It's what puts the 'Jizz' in al Jizzeera
I came across this article recently and was a tad disturbed. This is probably every Islamofascist's wet dream.
Then I turned on the tv today and saw Zawahiri's face. What'd he say? Nothing. Just the usual "We're gonna kill you and it's all your fault" bullshit. (His "blame the victim" attitude sounds so familiar... did Zawahiri go to journalism school?) But why has he chosen now to climb out from under his rock? The timing seems quite convenient to me. I think al Jizzeera held on to this tape until today, the day before a key date to the terrorists: the 60th anniversary of the dropping of "Little Boy" on Hiroshima. (I know, the bomb was dropped on August 6th, but it is already August 5th in Japan, so tomorrow is the anniversary.) The last video from the terrible butt-buddies (Zarwahiri and bin Laden) was last October, just before the presidential elections, remember? Bin Laden told us he would only kill people who voted for Bush (red states). Do I actually believe that al Qaeda bought suitcase nukes from former Soviet special agents and smuggled them across the Mexican border with the help of MS-13 and is right now ready to set them off in dozens of US cities this weekend? Um, no. I think it is more likely that they would try to poison our water supply but what do I know...?
Remember that debate a couple weeks ago about Cogressman Tancredo's response to a question on a radio show:
Bomb Mecca? Medina? "The nature of the terrorist threat is unambiguously Islamic and is not so much a deviation from Muslim tradition as an appeal to it." I don't think the option should be completely off the table, but there may be better options. Tehran? Damascus? They're either allies or enemies. (And they're definately not allies.) One thing is for sure. America will not just roll over and die. If you kill us, we will kill you back.
It's time somebody on our side started thinking about worst case scenarios, because that's what the terrorists are thinking about. A wall across the Mexican and Canadian borders would help, too.
"It is as if Bin Laden started by scheduling 'American Hiroshima' for 8-6-2005 and then worked backwards to arrive at 9-11-2001 as the precursor," [Matuszak] speculates.I don't know the veracity of their information, but I've heard similar claims before. It's what al Qaeda members say when they're interrogated.
...
According to captured al-Qaida leaders and documents, bin Laden's terrorist network has a plan called "American Hiroshima" involving the multiple detonation of nuclear weapons already smuggled into the U.S. ... Al-Qaida has obtained at least 40 nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Union – including suitcase nukes...
Then I turned on the tv today and saw Zawahiri's face. What'd he say? Nothing. Just the usual "We're gonna kill you and it's all your fault" bullshit. (His "blame the victim" attitude sounds so familiar... did Zawahiri go to journalism school?) But why has he chosen now to climb out from under his rock? The timing seems quite convenient to me. I think al Jizzeera held on to this tape until today, the day before a key date to the terrorists: the 60th anniversary of the dropping of "Little Boy" on Hiroshima. (I know, the bomb was dropped on August 6th, but it is already August 5th in Japan, so tomorrow is the anniversary.) The last video from the terrible butt-buddies (Zarwahiri and bin Laden) was last October, just before the presidential elections, remember? Bin Laden told us he would only kill people who voted for Bush (red states). Do I actually believe that al Qaeda bought suitcase nukes from former Soviet special agents and smuggled them across the Mexican border with the help of MS-13 and is right now ready to set them off in dozens of US cities this weekend? Um, no. I think it is more likely that they would try to poison our water supply but what do I know...?
Remember that debate a couple weeks ago about Cogressman Tancredo's response to a question on a radio show:
Campbell: Worst case scenario, if they do have these nukes inside the border, what would our response be?"For his answer, Tancredo was criticized from all sides. But think about it. What would be the response to a bunch of nukes going off in American cities? Just think about that phrase: "holy sites." You know what? New York is every bit as holy as Mecca. Denver is just as holy as Medina. Every city in America is "holy." Podunk, Arkansas is holy. If we're considering worst case scenarios, then would we continue to fight with one arm tied behind our back even if our cities were incinerated and millions of our people murdered? No. I don't think so. How do I put this in human terms: If someone kills my son and is threatening to kill my daughter, and you're standing between me and my enemy, defending him, then you're just as dead as he is.
Tancredo: "There are things you could threaten to do before something like that happens, and then you have to do afterwards, that are quite draconian."
"Well," Tancredo continued, "what if you said something like, 'If this happens in the United States and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you could take out their holy sites.'"
Campbell: "You're talking about bombing Mecca?"
Tancredo: "Yeah. What if you said, we recognize that this is the ultimate threat to the United States, therefore this is the ultimate response."
Bomb Mecca? Medina? "The nature of the terrorist threat is unambiguously Islamic and is not so much a deviation from Muslim tradition as an appeal to it." I don't think the option should be completely off the table, but there may be better options. Tehran? Damascus? They're either allies or enemies. (And they're definately not allies.) One thing is for sure. America will not just roll over and die. If you kill us, we will kill you back.
It's time somebody on our side started thinking about worst case scenarios, because that's what the terrorists are thinking about. A wall across the Mexican and Canadian borders would help, too.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home