Posted on 01/04/2008 3:34:41 PM PST by knighthawk
Khartoum (4 January) - A hitherto unknown Sudanese Islamist group has claimed responsibility for the murder of an United States diplomat and his driver. They were shot dead in Khartoum on New Year's Day.
The group, Ansar al-Tawhid, made the claim on the internet, saying the men were killed because the Americans were trying to establish Christianity in Sudan. The chauffeur was said to have bartered away his religion.
Ping
Radical muslims huh? Whoda thunk?
Wow. You mean all Islamic terrorism isn’t limited to the known watch-list groups? Terrorism just sort of springs up everywhere that, um, Islam goes?
and then there is this..
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/01/04/sudan.diplomat/index.html
Group claims responsibility for killing U.S. diplomat in Sudan
-snip-
Jane Granville, John Granville’s mother, said she had no interest in discussing the claim of responsibility.
“That is not going to help bring John back, or his driver, and I really — that is of no interest to me,” she told CNN in an exclusive interview.
-snip-
Obviously the fault of the American diplomat; you could ask Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich.
Yeah, that’s my only problem with Paul—he doesn’t recognize the nature of Islamic extremism. Even Tom Jefferson understood Islamic terrorism, but you should never ever compare Ron Paul to Dennis Kucinich. That’s like comparing George Mason to Fidel Castro.
Oh, this must be wrong. The Bush Administration diplomats and for that matter TROP Pres. Bush himself work for the crushing of Christianity and the triumph of Mohammedanism, not the other way around. Why, just ask the few Orthodox Christians left alive in Kosovo!
Here we think a lot of the George Mason (there were actually a bunch of George Masons). Our daughter was one of the leaders of the drive to get his memorial on the mall, the only non-President so honored. Ron Paul is no George Mason. In particular in the years from the defeat of the British at Yorktown to the end of the War of 1812, what has been aptly termed the time of the “securing of the Revolution,” it is difficult to see that Ron Paul would have been on the right side of things.
Between Yorktown and the War of 1812 none of the fighting was on American soil. In the “undeclared war” with France and the ongoing struggle with England all the fighting was at sea or overseas and then there was the war with Islamics, which is what the Barbary Pirates were, enslaving Christians, just as they still do. Ron Paul’s positions today indicate he would not have been effective during that crucial period.
The OBL plan was to get us in Sudan next...
He’s gonna get a surprise.
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.