Posted on 08/19/2006 1:03:06 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
After four British Muslims blew up themselves and 52 others in a series of attacks here on July 7 last year, the British government convened a task force of prominent Muslims and pleaded for help in combating homegrown extremism. Continues...
===========================================================
Massive Air Terror Plot foiled; Bush blamed
A group of homicidal Islamic maniacs tried to blow up a bunch of airplanes in midflight, so naturally liberals think there must be some "rational" explanation for how such wonderful people with their peaceful religion could possibly fall under Karl Rove's spell like this. Whether it's hacking someone's head off with a dull blade or plunging jets into skyscrapers, you'll hear your typical Jihidiot scream, "Allahu Akbar!" (God is Great!), so you know religion couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.
A commentator on one of the cable news channels recently commented that what motivates young Muslims to do what they do boils down to deep-seated 'philosophical' differences with the West. So, using an easily available peroxide and other materials disguised as beverages, these philosophical deep-thinkers planned to blow up as many as 10 trans-Atlantic airplanes in midflight. But it's not the first time peroxide has figured into the philosophical mix. Peroxide-based explosives were used by these Socratic heavyweights in the 2005 London bombings, the May 2003 Casablanca bombing, the wave of suicide bombings in Israel and the 2001 failed shoe bombing attempt by grand philosopher Richard Reid.
In the foiled scheme to bring down airliners, all of the 24 "insurgents" arrested in England were identified as British Muslims, one of them a woman with a small child and another a Heathrow employee. Press reaction? Three million stories bemoaning how Bush and Blair had disrupted the lives of millions of air travelers. MILLIONS OF AIR TRAVELERS! In the British plot, it is estimated the attacks could have disrupted the lives of 4,000 air travelers in midflight.
The Democrats' reaction to the successful bust was to assail Bush for the setback.
Sen. Harry Reid said the foiled plot shows we're not safe. "This latest plot demonstrates the need for the Bush administration and the Congress to change course in Iraq and ensure that we are taking all the steps necessary to protect Americans at home and across the world." Reid's plan to protect Americans is to kill the Patriot Act, not spy on al-Qaeda, enact an early release program at Gitmo and "change course in Iraq" by pulling out immediately. Since al-Qaeda killed as many Americans in New York as it has in Iraq, we need to "change course" in New York by pulling out of New York, too.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi said the way to crush al-Qaeda once and for all is to have better "airport security screening at checkpoints." The fierce terror hunter said "we must implement the strong recommendations of the independent 9/11 commission." After getting permission from the French.
Sen. Hillary Clinton said the thwarted plot against airplanes shows "we still have not done what we need to do to protect" . . . ports. And bridges. And we're not checking every container (lots of terrorists in those!) 'Herself' added that she doesn't "think our long-term strategy for homeland security is yet what it needs to be." Hillary's long-term strategy for homeland security consists of getting her husband to pardon a group of Puerto Rican terrorists and capturing Joe Camel. And Bill Gates.
In a shocking assessment, Sen. Ted Kennedy said we can't let our foreign policy be set by cold-blooded killers blinded by religion -- the Bush administration. "It is clear that (Bush's) misguided policies are making America more hated in the world and making the war on terrorism harder to win." (My name is Osama bin Laden and I approve this message.)
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, showcasing the Democrats' new tough stand against terrorism, implied America had it coming. He says he fears "many of our policies over the past five years have done more to inflame extremism than to diminish it. I believe the war in Iraq" was a diversion that "undercut the Bush Administration's ability to protect our people against a terrorist attack."
The number of Americans killed on U.S. soil by terrorism since 9/11 amounts to zero, so liberals conclude from this grim statistic that we're less safe so we gotta spend gazillions more at home to get the same result -- but that's only because we don't have Saddam in power keeping us safe. And because Bush won't sign Kyoto.
So, near as I can tell, the solid consensus among libbies these days is that the Iraq war had nothing to do with fighting terrorism and the Iraq war is causing all this terrorism because terrorists are really mad at Bush for removing Saddam who had no ties to terrorists, plus this whole 'Foiled Terror Plot' stuff was cooked up by Bush to further his 'climate of fear,' plus Bush is just 'happy talk' and Bush is trying to scare people and Bush's rosy scenarios are lies since removing Saddam has made us less safe 'cuz those 'tender' 'young' Arab darlings who had no ties to Saddam just wanna blow themselves up after losing Saddam. In other words, all this terrorism is Saddam-motivated, but Saddam is clean as far as terrorism. Sorta like the Lewinsky deal, when Clinton noted that, although Monica had sex with him, he did not have sex with Monica.
Yet, eight years before Bush's "diversion" in Iraq, homicidal Islamic maniacs plotted to blow up 11 trans-Pacific airliners bound from Asia to the U.S. -- the Oplan Bojinka plot hatched by Ramzi Ahmad Yousef. Throughout the 90s, moderate Muslims were kidnapping/shooting/stabbing/bombing people in Russia, the Philippines, Indonesia, India, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Lebanon, Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania, New York, etc. -- all 'cuz of Bu$halliburton's Iraq war which hadn't happened. But hold on. In June, Canada rounded up 17 terror suspects plotting to blow up things there, too. Must be Canada's vast troop presence in Iraq.
In reality, all the action then and now by these friendly Muslims is fueled by the goal of creating some sort of Islamic utopia -- a global caliphate is their bag, an idea undoubtedly planted in their minds by George Bush.
Nonetheless, according to the Democrat theory of fighting terrorism, rule No. 1, after inserting the uppermost part of your body as far as it'll go up your posterior, is to remember you mustn't fight terrorism. It only 'emboldens' terrorists. Mustn't spy on terrorists -- that only 'emboldens' them. Mustn't profile terrorists -- that only 'emboldens' them. Mustn't imprison terrorists -- that only 'emboldens' them. Mustn't torture terrorists -- only 'emboldens' them. Mustn't snoop on their bank records -- only 'emboldens' them. So, according to libbies, fighting, spying, profiling, imprisoning or torturing terrorists 'emboldens' terrorists but electing Ned Lamont and surrendering in Iraq and Afghanistan won't. Fighting terrorism breeds more terrorists. Democrats say this with such certitude -- LOOK HERE, al-Qaeda's latest census data!
Bottom line: Be nice to them, and they'll be nice to us. If they're not, fire off a strongly-worded U.N. resolution. That'll teach 'em.
The Democrats' approach to terror is best summed up by a revealing remark hotshot Democrat Mark Green made on Hardball Tuesday night. He asserted Osama popped up on video days before the '04 elections to help Bush because "radicals profit when THEIR ENEMIES are in power." Whether he realized it or not, Green was driving my point home -- Democrats are binny's best friends. Thanks, hotshot.
The cut-'n'-run Democrats are in for a massive let down this November.
Anyway, that's...
My Two Cents...
"JohnHuang2"
Have a great weekend, everyone. God bless
IN THE WORDS OF STONEWALL JACKSON KILL'EM KILL'EM ALL!
God Bless America!
This is one of your best. Have a great weekend, John!
'Tellin' it like it is.
"A commentator on one of the cable news channels recently commented that what motivates young Muslims to do what they do boils down to deep-seated 'philosophical' differences with the West. "
He's right.
They want women treated as slaves; all unbelievers converted to Islam or reduced to Dhimmitude; the west tunred into another Caliphate; pork, liquor and dogs banned;institution of SHaria law with whippings, mutilaitons, stonings and beheading for "moral" crimes; and all men forced to wear beards in the image of thier depraved paedophile bandit leader Mohammad.
Simple philophical differece.
When are the airhead gutless wimps who run our countires going to get the message that they're dealing with a horde of homicidal lunatics? A "moderate" muslim is one of these fiends who wants to institute all of the above by popular vote instead of bombings. Giving their high reproductive rate and our weak western immigration laws, either alternative is a viable option from their perspective.
We should get ALL Muslims OUT of the WEST - NOW, while we still have a fighting chance, or we will follow Egypt down the road to Islamdom and find ourselves an opporessed minority in our own lands - like the Copts.
Send this to the NYT asking to put it in the Op-Ed.
I'm sure they will do it........ /s
free dixie,sw
why would anyone watch MSNBC? Thats like drinking lukewarm spit.
Expulsion would be the way to go.
One of your best ever! Thanks for the ping.
What you propose would make us no better than the enemy we're fighting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.