Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile President George W. Bush Previous Previous Next Next
Bush - Cheney 2004
4 More Years
VIRAL NOTES: Here is an archetypal example of why liberals are not to be trusted, especially with things like national, or international politics; much less the lives of the United States military forces.

For years now, we've been hearing the far left caterwauling that the invasion of Iraq was "...unjustified..." and even "...illegal..." We've even heard from idiots that claim retaliating against Afghanistan and it's brutal, ugly, woman-repressing, murderous government that sheltered al-Qaeda's Osama bin-Laden, himself, was wrong. We hear liberals crying this trite "...no blood for oil..." crap, time-and-time, again. We even see them making cowardly (after hours) attacks on military recruiting stations, or protesting under police protection outside Berkley Marine Corps recruiting offices. We hear that Republicans and Conservatives are nothing but "...warmongers...", "...murderers...", etc. Now, we have yet another example of leftist hypocrisy.

While the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were completely unjustified (in spite of the publicly known terror connections in Afghanistan, and the now increasingly well-documented, Saddam-sponsored terror-ties in Iraq), it is justified to militarily invade the Sudan (http://positiveliberty.com/2006/06/should-we-go-to-war-in-darfur.html), and, most recently, liberal publication Time (good for not much more than a fish-wrapper or cage-liner) has begun to posit invading Burma.


Because they don't like the governments, or the living conditions there.

Surely, they are terrible, and I will not fail to be among the first to point that out. However, it's ironic that any war that is conducted under a Republican political administration is invariably "...wrong...", "...unjust..." and "...illegal...", and yet when liberals (i.e.: democrats) do it, it's championing the rights of the oppressed. Leading the Free World. Setting the example. Putting dictators on notice.


I mean, good googly moogly, aren't you fed up and tired of this crap?

UnbelieveableCollapse )

VIRAL NOTES: THIS is the best a group of people that think they're the smartest (http://www.alternet.org/story/62436/) (http://www.slate.com/id/2173965/nav/tap3/), nicest (http://drx.typepad.com/psychotherapyblog/2007/10/paul-krugman-on.html) (http://www.thestar.com/article/302547) (http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2006/12/conservatives_a.html), most generous (http://www.regent.edu/acad/schgov/opeds/articles/liberals_dunn.htm) (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html) people in the world can come up with? Military invasion? It's amazing how when they come up with the idea, it's a good one; when Conservatives and Republicans do, it's a bad idea, and even criminal. The suffering in the Darfur is great, certainly, as is the suffering in Burma, but the suffering in Iraq (http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/ajan/27_saddam.html) (http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/19675.htm), apparently, means nothing to these people. And I guess the mass murder and torture under the al-Qaeda-backed Taliban was also a pittance (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/08/24/shah/) (http://www.now.org/issues/global/afghanwomen1.html). (As a side note, one of the sources I used was from the National Organization of Women. I have no respect for those people, because they made no effort to publically repudiate and condemn islamic nations for their brutal, barbaric, medieval treatment of women, and the best they could muster is a damned web page.) However, when something becomes the liberal flavor of the week, it's open season, good hunting and Godspeed (which is truly ironic, coming from the primarily Godless left). President Bush is allegedly using our forces like 'toy soldiers', and yet the political left seems more than happy and ready to throw them into another potentially conflict.

Hey, idiots:


Leave a comment
VIRAL NOTES: Mark Steyn seems to be the target of more and more attacks, and it appears that liberal, near-worthless Canada is becoming the newest islamic fiefdom, where if you so much as offend them, you're looking at litigation. This is complete garbage, and I don't see it being too far from the United States. In Canada, if you say anything that gays don't like, if you say anything negative about Islam, you're looking at potentially serious trouble.

Watch this video. It might be a little choppy, but when you see it, you'll be unpleasantly surprised. Mark gets to eventually debate 3 islamites (making it a 3-to-1 fight), and the grievance mongering is simply ghastly. The three are muslims involved in the legal profession, and you can tell. Probably being scouted by CAIR. For exposing the words spoken by adherents of the muslim religion, he's being called a 'hate-monger'. He's even been getting death-threats, because he's being falsely attributed for a statement that was actually spoken by a muslim imam. The bickering and backpedaling and attacking from these three are totally shameful, especially when this muslim wench says that Adolph Hitler was a Christian. So, people like Mark Steyn should be brought up on Human rights charges for showing what prominent muslims really do say, and yet she's able to make a deep slander against Christianity, and it's perfectly alright.



1 comment or Leave a comment
Wright Saps Obama’s White Vote
By Amanda Carpenter
Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama lost the white vote by dramatic margins to rival Hillary Clinton in Indiana and North Carolina’s primary contests Tuesday

The decrease in support from white, working class voters may be attributed to Obama’s suggestion that “bitter” Americans “cling” to guns and religion and his refusal to support the suspension of the federal gas tax to offset the rising price of gasoline, but is widely interpreted as backlash for closely associating with the controversial black pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

Obama overwhelmingly North Carolina, largely by the black vote which he dominated 91 percent, but only carried 26 percent of the white vote.

Clinton won Indiana, securing 60 percent of white Democratic primary voters to Obama’s 40 percent. It’s worth noting Obama won 92 percent of black Democrats in Indiana, where the black population is considerably smaller than North Carolina.

Indianans and North Carolinians went to the polls with Wright on their minds. According to exit polls, 46 percent of Indiana Democratic primary voters said Wright was “important.” 72 percent of those voters voted for Clinton. In North Carolina, 47 percent of Democratic primary voters said Wright was “important.” 59 percent of those voters voted for Clinton.

Indiana and North Carolina’s primary votes were inundated with Wright-related media coverage in the run-up to the May 6 primaries. Wright reinvigorated national interest in his relationship with Obama by making major appearances on PBS, before the NAACP and the National Press Club the week before the contests. During those events he reiterated some of his most offensive remarks captured in his video sermons. After Wright’s media tour concluded Obama denounced his former pastor ending his 20-year relationship with the man who led him to God, married him and baptized his two children.

The project for Excellence in Journalism found 42 percent of news media stories focused on Wright in the week from April 28 to May 4.

Right-leaning media outlets had long questioned Obama’s church, which Wright recently retired from, for preaching “black liberation theology” and boasting an “unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian” motto that encourages blacks to disavow “the pursuit of middleclassness.” It wasn’t until Wright’s video sermons were made public in mid-March by ABC News, however, that Wright became a national story

Obama has suffered a dramatic loss of support from uneducated white voters nationally since the Wright scandal broke, according to the Pew Research Center. Before Wright’s sermons were released, white Democratic voters who had not attended college supported Clinton 50 percent, Obama 40 percent. ABC News released tapes of Wright’s most controversial sermons on March 13 and those videos had immediate impact. Pew’s April poll showed only 25 percent of white Democratic voters supporting Obama and Clinton netting a whopping 65 percent—a 40 point edge of Obama among that demographic.

Obama’s inability to capture the undereducated white vote presents major obstacle in the general election, should he secure the Democratic nomination. In the 2004 presidential election, white voters represented 77 percent of all voters and 58 percent of total voters had no college degree.

VIRAL NOTES: Geez, are white people so stupid that it takes a direct slap in the face to wake you up to reality? Or, at least, wake some of you up to reality? While it's a good thing that these people finally woke up to smell the burned, stale coffee of Barak HUSSEIN Obama, and his opinion on them, is it a day late and a dollar short? They don't react when they're basically called the children of Satan by a psychopathic false-preacher, but they do when they're called gun-owning Christians that are frustrated with illegal immigration and unreasonably high gas prices. Those that know me know I'm incredibly short on sympathy, and this certainly isn't going to elicit any from me, anytime soon. Obama's a menace, and anyone that can't see that is just plain dumb. He loves tax-and-spend economics, he loves cut-and-run military strategy and is chomping at the bit to run against the flow in social policy. What else would you expect from a habitual drug abuser who is drawn to a racial supremacist like the wrong "reverend" Wright? What else would you expect of a guy that had nothing to say, when his "church" awarded the hitleresque Louis Farrakhan a lifetime achievement award (probably for his achievements in anti-Semitism and general-purpose white-bashing). Oprah Winfrey was drawn to that kind of crap, too, but had the sense Jesus Christ gave the common gnu to get the Hell out of there (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/obamaoprah.html).

Now, we get a load of Obama's true opinion of everyone he considers beneath him:

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them…And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.


And we also get to see him totally reverse himself on his opinion of the wrong "reverend" Wright. This is the "man" that has groomed himself for a lifetime amoung the Hyde Park liberals, and rubs elbows with the in fashion anti-American terrorists of the nation (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/21/why-the-obama-ayers-connection-matters/).

Nothing this "man" says or does seems genuine; he's just as calculated as Hillary, and just as disingenuous, which is why liberal America wants a Hillary/Obama ticket to run this nation into the ground. When is the rest of the nation (especially whites) going to wake up and realize the truth?

Leave a comment
VIRAL NOTES: Back when I was doing the UN-thing for political science class, in expressing ardent support for Israel in it's unending war against the bloodthirsty peoples of the surrounding islamic states, I was told that Israel was committing atrocities against Palestine. Naturally, they were all taken seriously aback when I told them:

"There is no Palestine. Palestine does not exist as a nation."

Basically, "Palestinians" are nothing more than squatters on Israeli land. My proof? It's historical, and out there for all the world to see, from the Bible, to the Torah, to the secular writings of the un-Godly athiests of the world. Documented from A to Z.

Mythbusting PalestineCollapse )

VIRAL NOTES: So, naturally, the liberals amongst the readers would claim I'm biased, and this is a biased sourcing, but, there are other, surprisingly authoratitive sources from within "Palestine", itself, that concur, and even go many steps further:

No Palestine?! I'm shocked! SHOCKED!Collapse )

VIRAL NOTES: Naturally, among certain people (you know who you are), telling the truth is called "hate speech", and I'm some sort of bigot. However, if you know who's writing this, you should also know how much I care about what you think or feel about me (i.e.: not at all). Flat-out, plain-and-simple, the United States needs to step away from those that are false friends, and to get closer to Israel. Nations like Spain, Germany, etc. Screw 'em. They're certainly not our friends, and we shouldn't waste another second of our time, or penny of our cash on them. They're absolutely useless in the global War on Terror, and they're good for nothing but disruption, baseless accusations, and running down the United States in the equally useless and corrupt United Nations and European Union. With the exceptions of France, England and Poland, I'd pretty much advise cutting all ties with the EU (which would also mean cutting down the size of NATO). True, our relationship with Israel isn't perfect, but it's a lot better with them, than with many others (if not most others), and better than any islamic nation, hands-down. If some (stupid) American tourist(s) get captured by islamofascist terrorists in Syria, somehow, I don't see the Palestinians, Egyptians, Saudis, Jordanians nor Syrians sending in special ops units with orders to capture or shoot to kill anyone holding that hostage/those hostages, and insure the safe return of said hostage/hostages.
Leave a comment
VIRAL NOTES: More reason to vote for Obama or Hillary, this year, you ask? Sure! Commin' up!

Secret Sanya - China's new nuclear naval base revealed
21 April 2008

China is constructing a major underground nuclear submarine base near Sanya, on Hainan Island off its southern coast, Jane's can confirm. Although Asian military sources have disclosed this fact to Jane's since 2002, high-resolution commercially available satellite imagery from DigitalGlobe allows independent verification of the previous suggestions.

The extent of construction indicates the Sanya base (also known as Yulin) could become a key future base for People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) aircraft carriers and other power-projection ships. In December 2007, perhaps in concert with a major PLAN exercise the previous month, the PLA moved its first Type 094 second-generation nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) to Sanya.

An underground submarine base and the positioning of China's most advanced sub-surface combatants at Sanya would have implications for China's control of the South China Sea and the strategically vital straits in the area. Further satellite imagery suggests the construction of Sanya has been supported by a gradual military build-up in the Paracel Islands over the last 20 years, and the transformation of the Chinese-occupied features in the Spratly Island group into assets that could support a range of military operations.

China's nuclear and naval build-up at Sanya underlines Beijing's desire to assert tighter control over this region. China's increasing dependence on imported petroleum and mineral resources has contributed to an intensified Chinese concern about defending its access to vital sea lanes, particularly to its south. It is this concern that in large part is driving China's development of power-projection naval forces such as aircraft carriers and long-range nuclear submarines.

China has pursued this build-up at Sanya with little fanfare, offering no public explanations regarding its plan to base nuclear weapons or advanced naval platforms there.

For both regional and extra-regional powers, it will be difficult to ignore that China is now building a major naval base at Sanya and may be preparing to house and protect a large proportion of its nuclear forces here, and even operate them from this base. This development so close to the Southeast Asian sea lanes so vital to the economies of Asia can only cause concern far beyond these straits.

Image: Digital imagery has confirmed Sanya's place as a major future Chinese naval base. (DigitalGlobe)

VIRAL NOTES: The US is increasingly endangered from that part of the world, ranging from Russia, with it's increased leanings toward restarting the Cold War (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7098) and aggressing Allied airspace (http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=156130&command=displayContent&sourceNode=242285&home=yes&more_nodeId1=156139&contentPK=20332475) (http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL2483196220070824?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7236241.stm) to Iran being Iran (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/05/military-sources-hezbollah-training-iraqi-militias-in-iran/), the last thing we need are America-hating politicians taking power in the Oval Office.



Obama has expressed a fervent desire to cripple the United States through absolutely asinine policies, ranging from taking away advanced weapons and technology research programs from the United States Army (http://grizzlygroundswell.com/archives/1903) (http://www.cnsnews.com/viewpolitics.asp?page=/politics/archive/200803/pol20080304d.html) and hobble the nation's overall capacity for defense and force projection, overseas. He also wants to punish corporations that work for the dirty "Military Industrial Complex" (so-named by the pseudo Conservative Eisenhower), or just don't play his kind of ball (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/02/12/obama-wants-to-define-patriot-corporations/), while clearing the way for organized crime to get back into unionized labor (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/05/obama-teamsters-deal-to-end-federal-oversight/).


Then, there's Hillary. She just loves the armed forces, when it's convenient (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54358). Don't believe me? Ask General D. Patraeus (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/09/12/video-hillary-lectures-petraeus-about-the-war-osama/).
Leave a comment
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, May 2, 2008; A21

"I can no more disown him [Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown my white grandmother."

-- Barack Obama, Philadelphia, March 18

Guess it's time to disown Granny, if Obama's famous Philadelphia "race" speech is to be believed. Of course, the speech was not just believed. It was hailed, celebrated, canonized as the greatest pronouncement on race in America since Lincoln at Cooper Union. A New York Times columnist said it "should be required reading in classrooms across the country." College seniors and first-graders, suggested the excitable Chris Matthews.

Apparently there's been a curriculum change. On Tuesday, the good senator begged to extend and revise his previous remarks on race. Moral equivalence between Grandma and Wright is now, as the Nixon administration used to say, inoperative. Poor Geraldine Ferraro, thrice lashed by Obama in Philadelphia as the white equivalent of Wright's raving racism, is off the hook.

These equivalences having been revealed as the cheap rhetorical tricks they always were, Obama has now decided that the man he simply could not banish because he had become part of Obama himself is, mirabile dictu, surgically excised.

At a news conference in North Carolina, Obama explained why he finally decided to do the deed. Apparently, Wright's latest comments -- Obama cited three in particular -- were so shockingly "divisive and destructive" that he had to renounce the man, not just the words.

What were Obama's three citations? Wright's claim that AIDS was invented by the U.S. government to commit genocide. His praise of Louis Farrakhan as a great man. And his blaming Sept. 11 on American "terrorism."

But these comments are not new. These were precisely the outrages that prompted the initial furor when the Wright tapes emerged seven weeks ago. Obama decided to cut off Wright not because Wright's words or character or views had suddenly changed. The only thing that changed was the venue in which Wright chose to display them -- live on national TV at the National Press Club. That unfortunate choice destroyed Obama's Philadelphia pretense that this "endless loop" of sermon excerpts being shown on "television sets and YouTube" had been taken out of context.

Obama's Philadelphia oration was an exercise in contextualization. In one particularly egregious play on white guilt, Obama had the audacity to suggest that whites should be ashamed that they were ever surprised by Wright's remarks: "The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour of American life occurs on Sunday morning."

That was then. On Tuesday, Obama declared that he himself was surprised at Wright's outrages. But hadn't Obama told us that surprise about Wright is a result of white ignorance of black churches brought on by America's history of segregated services? How then to explain Obama's own presumed ignorance? Surely he too was not sitting in those segregated white churches on those fateful Sundays when he conveniently missed all of Wright's racist rants.

Obama's turning surprise about Wright into something to be counted against whites-- one of the more clever devices in that shameful, brilliantly executed, 5,000-word intellectual fraud in Philadelphia -- now stands discredited by Obama's own admission of surprise. But Obama's liberal acolytes are not daunted. They were taken in by the first great statement on race: the Annunciation, the Chosen One comes to heal us in Philly. They now are taken in by the second: the Renunciation.

Obama's newest attempt to save himself after Wright's latest poisonous performance is now declared the new final word on the subject. Therefore, any future ads linking Obama and Wright are preemptively declared out of bounds, illegitimate, indeed "race-baiting" (a New York Times editorial, April 30).

On what grounds? This 20-year association with Wright calls into question everything about Obama: his truthfulness in his serially adjusted stories of what he knew and when he knew it; his judgment in choosing as his mentor, pastor and great friend a man he just now realizes is a purveyor of racial hatred; and the central premise of his campaign, that he is the bringer of a "new politics," rising above the old Washington ways of expediency. It's hard to think of an act more blatantly expedient than renouncing Wright when his show, once done from the press club instead of the pulpit, could no longer be "contextualized" as something whites could not understand and only Obama could explain in all its complexity.

Turns out the Wright show was not that complex after all. Everyone understands it now. Even Obama.


Leave a comment

1: Syria has been accused of new shipments of sophisticated anti-aircraft missiles to Hezbullah in Lebanon

2: US warships are parked off the Lebanese coast

3: The Israelis recently jammed the Lebanese cellphone network, presumably in an effort to disrupt command and control processes
4: Syria was massing forces presumably designed to deal with an Israeli attack in Lebanon
5: The US administration just briefed Congress on the Israeli raid in Syria September 6, 2007 that destroyed a North Korean-designed nuclear reactor
6: And now the UN is upset with Israel and the US for acting on this information without going to them

And then...

7: The Syrian Foreign Minister - standing next to his counterpart in Teheran, no less - publicly announced a peace offer with Israel in exchange for the Golan Heights, and

8: Israeli government statements point towards a reciprocation of that offer

VIRAL NOTES: Where will all this ultimately lead? One thing that's been disturbing some Christian groups is the fact that the Israelis are working on restoring the Biblical Temple Mount:


If things are coming to pass the way the Bible predicts it, there's going to be a lot of trouble, really soon.
3 comments or Leave a comment
Now, the DNC has sunk to the low of showing American soldiers apparently killed in an IED (Improvised Explosive Device) blast, sheerly for commercial and propaganda purposes.

Sickening, just like the rest of the DNC's party planks, and the majority of it's politicians and devotees.

When John McCain made the remark (that's been vastly exaggerated, and totally taken out of context through the use of soundbytes) about staying in Iraq for "100 years", it was because he knew the potential cost of leaving. For those liberals reading this that are only educated in revisionist history, let me give you a lesson in real history. Way back when, McCain was a Navy aviator (which means a Navy commissioned officer that flew aircraft, idiots), who flew fighter craft in the Vietnam War. Yeah, that same war that Rosie O'Donnell lies about (saying the Gulf of Tonkin attack never took place), in spite of the fact that she probably didn't even know what Vietnam was, until about 10 years, ago. Anyhow, US involvement crecendoed with the Tet Offensive. The similarity between the Tet Offensive and the first Battle of Fallujah is that the media lied, and called it a defeat. The Tet Offensive was an all-out, full-court-press involving the VC (Viet Cong guerilla forces, who were insanely brutal Communists) and the NVA (North Vietnamese Army, which left the majority of the fighting to the VC). Even the wildly left-slanted Wikipedia acknowledges it was a victory (for us, not the enemy):

The leadership in Hanoi must have been initially despondent about the outcome of their great gamble.[126] Their first and most ambitious goal, producing a general uprising, had ended in a dismal failure. In total, approximately 85,000-100,000 NLF and PAVN troops had participated in the initial onslaught and in the follow-up phases. Overall, during the "Border Battles" of 1967 and the nine-month winter-spring campaign, 75,000-85,000 NLF and PAVN troops had been killed in action.

The keys to the failure of the "General Offensive, General Uprising" were not difficult to discern. Hanoi had underestimated the strategic mobility of the allied forces, which allowed them to redeploy at will to threatened areas; their battle plan was too complex and difficult to coordinate, which was amply demonstrated by the 30 January attacks; their violation of the principal of mass, attacking everywhere instead of concentrating their forces on a few specific targets, allowed their forces to be defeated piecemeal; the launching of massed attacks headlong into the teeth of vastly superior firepower; and last, but not least, the incorrect assumptions upon which the entire campaign was based.[128] According to General Tran Van Tra: "We did not correctly evaluate the specific balance of forces between ourselves and the enemy, did not fully realize that the enemy still had considerable capabilities, and that our capabilities were limited, and set requirements that were beyond our actual strength.

The horrendous losses inflicted on NLF units struck into the heart of the irreplaceable infrastructure that had been built up for over a decade. From this point forward, Hanoi was forced to fill one-third of the NLF's ranks with North Vietnamese troops.[133] However, this change had little effect on the war, since North Vietnam had little difficulty making up the casualties inflicted by the offensive.[134] Some Western historians have come to believe that one insidious ulterior motive for the campaign was the elimination of competing southern members of the Party, thereby allowing the northerners more control once the war was won.


So why did those unwashed hippies of the 60s and 70s say we lost the Tet Offensive, and were dealt our first defeat in wartime? Thank clowns like the Clintons (unpatriotic war protestors), Kerry (the original Winter Soldier - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_Soldier_Investigation), "Hanoi" Jane Fonda ("American" traitor bitch - http://www.26thmarines.org/janefonda.html), and the intentional lies ('misreporting') of media types like, namely, Walter Cronkite (http://neoneocon.com/2006/12/20/tet-cronkite-opinion-journalism-and_21/).

The Tet Offensive created a crisis within the Johnson administration, which became increasingly unable to convince the American public that it had been a major defeat for the communists. The optimistic assessments made prior to the offensive by the administration and the Pentagon came under heavy criticism and ridicule as the "credibility gap" that had opened in 1967 widened into a chasm.[153]

The shocks that reverberated from the battlefield continued to widen: On 18 February 1968 MACV posted the highest U.S. casualty figures for a single week during the entire war - 543 killed, 2,547 wounded.[154] On 23 February 1968 the U.S. Selective Service System announced a new draft call for 48,000 men, the second highest of the war.[155] On 28 February 1968 Robert S. McNamara, the Secretary of Defense who had overseen the escalation of the war in 1964-1965, but who had eventually turned against it, stepped down from office.

Thanks to the lying left, who used every single thing that could be misreported, a surprising tactical victory (if not a strategic one) turned into a media-fueled defeat, thanks to the leftists filtering all news that came back into the TVs in the US, and interviewing only the most embittered veterans they could find (like the cowardly Kerry, who was elected to public office by the idiots of Massachusetts).

Then, there's Fallujah.

The insanely leftist media opened up with their salvos of disinformation, almost immediately (http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Fallujah,_the_information_war_and_U.S._propaganda). There are even lies about the types of weaponry utilized in the attack (http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/135550.php). Then, there's the viewpoint of the people that actually participated in the battle (http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,NI_0105_Fallujah-P2,00.html).

All-in-all, we go back to the "100 years" thing, and the liberals that want us to run from Iraq and Afghanistan like cowards (and don't forget what happened the first time somebody thought we did that - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html). If we do cut-and-run, remember what came to be called the Killing Fields.

“Estimates vary, but a safe bet is that some two million people died in the killing fields of Cambodia. In South Vietnam, the death toll was lower, but hundreds of thousands were consigned to harsh ‘reeducation’ camps where many perished, and hundreds of thousands more risked their lives to flee as ‘boat people.’”

Now, if you don't think Iraq and Afghanistan could be a repeat of that, you're just flat-out and plain stupid. Already, we've seen plenty of examples that the Taliban and al-Qaeda are willing to kill other muslims and other arabs (http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive_Index/Al_Qaeda_and_Taliban_Atrocities.html), just like the Vietnamese were more than willing to kill fellow Vietnamese and neighboring Cambodians.

Millions dead between Vietnam and Cambodia, and the creation of a new communist state (contrary to those that say the "Domino Effect" wasn't true). Now, we face the possibility of millions more dead, and the creation of 2 new terrorist sponsoring states. And the defeatocrats seem to have a vested interest in those very things happening, again. I will not tolerate a revisitation of the 60s were decadent, scummy hippies dared to literally spit on my military forefathers with impugnity as they got off planes, wounded and stressed, only to be met with ingrate, cowardly civilians. For a while, it was all the rage to spotlight members of the Special Operations Forces community who killed their wives, after finding out that while they were out risking everything in the face of extreme danger, their wives were out screwing half the neighborhood. Criminal and unacceptable, but certainly the exception, not the rule. Maybe, if civilians continue to mistreat military personnel coming back from action, we can give the media a new story: civilians being killed by military personnel, in retaliation. Criminal and unacceptable, but humorous and entertaining.
Leave a comment
1 comment or Leave a comment
Teenage Iraqi girl who fell in love with BRITISH soldier in Basra is murdered by her own father in honour killing
Last updated at 17:55pm on 27th April 2008

A teenage Iraqi girl who fell in love with a British soldier when he was in Basra was murdered by her father in an "honour killing", it was revealed today.

Rand Abdel-Qader, 17, was suffocated and then hacked at with a knife after her family discovered she was friends with the 22-year-old soldier who she knew only as Paul.

The pair first met when Rand was working on an aid project for displaced families but it is thought the soldier is unaware of the girl's fate.

She was stamped on, suffocated and stabbed - leaving her with puncture wounds all over her body, including her face.

Her own mother, Leila Hussein, has spoken out about the crime, revealing how her husband called out that he was cleansing "his honour" as he carried out the murder.

She told the Observer he was arrested after the brutal murder but was released without charge two hours later because it was an "honour killing".

"He was released two hours later because it was an 'honour killing'. And unfortunately that is something to be proud of for any Iraqi man," she told the paper.

Her funeral was done without any of the traditional mourning because she was deemed 'impure'. Her uncles were said to have spat on her body

Rand claimed she was in love from the first moment she met the soldier, who had been working alongside her on an aid project where she was volunteering.

She immediately told her best friend she was dreaming they could have a future together.

Five months on, she was brutally killed and buried without the traditional mourning ceremony in a mark of her "impurity".

Her uncles are also said to have spat on her body because of the shame they felt she had brought on the family.

The fact her relationship with the British soldier she knew as Paul was entirely innocent was not enough to save her.

According to the Observer, she was seen conversing intimately with him and because he was a British "invader" and the enemy, this could not be tolerated.

The pair last saw each other in January but her father, Abdel Qader Ali did not learn of their friendship until two months later on March 16.

He was told by a friend that his daughter had been seen with the soldier and stormed home to confront her.

Ms Hussein described to the paper how he was in a complete rage and trembled as he asked Rand if the story was true, before starting to hit her repeatedly.

She said: "She started to cry, she was nervous. He got hold of her hair and started thumping her again and again.

"I screamed and called out for her two brothers so they could get their father away from her. But when he told them the reason, instead of saving her they helped end her life."

Qader Ali had used his own feet to press down on Rand's throat until she stopped breathing before cutting at her body with a knife, she said.

Sgt Ali Jabbar of Basra police said: "Not much can be done when we have an 'honour killing'. You are in a Muslim society and women should live under religious laws."

Ms Hussein has now divorced her husband and is in hiding under the care of a charity for fear of reprisals from his family for speaking out.

A charity spokeswoman said: "She has been threatened by her husband's family and is very scared."

The Ministry of Defence is thought to be trying to track down the soldier, who is believed to have no idea his friendship with Rand might have put her at risk.

There is no official policy on advising troops how to behave with Iraqi women when they are deployed to the country.

An MoD spokeswoman said: "They are not told: don't go and fall in love."

The murder is believed to be the first "honour killing" in the war-torn country involving a British soldier.

But there were 47 such killing of young women in Basra alone last year and just three convictions, according to the city's Security Committee.

VIRAL NOTES: I was told by an imam at school that the God of the Jews/Hebrews, the God of the Bible/Christians and the god of Mohammed were one and the same. I disputed that, then, I dispute it, now. What really separates us, Christians and Jews, from the islamists? What separates God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit from the god of the islamists? Read the story, above, then read this, below:

27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.
30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.
31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
32 For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.
33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.
34 And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

In spite of the Word of God commanding us to love our enemies, after reading this, I can truly say it's been a while, since I've wanted to torture and kill someone, so badly. I really feel badly for that British soldier, because he'll have to go through the same thing I did. When my love died, I didn't know about it for a week. When I found out, I was automatically at fault, because I feel I should have been there to protect her. Why? Because it is my job. Even though he's British army, I know he'll feel the same. He was a soldier, and he was specifically sent to protect the innocent. If he is not councilled effectively, he will feel like a failure as a Soldier, and I can tell you from personal experience that feeling like a failure as a Soldier, especially when innocent life is lost, can be an open invitation to suicide.

I personally believe that the god of islam is of satanic origin, if not Satan, himself. I sincerely believe that there is no Heaven for muslims, and when they die, they go to Hell, no matter how well-intentioned, no matter how good their works.

Ephesians 2
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

I know/know of plenty of muslims that are, at least on the surface, nice people. However, that's not enough to insure a good future, post mortem. While I will not outright wish these people into Hell, I will say that if they do go, if they do not find repentance to Jesus Christ for the abomination of their actions and faith in a false, demonic god, I hope they find themselves in the deepest, most dire, portion of Hell that should exist. They are backwards, even for cavemen, and it would be difficult to have mercy on them, should I meet them on the field of battle. I could not even read this story out loud, and I have an extreme, if not un-Godly, tolerance for this type of ugliness. I don't even know this poor girl, I don't know that British soldier, but it almost moved me to tears, and I couldn't do any more than skim some details of this story, because it was just flat-out too terrible for me to take in, right now.

Remember this, all you that say 'America has no business in Iraq'. Remember this murder, the next time you say: 'Those people just want us to be left alone', and you curse the name of President Bush.

Leave a comment