and Durbin, (who incidently called American troops “Nazis”) and for that matter Heil Amahdinijad, who really hates the jews with a passion. I wouldn’t waste the cattle cars. I prefer that we had leveled at least Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan on 12 September 2001, and then started immediate deportation of all “peaceful Islam” followers as well. Oh and by the way, here’s a summation of Islamofascist mentality:

    “CAIR Chairman Omar M. Ahmad told a crowd of California Muslims in July 1998,
    “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.”

    If they get their way, “Seig Heil” will be the least of your worries, asshole. You’ll be chanting “Allah u Akbar” while kneeling to Mecca six times a day, or else you and your ‘significant other’ will get beheaded. Be careful what you wish for. Funny you should mention Islamofascists in the same breath as the Nazis, considering they colluded in WWII. The Bosnian 13th Waffen Hanjar SS Division were pretty good buddies with Adolph and company.
    I see you’re from Canada. I bet you’re pissed to have an America-friendly Prime Minister for a change, eh hoser?
    Allah u Fuckbar to you.

  15. “This is a slap in the face of America and to those who put their lives on the line to defend it.”

    If defending the FREEDOM of religion is not part of what the United States stands for then what do we stand for? Freedom of as long as it’s christian or jewish? This post is purely paranoid bigotry. But hey… that’s free speech and that IS what you fought for. The freedom to be ignorant as well.

    Good day.

    Paranoid bigotry? Hardly. More like an absolutely justified response to crazy muslim zealots who took 3000 lives on this soil alone, or have you already forgotten? Tell you what sweetpea, when you can convince the fanatical, rabid followers of a violent, misogynistic, bellicose religion to make the same allowances in their countries for christians and jews, then you might have a point besides the one on your head. I fought so that we wouldn’t be subjected to Bin Laden’s wild-assed dream of a world Caliphate. Making concesssions to Islamofascism will not appease them. Fight fire with fire. Remember what Churchill said about the appeaser and the alligator? Brave Soldiers are putting their lives on the line to ensure that the “peaceful religion” of Islam won’t become the only choice you have. At least act like you’re worth the sacrifice.
    Have a nice life,

Leave a Comment

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

Social Media Auto Publish Powered By :
Wordpress Social Share Plugin powered by Ultimatelysocial