let him run as a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT or LIBERAL INDEPENDENT.***
BUMP!!!
Posted on 02/18/2007 9:42:28 AM PST by faq
In February 1997, Palestinian English teacher Ali Abu Kamal went to the 86th floor observation deck of the Empire State Building, pulled out a gun, and opened fire, killing one person and wounding six others before killing himself. Even though he carried letters ranting about the US and Israel, the media heavily promoted the story that he was despondent and suicidal after a financial loss.
Today the killer’s daughter—who works for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian “refugees” (UNRWA)—admitted that this story was a complete fraud. She wants the world to know that her father was “martyred for patriotic motivations.”
And the family was directly instructed to lie about it by the Palestinian Authority: Killer’s daughter admits it was political.
GAZA CITY - Ali Abu Kamal’s relatives say they are tired of lying about why the Palestinian opened fire on the observation deck of Empire State Building, killing a tourist and injuring six other people before committing suicide.Kamal’s widow insisted after the shooting spree that the attack was not politically motivated. She said that her husband had become suicidal after losing $300,000 in a business venture.
But in a stunning admission, Kamal’s 48-year-old daughter Linda told the Daily News that her dad wanted to punish the U.S. for supporting Israel - and revealed her mom’s 1997 account was a cover story crafted by the Palestinian Authority.
“A Palestinian Authority official advised us to say the attack was not for political reasons because that would harm the peace agreement with Israel,” she told The News on Friday. “We didn’t know that he was martyred for patriotic motivations, so we repeated what we were told to do.”
But three days after the shootings, Kamal’s family got a copy of a letter that was found on his body, they said. The letter said he planned the violence as a political statement, his daughter said. “When we wanted to clarify that to the media, nobody listened to us,” she said. “His goal was patriotic. He wanted to take revenge from the Americans, the British, the French and the Israelis.”
She said the family became certain that he carried out the attack for political reasons after reading his diary. “He wrote that after he raised his children and made sure that his family was all right he decided to avenge in the highest building in America to make sure they get his message,” said Linda, who works for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees.
She said her mom burned the diary, fearing that it would cause the family trouble.
They don't just have a 'bad hair day', they have a 'bad hair life'.
For the millionth time, it's NOT only about gun control, OR the WoT.
There are MANY issues that RINO-rudy is on the WRONG, LIBERAL side of.
He has ABSOLUTELY no business running ANYTHING more than a northeastern BLUEST-of-BLUE left-wing inner-city.
For the good of our party and our country, RINO-rudy needs to FORGET running for president of the United States.
If he insists on continuing to run, well then...
let him run as a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT or LIBERAL INDEPENDENT.
let him run as a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT or LIBERAL INDEPENDENT.***
BUMP!!!
If such a letter had been found on his body this story would have come out before. I don't believe that the government and media are conspiring to not let us know about these things.
Furthermore if the letter had been found on the body, the authorities would not have sent it by FedEx to the family in Gaza so that they would get it only three days later. The family could have received a copy of the letter from another source but then they would have no assurance that it was found on the body.
The man's motivation might have had something to do with avenging Palestinians, but the story as written does not make sense.
Good post, perhaps the following explanation:
Man sends it to his own family, so that they know why he did what he did. He says a copy of it would also be on him when he did it. Just a thought.
Since it was the NYPD and FBI who found the letter indicating that the shooting was a jihadist attack by a Muslim seeking "revenge", I don't think I'd be wrong if I thought Rudy knew of the letter.
Yes, I read the article and Mr Giulinai's archives. Which part of this statement do you not agree with?
"It's mind-boggling to most people that someone can come in from a foreign country on a visitor's visa and buy a gun in the United States, not just a gun but an automatic weapon, 14 rounds, where you can in four or five seconds get 14 bullets out.''
I note the hypocrisy of claiming to care about border security, another favorite taunt, and then letting aliens, Muslim ones at that, get guns.
All good points, sofadude, all very good points.
Well, yes,
If someone "gets their goat"
If someone dances, drinks or fornicates, outside the immediate family
If someone believes in the god, the true god, and only the god, but not THEIRS.
To sharpen their beheading skills
The list is long
Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?
by L. Neil Smith
lneil@lneilsmith.org
Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.
People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician—or political philosophy—is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.
Make no mistake: all politicians—even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership—hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician—or political philosophy—can be put.
If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash—for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything—without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.
If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.
What his attitude—toward your ownership and use of weapons—conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?
If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?
If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend—the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights—do you want to entrust him with anything?
If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil—like "Constitutionalist"—when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?
Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician—or political philosophy—is really made of.
He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun—but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school—or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway—Prussian, maybe—and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?
And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.
Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man—and you're not—what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?
On the other hand—or the other party—should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?
Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue—health care, international trade—all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.
And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.
But it isn't true, is it?
Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author—provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate credit given.
Well, I do believe exactly that.
That the government is conspiring to keep certain facts from the American public to prevent panic and a widespread public response.
We seem to have honest differences of opinion.
Thanks for the poing garv.
Dervish, thanks for demonstrating the pro-Rudy people are as loopy as the anti-Rudy people.
No, I don't want to give firearms to Muslim aliens, or any other kind of alien.
I asked for information because it's my sense that shoud Mayor G truely become the Mayor of America, he'd use incidents like the Utah shooting to increase firearm regulation.
I've excerpted a bit from garv's link below, and I'm open to reading more.
Mayor of NYC Rudy says nothing about Muslim aliens, or aliens at all.
He contends that it wasn't a security issue, NYC apparently never having heard of metal detectors, rather Florida's fault. And he calls for stricter regulation. Without mention of aliens. I mention that again because I don't care if aliens are barred from purchasing firearms, let them become citizens and then the 2nd amendment will protect them.
From the little bit I've read, as someone who splits his time between Illinois and Wisconsin, I think Mayor of America Rudy would do the same thing as Mayor of Chicago Daley in the wake of the Utah incident. Use it to increase regulation.
Thanks for the poing garv.
Dervish, thanks for demonstrating the pro-Rudy people are as loopy as the anti-Rudy people.
No, I don't want to give firearms to Muslim aliens, or any other kind of alien.
I asked for information because it's my sense that shoud Mayor G truely become the Mayor of America, he'd use incidents like the Utah shooting to increase firearm regulation.
I've excerpted a bit from garv's link below, and I'm open to reading more.
Mayor of NYC Rudy says nothing about Muslim aliens, or aliens at all.
He contends that it wasn't a security issue, NYC apparently never having heard of metal detectors, rather Florida's fault. And he calls for stricter regulation. Without mention of aliens. I mention that again because I don't care if aliens are barred from purchasing firearms, let them become citizens and then the 2nd amendment will protect them.
From the little bit I've read, as someone who splits his time between Illinois and Wisconsin, I think Mayor of America Rudy would do the same thing as Mayor of Chicago Daley in the wake of the Utah incident. Use it to increase regulation.
With Mrs. McCarthy at his side, the Mayor said the gunfire was not the fault of poor security at the landmark tower, or anything related to New York. Rather it could be blamed on a far-reaching national issue well beyond his jurisdiction.The subject was no longer the possible damage to New York's image, but rather the difference between the rest of the country and New York, a city with strict gun laws that the Mayor said were partly responsible for the drop in crime here. The news conference also reminded voters of Mr. Giuliani's longstanding support for strong gun control legislation.
''The whole idea of the press conference was to bring this tragedy onto the national level,'' said Mrs. McCarthy, whose husband was killed in a 1993 shooting incident on the Long Island Rail Road. ''We can't stop the guns from coming into New York if we don't do it around the country, and that's what the Mayor and I have been saying for years.''
Colleen A. Roche, the Mayor's press secretary, said the Mayor had learned late Sunday night that the gun used in the shootings had been purchased legally in Florida, and had brought up the issue at the morning meeting.
''The Mayor was concerned about gun control issues, and determined that this was a case that cried out for stricter gun control,'' she said. ''After discussions this morning at the meeting, he had the staff reach out to Congresswoman McCarthy, and to other gun control advocates. A few calls were made, and advocates pretty much organized themselves to come. They have an extraordinary communications network.''
No it's not.
The question I raise, what would President Rudy's instinct be.
IMO, firearm bans.
Exactly. It's my opinion that a politician who uses an incident like this, a crime, to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens in what to some sounds like logical fashion, is insincere. He simply wants firearms out of the hands of individuals. And that's fine. Skip the lawsuits, skip bans on ugly looking rifles, simply introduce an amendment repealing #2. Who knows, maybe he'll get elected on a less guns, less terror platform.
Like the bosnian fellow in Utah. Our screaming media is full of and acts like a castrated one at that.
It will take years, and I'll probably be dead, before we hear the truth about a lot of the smaller attacks in this country.
Thanks so much for the ping to this, Miz. It confirms what so many of us have thought over the years and I'm so glad I didn't miss it. Thanks again and bump.
Exactly.
It is a threat and on many levels. It takes away more personal freedom from law-abiding citizens and it also wastes government resources by going after imaginary crimes rather than focusing on real criminals. If the Clinton administration had spent half the effort going after terrorists it did going after "assault weapons" and the non-existent gunshow loophole, 9/11 might have been avoided. For ten years Canada has spent billions of dollars on a useless gun registry that has not helped to catch one criminal. I despair for my country in that the best the two parties might be able to do is offer Hillary and Rudy. The only faint hope I have is that Rudy might promote some conservative judges. Any time the government uses crime or terrorism as an excuse to take away citizens' rights while at the same time ignoring criminals and terrorists, yes, it is a big deal.
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.